Marxism vs. the Principle as a Means to Solve Social Problems

By Stephen Stacey

Within the Principle framework, social development is primarily seen to be a product of lineage development. If our children are a bit more wholesome than we, then future development is assured. Many parents in the movement are incredibly proud of the remarkable gifts their children embody. The Divine Principle notes social improvement occurs when development happens inside any of the three blessings.

But social improvement based on lineage improvement takes time.

It takes time for individuals to grow so that they can then enter the world and improve the education system, the health system, the legislative framework, the media, the national infrastructure, the way businesses are run, the products companies can make, medicines, the kind of help charities might provide, and what religious communities may be able to offer to the faithful and others — all as a means to improve social outcomes in the next generation.

For example, it took time to develop the education system in the West. But, eventually, each generation grew up to be slightly more skilled than the last.

As this happened, each successive generation typically became slightly wealthier and more capable of protecting itself from the ravages of life. Through taking this natural pathway, the West slowly but surely developed.

However, some can get impatient with this natural law. They might insist that social development should happen much faster, primarily through state intervention. Sometimes, new technology allows for this to happen. But often there is no way to solve a social problem other than for the whole of society to work together to improve the level of wholesomeness of the children we bring into this world.

Still, however, some find it hard to be patient. Thus, we have the development of Marxist thinking-patterns — a desire to speed up social development solely through the passing of legislation. Today, social commentators label those who seek such a future as progressives or social justice warriors.

Because we humans tend to do this, it is useful for us to understand how some get drawn into believing that rampant state intervention can work, and also look at why it can only fail. In my book, Sexual Political Correctness: Can our Nations De-Transition from Harmful Transgender Ideology, I gave an analysis of why Marxist philosophy always leads to failure. Below, I show the inner workings of the Marxist game plan that led to the Russian Revolution.

• Express compassion for a problem that a specific group of adults is experiencing (i.e., the poor). In modern versions of the game plan, this often involves the whipping up of strong emotions for the particular group that progressives say they wish to help. The goal is always to find those groups that will allow Marxists to achieve their hidden goals.
• Due to this demand for compassion or fairness, Marxists make the case that it is the state’s responsibility to intervene to solve the problem the group is facing (i.e., to end poverty). Typically, the demand for political intervention stands as a substitute for personal growth or healing. Instead of the social fabric learning how to support the growth or healing of groups of citizens, thus enabling them to receive more blessings, the suggested intervention demands only legislative change.
• Tell some believable lies to achieve one’s goals. In the Soviet Union, the Marxist-Leninist regime made the case that the root cause of poverty was the greedy rich. In reality, there were several more legitimate reasons for the level of poverty, not least of which were market forces and the level of education. For example, if the factory owners paid higher salaries, often their products were no longer competitively priced, and the company went bankrupt. Or, if the workers were doing menial jobs that everyone else could do, salaries typically remained low. Another believable lie was, “Rise up, and poverty will be a thing of the past.” Modern versions of these plausible lies include, “It’s my body” and “Born into the body of the wrong sex.”
• An “Us against Them” paradigm is usually, but not always, built into the believable lies. In the USSR, the lies created an interpretation of affairs that inferred that the business owners were “aggressively oppressing” the factory workers. Although a whole host of other factors — natural gender differences, the developmental stage of a culture, cultural differences, and more — might be the real reason for the differences in outcomes between the two groups that Marxists identify, none of these natural reasons were considered. In the game plan, one specific group is expressing unfairness towards another group. This is the only interpretation allowed. Thus, the “Us against Them” dynamic is always conflictual. Today, the whites, the men, or the bigots are to be blamed.
• Based on their false interpretation of events, Marxists then propose solutions. However, if the analysis of the root cause of the problem is wrong, then the proposed solution will also not work (i.e., killing off the rich and entrepreneurs solved nothing).
• Also, Marxist-derived solutions always cause natural rights to be taken away from various groups of citizens. Thus, in the Soviet Union, the solution involved the taking away of the natural right of ownership and intrinsic right to keep most of what one makes with one’s talents.
• The outcome of all of the above is the proposed Marxist solutions always lead to future decay. The challenge is to see the future decline that is always inherent in the proposed legislation. It is always the case that the proposed solution creates more damage than is fixed. Therefore, the USSR went into decline, whereas the West carried on developing under natural principles of intergenerational improvement.
• Often, a growing level of authoritarianism occurs. Because politicians have unlawfully taken away natural rights from citizens, they have gained more power for themselves. And, because the legislative solution is doomed to failure, the only way it usually can be kept within the legal framework is through becoming tyrannical towards all those who say that one cannot build a thriving nation based on unnatural principles.
• The activists label caring citizens as uncaring. Those who disagree with the unworkable legal intervention are given a derogatory label (e.g., the bourgeoisie). They are labeled the “uncaring ones.” Many of those who disagree with the laws do care. However, they see that the devious legislation will do more harm than good. They are just against the unworkable solution. For the same reason, the proposed legislation makes it seem like Christians are uncaring.
• In the USSR, because the solution was unprincipled, people found it hard to grow to a higher level of wholesomeness through their economic life. The state’s control over industry led to a substantial loss of social knowledge. Lineage decay occurred in many families. The signature feature of Marxism is that, in its demand for compassion and fairness, the proposed solution always creates much more misery than it solves. In some of the modern versions of the Marxist game plan, the core activists explicitly know that their suggested political intervention will create far more harm than good. However, the activists want the power that comes with being able to impose a damaging solution onto the social fabric. They then can use the power of the state to keep their socially-decaying solution in place and also use the power of the state to persecute those who see the damaging effects of the socially-harmful laws.

