Concerning the source of Individualism and Socialism:
Inalienable rights regard the worth of the individual in the light of the Father (God), while "human rights' regards the worth of the individual in the "light" of the collective (society)
by
Dean Gotcher
When Karl Marx made the statement: "It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities." he knew that there was a condition in life which engendered an "individualistic" attitude. What is that condition? It happens to be an experience most of us have in the home, with the father (or mother) giving us commands and chastening us when we do not carry them out according to his will. All the children are not chastened for one's disobedience, only the one who disobeyed. It is in this condition that Marx understood the correlation between the traditional family (what he called the "earthly family") and God (the heavenly or "Holy Family"), why he wrote: "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must be annihilated in theory and in practice." (Karl Marx, Feuerbach Thesis # 4)
The correlation between the earthly father and God lies in two things, the father's commands to the children and his chastening of them for disobedience. The Marxist, Theodor Adorno, in his book The Authoritarian Personality, wrote: "God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority." Note his contempt for God, the idea being, to get rid of God you must get rid of the Father's authority which "conceived" Him. As Marx quipped "The life which he has given to the object sets itself against him as an alien and hostile force." (Karl Marx MEGA I/3) In other words, as with Sigmund Freud, it is the child's duty not to recognize the parent's authority over him, i.e. obey him without questioning him first, i.e. "question authority." Why children say "Why?" to the parent's command "Do this," and "Well I 'ought' to be able to" (to himself if he has to) when the parent's response is "Because I said so." Freud's idea as that the Ego creates the "conscience" and not the "super-ego" when the child does not (is to weak, the pre-Marxist hand of the child, striking out against the parent, as the parent takes away his toy, not strong enough to force the parent to allow him to have his way) to turn and "take on" the parent to the death if necessary, not allowing the parent to assume a position of authority over him, engendering what Freud called "neurosis," the child thereafter, in obeying the parent, behaving in a way that is not "normal" to "human nature," i.e. the child restraining his "natural inclination" to relate with the world to become at-one-with the world in pleasure, in the 'moment,' the parent and his commands (God) superseding "human nature." Negate the parent's 'right' to chasten (putting "human rights," i.e. to dialogue opinions in its place instead) and you negate the parent's command and authority to rule over his children. Negate the parent's 'right' to preach, and teach, and inculcate super-natural rules, chastening his children when they disobey and you negating God's 'right' to rule over man in the thoughts and actions (theory and practice) of man (you engender a "healthy society" out of a "neurotic people," damaged by their parent's, i.e. God's, "top-down" authority―what the so called "Health Care Package" and "Education Nation" are all about, creating a "new" society out of the "old" knowing that to create you must "annihilate," i.e. negate).
Adorno saw four conditions which were necessary for the child to become a true (cooperative) member of the traditional home ("neurotic"): "The conception of the ideal family situation for the child: 1) uncritical obedience to the father and elders, 2) pressures directed unilaterally from above to below, 3) inhibition of spontaneity and 4) emphasis on conformity to externally imposed values." "An attitude of complete submissiveness toward 'supernatural forces' and a readiness to accept the essential incomprehensibility of 'many important things' strongly suggest the persistence in the individual of infantile attitudes toward the parents, that is to say, of authoritarian submission in a very pure form." "Authoritarian submission was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures―parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth." (Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality)
While the child is not truly independent of the parent's authority (in the traditional, Patriarchal home), in the sense that he can do whatever he wants to do, he learns that he is an individual person, not being allowed to do what other siblings are allowed to do or being allowed to do what they are not allowed to do (the age of the child, the child's abilities, its gender, the parents needs and beliefs all playing a factor in the parent's decisions). All the children, not being chastened for the disobedience of the one child (unless they were culpable), makes it clear to the children that they are individuals (with personal accountability and an individual conscience) under their parent's authority.
