Ideologies‎ > ‎Marxism‎ > ‎

Utopian worldview

Marxism and communism are based on the wrong view of mankind. God says we are born sinners and need a substitute to stand in our place in order to pay for our consequences. The human race is born with a sin nature that we inherited from Adam and Eve. This was the worldview of the Reformation.

Marx believed wrongly that mankind's real problems are based not on fallen human nature but improper education. If children and adults can be exposed to the truths of our world, then we can start addressing the problems encountered through education. Marx believed humans are by nature - good people. They just need to be re-educated in order to be good conformists submitted o our state.

The following article presents the differences in a brilliant piece of writing.

The Nature of Things & Utopian Dreams
Dr. Robert Owens

When my grandmother was born a horsewas the normal means of transport.  When my granddaughter was born theInternational Space Station was the brightest light in the night's sky. Inother words, things change.   When I sat on the couch and watched thefirst man walk on the moon with my grandmother she didn't believe it wasreal.  When I tell my low information neighbors that the InternationalSpace Striation is the brightest light in the night's sky they don't believe itis true.  In other words, human nature doesn't change. 


To allow our leaders, our fellowcitizens, our own kith and kin the charitable label of misguided dreamers isthe closest I can come to innocently explaining their roles as either accomplicesor instigators of our national decline.  I try to tell myself they are as Leninand Stalin are reputed to have called them, "UsefulIdiots:" well-meaning people who genuinely believe central planning willhelp the needy.  I try not to let myself think the Progressives and theirsupporters are actually extremely corrupt and evil people who are activelyattempting to transform ourbeloved experiment in freedom into another forced labor camp striving toachieve Utopia. 

The problem with utopiandreams is that they always end in dystopian realities. Lenin's dream of a worker's paradise transformed itself into Stalin's nightmareof the gulags, starvation, and the eventual destruction of their nation. Mussolini's dream of a return to the glories of Rome led directly to the lossof the empire they had and the destruction of their nation.  Hitler'sdream of a Thousand Year Reich led directly to the Gestapo, the holocaust, theworst war in History, and the destruction of their nation. 

How can we believe we can follow adream of utopia to any other end than the one everyone else has arrived at: thedust bin of History? 

Some may say, "But we areAmericans, and we have always done the things others could not do." You will find no more ardent believer in American Exceptionalism thanI.   I truly believe, not that diversity is our strength but insteadthat the blending of all into a uniquely American hybrid has created the mosttalented, most dynamic, and most successful nation the world has everknown.  It is not the will or the talents of our homegrown Americancollectivists that I question; it is the very nature of collectivism that Imaintain makes the accomplishment of their utopian dream impossible. 

People can have the best ofintentions; however, if they believe they can take from Peter to pay Paulwithout making Peter resent the fact that he has less than he had before theydon't know Peter very well.  And if they think they can set Paul up as aperpetual recipient of the swag taken from Peter without creating a pool ofPaul's who constantly want more and who resent those who do the distributingthey have never worked in a soup kitchen, a food bank, or a giveaway store formore than a day. 

The vast majority of people are notby nature altruistic milk cows, and they resent it when that is how they areviewed by the nameless faceless bureaucracy necessary to make the machinery ofutopia crank out the shabby imitation they deliver.  Conversely the vastmajority of people are not by nature perpetual mooches content to stand withtheir hands out waiting for the nameless faceless bureaucracy to deliver thebare minimum needed to survive which is always the bounty that actually dropsfrom the utopian extruder. 

I contend that a collectivistredistribution Utopia whether it is called Progressive, Socialist, Communist,Fascist, or merely the right thing to do is contrary to the nature ofhumanity. 

People by nature want to beself-reliant.  They want to make things better for themselves and theirchildren.  People want to strive for something noble, and they want tofeel as if their lives matter.  Yet in an industrial world divided intohaves and have nots it is easy to understand how the frustration of being ahave not can convince someone that there needs to be a more equitable divisionof the material goods which modern civilization abundantly provides. 

Having come from a blue collarfamily and having spent the majority of my life as a self-employed boom or busthouse painter I can well relate to not having health insurance because youcan't afford it, I couldn't.  I can relate to having mornings where youdon't know what you will feed your family that night because I have had thosedays.  I know what it is like to be a high school dropout who can't getanything except a menial low paying job, because I have been that person. Yes, I can relate to the situations which might make a person believe we needto spread the wealth around. 

I also know what it feels like tohave to get food stamps and other things from public and private assistancejust to make it through the day because I have done so.  I know how thewelfare people make you feel, the way they treat you as if you are trying totake their personal money or the condescension of pity. 

What I can't relate to is eitherthinking it is a good thing to consign our fellow citizens to such a life or tobeing satisfied with such a life. 

Not only does a welfare statecorrupt both the dispensers and the recipients it carries the seeds of its owndestruction. Eventually the recipients will want more than the dispensers arewilling to give, and revolution or collapse will be the end result. 

In addition, since redistribution asa state policy always means stealing from Peter to pay Paul, ultimately thethief will need a gun.  Though Peter may be a nice person and at firstsay, "Sure I can contribute something to help poor old Paul," if poorold Paul never gets back on his feet sooner or later Peter will wonder why Pauldoesn't start providing for himself.  At that point the contributions areno longer voluntary and they must be taken one way or another.  There isalso the question of how many Pauls can Peter carry without either shrugginglike Atlas or becoming a Paul himself in self-defense. As Margret Thatcher taught us,"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of otherpeople's money." 

Plunder empires alwayscollapse.  Utopias always end up eating the goose that laid the goldenegg.  Central planning and collectivism: the Progressive dream for a GreatSociety has never, can never, and will never succeed. It just isn'tnatural. 

Read more: