Christian doctrine emphatically states that right motives are critical to right thoughts, words, and deeds. The overriding motivation must always be love of God and love of one's neighbour. We are to love God with all our heart, soul, strength and mind; we are to love our neighbours as ourselves. Without such a motivation, all human actions are sinful to one degree or other.
The secular socialist also focuses intensively upon motives when judging human action.
Strangely, the focus is often resoundingly negative in tone. According to this religion, human action is never moral or acceptable when it is done for profit. Self interest is wrong; public or corporate interest ahead of one's own is holy, just, and good. It is hard to find a discussion of positive motives in socialist ideology, but one presumes that it would turn around a notion of justice, where justice is viewed primarily according to notions of material equality. True and right motivation to secular socialism would presumably be something along the lines of devotion to the collective: thus, "from each according to his ability; to each according to his means".
For socialism, the collective (however conceived) is substituted for God. It is the chief idol in the socialist pantheon. The collective is assumed to be sinless and incorruptible. (We hasten to add that few socialists actually come out and say such nonsense, but the premise, although suppressed, is there at every turn of the page.) Here is an example: one of New Zealand's leading socialist theorists, Chris Trotter has been discussing the existence of private (mercenary) armies being increasingly deployed around the world. Towards the end of his piece, we read the following:
The actual, on-the-ground, operational conduct of PMSCs [private military security companies] over the past decade has demonstrated to the world just how dangerous it is to entrust the delivery of deadly force to individuals and corporations whose primary motivation is profit.We do not intend to discuss the merits or otherwise of private armies, except to focus upon why they are distasteful to socialist ideology. They are judged dangerous. They cannot be trusted because their motivation is profit. Now, we might be excused for thinking that what the socialist is calling for is a superior kind of army or combat group whose primary motivation is the opposite of profit, that is, loss. But we jest. What is really meant (although suppressed) is that a motivation for profit implies selfishness and greed. People and institutions driven by such impure motives cannot be trusted because they are untrustworthy. They are driven by sin, in other words. But if the collective and its interests are to the fore, then the resulting military actions will be selfless, moral, and pure. Yeah, right.
Consider now the motivations of soldiers in an army raised by and controlled by the collective, the state. Let's assume we have in mind a non-conscript, professional army. We can safely assert that the primary motivation of most, if not all of the military personnel would be profit. They appreciate their fortnightly paycheck, and were it to cease or diminish they would seek more profitable employment. Does this mean that state armies are intrinsically and necessarily untrustworthy also, because they also are primarily motivated by profit?
If the socialist logic is going to hold true to its premises, then the answer would be, of course! But that digs down to yet another suppressed premise. Armies of state, Trotter implies, are controlled by the collective which is selfless, disinterested, and, therefore, more reliable. This is just naive doggerel. Human history is replete with governments and rulers who pursued and waged war for selfish reasons, for personal profit in one form or another. In the end, most collectives are ruled by a clique and its attendant coterie. In almost all cases, that clique will pursue its own interests and conflate the interests of subjects into its own. How many wars have been waged by the clique ruling the collective for reasons of personal aggrandisement, to secure trade routes, to expand an empire, to make a name for oneself? A recent, and current, example is one Cristina Kirchner seeking popular support by menacing the Falkland Islands.
The motives of the collective can (and usually are) corrupt and venal and selfish. The motives of commerce are likewise suspect. But profit per se does not imply selfishness. The career soldier serving for profit--his paycheck--may be doing so to support his wife, his children, his parents and to lay up an inheritance for his grandchildren. All these goals are holy, just, and good, and the motives upon which they are based are likewise pure. The owners and employees of a business enterprise can likewise pursue profit for good and just ends. The mere fact that they pursue profit does not make them guilty of Original Sin.
Sin is universal in this world, holding tyranny over both the individual, the family, and the collective. The Great Divide is not between a pure selfless state versus impure, fallen selfish private entities. The is the diabolical version of Original Sin. It is the version unthinkingly adopted by socialism.
Christ alone deals (and will deal) effectively with universal sin. He alone is able to purify the motives of both society's collectives and all participant individuals.
No comments:
Post a Comment