For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Romans 14:7-12
As each neighborhood has many families, there is a difference in standards each family sets for its children. Thus each child responds to the other children in the neighborhood, in approval or disapproval, according to the standards their parents establish for them. This is true for the believer in Christ as well. "Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?" Hebrews 12:9
According to psychology, the child is therefore "neurotic" in that he is not able to be "himself," i.e. his "guilty conscience" (fear of God or parent, i.e. of getting caught, judged, and punished) prevented from thinking and acting according to his "natural inclinations" to be-at-one with the world in pleasure, i.e. prevented him from responding to the world according to his natural urges and impulses of the 'moment,' having to obey an authority whose commands are out of "touch" with his sensuous 'moment,' thereby engendering an "unhealthy" condition preventing him from "keeping up with the 'changing' times." According to sociology the child is "alienated" from relationship with others of his own "human nature," creating an "unhealthy" condition in society, a condition of division engendered by his parents' commands (and fear of chastening which creates a "guilty conscience" for disobedience), which the child has embraced as his own. Not being able to "be himself," and not being able to "relate with the world" around (judging others according to his father's standards instead) the child maintains an individualist attitude when not around other children of parental approval (of like mindedness). Yet the child has his "Well I ought to be able to" voice of rebellion residing inside him, waiting to be 'liberated,' under the right conditions, for the cause of 'change.'
As Adorno wrote, regarding the creation of a democracy out of individualism: "...democratic type of relationship, the ability of the subject to appraise his parents objectively, as contrasted with an inclination to put the parents on a very high plane." "The democratic alternative, humanitarianism, (is) the ability to like and dislike, to value and oppose, individuals on the basis of concrete specific experience;" "What is particularly important here is that recognition of one's own individuality is the basis for recognition of the individuality of everyone, and for the democratic concept of the dignity of man." "Only when the process of production is organized on a socialist basis, they argue, can there be true economic democracy, equality or management and labor, and a high national standard of living." (Adorno) emphasis added. This can only happen by finding and liberating the child's "ought," the voice of "humanity" seeking 'liberation' from parental (Godly) authority, with individuality being established, not according to the parent's "top-down" authority but within a society of "human nature," with all people (children) united as one under the banner of "equality." "The individual may have ‘secret' thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it. To gain access is particularly important, for here may lie the individual's potential." (Adorno) emphasis added.
According to social-psychology, those of dialectic 'reasoning,' those who accept parental authority are like minded (thinking "Mine, not yours"), engendering an "ingroup-outgroup" condition, themselves being the "ingroup," those who are not in agreement with their parent's standards (beliefs) are of the "outgroup." It is interesting to note that those of social-psychology are guilty of the same "ingroup-outgroup" attitude as well, the "ingroup" being those of the world, a world of unrighteous, of men dialoguing opinions to create unity (consensus) based upon man's carnal "human nature," the "outgroup" those who preach and teach of another world, under God, i.e. of a world of righteous. The key to understand dialectic 'reasoning' is that they do not attack righteousness outright (at first), they create a condition in education, in the workplace, in government, in the church, and even in the home where righteousness is perceived as being "irrational," when it causes division and disunity (prevents 'change'), and therefore those who continue to preach and teach righteousness (the Father's will untainted by "human reasoning," i.e. intolerant of unrighteousness) are regarded as being "irrelevant" when it comes to making decisions in response to the 'changing' times.
The key to 'change' is the creating of a condition where the child can be detached from his parent's authority and reattached to the urges and impulses of society. Creating a "positive" environment where he can "safely" be "himself" (safely share his "opinion") without fear of reprimand, without fear of parental chastening, where he can experience a "new" world order with other children going through the same 'liberating' experience as himself. Kurt Lewin (a Marxists, but don't tell the social-psychologists, they will only deny it and get mad at you, calling you ignorant, I explained this in early issues) defined in one sentence the experience of the home life for a child and in one sentence how to undo the effects of his parents upon him, liberating him to become an individual, according to his own carnal nature and thereby become reattached to society (making humanism and democracy the right way of thinking and acting).
"The negative valence of a forbidden object which in itself attracts the child thus usually derives from an induced field of force of an adult." (Kurt Lewin; A Dynamic Theory of Personality, 1935) In other words the parent punishes or chastens the child ("induced field of force of an adult") for seeking after something in nature, something which would "naturally" satisfy the child's nature (an "object which in itself attracts the child") which the parent has forbidden ("forbidden object"), thus causing standards of restraint against "human nature" (a "negative valence") or the "guilty conscience." When the children submits to the parent (or in correlation, when the adolescent submits to the patriarch, when the proletariat submit to the bourgeoisie) and their commands, the children's mind and behavior is prejudiced to accept their father's "top-down" way of thinking and acting (in correlation, the adolescent's mind and behavior is prejudiced to accept the patriarch's paradigm, the proletariat's mind and behavior is prejudiced to accept the bourgeoisie's paradigm) with its rules over "human nature," through its control of natural resources (money). When the children eventually become adults, they praxis their parent's paradigm, and expect and demand the parent's praxis in the community, causing division, alienation, and therefore hostilities in the community, especially towards those who seek to liberalize man's carnal nature—socialists, globalists, environmentalists, i.e. all those who facilitate 'change' through the consensus process, all those who praxis a heresiarchal paradigm of 'change.'
