What Does the Spartacus League Want?

From dead machines assigned their place in production by capital, the proletarian masses must learn to transform themselves into the free and independent directors of this process. They have to acquire the feeling of responsibility proper to active members of the collectivity which alone possesses ownership of all social wealth. They have to develop industriousness without the capitalist whip, the highest productivity without slavedrivers, discipline without the yoke, order without authority. The highest idealism in the interest of the collectivity, the strictest self-discipline, the truest public spirit of the masses are the moral foundations of socialist society, just as stupidity, egotism, and corruption are the moral foundations of capitalist society.

~Rosa Luxemburg, from
What Does the Spartacus League Want?

Although in her ephemeral lifetime she construed a philosophy that was too subversive for the Germany of the early twentieth century, (Undoubtedly playing a role in her execution),  Rosa Luxemburg prophetically touched upon the still needed political reform of today. This passage is a call to the working class not to remain the puppets or "Dead machines" of the capitalist system but instead to learn how to become the machine themselves, or, as she says, the "Free and independent directors of this process". Those who have attained such wealth would then learn to maintain their station using the values opposite those of capitalist society. "Industriousness without the capitalist whip". "Highest productivity without slavedrivers". 

Luxemburg's stance against capitalist society is as evident as is her solution. She sees capitalism as a source of the weakening of the proletarian system, indeed of the proletariat himself/herself and thus a force of degradation and devaluation of human life. This harkens back to Nihilism in that its original thinkers believed the moral fabric society was void and that a life that was meant to be lived in content was more often spent in lifelong agony, despair, and human labor which only sated the pockets of the bourgeoisie (Representing the most uber form of amorality). A life meant to be lived became a life (lived) without meaning. Nihil.

As far as World War II itself, as are most wars, it was one presumably not only fought by the lower classes on the battlefield, but one whose preproduction labor (Such as in the making of weapons, in factories) also was fueled by the labor of the proletariat. Although the war may not have been started by the bourgeoisie 

The war did not voice the concerns of the people. Rather the war exploited the people and put them into danger as the close proximity of the violence reached the cities. 

These words as penned by Luxemburg remind me of the "Trickle down effect" theory, or even the image of one person's greatest being another person's ladder upwards, if those ahead of us are willing to bring us along for the ride. She speaks of solidarity in lieu of selfishness.  It is a lesson the world still has not learned.

If I have interpreted her words correctly, then I feel that I have a great example of how I was able to break away from the great machine that is capitalist society and to create my own, though still only growing, lucrative position in the world.

For about four years and six months I was a cashier at a drug store/pharmacy downtown. Long story short, the only reason I lasted so long there was because it was the only job that worked with my class schedule. 

Sometime around or after hitting the two and a half mark, I was certainly the proverbial disgruntled proletariat. I knew I was working towards something greater but my disappointment at my situation then could not be masked. But instead of wallowing in my disappointment, I decided to do something about it. 

I decided to start my own business. 

I opened a retail chain (Fashion) that did not last more than a year or so. But it gave me the drive I needed to keep going. I knew the path to freedom lied in the ability to be my own boss. In this economy, "You have to make your own job". That is my motto. 

So I networked with people, eventually being revisited by a lady who had seen me on and off at my job for the past year or so, and wanted to give me the opportunity to work in Social Media for a friend of hers, who is a mini celebrity of sorts (Producer, Nightclub Owner, Investor, etc...Pretty much a jack of all trades in the entertainment industry). 

Needless to say, I had already known the power of Social Media through the work I did for my own company, gathering more than four hundred souls to my Facebook page through various means, so I jumped at the chance to work for this person. 

After working for him for eight months, and then for two other companies in Social Media, and beginning my ascent further upwards by having finally worked for a company in my industry (Biology/Biotech), I can understand the power we have to shape our condition. 

Rosa Luxemburg speaks of learning to "Become" like the affluent in the sense that we learn their tools of the trade but do not adapt to their vices. Most people are complacent being a part of the machine. 

Facebook is the best example.

So much business potential lies in using Facebook as a means to market businesses and products...But most people simply use social networking sites as a means to keep in contact with family and friends, while, unbeknownst to them, they are a market to which different products and services are being targeted.  

The Blue Angel

In the Blue Angel, the story revolves around two different yet important age groups. Young and old men. As is revealed to us by the end of the movie, those age groups overlap in their disposition towards the famous nightclub, the Blue Angel. No one can resist the charm of the place, and its lady dancers, especially not the star attraction: Lola (Played by Marlene Dietrich). Immanuel Rath is the local high school teacher who has taken it upon himself to chase out any of the young men from his class whom he first discovers at the cabaret. At first he believes the club is carnal attraction. Yet soon it is he, the intellectual, the erudite scholar, the "Professor" who has equally been drawn into the peepshow. 

There is one scene is particular where he is swooning to the high pitched voice of Lola as she serenades the crowd about "Falling in love again". In effect, he believes that she is singing to him. While Lola marries Immanuel Rath, a move that would not happen nine times out of ten in reality, she still retains her profession as a cabaret dancer. This causes the professor to develop deep-seated jealousies due to the sensual nature of her close proximity with her patrons. 

In the end, it is the resigned professor Rath who has taken up the role of clown in the travelling circus. He actually loses Lola due to his jealousy and ends up coming back to his hometown during their tour back. 

