Fools, Frauds and Firebrands (Part 1)

The ideology influencing Western politics

Pragmatic politicians?

For quite some time, it’s been widely assumed that our present Government is just functional; its actions may be a bit socialist, but, essentially, the Government just does what is pragmatic, mainstream, reasonable – not driven by ideology.  

No longer does this seem to hold – and it’s difficult to comprehend the beliefs behind the actions. We have seen two-tier justice, euthanasia, abortion to birth, rape-gangs excused, mass-migration, Islamism endorsed, the economy destroyed, the legal process denied.

These are not mistakes or errors of judgement, but, put together, look to be logical steps towards a plan, of which the resulting deaths and destruction are a necessary inconvenience. In economics, Rachel Reeves seems to truly believe that her policies will work. As in Orwell's ‘1984’, 2+2 really must be 5!

Britain is not alone in this. The actions of the Democrats in the United States also go beyond pragmatic politics. We’ve seen election irregularities, the treasonable Russia collusion hoax, the covering up of Joe Biden’s failing abilities, lawfare (the use of legal systems and institutions to affect foreign or domestic affairs), and now the monumental billion-dollar fraud in health and childcare that has been seemingly condoned by Democrat politicians, keen to expand welfare and immigration. They are not ‘social-democrats’ anymore, but leftist activists. They trample the flag and seriously seek to dismantle the Constitution!

They are not just different but dangerous. They have very strong beliefs.

Christendom is slowly discovering that actually it, too, was built on beliefs, but different ones. Is it the church or those outside who are recognising and celebrating this? Have we been marinated in leftist thinking for so long (right from our school days!) that we don’t even realise it? Too many pastors think it’s not nice to even mention the thorny issues above, let alone have a biblical view on them. Few perceive the need to repent of their blindness and lack of proper care for the people of their country.

What is this belief?

The belief that underpins many of these issues is one that has been taught for the last 60 years  - Marxism (or Communism when it’s in use).

The origins of this, which go back to the mid-nineteenth century, are based on the idea that a class of people, the ‘bourgeoisie’ or wealthy, land-owing class, control the ‘Means of Production’, i.e., the wealth. They exploit the proletariat (the workers), and the national institutions, churches and law (Superstructure) enforce the unfair distribution of the wealth.

The belief that underpins much of these issues is one that has been taught for the last 60 years is Marxism

Marxists also believe that history is on their side, and is changing from feudalism to capitalism to egalitarianism through ‘class struggle’. Being class-based, it values group conformity over individual freedom. 

Its view of reality is ‘Dialectical Materialism’, a sort of dynamic scientific-atheism. Everything is mechanistic, even people. Art is brutal not beautiful. Change is through conflict – ‘vive la revolution!’ – the violent defeat of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat. A sense of invincibility and the inevitability of victory takes hold – and an anger at the ‘Others’, the class-enemies, who seek to resist this.

Its utopia is a classless society where resources are distributed on the basis of need. 

Why did it fail?

It’s clear that the latter, utopia, stage has never been reached. In Soviet Russia and Mao’s China, limited versions of free-market economies became tolerated after wide-scale economic collapse and millions of deaths. However, officials did their best to constrain freedom with a Command Economy and state-first loyalty.

Communism’s authoritarian nature was also all too evident. There was supposed to be a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ with a ‘Vanguard Party’ which represented the interests of the workers. However, ideological purity and discipline were emphasised because of the nasty ‘counter-revolutionaries’, so dissent was crushed. 

In the West, and in Britain in particular, incremental reforms had been going on for a long time anyway, with the expansion of suffrage, and economic and social well-being. This meant that the ground was not fertile for the revolution that Marx considered necessary to implement true communism.

Marxism is a popular idea for those who don’t have anything.

Marxism is a popular idea for those who don’t have anything. However, practically-speaking, once people start earning, they tend to like holding onto what they get, particularly if they see their tax money funding a lazy neighbour. So, Marxism then loses its appeal – unless there are seen to be pots of money held by the wealthy up for grabs. For academics, however, it’s a fruitful ideology with which to outrageously critique the culture.

Winston Churchill commented: “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

Reinvention

Marxists spend a lot of time analysing why the rich are bad, how they retain their positions, and what can be done to break their influence. Marxism began to evolve in response to the changing circumstances. In the 1930s, it was acknowledged that the economic emphasis was not working out, and its ideas on constant Revolution disturbed the peace. In Italy, the Marxist Gramsci, who had been locked up by Mussolini, really wanted to mimic fascism’s obviously popular success (at that time). He focussed instead on identifying the hidden power in society, ‘hegemony’, and how to defeat it. 

He focussed instead on identifying the hidden power in society, ‘hegemony’, and how to defeat it. 