The solution according to Lewin was "If this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child (e.g., if the adult goes away or loses his authority) the negative valence also disappears." (ibid.) If an environment could be constructed in which the child's decisions could be freed from the fear of reprisal from the parent ("this field of force loses its psychological existence for the child") the paradigm of the parent (of the bourgeoisie, of the patriarch, of God) would be negated along with his rules of "proper" conduct ("the negative valence also disappears."), the "guilty conscience" would disappear in that there is no parent's authority and commands to feel guilty about disobeying—the conscience and the father no longer recognized as viable—thereby annihilating the traditional home with its patriarchal environment and thus the "fear of God is dead," in the thoughts and actions of the next generation. (Welcome to what happened in the 60's and has been "cultured" ever since by the media, education, and councilors or "facilitators" of 'change.')
But simply 'liberating' man (or the child) from the Father's authority does not solve the problem of creating a "new" world order of worldly unity and socialist harmony out of the many. "Man is free from all ties binding him to spiritual authorities, but this very freedom leaves him alone and anxious, overwhelms him with a feeling of his own individual insignificance and powerlessness." (Erick Fromm, Escape from Freedom)
It is through the use of the consensus process (becoming one with the world through "feelings," through the "affective domain") in the classroom, in the workplace, in government, in the church, in the home, etc. that the individual becomes reattached to himself and the world as "one," negating the division between himself and other's, overcoming the condition his parent's authority and standards created. "Then both parties recognize their rigidified position in relation to each other as the result of detachment and abstraction from their common life context [recognize their carnal "human nature" is what they all have in "common," i.e. from where we derive the word "common"-ism AKA communism]. And in the latter, the dialogic relation of recognizing oneself in the other, they experience the common ground of their existence." (Jürgen Habermas, The Idea of the Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory)
It is with this understanding that we derive inalienable rights, rights God gives us while on this earth, which all State Constitutions recognize (except Hawaii). Socialism has to build a world on "human rights," the carnal "rights" of the child, i.e. his "human nature" freed from the parental restraints of righteousness. It is here that Hegel took his stance against righteousness, making the child's carnal nature the standard for morality, building a society of 'change,' i.e. a society of carnal children in adult bodies, united as "one" upon their unrighteous thoughts and unrighteousness actions, i.e. engendering a world of abomination. "Capitulation enforced by parental authority under the threat of loss of parental love . . . can be accomplished only by repression." "Our repressed desires are the desires we had unrepressed, in childhood; and they are sexual desires." "The repression of normal adult sexuality is required only by cultures which are based on patriarchal domination." "The foundation on which the man of the future will be built is already there, in the repressed unconscious; the foundation has to be recovered." "Therefore the question confronting mankind is the abolition of repression - in traditional Christian language, the resurrection of the body." "Eros is fundamentally a desire for union with objects in the world." "Eros is the foundation of morality." (Norman O. Brown's book, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History)
By isolating the child from the parent (the legislator from his constituents) and allowing him to re-experience life, i.e. 'discover' his "human nature" ("Eros") without the restraints of his parents, he at first becomes disoriented, i.e. taken captive to his nature alone he goes into "crisis," and therefore, according to dialectic 'reasoning,' to become "normal," he must be re-attached to the "group," identify with the social (consensus) experience. "A new emphasis on civic participation and social interaction alone seemed capable of confronting the crisis. And, that is precisely what Fromm provided in his notion of 'communitarian socialism.'" (Stephen Eric Bronner, Of Critical Theory and its Theorists)
There is only one you. Yet you, along with me and the rest of the world (everyone born of a woman) will someday stand before God, as individuals, personally being held accountable for our individual unrighteous thoughts and individual unrighteous actions (unless our sins, i.e. you being accountable for your sins and me being accountable for my sins, as individuals, are covered by the blood of the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ). In Christ we (you and me) have but one father: "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Matthew 23:9) We (you and me) are to do His will first and foremost, above our will (you are to obey God above your will as I am to obey God above my will). We (you as an individual and me as an individual) are to know Christ (Christ is to know you as an individual and me as an individual, Him knowing me will not help you, and Him knowing you will not help me) to be in the Family of God. "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50
If Christ does not know you as an individual or me as an individual then he will tell you or me to depart from Him, no matter what you or I, individually or collectively (working together as one), have done for Him (doing "wonderful works" in his name). "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in they name have cast our devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:22, 23)
On the day of judgment, there will be no "group grade." "We working for us" will be irrelevant on that day. Men's opinions (including yours as an individual and mine as an individual) won't count. We are therefore to be individuals, united as one in Christ (in the fellowshipping of the saints, i.e. as the bride of Christ, unity or fellowship being a byproduct of being in Him, in His love), according to His righteousness, according to His will, and not according to the opinions of men, i.e. how I "feel" or what I "think" or how you "feel" or what you "think" (which is what is happening in the church today). We are to stand (as individuals in Christ) having put on the whole armour of God (Ephesians 6:11), having done all to keep standing, enduring, in Christ, to the end (I can't stand for you and you can't stand for me just as much as I can not breath for you and you can breath for me, for very long at least).
