The political class and their so-called intellectuals constantly look to divide (and conquer) "we the people," both in their rhetoric and actions. So let's take a closer look at progressive (Marxist) class warfare.
Class Warfare
We've said multiple times that the worst thing our Democrats have done is commence class warfare in this country. Out of all the descriptions currently floating around about Obama, the one thing that comes to mind are his attacks on FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Insurance Companies, et cetera. He is not working to bring people together. He seeks to rend this country, courtesy of the likes of Ayers, Alinsky, Reverend Wright and so on -- a Malcolm X presidency full of suspicion and paranoia. It's not race I refer to. It's the anger, self-pity, the rush to condemn others rather than rise above your problems.
What's going on with Democrats? They shame you if you're not "progressive", as if you wanted children forced into work houses. They don't seem to recognize what scolds they are. Most telling of all, they lack the strength of character to take responsibility for the harm they do to others. They live without a Golden Rule. Their "golden rule" is the exercise of power for "the common good." For them, electoral representation is a zero-sum game of power, not a preservation of constitutional principles.
I have many Democrat friends. Indeed, I am descended from Democrats. I realize many of you are Bumper Sticker lightweights, and can't help yourselves. I remind you, nevertheless, that class warfare is a condition precedent to bloodshed, and ask you plainly to stop it.
Before it's too late.
Why do progressives promote class warfare? Let's turn to the great Ludwig von Mises to find out.
The Hypothesis of Marxism and the Sociology of Knowledge
According to the Marxian view ... human society is organized into classes whose interests stand in irreconcilable opposition. The class situation (the social existence of an individual determines his thought. Therefore, thinking produces theories that Correspond to the class interests of the thinker. These theories form the "ideological superstructure" of class interests ... Subjectively, the individual thinker may be honest. However, it is not possible for him to pass beyond the limitations imposed on his thinking by his class situation. He is able to reveal and unmask the ideologies of other classes, but he remains throughout his life biased in favor of the ideology that his own class interests dictate.
In the volumes that have been written in defense of this thesis the question is (characteristically) almost never raised whether there is any truth in the supposition that society is divided into classes whose interests stand in irreconcilable conflict. For Marx the case was obvious. [But] the subjective theory of distribution offers not the slightest basis of support for a doctrine of implacable class conflict.
As Marx himself admits, the proletarian has not only class interests, but other interests that are opposed to them. The Communist Manifesto says: "The organization of the proletarians into a class and thereby into a political party is repeatedly frustrated by the competition among the workers themselves." Therefore, it is not true that the proletarian has only class interests. He also has other interests that are in conflict with them. Which, then, should he follow? The Marxist will answer: "Of course, his class interests, for they stand above all others." But this is no longer by any means a matter "of course." As soon as one admits that action in conformity with other interests is also possible, the question is not one concerning what "is," but what "ought to be." Marxism does not say of the proletarians that they cannot follow interests other than those of their class. It says to the proletarians: You are a class and should follow your class interests; become a class by thinking and acting in conformity with your class interests. But then it is incumbent upon Marxism to prove that class interests ought to take precedence over other interests.
Even if we were to assume that society is divided into classes with conflicting interests and if we were to agree that everyone is morally obliged to follow his class interests and nothing but his class interests, the question would still remain: What best serves class interests? This is the point where "scientific" socialism and the "sociology of knowledge" show their mysticism. They assume without hesitation that whatever is demanded by one's class interests is always immediately evident and unequivocal. The comrade who is of a different opinion can only be a traitor to his class.
What reply can Marxian socialism make to those who, precisely on behalf of the proletarians, demand private ownership of the means of production, and not their socialization? If they are proletarians, this demand alone is sufficient to brand them as traitors to their class, or, if they are not proletarians, as class enemies. Or if, finally, the Marxists do choose to engage in a discussion of the problems, they thereby abandon their doctrine; for how can one argue with traitors to one's class or with class enemies, whose moral inferiority or class situation makes it impossible for them to comprehend the ideology of the proletariat?