What does this all mean in practice in today’s world? It means progressive activists that support the Marxist framework focus on creating a large amount of emotional concern for a specific group of individuals. Of course, other caring people from all walks of life can get drawn in. However, since the progressives control the debate, they control the reason given for the social problem and also govern the solution that is on offer. But, the solution they offer is always unprincipled. It does not dwell inside the inner workings of the three blessings — the core framework that God has given us to create a flourishing world. Thus, when the proposal is drawn up as legislation, decay is written into the law, and society moves away from God’s ideal, not towards it.

Unification Thought’s “God’s Resemblance and the Three Great Blessings” diagram.

Of course, such strategies are dangerous for society, especially for the young. They are idealistic and want to be “on the right side of history.” They also are not likely to have the experience needed to see the extensive social damage the proposed legislation will create. Thus, social justice warriors are born.

For example, abortion is a Marxist-based solution to a social problem. A call for compassion is heard. However, abortion law warped the relationship dynamics between men and women, thus making it harder for them to relate under natural principles. Therefore, abortion law causes an expansion of the number of single parents and an increase in social problems, not a reduction.

We, however, as Unificationists, recommend we create a culture that helps citizens become aware that out-of-wedlock sex has harmful consequences for one’s personal life and society. This is what we teach our children. We see this as the Principled solution because it involves a process of raising people up to a higher level of wholesomeness to reduce the social problem. As we increasingly become temples of God, social problems start to disappear. The “we want the state to step in, rather than encouraging personal growth and development” is a common theme of all progressive solutions.

Once one understands how the game plan works, we can see that it has already, on numerous occasions, been placed into the legislative framework in our post-Christian nations. I say post-Christian because Marxist solutions are not ones that have any biblical foundation. Every time one of these regressive laws gets placed into the lawbooks, we move ever further from the Christian framework that built our remarkable nations. And, our nations go ever further into decay. Today, we see this decay in almost every piece of social research and our ever-growing national debts. The progressives then turn round and say, “You see, capitalism doesn’t work,” and then seek to place even more of their Marxist-based laws into the legal framework.