The scene with  the Professor at the nightclub as previously described shows man as stereotypically as they are still portrayed as the harborers of logic and reasoning and learning. Lola, on the other hand, is symbolic of the Biblical Eve, tempting man with her lustful persona; Bringing him down.  

As far as Nihilism is concerned, the Professor is brought down from a position of respectability to one of degradation. His downward descent was catalyzed by his own degradation of morals. It is the professor who allowed the Blue Angel, (Which is symbolic of the corrupted society), to corrupt him. 

From this we can ask questions such as, what is the value of the professor's learning if he was so easily corrupted in the end? Clearly the teacher had knowledge, which was enough to teach the next generation of young students (Or maybe not so much so since he could never get them to respect him) but not the logic and reasoning skills that go with being able to apply that knowledge, particularly in his own life. 

This scenario harkens back to Siddhartha, where the title character found himself among his father's traditions, that of the priests and other "Learned" men, yet it was so obvious that they did not have the experience to back up their merely meditated-upon truths. This seems to be the problem with the professor, who may have been more so on the Theory end of Praxis. 

Immanuel Rath is a stern teacher who can decipher the most complex of Shakespearean verse, at least on the surface. He is like a student who merely takes in what he learns, memorizes it, and regurgitates at least enough to get a good grade. Yet when he is asked what all of his lessons meant, can only freeze up. 

Immanuel has a lot of knowledge but no empirical, no direct experience applying that knowledge, which is rather useless.  

Keine Zeit, Das Lila Lied, and Paragraph 175

Cabaret Songs

"In this day and age, you fall in love in the evening, are engaged at night,
and get married the next morning.
At noon you have a fight; by night you're divorced."

"Heut verliebt man sich abends, verlobt sich bei Nacht und vermaehlt in der Frueh sich zufriede und am Mittag da hat man bereits sich verkracht und am Abend ist man wieder geschieden."
~ No Time (Keine Zeit)

First of all, I can start off by noting how applicable the entire song is. They are relevant as much now as they were in the 1920s apparently. When I hear this line in particular I think of the stories of famous people who have courted for a few weeks or months and then decide to get married. Nearly a fortnight has passed and they're ready to get hitched. The words seem to say something about how hopefully and hopelessly foolish and vulnerable the human heart is or can be. The lyrics suggest how naive people can be.

In its entirety, the song is ironic. It suggests that people live their lives as if they believe their is "No time". People are so concerned about living their lives to the fullest that they make decisions in hastes. Yet those decisions can ultimately do more to prolong their pain their pleasure. So it's foolish to live life on a fast track plan. "No time" in this sense seems to suggest reckless endangerment rather than a sense of abandon and adventure.  

"What makes them think they have the right to say what God considers vice
What makes them think they have the right to keep us out of Paradise"

"Was will man nur? Ist das Kultur,
da jeder Mensch verpönt ist,
der klug und gut, jedoch mit Blut
von eigner Art durchströmt ist,"
 ~ The Lavender Song (Das Lila Lied)

Again, it is very interesting how closely linked the past is to the present. This time we have a glimpse into the hardships faced by the LGBT community in the past. "If we resist, prison awaits so our love dares not speak its name" makes me recall that I have heard stories of homosexuals (Men) being jailed in the past. Someone commented on the video for this on Youtube that, if what they went through in the past is still being played out in the American courts today, how much have we really changed in nearly a century of world policy? It is a thought provoking question. There are some social norms that have changed from time to time, like the age of marriage and conception. But then there are others that we as a global culture have been dealing with for a much longer time... Such as LGBT equality.

Paragraph 175

"Penal servitude up to 10 years or, where there are mitigating circumstances, imprisonment of not less than three months shall apply to: (1) a male who, with violence or the threat of violence to body and soul or life, compels another male to commit a sex offense with him or to allow himself to be abused for a sex offense; (2) a male who, by abusing a relationship of dependence based upon service, employment or subordination, induces another male to commit a sex offense with him or to allow himself to be abused for a sex offense; (3) a male over 21 years of age who seduces a male person under twenty-one years to commit a sex offense with him or to allow himself to be abused for a sex offense; (4) a male who publicly commits a sex offense with males or allows himself to be abused by males for a sex offense or offers himself for the same."

Paragraph 175 seems to relate to the old German song, "Das Lila Lied", a.k.a. The Lavender Song. Whereas the former describes the laws that were enacted during Nazi Germany in order to prevent the spread of the so-called perversity of homosexuality, the latter is a protest song that was written in the same era. I imagine that during this time the cabaret was not only a place to which men would go in order to sate their sexual fantasies and desires, but also a place to which one might find the transexuals and homosexuals of the day. Since from a Nihilistic perspective, the Blue Angel was a nightclub symbolic of vice and a corrupting force of the intellectual, I wonder what stance Nihilism might have on homosexuality? That's an interesting question...

One of the finer points of Nihilism seems to be that society ordained what the individual thought of as morally right and wrong. Yet society, as we've seen through the paintings of Otto Dix's "Metropolis" is also feverishly hypocritical. I think the Nihilists would favor a version of homosexuality that fits in with the epic struggle of Siddhartha; One that is prevented from achieving its life goals towards Brahma by being constantly brought down by society's model man or Atman. Just like the Dadaists, who favored giving their own meaning to things, giving new concepts to old words and ideas, this passage seems to demonstrate how vacuous and nihilistic, indeed "Anti-life" were the laws and punishments against homosexuals and other transgressive
sexual "deviants" in Nazi Germany.