Author: jetbrane

When Marx adopted the Hegelian dialectic he stood it on its head by converting Hegel’s idealistic dialectics to a materialistic dialectics. Hegel believed that ideas were the moving forces in history. These ideas wrought change by way of the dialectical process. Marx, on the contrary held that material conditions were the moving forces in history. Hence Marx’s emphasis on Economics as Theology (Queen of the sciences). The shift that resulted is a shift from the contest of ideas to the contest over control of material things.

However Marx not only stood Hegel on his head, but he also stood the Christian faith on its head. Marx retained the historic postmillennial eschatology of Christianity and merely put it in service of the Utopian Kingdom of man. The idea of Christian conversion was kept but put into the service of delivering men from their false consciousness. The incarnation was retained but instead of a heaven sent Messiah being sent it was the socially conscious proletariat that was the incarnated Messiah sent to save mankind from the sin of the Bourgeoisie Devil. Marxism holds out a second coming as well with the promise of social revolution filling the role of a coming Messiah. As in Christianity, Communism provides a hope of redemption as man is redeemed from the bondage of Christianity replete with its sinister Capitalism, private property, familial connections and just weight and measures to the freedom of Communism with its glorious Statism, public property, sexual and gender familial perversions and redistributionist weight and measures. Marx retained eternity, but he did so by absolutizing time, and he likewise retained spirit by converting it into matter. Marxism, has it has evolved, likewise has retained the importance of justice that you find in Christianity. Only for Marxism justice is the social justice of egalitarianism where not only are all men economically the same but all men are to be socially, sexually, psychologically and ethnically the same. Marx was the “John the Baptist” of anti-religion religion of Communism, spending his life in the wilderness heralding the imminent coming of the social revolution.

Like Christianity, Marx was interested in resolving the alienation that is characteristic of fallen men. Only for Marx the alienation that man suffered was because man had absorbed the rudiments of a Christian world view. The ultimate aim of Marx’s social revolution was to end the alienation of man from himself and his true nature. Marx believed that man was alienated from himself, first by religion (read Christianity), which subjected him to mediating powers. Further man is alienated from himself by private property due to the fact that private property sets him at odds with others and so alienates him from his social nature. The alienation begins to pile up for Marx as man is alienated by the State which was a instrument of class rule and man is alienated from the product of his labor by the theft of the Capitalist. Notice in all this Marx appeals to the creation of the Commune that the individual might be set free of the alienation that results from the sin of not being rightly related to the social order. For Marx, The abolition of Christianity, and the culture it creates is the end of man’s alienation. Christianity, likewise speaks of alienation but the alienation that it speaks of begins with fallen man’s alienation from God, and Christianity likewise insists that only a conversion can set men free from their alienation, but the conversion Christianity insists upon will eventually result in the very things (free markets, private property, particular normative extended families, States that rule according to God’s standards of justice, etc.) that Marx insists is the embodiment of alienation.

Marx is just Christianity turned inside out. It is the perfect humanist religion because it so well apes Christianity. What is saddening is that currently so many in the Church today are defining Christianity with Marxist type thinking. To be sure, nobody in the Church uses the words “Marxism,” “Cultural Marxism,” “Socialism,” etc. but the policies that the Church pursues (normalizing Homosexuality, supporting Statism whether through Global warming or redistribution of wealth schemes, participating in the guilt complex brought forth by assorted race pimps, etc.) indicates that the Church is calling Karl Marx, “Jesus Christ.”

Redistribution vs. Wealth Creation

The “Occupy America” groupies seem to believe that there is a set amount of wealth and since that set amount of wealth can neither be increased or decreased it is their conviction that those who are top heavy in this set amount of wealth should be forced, by the god State, to have their wealth redistributed so that those who do not have as much wealth can have more wealth.

Their are several problems with this but let us first note that when the State, as god, controls either directly or indirectly the means of production or the wealth generated by the means of production what one is speaking of also is the god State being given sanction to control the human mind. This is so because the human mind is that which took abstract ideas and translated those ideas into wealth creation. If the created wealth is not to be enjoyed by the mind that created the wealth but instead that wealth is to be seized then what is being advocated for here is not only the control of wealth distribution by the god State but also the control of the human mind that had the capacity to go from idea, to production to wealth.

