'liberating' the children (the proletariat) from the father's/Father's authority (the bourgeoisie).
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Vladimir Lenin) stated: "...a more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie [the citizens honoring (submitting to) the Kings authority over them, the property and business owners expecting the workers to do the same to them, i.e., to honour (submit themselves to) their authority over them, as children, honoring (submitting themselves to) their father's authority over them, as man honors (submits himself to) God's authority over him; all being the same in structure, system, or paradigm (patriarchal)—"top-down," "do it right, i.e., My way, or else," "Mine. Not yours"], whose resistance ... and whose power lies in ... the force of habit, in the strength of small-scale production [in private business, where workers must submit to their bosses authority as children must submit to their father's authority]. Unfortunately, small-scale production [local control, under the father's authority] is still widespread in the world, and small-scale production engenders capitalism [capitulating to the father's authority] and the bourgeoisie [the middle class which initiates and sustains, i.e., engenders and supports the father's authority] continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale. Capitalism and the bourgeois environment … disappears very slowly even after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, (since the peasantry constantly regenerates the bourgeoisie) give rise to what is essentially the same bourgeois careerism, national chauvinism, petty-bourgeois vulgarity [belief or faith in a higher authority than themselves], etc. —merely varying insignificantly in form—in positively every sphere of activity and life. … until small-scale economy and small commodity production [private property and business under the father's authority] have entirely disappeared, the bourgeois atmosphere, proprietary habits and petty-bourgeois traditions will hamper proletarian work both outside and within the working-class movement, … in every field of social activity, in all cultural and political spheres without exception. We must learn how to master every sphere of work and activity without exception, to overcome all difficulties and eradicate all bourgeois habits, customs and traditions everywhere." (Vladimir Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder; An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks' Success, May 12, 1920)
Three months prior to Lenin's speech, György Lukács wrote: "'Capital' … is, according to Marx, 'not a thing but a social relation between persons mediated through things.' 'These relations,' Marx states, 'are not those between one individual and another, but between worker and capitalist, tenant and landlord, [between the children and their parents, i.e., between the child's "feelings" of the 'moment' and the parents established commands, rules, facts, and truth which inhabit or block the child from expressing and satisfying himself, according to his desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment'], etc. Eliminate these relations [the father's/Father's authority over the children, i.e., the children uniting themselves as "one" in the praxis or social action of negating the father's/Father's authority over them] and you abolish the whole of society; …… a scientifically acceptable solution does exist [dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., dialogue and the consensus , i.e., the soviet process] … For to accept that solution, even in theory [as an opinion, i.e., aufheben], would be tantamount to observing society from a class [from the children's] standpoint other than that of the bourgeoisie [from the parents]. And no class can do that-unless it is willing to abdicate its power freely [the 'moment' parent's evaluate their authority over the child from the child's perception, from the child's desires and dissatisfactions, they negate their authority over the child—becoming at-one-with the child in "feelings," "thought," and "action," i.e., in theory and practice]. ' '... the ideological history of the bourgeoisie was nothing but a desperate resistance to every insight into the true nature of the society it had created and thus to a real understanding of its class situation.… the Communist Manifesto makes the point that the bourgeoisie produces its own grave-diggers [the parent's, insisting upon their authority over the children, prepare the children to turn against them and destroy or annihilate them and their authority].'" "... which the consciousness of the proletariat has striven to create ever since its inception. The workers' council [the consensus (soviet) meetings] spells the political and economic defeat of reification [the end of right and wrong, "Mine. Not yours." i.e., the father's/Father's way of thinking and acting]. In the period following the dictatorship it will eliminate the bourgeois separation of the legislature, administration and judiciary." (György Lukács History & Class Consciousness, March, 1920)
Karl Marx understood the significance of the father's authority in the life of "the people," i.e., in the life of the children, its engendering differences of classes, i.e., above-below and the importance of negating it if class consciousness, i.e., "We are one," i.e. individuals "for all," i.e., society "and all" (there is) "for one," i.e., society, based upon Georg Hegel's description of the family, with Hegel stating: "The child, contrary to appearance, is the absolute, the rationality of the relationship; he is what is enduring and everlasting, the totality which produces itself once again as such [once he is 'liberated' from the father's/Father's authority so that he can be his "self," i.e., as he was before the father's/Father's first command, rule, fact, or truth came into his life, i.e., carnal, i.e., of the world only]." (Georg Hegel, System of Ethical Life) Therefore sounding more like Karl Marx than Karl Marx himself (who was not yet born) Hegel could write: "On account of the absolute and natural oneness of the husband, the wife, and the child [all being the same according to "human nature"], ... the surplus is not the property of one of them ... all contracts regarding property or service and the like fall away ... the surplus, labour, and property are absolutely common to all, inherently and explicitly." ibid. with Karl Marx responding with not only "the problem" but also the solution:"It is not individualism [the child under the parent's, teacher's, boss's, ... God's authority, being personally held accountable before them/Him for his behavior] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society ['compromising,' i.e., setting aside, i.e., suspending (as on a cross) faith and belief in that which is not of "human nature," i.e., not "of and for self" only, for the sake of affirmation, i.e., oneness, i.e., consensus] is the necessary framework through which freedom [from the father's/Father's authority] and individuality [to do what comes natural to carnal man, i.e., to do what he wants to do, when he wants to do it without having a guilty conscience] are made realities." (Karl Marx, in John Lewis, The Life and Teachings of Karl Marx) "Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically." (Karl Marx, Theses On Feuerbach #4)
