Variable Morality

When we define morality in terms of preserving life and liberty, then the edification of each is assured. Through simultaneous pursuit of both, both are mutually reinforced. “Good” is defined by a synergy between the two. Actions that constitute goodness remain constant. Marxism takes a different approach. Marxism operates on an oppressor vs. oppressed dynamic. It assumes that every power imbalance results in the more powerful will oppress the less powerful. Right away, morality in Marxism requires conflict. Good is equated with the oppressed overcoming their oppressors. The problem is that in the adversarial system, someone is doing “good” when they are overcoming their oppressor, i.e., engaging in conflict. If demonstrating against a perceived oppressor is good, then rioting against that oppressor is better, and if rioting is good, than killing is even better, that is if removing oppressors, it the only good. Marx envisioned the ultimate in his philosophy, full communism, to be the achievement of parody between all classes, all people. The state, he theorized, would wither away it the ultimate workers’ paradise.

There’s nothing in human nature to suggest such parody can be achieved, and even if it could, it would be fleeting. Marx never explains how a people engaged in destructive behavior in the name of “good” in the pursuit of achieving power, will lose the will to act destructively in the name of good once said parody is achieved. Imagine, a people whose whole notion of moral is based solely upon destroying oppression though any means necessary. What moral value is to instruct them that once every “oppressor” is eliminated, that violence is no longer needed? Remember, neither the preservation of life, nor liberty is the goal of Marxism, only achieving power. Once power is seized, how are the former oppressed not now the oppressors? We know from history, that every time the self-styled liberators achieve power, they immediately start oppressing the weaker with the rationale that their control by force is required. They must eliminate all others who don’t subscribe to their ideology “for the greater good.” Those who supplanted their former rulers, the old ruling class, always without exception, establish themselves as the new ruling class, at least those who hold power within the movement. This has been true in the case of the Soviet Union, Communist China, and everywhere Marxists have gained control of a populace. If conflict, and adversarial nature is the basis for good at the beginning of a movement, it will always remain so.

Marxism, stripped of all its ideological objectives, concerns itself with ensuring only the preferred people hold power. How those people achieve that power is of no consequence to the Marxist. What is moral is what puts and keeps those preferred people in power. Because of this, any act that helps achieve this goal is considered moral, this includes murder, imprisonment, and the stripping of freedoms. Thus, lying, cheating, stealing, killing, detaining, etc., are all variably moral, subject to the cause they are done in the name in. It’s important to remember this is not hypothetical, as Marxist nations, and nations in pursuit of Communism, such as the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, and Venezuela have all demonstrated their acceptance of this variable morality.

An offshoot of the original Marxist ideology is known as Cultural Marxism. Where pure, classical Marxism deals with a struggle between the capitalist and working classes, this expanded form of Marxism seeks to pit other groups against each other in an oppressor vs. oppressed dynamic. These groups which cultural Marxists (read Leftists) pit against include, but are not limited to rich vs. poor, black, vs, white, minority vs majority, gay vs. straight, men vs. women, and so on. Just as with traditional Marxism, the ends justify the means in this expanded form. This strain of Marxism is found primarily in the West, in well-off First World countries and especially in North America and Europe. These countries follow the Rule of Law, and so have not yet descended into the such extremes as mass-incarceration of political prisoners and outright pogroms that have been seen in other places where Marxism has taken hold. Even still, these things exist on a low level. Western democracies such as Canada, Britain, even the United States have all rationalized the taking of political prisoners who were seen as threats to the Leftist quest for power. Left-leaning and Socialist members of the government have winked at politically motivated violence, including rioting, looting, arson, and even murder. Those who commit crimes in support of the Leftist agenda are treated much less harshly than others who commit those same crimes for other reasons. At the same time, the cultural Marxists levy much harsher penalties for those who they perceive as being threats to their ascendance to power.

The Subjective Morality of the Left

Marxism, and all its offshoots, defies human nature. Because of this, there is no way to achieve the Leftist’s fantasized equality of outcome without force. All Marxists governments must therefore engage in authoritarianism, if not totalitarianism. A central tenant, and its main selling point is the oppressor vs oppressed narrative, in which all groups oppress any others they are more powerful than. When the idea of the class struggle did not catch on in the West, the Marxists sought out other differences between groups to shoehorned into the oppressor vs. oppressed dichotomy. To that end, the cultural Marxists have sought out every conceivable way in which groups of people can be divided against themselves. Their strategy is literally divide and conquer. Find a group with common characteristic, cleave them off from the larger group, then tell them that the reason they don’t have everything that they want is because that larger or more powerful group is oppressing them. What passes for morality in this ideology is the struggle to correct those power differences, real or imagined, by any means necessary. There is no way to achieve those moral aims without conflict. The aims of the Left, they would say, is parody, equality of outcome. Because their aims are not achievable given human nature, they must use force to suppress those elements of human nature that don’t serve their aims. Because their aims require force, they must seek power. There is no Leftist utopia without the suppression of free will. The Leftist Utopia must be a totalitarian state. Complete power over life and death, therefore, is the ultimate in Leftist expression, and they use the ideology of Cultural Marxism to achieve this. The problem with adopting Cultural Marxism as the vehicle to obtaining power is that all Marxism requires conflict. Moral “good” requires one to engage in conflict. Good in this Marxist construct, isn’t what edifies either life or liberty, but what edifies the power of the Left, therefore any act, rioting, killing of non-hostiles, petty crime, even rape, can be rationalized as an act of good by the Leftist. All that is required is that it serves the Marxist cause. When power, rather than life and liberty are the chief objectives, evil becomes good. The idea of “goodness” being subject to an act’s value to the Leftist/Marxist cause.