More Good Brain Food!
All right, enough samples. Get the full platter here:
"The Right has been captured by the Big Business lobby representing transnational companies; the Left has been captured by the so-called New Class, middle-class people with a Marxist view of history, who became radicalised in a mass change of consciousness during the anti-Vietnam rebellion, and who have now spread into the Black, Green, Feminist and Gay causes. They expect that destroying the Anglo-American empire from the inside, by the Culture of Complaint, infiltration of the bureaucracy, and Legislative Reform, will lead to "the end of empire" once and for all, to one world government, equality and peace . . . The New Class deconstructs cultures it dislikes but overlooks that all cultures can be deconstructed, including its own. . . .
"The Right by-and-large controls the Means of Production, including ownership and editorial control of the mass media. The Left otherwise controls the Means of the Transmission of Culture (the arts, education, journalism), because "New Class" activists, who were entering the workforce 20 years ago, are now key players in this domain. Both sides, believing that the end justifies the means, use guerilla tactics to maintain their hold and control the limits of discourse in the mass media. Each side admits its own viewpoint only, so that only the correct Left or correct Right line gets a go, unless the author is already famous. People who fall between Left and Right rarely get published, regardless of quality. Both sides prey on the Centre: the Right's Revolt of the Rich has sacrificed the real economy for the financiers' paper economy . . . . The Left's Welfare now consumes the country's wealth while the foreign debt compounds. The Left protests but does not accept responsibility. . . . The sense of belonging to a social whole, cultivated in the Confucian societies, is lacking. We do not say 'we'.
"Each side works to maintain the status quo; as a result, no evidence seems sufficient to elicit a reversal of policy. Each side has "faith", in the religious sense, in its view. Faith is impervious to evidence; converts hold true to their faith more reliably than born believers. This adherence to creeds is far more pervasive in our universities than we would like to think, especially in the humanities but also in the sciences (the entrenched Big Bang theory was invented by a Jesuit and is suspiciously close to Genesis chapter 1). The various schools of thought have their similarities to the priesthoods of ancient Egypt, each dedicated to its own particular god. We are much less "rational" than we acknowlege.
"The Left's Internationalism has Marxist roots: it is based on the Marxist schema of History. In Marx's version of history, the millenia-long class-war is about to end with the proletarian revolution, followed by the dictatorship of the proletariat and then the classless society. When there are no social classes, there will be no conflict and everyone will live happily ever after, with communal property and free love - a return to "primitive communism" but in an urban, industrial society.
"Common to both moderate and far Left is the notion that their "Internationalism" is pro-peace. However it seeks to replace war between countries with war between classes - in this case, the war of workers against bosses; in the case of the "radical feminist" variant of Marxism, the war of women against men. In other words, the front lines would be within societies rather than between societies: horizontal rather than vertical. . . .
"How realistic is the Marxist view of history? Firstly, it is fundamentalist: based on the Christian view of Eden followed by millenia of sin followed by the defeat of Satan and the Second Coming, after which, sinners destroyed, the good would live happily ever after. Marx' version is equally fundamentalist in a secular way.
"Secondly, it is utopian. Among the social animals - bees, fowls, whales, apes etc. - there is role division and inequality of power. The same is typically true of hunter-gatherer societies; intra-group class war of the Marxist or Radical Feminist type does not seem to occur naturally. The very thought of a "utopian society" among bees or baboons, with no role division and where every member has equal power, is ludicrous, yet that is what is being proposed for humans. Such dreams have cost the lives of tens of millions of people this century. . . . The Western media has covered the atrocities of Hitler and Pol Pot, but not those of Mao, hero of the 1970s Western student movement, today's elite.
"Thirdly, it is hypocritical. Marxists reject inequality of power, but often seek and occupy positions of power themselves, as the guardians of correctness; dogmatism and intolerance of heresy is quite common amongst them. The anarchist Bakunin pointed out that communism would mean "the rule of the great masses of the people by a privileged minority". . . Marx chose not to reply. Many socialists, feminists and greens are comfortable middle-class people, who find working-class philistinism and "ockerism" quite distasteful, and do not feel guilty about their relative privileges, or the debt being left to the next generation.