They want us to hate each other and thus, turn to the Omnipotent State for comfort. This is what class warfare is all about.
socialism renders man cruel & indifferent to men, in the name of mankind.
socialism renders man cruel & indifferent to men, in the name of mankind. socialism makes men cruel & indifferent to mankind, to advance mankind.
is this good?
it all depends upon what your definition of "good" is. it all depends upon what your definition of "to advance mankind" is. it all depends upon what your definition of "is" is. [to borrow a phrase.]
socialism attempts to reduce the complexity of society to make it rational, to eliminate inequity. generally speaking, it succeeds only in reducing man, and eventually eliminating the dignity and grandeur of mankind. it completely corrodes all concept of the elevation of man, of men, of mankind.
The State will "teach" your children class warfare, via conscription.
The 'GIVE' Act Calls for Your Kids to be 'Owned' by the State
"We should be owned, as soldiers are by the army, and our pride would rise accordingly." ~ William James, The Moral Equivalent of War
[T]he first question that should come to the mind of any thinking parent is, "What exactly is service-learning, and why should it be mandatory in public-statist schools?"
"The Moral Equivalent of War" essay is an allegedly monumental ditty, and a founding building block for the concept of "service learning," as it is embodied in today’s NCSC and the GIVE Act. As a matter of fact, the NCSC cheerfully lists the GIVE Act as one of their legislative achievements right on their home page ... The line of descent runs directly from this address to the depression-era Civilian Conservation Corps to the Peace Corps, VISTA, and AmeriCorps." AmeriCorps is what the GIVE Act seeks to enlarge and further empower.
So what of William James and his mighty essay? Like all else Mr. James gave birth to with his cumbrous brain, it is quite pointy headed and longwinded ... But here’s the gist of it for the less than interested; "War is hideous and must come to an end some day. But we can’t be wimps about it, because the brutes among us insist it is an essential part of being a true man. War is hideous in all but one respect. It is really good at kicking the childishness out of people. It is really good for organizing and centralizing. I think we need to create pseudo-wars where people don’t die, so we can use this positive element of war to help us centralize power in the hands of the unbrutish, like myself, for the good of all mankind." That really is about it. This rather juvenile concept is more fully documented in such books as Johan Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism.
Not that war is ever a self-sacrificial endeavor to save other human beings from servitude or death at the hands of tyranny. True, very often that is not the case, but sometimes it is. The disembodied concept of war though is much more about being "drilled and trained for better services." So all one needs is to be "drilled and trained" without the war, and then one may magically possess "martial virtues." The militarized person is then groomed to carry out the collective minded "better services" envisioned by the liberal-socialist elite their entire lives. Just that simpleminded, just that juvenile.
This idea of "the conscription of the whole youthful population" is nothing new to the world outside our American window. This concept was brought here from Germany by the likes of James and Dewey, who suckled many a year at Germany’s academic teat. Look how wonderfully it played out in Germany, remember? This is unnatural to the root of the American tree though.
The pseudo-wars that need to be created and engaged in, in order to instill the pseudo "martial virtues" in our youth, are an essential part of continuing and expediting "the more or less socialistic future toward which mankind seems drifting." "We must still subject ourselves collectively" he claims, in order to "make new energies and hardihoods continue the manliness … intrepidity, contempt of softness, surrender of private interest, obedience to command, must still remain the rock upon which states are built." This is what the socialist state of a Mr. James is built on, and this is what the youth need mandatory grooming for, through such means as the "educational" instrument embodied in the likes of a GIVE Act.
If you read this essay in full, you would see that the "injustice which would tend to be evened out" by the service-learning programs for which "the conscription of the whole youthful population" is called for, is nothing other than those pesky inequalities between the socialist’s concept of classes. The standard class warfare socialist swill. These pseudo-wars that need to be a mandatory part of all public-statist school curriculum is nothing other than the age-old Marxist yelp of "he has more stuff than him. I must rectify this." As stated above, it is essential to "the more or less socialistic future toward which mankind seems drifting," that the teaching of class warfare be mandatory.
Contrary to what many believe, class warfare is created by the State in order to bring about a "more or less socialistic future," thus providing the State and its politicians unlimited power and control over each individual's life.
Class warfare is designed to divide "we the people," so that we'll submit to the whims of the State. And even though the State is completely authoritarian, they make believe the State is the "will" of the people.
Think I'm crazy? Think this post is nuts?
Believe (have faith) in the progressives "pure" intentions if you must, but these are the facts of history. They cannot be refuted. Class warfare is the dream of Karl Marx. Believe in it at your own (and the collectives) peril.
