Freedom & Man: Two Delusions

Rushdoony’s The One and the Many is a great theological work on the Trinity and it’s supposed competitors. While I certainly do not agree with the corrupt Max Stirner, he did have a great understanding of the innate tyrannical nature of Our Compassionate Liberal Masters. As quoted in the book (footnotes deleted, here and elsewhere in this post):

The monarch in the person of the “royal master” had been a paltry monarch compared with this new monarch, the “sovereign nation.” This monarchy was a thousand times severer, stricter, and more consistent. Against the new monarch there was no longer any right, any privilege at all; how limited the “absolute king” of the ancient regime looks in comparison! The Revolution effected the transformation of limited monarchy into absolute monarchy. From this time on every right that is not conferred by this monarch is an “assumption”; but every prerogative that he bestows, a “right.” The times demanded absolute royalty, absolute monarchy; therefore down fell that so-called absolute royalty which had so little understood how to become absolute that it remained limited by a thou- sand little lords.

This can be easily contrasted with Marx’s idea of freedom…

In his call to revolution as historical action, Marx said, “Let us revolt against the rule of thoughts.”The purpose of this revolt is freedom. Here the ghost of Hegel again prevails. Hegel’s goal was the freedom of the individual from jealous Jehovah, and history was for Hegel the new area of determination. Marx was faithful to this aspect of Hegel; he simply stripped Hegel’s verbiage from Hegel’s goal. In the process, however, he also dropped the world of Christian meaning with which Hegel cloaked his terms. Like Stirner, Marx now had a problem of meaning. What is freedom? North has brilliantly exposed Marx’s embarrassment over this problem: Marx, after struggling with the problem of the meaning of freedom, could only lamely conclude: “The shortening of the working day is its fundamental premise.”North’s comment on this answer is telling:

The paucity of the answer is staggering, incredible! If so much misery had not been launched by Marx’s labors for the forces of revolution, and if so many lives had not been destroyed in the name of Marx, that answer would be amusing in its pathetic quality.

Marx denied the rule of reason in favor of historical action. As a result, because all reasoning is class conditioned for Marxists, the use of logic is futile against Marxists. “What use is it to go and say to a Marxist, ‘Your ideas don’t make sense’? One might as well talk to a deaf man.”Talk to a Marxist of freedom, and he redefines freedom to fit the needs of the Marxist regime.But God having made man, it is God’s definition which lingers in men’s hearts in the Soviet Union, not that of Karl Marx. Marxist freedom has meant longer working hours — and a meaningless life.

Obviously, Karl Marx couldn’t care less about freedom: he was just after power. In his case, it was in the Name of the Collective; in Stirner’s case, it was in the name of the Individual. Both are man-centred, and both are fundamentally lawless.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s