Years before Lenin, Lukács, Marx, and Freud were born (Sigmund Freud having the same agenda as Hegel and Marx, etc., that of negating the father's/Father's authority in the life of the individual and society—Transformational Marxist merged Marx and Freud, i.e., society and the individual, creating "group psychotherapy" making it the solution to the social problems of today, usurping parental authority, and limited government in the process), George Washington warned us of the dangers of their dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e., of setting aside the father's/Father's authority, in the name of "the people," i.e., in order to "build relationship upon self interest" (although he did not use those words). While we removed the King's authority from the general government, breaking it up into three different branches, i.e., 'limiting' the power of government, we left the father's authority in tack in the home, creating a citizenry and government with a guilty conscience for doing wrong, i.e., for usurping the authority of the father, i.e., private convictions, property, and business. Get rid of, i.e., negate, i.e., "annihilate" the father's/Father's authority in the home and these all, private convictions, property, and business, including limited government fall away as an issue. George Washington, in his farewell address stated: "It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield." (George Washington, Farewell Address)
What Karl Marx, György Lukács, Vladimir Lenin, etc., had in mind was the consensus process—where individualism, under God, is sacrificed to (and for) the "feelings of the people," i.e., to the "common-ist good." "Bypassing the traditional channels of top-down decision making, our objective centers upon transform public opinion into an effective instrument of global politics." "Individual values must be measured by their contribution to common interests and ultimately to world interests.... transforming public consensus into one favorable to the emergence of a stable and humanistic world order." "Consensus is both a personal and a political step. It is a precondition of all future steps." (Ervin Laszlo, A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order)
The consensus process (bipartisanship), when applied in government, merges all parties, making them one in the 'moment,' transcending their limitations, i.e., their differences, i.e., local control (parochialism, i.e., the father's authority and "private convictions") for the sake of the "common good." It is the heart and soul of communism, i.e., common-ism. "We must develop persons who see non-influencability of private convictions [a guilty conscience for doing wrong, disobeying, sinning] in joint deliberations as a vice rather than a virtue." (Kenneth Benne, Human Relations in Curriculum Change) This has been the agenda of education with its use of "Bloom's Taxonomies," i.e., Marxist training manuals (curriculum) used in the classroom since the 50's, using the dialoguing of opinions to a consensus (soviet, "group grade" system, brainwashing—washing the father's/Father's authority from the child's brain, i.e., from his thoughts and his actions, i.e., from his relationship with others) process in the classroom, 'liberating' children from their parent's, i.e., the father's/Father's authority, thereby 'liberating' society from parochialism, bourgeoisie-ism, and local control, i.e., 'liberating' man's deceitful and wicked heart—making "pleasure" is the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will, therefore hating the father/Father and any who support him or think like him/Him, getting in the way of their "lusting" after and "enjoying" the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' they desire—so that all can do wrong, disobey the father/Father, sin without having a guilty conscience, i.e., so that all can do wrong, disobey, sin (as long as it is done in the name of "the people") with impunity.
The consensus process, i.e., the soviet system filters out all but man's carnal desires and dissatisfactions of the 'moment,' leaving him only with his desire for the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' and his dissatisfactions/resentment/hatred toward authority which restrains (blocks or inhibits) him, i.e., prevents him from "enjoying" ("lusting" after, i.e., "coveting") them, leaving him with only that which of and for the flesh and the world, i.e., "human nature" from which to determine right and wrong from. The objective of the facilitator of 'change' is to find out, through dialoguing, what you "covet," i.e., your "self interest" in order to seduce you, deceiving you into believing that he has your "best interest in mind," when in truth he is out to use you as "natural resource," i.e., manipulate you for his own pleasure and gain, i.e., use you to achieve his own "self interest" in the end, casting you aside if and when you get in his way. While you and a "friend" might be united, i.e., have "common interest," i.e., find "common ground," i.e., arrive at consensus in finding gold, beware when you find it, his "self interest" can cost you your life. Your "self interest," which always "seems to be right" in your own eyes, i.e., "building relationship upon self interest" will cost you your life in the end. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25 "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." 2 Peter 2:3 "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world [the approval of men, i.e., affirmation, which is temporal, i.e., of the 'moment' only], and lose his own soul [which is eternal]?" Mark 8:36
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2016, 2017, 2018