Some time ago, I suggested that Socialism’s greatest flaw is in its inability to scale. Two people who get married share resources, money, and expertise. This operates along principles not terribly different from Socialism. Extend this further. Many families are composed of several generations, uncles, aunts, grandparents, cousins, etc… and there is a degree of sharing among them. There was a time where one’s retirement plan was the family.
Indeed, my wife’s grandparents moved in with her parents. They watched the children during the day, contributing what they could (and saving child care costs), in exchange for room and board. But since this was a family unit, it wasn’t accounted like that. It was expected that each contributed what they were able, and took what they needed. Anyone who contributed less than their ability, or took more than their share, would face the wrath of the rest of the family. No matter how Marxist this sounds in theory, it worked well, because the scale was small. Everyone knew everyone else. If someone was slacking or becoming a glutton, it was obvious to all.
Now, the reason I point this is out is not to sing the praises of Marxism, but rather to point out something many on the Right fail to understand: Marxism regards the Family unit as competition. Indeed, Marxists are jealous of the family, because it operates more efficiently and less tyrannically than Socialism does. Good families stick together and support one another in ways Socialist Revolutionaries could only dream about. We might call families Communal instead of Socialist, because families actually have some chance of working in the long term.
The reason I bring this up now is an article I discovered earlier today: Is having a loving family an unfair advantage?
Yes. The author of this article genuinely believes in three things.
- It is unfair that some parents are better than others.
- This needs to be addressed by the state, because unfairness is bad.
- Children should thus be wards of the state, and should not be awarded to biological parents.
Now, on some of these points, the author, in the manner typical of progressives, attempts to weasel out of stating his points openly. But it’s pretty hard to take this back:
I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally.
One of the rhetorical tools the Progressives use in their quest for power is reversing the polarity of the argument. Instead of suggesting that, since some parents are better than others, it might be beneficial to encourage the formation of stable families in order that more parents become good parents… the Progressives prefer to suggest that the good parents are to blame for creating disadvantages for the children of bad parents. The author further states:
This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion—that perhaps in the interests of levelling the playing field, bedtime stories should also be restricted. In Swift’s mind this is where the evaluation of familial relationship goods goes up a notch.
Who will restrict the telling of bedtime stories? Why, your friendly Marxist government, of course. You see that with Progressives, everything will be twisted into a defense of Marxist government. They have spent decades attempting to destroy the American family unit, and now that they have succeeded partially, in that many children are raised without functioning families, they say that it is unfair those without families are disadvantaged. Then they use this as justification for destroying the remaining family units, or at least critically weakening them.
This is akin to what they have done where economics is concerned. They impoverish people around the world, then blame those who have not completely fallen into poverty for being “privileged,” thus justifying further government action. To do this, they utilize a human psychological blind spot: a child-like mind’s instinctive dislike for unfairness.
It’s the first lesson of life that those who blindly follow Progressive leaders have failed to understand: life isn’t fair. More on this tomorrow.