These Marxist-formulated solutions include abortion, no-fault divorce, IVF, surrogacy, affirmative action, the redefining of marriage, some aspects of social welfare, and the implementation of transgender legislation into various walks of life. We are told that such laws will bring about a more tolerant and fairer society. The opposite is true.

Because each of these pieces of legislation creates a multiplication of social decay, some rightly oppose these laws. However, progressives now control the media (who are now terrified of being called uncaring). And the media then scares anyone with any social standing into silence. Today, just disagreeing with their analysis of why a social problem exists might get you fired. Disagreeing with the damaging progressive solutions can get one into serious trouble. Just because one can’t see the future damage doesn’t mean that the damage isn’t there. One just has to learn to see it.

Traditionally, humans have used various methods of evaluation to get some idea as to whether legislation might cause harm. If one applies the sentence, “What if everyone did it?” to all the above laws, you would hear alarm bells ring. One can also use, “Does the legislation respect all key stakeholders,” and again, alarm bells ring. As Unificationists, we can also use the three-blessing diagrams as a means to understand what kind of future might unfold.

For example, if one places two women in the second blessing diagram, underneath where they stand, there can be no child, and thus no future society. In other words, if a nation has come to the point where it believes it is sensible to redefine marriage, then that nation has already lost its traditional, biblical, principled understanding of how future development mainly happens through lineage improvement. Having lost its knowledge of how a culture actually develops, one will have to assume that this culture will not be around for much longer. Thus, some today already talk about the eventual Islamization of Europe.

One can also, for example, use the first blessing diagram to analyze the effects of trans-legislation. Since all laws based on trans-theory eradicate any notion that the physical body exists, then one has to extract the picture of the body from the first blessing diagram.

Thus, for example, women’s sports will die if men can run as women, and people will lose trust in their social representatives for allowing this to happen. Once we understand how the three-blessing diagrams act as a future warning system, one notices that all of the above pieces of legislation cause a warping or fracturing of these diagrams. Progressive solutions always do this to the diagrams. In other words, the Marxist game plan is solely a tool to destroy the social understanding of the three blessings — that is, Marxism was designed solely to destroy those nations with a Christian heritage. That’s what happened in Russia, and that is what is happening in the West. Marxism solely exists as a means to destroy all the good that does exist within a nation. It has no other purpose.

As human beings, we have nothing other than raising individuals to an ever-higher level of wholesomeness, building better marital-families, and learning how to become true masters of creation as tools that we might use to solve our endless list of social problems. Marxism proposes none of these solutions. Progressives turn students into snowflakes, not resilient wholesome humans. They always seek to destroy the family and free market that keeps us fed, warm and housed. Thus, once Marxists gain power through the demand for compassion and fairness, they have nothing to show how a healthier world is built. Nothing. They just cause decay.

All of the above raises many questions. One of the important ones is to understand that young people are idealistic. They dream of a better world. Our movement, however, so far seems to have failed to interpret the three-blessings framework so that it can be used as a tool to achieve “social justice.” Interracial blessing is our solution towards ending racism. Interfaith blessings which are built on the foundation of the Principle seek to end religious tensions. Stronger marriages will reduce many of the social issues we see today. Once one understands the data, it is easy to see why all societies that become hyper-sexualized experience ever-increasing levels of gender confusion, etc.

The three-blessings framework, once understood, shows how humans really gain blessings. Our children need to appreciate that the Principle offers real solutions to social problems, and we should encourage them to become three-blessing warriors. I perceive that if we don’t show them a vision, progressives will.♦

Stephen Stacey (UTS Class of 1990) is an author and seminar host. He previously lectured on personal development and marriage enrichment. Stephen became involved in social issues solely because he saw the data showed that ever-increasing numbers of children are struggling in our post-Christian cultures. He wondered why. His new book, The Fall of Christendom? The Cultural War as Seen Through the Lens of Species Norms, explains that the only path to world peace lies in citizens implementing the three-blessings framework into their lives.