Fifty Shades of Red

Protestant Christianity split into many different sects following the big split with the Roman Catholic Church, with the salutary result that oppression by religious authorities, while still a problem within many localities, is far more difficult to achieve on a global stage.  

Similarly, following the collapse of the regime in Soviet Russia in 1991, the quasi-religious movement of Marxianity has begun splitting in different sects, with a similar salutary result in regard to carrying out oppressive agendas.

This essay focuses on efforts by those in America who call themselves "Democratic Socialists" of "Social Democrats" to distance themselves from the horrors perpetrated by 20th century Marxian dictatorial regimes, even going so far as to renounce allegiance to Marx himself, even as they continue to employ Marxian framing.

It ought to  be an educational experience to watch the schemes of this sect fail and lead to unintentional consequences, in spite of the good intentions of supporters.  Good intentions combined with coercion is an extremely unsophisticated strategy.

Transcript

Fifty Shades of Red

 Good day to you, and welcome to Fascinating!  I am your host Rik, from Planet Vulcan.  My ongoing mission on Planet Earth:  to plant seeds of a way of thinking, a way that is based on an understanding of evolutionary processes, with the ultimate aim of helping to sustain and increase the momentum of Earth’s long arc towards prosperous and happy societies, founded on ideals of liberty and justice.

 Contributing editor Slainte na Zdorovya has submitted the following essay about a somewhat surprising development with the modern movement of Marxianity which has some striking parallels with medieval Christianity.

 Slainte writes:

 From the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine I, who in 325 AD convened the First Council of Nicaea, which standardized Christian doctrine under the Nicene Creed, until the time of Martin Luther in 1527 AD, Christianity only underwent one ramification:  the Great Schism of 1054 AD, when the Roman Catholic Church split from the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 From the time Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on the Castle Church door in Wittenberg Germany in 1517, Christianity has gone through numerous splits.  Today, depending on how you draw distinctions, there are probably a few hundred distinct traditions among Protestantism, made up of more than 45,000 individual governing bodies.

 Sects typically would come into being over disputes about doctrine and/or governance.

 It is often said that history does not repeat itself, but that it does rhyme.  

 We are now beginning to witness a proliferation of sects within the quasi-religious movement of Marxianity that are strikingly similar to the sectarianism of Christianity following the Protestant Reformation.

 In both cases, the movements had been under the strict control of a more or less monolithic authority.  Individual freedom was not a priority under the Roman Catholic church, and it was not a priority under twentieth-century socialism when the USSR was the monolith.  Maintaining authority was the priority, and no act was too evil if it served this aim.

 Also in both cases, the proliferation of sects occurred over disagreements in what constituted official doctrine.  Just as Protestants may agree on broad Christian principles while disagreeing on theology, many socialists agree on broad goals such as greater economic equality while disagreeing sharply about such things as revolution versus reform and how much to rely on markets in their ideal world.

 One of the greatest impediments to the spread of the enlightenment ideals of liberty and justice has been the dogmatism that arises from devotion to ideologies and religions.  The closed nature of dogmatism stands in stark contrast to the openness of scientific inquiry.

 Dogmatic believers all too often are so certain of the things they believe in that they resort to coercion as a last resort against their fellows who cannot be persuaded, and often the coercion is the first resort, and in the spread of Islamic dogmatism in the eighth century and following.

 I have some good news for everyone who supports the ongoing struggle against the spread of the modern quasi-religious dogmas of Marxianity, a new and encouraging development.

 It appears that the critiques of 20th century Marxianity as an existential horror as bad as, or possibly even worse than, if you go by body count, the national socialist movement known as Fascism, have begun hitting their mark.

 If you have noticed, there is an ongoing concerted effort by those who call themselves Social Democrats in particular, to distance themselves from the kind of socialists who were responsible for the deaths of 50 – 100 million human beings under Communist regimes.

 Some supporters of Democratic Socialism nowadays have even begun to disavow a connection to Karl Marx, even as they continue to believe in his core propositions, and are especially keen to distance themselves from Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong and the devastation and death that stemmed from Stalin’s regime (15 – 20 million)  and Mao’s great leap forward (40 – 50 million, mostly due to famines), as well as the killing fields of Pol Pot in Cambodia (2 million, in a country where the total population was only 7 million).  Even such minor players as North Korea, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Cuba, Afghanistan and the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe contributed their tens and hundreds of thousands to the death toll.

 Communists and their apologists have long since condemned what they call Fascism, even though sober analysis leads to the conclusion that Fascist movements were themselves a brand of socialism, sort of a rival gang competing with the Communist gang, and that there were no fundamental differences in governance between the Fascists and the Communists other than the nationalist focus of the Fascists vs. internationalist focus of the Communists.  Both gangs promoted state ownership of the means of production and economic planning, which is the essence of socialism.

 During the period prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was much greater conformity among socialists, most of whom were extremely reluctant to say anything bad about the Communist regime in the USSR as long as it continued.  

 The abrupt end to Soviet Communism in 1991 surprised even those who understood the fatal flaws in the system, and pretty much ended any serious talk about direct state ownership of the means of production, although the same philosophy that drove nationalization of industry in those times survives in calls for heavy-handed regulation today.  

 So I believe we can all take at least a small measure of satisfaction because of the fact that advocates of socialism do on rare occasions change their beliefs based on evidence and reason.  They mostly do not yet appear to understand that there are no essential differences amongst the shades of red, and that the fundamental belief of all of them that individuals are subordinate to the authority of the state will continue to lead to suboptimal outcomes and occasional disasters. 

 Interestingly from a naturalist point of view, individuals in truth are in a way subordinate to the evolved and evolving sociome, and are metaphorically the cells which comprise the sociome. So it’s not so much that individuals are not subordinate to the collective, but that the sociome functions better when the relations among individuals are based on persuasion and contractual arrangement than when relations are based on commands and obedience.

 Thanks to Slainte for this essay.

 I have to say that during my stay on Planet Earth, I have repeatedly been surprised by the continued widespread acceptance of the dogmas of Marxianity, and the tenacity with which followers of Marx cling to their beliefs while remaining impervious to facts and reason; and even more surprised that so many Earthlings still believe that the “worker good, owner bad” theme explains so much;  and even though it is so simple to dismantle the medievalist ideas and agendas of Marxianity, based as they are on intelligent design rather than on spontaneous emergent order, and which are almost always presented in zero-sum form.

 Given the weakness of the arguments supporting the various shades of Marxianity, we can only surmise that the surprising amount of appeal the Marxian framing and the Marxian catechism currently enjoy on your planet is due to an emotional attachment to membership in a group where everyone sees things as they “really are”, after being born again into radicalized vision; which offers a clear-cut choice between good guys and bad guys; and an opportunity to spew venom and hatred, while parading one’s moral superiority.

 We hope on behalf of all Earthlings that Marxianity will continue to lose its appeal, as supposedly different and distinct shades of red are tried out and predictably fail, for reasons that are well-understood.

 I invite you to have a listen to the next Fascinating! podcast and a look at the next video on our YouTube channel.  You can find access to all podcasts and videos on our web page, fascinatingpodcast.com.

 Please recommend Fascinating! to your friends if you find the lessons from nature in these essays personally valuable.

 Theme music:  Helium, with thanks to TrackTribe.

 Live long and prosper.

 Practice the art of winning without defeating anyone.

 Savor your experiences.

 Treasure your memories.

 Anticipate a happy and rewarding future.

 And respect nature’s wisdom.