Secondly, the emphasis on Redistribution over wealth creation destroys a nations citizenry by cutting the nerve that joins labor to prosperity. If, by the god State’s agency, a morality is inculcated into the citizenry which teaches that those who labor and those who do not labor receive the same wealth benefits then what is incentivized is sloth. If the indigent are subsidized by the god State and if the productive are punished by confiscatory taxation then the consequence will be creation of a citizenry that learns the Aesop tale of the Grasshopper and the Ant is a myth. “Occupy America,” is creating a social order where equality of prosperity through redistribution of wealth means the equality of the ghetto.

Again, we would note here that the very thing that “Occupy America” is demanding (redistribution of wealth) is the very thing that will ensure that they remain penniless, miserable, and discontent. Redistribution of wealth always ends up with economic equality, to be sure, but it is the equality of the miserable. Success for “Occupy America” will not be the lifting of the protesters to grand economic heights but will instead mean the descent of the wealth creators to miserable existence of the protesters.

This bring us naturally enough to our next contrast.

Property as Public vs. Property as Private

If the god State is empowered to redistribute wealth the clear implication is that all property is public and no property is private. What “Occupy America” is advocating is the abolition of private property in favor of all property being public. When “Occupy America” demands the government to take private property in order to spread the wealth what they are advocating is the end of private ownership. Thanks to generations of this kind of thing, our once strong private property rights have been abolished through regulatory oppression, bureaucratic tyranny and unbiblical types of taxation and the consequence is the creation of a social order that represents the Hive, the Borg, and the machine, where all exist for the good of the Queen Bee, or for the favor of the those who see themselves as owning the Machinery.

A Liberated America would return to a emphasis on private property and individual achievement. A Liberated America understands that the security that is sought to be guaranteed by making all property public only guarantees both a loss of personal liberty and the personal security that the belief of collective ownership was thought to assure.

Environment as Sin vs. Man as Sinner

“Occupy America” believes that the reason the some people are “have-nots” while other people are “haves” is because of the evil social order environment that locked people in their place. The belief here is that man is impoverished because of the evil cultural institutional environment that has oppressed men. The solution for “Occupy America” is to dismantle the cultural environment and the social order structures that have turned so many people into poor, and oppressed outcasts. For these protesters we find scattered throughout America the evil is located in what they call the Capitalist environment. This can only be fixed by deconstructing what they are calling Capitalism. Only by doing so, can man be free to reach his true potential.

Liberated Americans realize that if the cultural or social order Environment supports sin and reinforces sinful behavior, it is only because it is first the case that men are sinners. Liberated Americans realize that environment does not create sinners so much as it is a reflection of the culture that sinners construct.

The upshot of this is that “Occupied America” types believe that a Utopia can be reached by reconstructing man by reconstructing his sinful environment and so they demand the “New Soviet Man,” or “The New Humanist Man,” through the building of a New World Order that will so adjust future generations that those future generations will be as perfect as the environment that “Occupy America” types intend to build.

Pursuit of Anarchy vs. Pursuit of Liberty

Our last contrast between “Occupied America” and “Liberated America” is the fact that “Occupied America” crowd believes that Liberty will only be assured by anarchy. The irony in this is that if they are successful to this end the result will be Tyranny since a anarchistic social order is not possible and will always eventually result in a strong man to bring order from chaos.

Actually, as much as people hate hearing this, the only possible way to achieve Liberty is to understand that true Liberty has boundaries and constraints. Further, genuine Liberty can only thrive among a people who share a common worldview since without a shared worldview what results is each man doing what is right in their own eyes. This explains why a Libertarian political stance can only work in a social order context where a shared worldview provides the foundation for a Libertarian ethic. Finally, as it is the case that only men freed from their sins by the payment of Jesus Christ for sins on the Cross, therefore only Christians can build cultures that are characterized by Liberty. All cultures that are not Christian are by definition Occupied cultures. Because “Occupy America” descends from a non-Christian world and life view all that will result from any success they have will be only more bondage then we already have.

This final point explain why, ultimately, the problems we have in our political or economic systems will not be resolved through alterations in our social order. Men enslaved to their sins will always build political and economic systems that reflect their bondage to their sin. Liberty, then, will only be procured by men learning that the only way they can be free of their bondage is by learning Christ. Men who have learned Christ will then incarnate that learning into the free social orders that they construct.

I am adamantly opposed to “Occupy America” because I am convinced that if they are successful the consequence will a even deeper bondage then we currently are living with right now. However, for all the opposition and revile that I have for “Occupy America” I realize that the Liberty they desire will not be had through political or economic systems but only through men and women bowing the knee to a non-Marxist Christ.