God's word speaks to you as an individual. The gospel message is not a socialist, "We working for us" message. Yet the "gospel of the kingdom" will "be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations." Mt 24:14 That the redeemed will sing unto the Lord "Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;" Revelation 5:9 does not mean the world will become God's kingdom because of its use of the consensus process, establishing itself upon "the approval of man," according to the nature of man, flesh (who are unrighteous) rather than "the approval of God," according to the nature of God, spirit (who is righteous). Why then are we so hung up on how people "feel" about us and what people" think" about us ("the approval of men), when on the day of judgment it won't matter. We are concerned because of our love for the things of this world, wanting the "approval of men," to 'justify' our carnal "human nature." "As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men ['justifying' "human nature"], I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man [according to men's opinions]. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Galatians 1:9-12
Being an offense to others is not speaking the "truth in love" (if someone is offended it is the word that offends them), it is speaking the truth and not living according to it (proclaiming the truth in unrighteousness) that is an offense. What matters is that you know Christ, as an individual, and Christ knows you, as an individual, being therefore a member in the body of Christ, Christ 'redeeming' you from judgment and eternal death, by His shed blood (dying for your sins), and 'reconciling' you to the Father, by his resurrection. Our relationship with one another, how we "feel" and what we "think" about one another, i.e. being "positive" toward one another ('justifying' our "human nature"), does not make us a "member," it is the work of Christ and our faith in Him that makes us at-one-with God. It is your personal relationship with Jesus Christ and my relationship personal relationship with Jesus Christ, i.e. with us both coming together in His name, that makes us members, in Christ. It is God, i.e. our Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, the Word of God, and the power of the Holy Spirit, who works His perfect will out through us (being "led by the Spirit of God," "mortifying the deeds of the body"), i.e. who being chastened by Him because of His love toward us, become obedient in all things (engendering a "peaceable fruit of righteousness"), according to His will (something we can never do in and of ourselves, individually nor collectively). "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. For they [our earthly father's] verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he [our Heavenly Father] for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. Hebrews 12:6-11
(Just for all you Maslow friends), Abraham Maslow, of the socialist, Marxist mindset, expressed the dialectic position regarding those who place their faith in God: "I have found whenever I ran across authoritarian students [those who honour their parent's and God's office of authority] that the best thing for me to do was to break their backs immediately. The correct thing to do with authoritarians is to take them realistically for the bastards they are and then behave toward them as if they were bastards." "In a democratic society a patriarchal culture should make us depressed instead of glad; it is an argument against the higher possibilities of human nature, of self actualization." (Abraham Maslow Maslow on Management
It is only in God, as revealed by the Lord, that we can come to know who we are as individuals (created in His image, freed from our "I feel," and "I think" carnal nature, i.e. taking on the "nature" of Christ, "Nevertheless thy will be done"), being precious in His eyes, "adopted," "sons of God," "children of God," "heirs of God," "joint-heirs with Christ," crying "Abba, Father," as a loved son cry's out to His loving Father. Jesus came that we might know His Father, as He knows His Father. The gospel message is Jesus saying to you and to me "I want you to know my Father." It is why He came (all the rest, sin, judgment, and condemnation is taken care of then, in Him).
If you live according to the flesh, concerned about how the world "feels" about you and what it "thinks" about you, you will never come to know the Father. That is what those of dialectic 'reasoning' are all about, the facilitators of 'change' taking your soul (you only have one) from God (your one and only loving Father), taking it for themselves (for the collective of the world), encouraging you to be at-one-with the world, i.e. to "live after the flesh" ("lying in hypocrisy," even telling you that you can do it "in Jesus Name").
"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." Romans 8:13-17
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2012-2015