This was picked up after the war in a Germany trying to make sense of defeat. The Frankfurt School diversified their conflict-analysis (Critical Theory) from economics into all forms of media and social connection: the family, ethnicity, sex, even language itself.

In all this, whatever was identified as a power structure had to be overcome. Crucially, this was not to result in equality but, rather, in the Marxists themselves assuming the power, and, therefore, destroying what good there was.

The fruit of this in the West, softened to ‘Socialism’, was seen first in economics – the Keynesian big-state: taxes, nationalisation, and the Welfare State. Unions remained strong, and this led to devastating strikes, even to the destruction of the companies that employed the workers (e.g. British Leyland). 

The ‘struggle’ also morphed into the insidious ‘long march through the institutions’ which had started in the 60s. It began in education (its creed is perfect for naturally rebellious but idealistic, resource-poor youth). We had student protests, ‘peace’ marches’, ‘free love’, and experimental communities (few lasted the test of reality). Many of these students became influential in the media of the 1980s and beyond, and the politicians and heads of institutions now. 

In the Reagan and Thatcher period, however, economies recovered with a return to ‘Austrian’ economics: lower taxes, incentives to be efficient and entrepreneurial, home and share ownership. Reagan & Thatcher, despite their success, were denigrated and maligned in the media even while they brought back prosperity, and created a climate in which the Eastern European communist bloc could fall. 

After the economic recovery and union constraints of the 80s, socialism had to switch towards new sources of grievance

After the economic recovery and union constraints of the 80s, socialism had to switch towards new sources of grievance, with the focus on ‘political correctness’, LGBT rights, and anti-colonialism. The climate-change issue for some is less about saving the planet than about punishing the ‘bourgeois’ West with payments to the ‘proletarian’ rest of the world, whom they must, therefore, have oppressed. This ignored the empirical facts about the real sources of poverty, climate-change, etc. As the left controlled the media, the facts had a hard time surfacing and those revealing them faced significant persecution.

The left’s views of the right

Roger Scruton was a Professor of Philosophy at Oxford. He studied left-wing ideologies and academics, reading their torturous ‘word salad’ literature (so we don’t have to!). So he speaks with authority.

He examines these various ‘academics’ in his book ‘Fools, Frauds and Firebrands – Thinkers of the New Left’ and you eventually believe him about the sheer scale and capture of people to what are, in essence, profound demonic ideologies. They are modern day Canaanites – we have to be distanced from them!

From the concluding chapter:

“Fundamental to the left’s way of thinking is the linear order implied in its name. People who describe themselves as ‘on the left’ believe that political opinions and movements can be assembled from left to right, and that, to the extent that you are not on the left, to that extent you are on the right. At the same time, by a relentless campaign of intimidation, left-wing thinkers have sought to make it unacceptable to be on the right. As a rule they give no definition of what the ‘right’ consists in, nor do they explain why national socialists, fascists and economic liberals should all be included in the category.

Nevertheless, they are clear about one thing. Once identified as right-wing you are beyond the pale of argument; your views are irrelevant, your character discredited, your presence in the world a mistake. You are not an opponent to be argued with, but a disease to be shunned. This has been my experience, as it has been the experience of all the dissidents I have known. If books by authors on the right are noticed by left-wing reviewers (and in the academic world left-wing reviewers are the norm) it is only in order to trash them.

All that, you might think, puts an enormous onus on left-wing thinkers to define their alternative. But looking back across the bleak landscape that I have travelled in this book I witness only negatives. Occasional lip service is paid to a future state of ‘emancipation’, ‘equality’ or ‘social justice’. But those terms are seldom lifted out of the realm of abstractions, or subjected to serious examination. They are not, as a rule, used to describe an imagined social order that their advocates are prepared to justify. Instead they are given a purely negative application. They are used to condemn every mediating institution, every imperfect association, every flawed attempt that human beings might have made, to live together without violence and with due respect for law. It is as though the abstract ideal has been chosen precisely so that nothing actual could embody it.”

Nothing new

We can see this as the work of the Enemy – seeking to take authority over all creation, exploiting the visceral emotions of greed, envy, hate and lust for power.

This is all, of-course, nothing new. Man has sought to defy the Creator, subvert His bounty and murder rivals, even from Eden. Marxism is a later form, fashioned to fit Christendom – where we believe there should be equality, where personal gifting and prosperity is God-given and should be shared. We believe in kindness, justice and truth. We also acknowledge guilt for selfishness and failure.

These are all weaponised or subverted by Marxism and, like excessive union activism, destroy the very source of human flourishing. We can see this as the work of the Enemy – seeking to take authority over all creation, exploiting the visceral emotions of greed, envy, hate and lust for power.

In part 2 we’ll look at how this is being played out in the West today and an alternative, more Christian, philosophy.

^{Image from pixabay.com}