Roots of Radicalism



The following critique of Libertarianism by Ralf Harrison was first published in the 'Round Robin' newsletter of Tory Action. Whatever readers may think of groups within the Conservative Party, such as Tory Action, we think there are some interesting points raised in this article. Its publication does not imply that Vanguard endorses Tory Action.

THE COMMON perception of Communism is a creed which envisages the creaton on earth of an egalitarian Utopia through the abolition of private property. However, if we accept Marx's Manifesto as an authoritative exposition of Communist objectives, it is apparent that Communist aims are not limited to restructuring the economy, but are intended to restructure and transmute human nature. The Manifesto is a catalogue of so-called bourgeois institutions, the abolition of which is demanded as a prerequisite to the emergence of a new species of man. Marx lists these institutions as religions, morality, the family, monarchy, laws and the structure of the state, nations and countries, property rights, and the differences between town and countryside. All must go!

Change is the Communists' keyword. The primary instrument of historical change is conflict, or "contradictions", to use Marxist jargon. Dialectics is the method by which he analyses conflicts, especially the conflicting interests of social groups and classes. Materialism, which is simply the denial of every non-material concept, allows him to justify his convictions philosophically.

The Libertarian is no Marxist or Communist, but he too is a dialectical materialist. Change is his object and he regards social and environmental change as a means of transmogrifying man and thus creating a society, such as has never existed in history. His materialism is a transparent. Only matter matters.

Both creeds regard the state as their foremost enemy. It is true that no Communist-controlled country has succumbed to the Trotskyite deviation of allowing the state to wither away, realising that enemies abound who would step in to prevent Communism from achieving universal domination. Worldwide control by Communists is the starting point for implementing Marx's programme. For this reason, the Kremlin argues that the Soviet Union is a Socialist (not a Communist) society in transition towards Communism.

For the Libertarian, likewise, the World State is the goal. States and nations, which restrict the international intercourse of commerce and people, detract from the supremacy of the "free" individual.

Libertarianism could be described as the campaign of class warfare by the bourgeoisie, aiming to establish its own exclusive supremacy by absorbing all others. The reputed classlessness of American society, so cherished by Ayn Rand, and Marx's obsession with the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is to secure its victory by eliminating all so-called reactionary classes, both allow us to formulate a political equation: 0 equals 1.

Thus the classless society, one devoid of all class divisions, can equally be regarded as a society in which only one class exists. The One World State is a world in which there are no "states", such as we have hitherto understood the term. No states equals one state.

Libertarians and modern Communists have taken Marx's demand for the destruction of countries and nations one step further, by applying the same principle to that human characteristic most productive in raising the consciousness of mankind's variegated and divided nature, namely race. Communists, by so revealingly adopting the slogan "one race, the human race" comply with a humanistic and materialistic ethos which would applaud the total hybridisation of mankind's races, now so well advanced by an establishment overbrimming with Communist and Libertarian sympathisers, on the grounds that it would provide the basis for a rationalised and homogenised human unity. Libertarians, who advocate free movement of international labour (i.e. free trade in human units of production) concur in these objectives.

Were they to succeed in reversing 150,000 years of human development by enforcing the extinction of all living races, a new "race" would have come into existence. No races equals one race. Would this not effectively spell the end of human history?

It is in their dialectical analysis of property rights that Libertarianism and Communism appear to differ the most. If the former so elevates the notion of property that governments which impose taxation are accused of theft, whereas the latter regards property as theft, what common ground can there be between the two in economic matters? Yet, paradoxically, the economic objectives of both schools of thought are identical. The economic systems prevailing in a Libertarian or Communist Utopia would be indistinguishable.

The key to understanding this paradox is the Libertarians' acceptance of the notion of 'monopoly'. The Libertarian is not a distributist, echoing Mrs Thatcher's rhetoric of a property-owning democracy: he does not regard it as morally indispensible that as many citizens as possible should own property and thereby feel that they have a stake in their country. The Libertarian differs from the Conservative advocate of private enterprise, in that he does not agree that monopolies impede competition, restrict the growth of small enterprises and harm the consumer.

Instead, by advocating untrammelled laissez-faire, abolition of state structures and free migration, he envisages a wholesale transition from classical capitalism (under which economic power is concentrated in the hands of those who own the means of production and distribution) to finance capitalism (under which power is concentrated in the hands of financiers, who are much less likely to feel loyalty to the nation, since, unlike factories, money can be moved all over the world at the flick of a button), which on a world wide scale through the dominance of multi-national corporations is likely to lead to the control of the world's resources by a handful of proprietors.

Until all states have been abolished and a world state constituted, there can be no serious attempt to translate Communist or Libertarian ideologies into policies, but if the internationalists' war against nations succeeds, mankind's lot will be slavery, dehumanisation and barbarism, imposed by a world power too mighty to resist.

Communism, the creed of absolute equality and Libertarianism, the creed of absolute liberty, both embracing as an article of their faiths the absolute fraternity of the world's peoples under the guise of internationalism and multiracialism, are not merely intellectual errors. They are the demonic forces of darkness. Need we labour the point by demanding that neither should be tolerated in our party?