Adam Graham
Defining the opponent: pragmatic neo-Marxists
By Adam Graham
Before discussing the left and how social liberalism serves its ends, we need to clarify terms. It is popular, and perhaps politically advantageous to define opponents as "liberal." It is politically advantageous to do so because the term has been loaded with negative connotations. (Don't believe me, ask a "progressive blogger.")
However, a more precise term would be helpful. For some, Communist is deemed as popular. Yet, the plain definition of Communism doesn't fit the leftist agenda, "A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state." Clearly, the left doesn't ascribe that far-reaching of a belief.
The Communists often insisted that Communism was never really tried, and to an extent, they were right. Communism, like pure libertarianism is a Utopian idea that doesn't work on Planet Earth. The type of men who rise to the top of any nation are not the type of folks who would hold rigidly to an inflexible philosophy that only works on paper. Pragmatic neo-Marxism is the order of the day.
The left doesn't abolish the right to poverty or inheritance as Marx called for, it just drastically regulates what people can do with their own land and lays heavy taxes on inheritances that force people to liquidate what they inherit.
One part that the left has left intact from the Communist manifesto is that we do pass a heavy progressive tax on income, and the left wishes it was heavier.
The left doesn't call for the centralization of credit or of government ownership of means of production, rather the left tries to control these means through regulation.
The left doesn't call for an elimination of the distinction between town and country, however the leftist planning establishments across the country believe more Americans need to be pushed into high density housing with limited parking so that public transit schemes make sense.
And of course, the left believes in union-controlled public schools and distrusts any private school or homeschooled family.
The American left in every way aims to achieve the ends of Communism, however they offer more politically palatable means to achieve their ends.
Leftists will dispute with me on this. But look at the 10 point program of the Communist Manifesto and tell me other than Marx's belief in the confiscation of property from emigrants, what would be objectionable to the political left?:
The platform of the American left is Marxism 2.0. It believes in solving our problems through the power of an almighty state that they hope will replace Almighty God.
The difference between Marxism 1.0 and 2.0 is that Marxism 2.0 is a candy coated, slow acting poison that patiently makes its way through the body politic. More to the point, the population has been systematically programmed through the public schools, the news media, and the entertainment media to believe that the principles of Marxism 2.0 are good, though the end there of is death, and to believe that anyone who talks about marxism, socialism, or communism is only a reactionary nut, and that real marxists and socialists don't exist. They don't go by the name, but their program is just as pernicious.
In our next series of articles, we'll take a look at how social decline has served the needs of Pragmatic Neo-Marxists.
© Adam Graham
May 17, 2010
Before discussing the left and how social liberalism serves its ends, we need to clarify terms. It is popular, and perhaps politically advantageous to define opponents as "liberal." It is politically advantageous to do so because the term has been loaded with negative connotations. (Don't believe me, ask a "progressive blogger.")
However, a more precise term would be helpful. For some, Communist is deemed as popular. Yet, the plain definition of Communism doesn't fit the leftist agenda, "A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state." Clearly, the left doesn't ascribe that far-reaching of a belief.
The Communists often insisted that Communism was never really tried, and to an extent, they were right. Communism, like pure libertarianism is a Utopian idea that doesn't work on Planet Earth. The type of men who rise to the top of any nation are not the type of folks who would hold rigidly to an inflexible philosophy that only works on paper. Pragmatic neo-Marxism is the order of the day.
The left doesn't abolish the right to poverty or inheritance as Marx called for, it just drastically regulates what people can do with their own land and lays heavy taxes on inheritances that force people to liquidate what they inherit.
One part that the left has left intact from the Communist manifesto is that we do pass a heavy progressive tax on income, and the left wishes it was heavier.
The left doesn't call for the centralization of credit or of government ownership of means of production, rather the left tries to control these means through regulation.
The left doesn't call for an elimination of the distinction between town and country, however the leftist planning establishments across the country believe more Americans need to be pushed into high density housing with limited parking so that public transit schemes make sense.
And of course, the left believes in union-controlled public schools and distrusts any private school or homeschooled family.
The American left in every way aims to achieve the ends of Communism, however they offer more politically palatable means to achieve their ends.
Leftists will dispute with me on this. But look at the 10 point program of the Communist Manifesto and tell me other than Marx's belief in the confiscation of property from emigrants, what would be objectionable to the political left?:
The platform of the American left is Marxism 2.0. It believes in solving our problems through the power of an almighty state that they hope will replace Almighty God.
The difference between Marxism 1.0 and 2.0 is that Marxism 2.0 is a candy coated, slow acting poison that patiently makes its way through the body politic. More to the point, the population has been systematically programmed through the public schools, the news media, and the entertainment media to believe that the principles of Marxism 2.0 are good, though the end there of is death, and to believe that anyone who talks about marxism, socialism, or communism is only a reactionary nut, and that real marxists and socialists don't exist. They don't go by the name, but their program is just as pernicious.
In our next series of articles, we'll take a look at how social decline has served the needs of Pragmatic Neo-Marxists.
© Adam Graham
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