"Nearly all of Marx' vast writings are critiques of actual societies; the utopia he envisaged is barely mentioned. Much blood has been expended for such an unexamined and uncertain goal . . . . The Christian Heaven and the Radical Feminist Lesbian/Separatist Paradise are also vague. When one wishes to create a myth to motivate people, one must leave it vague; exploring the details may lead to disbelief. . . . . .
"The point is not that the status quo should be preserved, but that there is no utopia; and therefore, we should be careful not to judge social realities with a utopian yardstick. We must often choose between options each of which is imperfect. Further, as Catholic tradition taught, we all have our sins, and deserve some forgiveness; the Marxist and Radical Feminist tradition is more Calvinist, in being hard-hearted, denying its own "sin" while pointing the finger mercilessly at the despised class. Giving up the Marxist view of history means abandoning the notion that it is governed by a law which determines its outcome; and abandoning the notion that there are stages of economic and social development that societies progress through unilinearly, and some sort of culmination: the TELEOLOGY and ESCHATOLOGY of Marxism. . . . .
"Since the French Revolution, Europeans have been trying to find the PERFECT social structure, as the key to creating a utopia or "heaven on earth". This quest was rooted in the Christian debate over "the Problem of Evil". Given a good omnipotent God, how can evil arise? The Answer was that individual people choose to commit sin, by accepting temptations emanating from Satan, the Devil. The Enlightenment eliminated this Answer, but retained the Question. It answered that Evil arises not from individual persons, who are inherently good, but from an Evil Social Structure. If this can be overthrown and the Right structure imposed, then we can have the Perfect Society.
"For Marxists, the Evil Structure is the Class System; for Nazis, the evil Jewish presence ; for Radical Feminists, Patriarchy. In each case, the offending group must be eliminated . One might argue instead that structure or form, on its own, does not guarantee quality or content. That one might have a good Monarchy or a bad one, a good or bad Republic, a good or bad Communist society. Revolution-borne experiments to create the perfect society, whether Stalin's, Hitler's, or the push for Matriarchy, are destructive and typically fail.
"The Marxist view of history is a blend of Christian Salvation History and Social Evolution. In the Christian version, human history begins with an innocent paradise, descends into sinfulness and the battle between Good and Evil (God and Devil), and ends with the destruction of the evil forces. In the Marxist version, the innocent paradise is the primitive communist society of communal property and communal marriage. This then descends into the era of private property and marriage as a property relationship, with the class war between rulers and ruled. History culminates in our own era with the revolution in which the Proletariat (the Good) destroy the Ruling Class (Evil) and classless equality is restored. The Radical Feminist position saw the two classes of history not as economic classes (owners and workers) but as Male (the Evil oppressor) and Female (the Good and helpless victim). It switched the sexual polarities presented by Christianity, making Male Power and Violence the origin and cause of Evil in the world. As in the other two cases, such a vision prepared the "Good" class for a struggle against the Evil one: Women's Studies Courses train feminist warriors to battle the patriarchy. . . . .
"Since the Enlightenment, a variety of secular fundamentalisms - Marxist, Nazi, Radical Feminist - have preoccupied the European mind, unobserved because fundamentalism was defined as necessarily religious. A fundamentalist world-view is one based on the antagonistic polarity concept: (a) social forces are seen as divided into two sides, one good, one evil (b) the good side is totally good and the other totally evil; there are no "shades of grey" in between. There is a denial that even the good have their faults, and even the evil have their good points. (c) they are at war; each aims for the destruction of the other (d) the goal is a "monopole", self-existent in the sense of not needing the other pole (e) in religious fundamentalism, the goal is an other-worldly utopia (but in Christendom, the Kingdom of God was identified to some extent with the rule of the Church) (f) in secular fundamentalism, the goal is a this-worldly utopia: the Communist Paradise; the 1000-year Reich; the Lesbian community, separate and uncontaminated by men, etc. (g) such this-worldly utopias turn into nightmares, shattering the faith of the adherents (h) once a person learns to think in terms of antagonistic polarities, other oppositions can be slotted in. Thus many Christians have envisaged an opposition (war) between spirit and matter, heaven and earth, male and female (the female seen, in the person of Eve, as introducing Evil into the world, and contaminated by her identification with the powers of Nature) (i) the antagonistic polarity concept is a powerful motivator of mass movements. . . . "