Dr Robert Lefever
09 October 2012
Marxism is a shallow belief system but deep dangers go with it.
The basic tenet, 'from each according to his ability; to each according
to his need', is a blueprint for a totalitarian state, not a
compassionate society. It imprisons givers and sanctifies takers.
In this respect, David Cameron and Nick Clegg are closet Marxists. Ed Milliband is simply more
open about acknowledging the roots of his political philosophy. Nick Clegg has been pilloried by his own party for reneging on a promise that he made but couldn't keep.
Instead of heading a minority administration, David Cameron tries to detoxify the Conservative brand by making it progressively more socialist. He formed a coalition with people who make unnatural bedfellows.
The Communist Manifesto attracts those who want to take. Either they want something for
themselves, at someone else's expense, or they want the credit for giving it to other people.
They profess that they seek power not for themselves but for the benefit of others. But, in practice, they themselves revel in the exercise and trappings of state power.
Politicians are elected on their promises to confiscate and donate. 'Pre-distribution' is just yet another euphemism for legalised theft.
Votes are given on the estimate of whether an individual reckons that he or she is likely to gain or lose in a reapportioning process. Political tracts are fashioned in the guise of altruism but self-interest is the underlying principle.
'To each according to his need' is universal in its appeal. We can all point to our needs, relative to the privilege of some other people. Wants very quickly become needs and then entitlements.
'From each according to his ability' is equally popular when we are looking up the ladder to those whose talents we believe should be channelled towards our betterment.
However, we may fail to note those below us who want - and even demand - that we should give to them.
In this way, any achievement or possession becomes a liability.
This is where the politics of envy, spite and malice has its roots.
In a democracy, the politicians control the military and, to a large extent, the constitutional monarchy. The judiciary remain independent.
In a dictatorship, leadership is taken by force and imposed.
In a theocracy, religious leaders claim civic as well as spiritual power.
That all looks clear cut. But it isn't. The body politic is fluid, not static. Once in power, politicians develop a conceit that in time makes the progression from welfare state to totalitarian state inevitable.
The electorate colludes with this when it demands repeatedly that the government ought to do something over this or that or everything.
Ultimately we get the government and the political system that we deserve. If we want a government to do something, it will. Then, when we wonder where our freedom went, we should recognise that we have only ourselves to blame for throwing it away.
We should challenge the ideas and principles upon which politicians base their manifestos. If we unthinkingly surrender moral right to the likes of The Communist Manifesto, it is only a matter of time before the tanks roll into our streets or until we are expected to spy on each other.
The only protection against this fearful scenario is that we should demand less government locally, nationally and supra-nationally. We need the protection of a minimum state to guarantee the upholding of contract law, the provision of a police force so that we do not have to take the law into our own hands, and defence forces to protect us from foreign invasion. Beyond that, for our own safety, we should care for ourselves and each other without recourse to government. Otherwise the Marxists and Fascists, the two feet of totalitarianism, will walk through an open door.
In this respect, David Cameron and Nick Clegg are closet Marxists. Ed Milliband is simply more
open about acknowledging the roots of his political philosophy. Nick Clegg has been pilloried by his own party for reneging on a promise that he made but couldn't keep.
Instead of heading a minority administration, David Cameron tries to detoxify the Conservative brand by making it progressively more socialist. He formed a coalition with people who make unnatural bedfellows.
The Communist Manifesto attracts those who want to take. Either they want something for
themselves, at someone else's expense, or they want the credit for giving it to other people.
They profess that they seek power not for themselves but for the benefit of others. But, in practice, they themselves revel in the exercise and trappings of state power.
Politicians are elected on their promises to confiscate and donate. 'Pre-distribution' is just yet another euphemism for legalised theft.
Votes are given on the estimate of whether an individual reckons that he or she is likely to gain or lose in a reapportioning process. Political tracts are fashioned in the guise of altruism but self-interest is the underlying principle.
'To each according to his need' is universal in its appeal. We can all point to our needs, relative to the privilege of some other people. Wants very quickly become needs and then entitlements.
'From each according to his ability' is equally popular when we are looking up the ladder to those whose talents we believe should be channelled towards our betterment.
However, we may fail to note those below us who want - and even demand - that we should give to them.
In this way, any achievement or possession becomes a liability.
This is where the politics of envy, spite and malice has its roots.
In a democracy, the politicians control the military and, to a large extent, the constitutional monarchy. The judiciary remain independent.
In a dictatorship, leadership is taken by force and imposed.
In a theocracy, religious leaders claim civic as well as spiritual power.
That all looks clear cut. But it isn't. The body politic is fluid, not static. Once in power, politicians develop a conceit that in time makes the progression from welfare state to totalitarian state inevitable.
The electorate colludes with this when it demands repeatedly that the government ought to do something over this or that or everything.
Ultimately we get the government and the political system that we deserve. If we want a government to do something, it will. Then, when we wonder where our freedom went, we should recognise that we have only ourselves to blame for throwing it away.
We should challenge the ideas and principles upon which politicians base their manifestos. If we unthinkingly surrender moral right to the likes of The Communist Manifesto, it is only a matter of time before the tanks roll into our streets or until we are expected to spy on each other.
The only protection against this fearful scenario is that we should demand less government locally, nationally and supra-nationally. We need the protection of a minimum state to guarantee the upholding of contract law, the provision of a police force so that we do not have to take the law into our own hands, and defence forces to protect us from foreign invasion. Beyond that, for our own safety, we should care for ourselves and each other without recourse to government. Otherwise the Marxists and Fascists, the two feet of totalitarianism, will walk through an open door.
