The View From 1776

§ American Traditions

§ People and Ideas

§ Decline of Western Civilization: a Snapshot

§ Books to Read


Liberal_Jihad_Cover.jpg Forward USA

Saturday, December 11, 2004

Liberal-Socialism’s Group-Think Morality

Liberals consider themselves to be more moral than Christians and religious Jews.  But theirs is a “go with the flow” morality.  The Godless currents of liberal-socialist theory sweep people along effortlessly, without the imperative to make hard personal choices that may not be personally beneficial or sensually gratifying.

Liberal-socialism begins with group-think.  Socialism’s unit of analysis is not individuals, but social and economic classes, from the macro viewpoint of the whole of society.  It is a top-down, not a bottom-up, world view.

Western civilization was based on the Greek philosophical and Judeo-Christian religious understandings that began with the relationship of the individual to society and the individual’s responsibility to strive for moral understanding of right and wrong conduct.

Liberal-socialism started the process of destroying Western civilization in the 1789 French Revolution.  Mobs of people roamed the streets of Paris, hanging personal enemies and government officials from lamp posts or beating them to death in the streets.  The Revolutionary government gave official sanction to such terror tactics in the bloody Reign of Terror when more than 70,000 French citizens, from little children to the elderly, from ordinary citizens to monarchs and clergy, were executed for the entertainment and cowing of the public.  Anyone, without evidence, could be declared an enemy of the Revolution and find himself in a tumbril en route to the guillotine.

Thus, from day one, socialism has followed the “moral” principle that any collectivized government act is permissible, so long as it is done in the name of perfecting society.  As an Oxford-Cambridge don reportedly put it, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.”

What presumably imbues this savagery with legitimacy is science.  Not, however, the science of Newton, Descartes, and Galileo, but the so-called social sciences of the French Encyclopedists and their followers, Henri de Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte. 

The latter two claimed to have discovered the Immutable Law of History that mandated the new scientific age in which spiritual religion and personal morality were to be superseded by socialism.  Twenty years later, Karl Marx employed the same variety of historicism to prophesy the revolutionary take-over of government by the workers of the world.

The more influential version of socialism in England and the United States has been Auguste Comte’s Religion of Humanity.  Karl Marx’s blood-and-thunder revolutionary model has found greater receptivity in Continental Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. 

A distinctive moral understanding is implied in all varieties of socialism, including the Religion of Humanity.  In the 19th century it was something new to the world when applied to national states.  Sophists in classical Greece, Plato’s frequent opponents in his dialogs, had argued that morality was nonsense, that real people in the real world care only about material things: power, wealth, and sensual gratification.  But, before the French Revolution, no one had systematically developed the theory as applied to the whole of society.

Liberal-socialism’s first distinctive element is that individuals are not personally responsible for their conduct (though individuals, in huge numbers, have been executed for alleged transgressions against socialist society); they are the victims of society.  Individual conduct, in liberal doctrine, is a function of the political structure, because only materialistic influences are real, in social-science terms.  A good socialist society based on equal distribution of wealth will make people happy and eliminate crime and wars.  By definition, a bad individualistic society based on private ownership of property will encourage greed and unequal distribution of wealth, compelling the poor to engage in crime to get their fair share.

Notice that liberal-socialism makes no determination of whether an individual deserves to have more or less reward.  It can only deal with social groups.  It can only determine the group within which an individual is to be assigned by the bureaucracy.  Our model is Social Security and the Welfare System.  We are simply Social Security numbers, eligible or not eligible for Medicaid, Medicare, or retirement income. 

Even if an individual has never worked a lick in his life, even if he is a scoundrel in the eyes of those who know him, he may be eligible for welfare benefits.  Whether he is morally good or bad in the Judeo-Christian sense is immaterial.  If he fits the group profile, he is eligible.

What this means in practical terms is that liberal-socialism gives individuals no incentive to do good or to work hard.  People in such a society are entitled to certain benefits, no more nor less than what the bureaucrat’s rule book says.  In a good liberal-socialist society, why not indulge in narcotics abuse?  Society must care for you if you become addicted.

As noted in Who are the Liberal-socialists? , for the average people who have been schooled to believe in the superiority of liberal-socialism, it is a very undemanding religion.? They don?t have to change their lifestyles, diets, or drinking and drug habits.? They merely have to go with the flow.? They don?t even have to understand the ideology to which they are giving lip service.? They are happily guided by Hollywood personalities who appear on talk shows and by comedians who ridicule morality and spiritual religion.? Participating in a mass demonstration is a sort of spiritual communion with The Religion of Humanity, a proof of their self-worth.? If a street demonstration isn?t available, they can worship their socialist god by sitting at their favorite bar, watching TV, ordering another beer, and denouncing people who question their beliefs.

The Judeo-Christian tradition that constituted the essence of Western civilization is sterner stuff.  For the religious Jew and the devout Christian, there is no escaping personal responsibility to do the right thing.  Often that will require going against the flow, even when the individual knows that doing so will lead to harm for himself. 

Liberal-socialism can remain at the theoretical, abstract level.  Believers aren’t required to make personal choices.  They merely have to listen to people like the Hero of Chappaquiddick, Michael Moore, or comics like Bill Maher, who will tell them what the current acceptable attitude is.  They have merely to attune themselves to whatever may be today’s social-justice cause, from abortion to same-sex marriage.  If they unquestioningly accept the latest gospel from Hollywood, then they can feel good about themselves, without the bother of personal responsibility.