MARK KEOUGH, Guest Writer
In my Previous article on American Exceptionalism I explained two of ten fundamental differences between the exceptional nature of our American Ideology and the detrimental nature of Marxist (Communist/Socialist) Ideology, I chose to contrast these two ideologies because it was a Marxist (Joseph Stalin) who not only coined the phrase “American Exceptionalism” but also explained that the nature of such was contradictory to the advancement of Marxist ideas that were evolving in the America of the early 20th century.
The first difference I addressed was private property ownership vs. governmental ownership and the second, taxation that is beneficial to individuals, and businesses vs taxation that is detrimental to both. What is the next fundamental difference between the two ideologies?
- Inheritance of property. American ideology says that inheritance of property is a fundamental right of all individuals. This belief was historically embraced in a time when individuals who in search of freedom to exercise their religious convictions came to the new world. In strict adherence to the Geneva Bible, these “Puritans” believed that material blessing was the result of hard work, self discipline and most importantly “The Gift of Providence”. Wealth was to be used for the benefit of their family, church and community. They believed that this “Puritan Ethic”, if taught to their children would produce in following generation’s people who would behave likewise. For the Puritans leaving an inheritance of land was the result of a life well lived which resulted in reward for the next generation. It became a means by which the recipients could produce goods and services also benefiting their families, Church and community. They believed that these guiding principles were available to all people and through their application, what we call “the American Dream” could be realized by everyone who practiced these principles.
Conversely, Marxist ideology, being fundamentally atheistic, will never embrace such a faith based ideology. It regards all ownership of property acquired by inheritance to be contradictory to the collective good of the citizenry. Rather than embracing the virtuous merits of rights to inheritance, Marxism demands the taxation or confiscation of such property and abolishes such rights. Does inheritance tax sound familiar? See you next time!
In my 2nd article (Feb. 2016), I said that the individual who coined the phrase “American Exceptionalism” was the Marxist Communist Leader Joseph Stalin. It was in 1929 that he used the phrase reacting to the argument of Jay Lovestone then leader of the American Communist Party who told Stalin because American Capitalism was so entrenched in the American culture and because it was of such an “Exceptional” nature traditional Bolshevik/ Marxist methods of force directed towards the overthrow of our Republic would be futile. Rather a more clandestine and gradual approach would be necessary.
In order to better understand the conflicting ideologies and the threat Marxist ideology continues to have over the united States it is essential for patriots to understand the differences between the two. And so it was in my third and forth articles (March & May 2016) that I explained three of ten differences between American ideology and Marxist Communist/Socialist ideology.
The first difference had to do with private property ownership vs. governmental ownership, the second, taxation beneficial to individuals and businesses vs. taxation that is detrimental to both and third, the “Puritan” faith based virtue of rights to inherit private property vs. the Marxist atheist idea that all property should be heavily taxed and or confiscated by government for the collective good . It is now to the forth difference that I dedicate the remainder of this article.
The fourth difference between American and Marxist ideology has to do with the religious presuppositions upon which each is built. American Ideology founded in the Reformation theology of John Calvin and the religious lifestyle of the Puritans believed that there were two truths that shape a government. First that man even though he recognized the existence of a supreme being, was inherently evil and needed to be governed in a system of checks and balances both individually and corporately. This could only be accomplished by a small government elected by the people for the protection of the people. Second that the culture should be based in the theological covenants found in the Old Testament through the 10 commandments and in the New Testament through the concept of Grace based upon the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. The old Testament law is what provided the concept of a just rule of law and a system that kept in balance both “justice” and “mercy” and it was the new testament that fostered the value of taking care of the poor, a work ethic founded in always striving for excellence for the purpose of glorifying God and to receive reward for a job well done that could be passed on to the family, church or community.
Marxist atheism however postulates that there is no supreme being but rather that matter is the supreme cause for the existence of everything and therefore doing all for the glory of God is nonsense. For the Marxist, the concept of reward for a job well done was to deny the true purpose of work which existed to support the financial structure of society, to perpetuate government, and to be distributed through out the culture rendering all people as servants not to God or to the possibility of passing on wealth to family church or community but rather for the purpose of forcing all men to be financially equal regardless of how hard they worked or consideration of the level of excellence to which they performed.
The difference between the two religious foundations is why American ideology founded in Calvinistic, Puritan Judeo Christian thinking far exceeds Marxist atheism in virtually every way. It is within this American ideology that we as a people find our exceptional way of life and in the truest sense our reason for being.