Liberty, Liberally January 2023

Liberty, Liberally

A lot of people dismiss Marx because of the historical outcomes of Marxism.

They see, rightly, that Marxism has completely failed in every instance that it was instituted. They feel justified in their willful ignorance of Marx and his philosophy by thinking (wrongly) that it has no value to society. Clearly, it has great value. We learn more from folly and failure than from our successes.

By ignoring Marx, they ignore the transformative power of his philosophy. In short, they never see it coming.

Marxism is an active philosophy that is not only theory, but praxis. It puts into practice a process of transformative politics that is designed to initiate a chain reaction that ultimately achieves revolution. Marxism is progressive.

They do not know the theories of Marx, those who are affected by it.

Marx borrowed heavily from German philosopher, Hegel, who is most known for his concept ‘thesis-antithesissynthesis’. This sounds all sciency, but it’s simple, really:

The old idea (thesis) eventually encounters the new idea (antithesis), and in the conflict between the two a third idea (synthesis) emerges. Hegel was philosophizing about ideas and how they develop in human history.

Marx, however, took Hegel’s idea and adapted it to a social theory. His philosophy was that the thesis (however society does something now) can be countered by its antithesis (how the revolutionaries want society to do things) and that the result is how society emerges from that conflict, this being the synthesis of the old way and new.

What comes from that philosophy is a new kind of activism; a sophistic, disingenuous activism is synthesized, and it is a poison to a free society. While Hegel was a friend to the philosophy of Liberalism (not to be confused with the modern tribal political faction), and believed strongly in individual liberty as did the founders of the United States, Marx had a completely different definition of individual liberty.

(We see more and more how language being redefined is the primary form of Marxist manipulation of society, and Marx paved the way in that regard.)

The activist dimension of Marx’s philosophy cannot be ignored, so the theoretical dimension of Marx shouldn’t be.

When Marx’s concept of social change is applied knowingly, in order to bring about social change, it is taking advantage of human nature, as Hegel described it. Clearly, since Marxists the world over have affected change in this way, Hegel was on to something. His description of how ideas have changed over time was repurposed, to intentionally bring about changes that were not the natural process. Hegel described how ideas have changed, but Marx prescribed how society should and could change. Hegel provided a broad view of human nature, then Marx provided the impetus to artificially affect nature, using Hegel’s insight to do so.

The reason I advocate for understanding Marx goes beyond the maxim of “know your enemy”. Marxism has competed with the philosophy of Liberty, as defined by the Liberal philosophers, very successfully. While Marxism fails at establishing a better society from it’s artificial influence, it succeeds greatly in destroying the Liberal society that it influences. By a sophistic process of redefining words, on purpose, it makes impossible any honest public discourse, muddying the waters. It takes advantage of the freedoms of Liberalism, like free expression and guarantees of life, liberty and property, all the while undermining the same. Marx succeeded in developing a formidable enemy, the antithesis of Liberty, and as Hegel would tell you, the synthetic outcome will come.

To ignore how this process works, to remain ignorant of human nature while others weaponize that same knowledge against humanity, is the dereliction of duty that our great philosophers of Liberty all warned against. To be free, and to squander that freedom on indulgence and a life of ease, instead of enduring effort and study, leads to the eventual loss of liberty. We’ve been warned, again and again, yet here we are. Most folks today don’t know anything about Marx, or the so-called Neo-Marxist thought that is the source of so much social justice theory today. They don’t see how it works, even as it works against them all the time.

To ignore Marxist philosophy is to accept a Marxist reality.

Make Art A Poem

by Joshua Fryfogle

October 25, 2022

Art is self expression, language is a medium, or even a tool of art. Language is how we engage in the civic process. While this process and its product have been bifurcated from the realm of art, this separation was only a function of art. The ability to separate, conceptually through language, the art of self-expression and the self-expression of civic engagement are only as old as self-governance has been a model of society. Liberalism, and other attempts at self-governance, were philosophical first. They came into the world by virtue of the moniker “liberal arts”, after all.

The arts of liberty include the trivium, the first three of the seven liberal arts: grammar, rhetoric, and logic. The trivium, this triune tradition of clear communication was at one time fit for a king. Only royalty and religious leaders were worried with such things. Monarchy was authoritarian. Monarchy didn’t need the serfs and slaves to govern themselves. The concept of liberty of the individual was foreign to those societies.

However, humanity was born free, and the Monarchs were actually oppressing the people as much as protecting their people. How did they oppress, or as they described it, rule them? Via language.

“Author” is the root of authoritarian. This is the DNA of the word “authoritarian”, and it tells us a lot about the nature of authoritarian rule, being oppression. How did they rule/oppress the people? With authorship?

Yes.

Fiat. Rule by fiat. This was the form of government that enslaved all of humanity. They simply made the claim, and laid claim, to the people, and were willing to enforce that rule by military means. Humanity had never known another way than to be ruled, and accepted this ancient reality as commonplace throughout almost all of history.

Etymology of Fiat:

fiat (n.)

1630s, "authoritative sanction," from Latin fiat "let it be done" (used in the openingofMedievalLatinproclamations and commands), third person singular present subjunctive of fieri "be done, become, come into existence" (from PIE root *bheue- "to be, exist, grow"), used as passive of facere "to make, do." Meaning "a decree, command, order" is from 1750. In English the word also sometimes is a reference to fiat lux "let there be light" in Genesis i.3.

Remember, the liberal philosophy is new on the earth. The totalitarians (fascists and communists alike) don’t even believe it’s a real thing. They are the intellectual and moral inheritors of authoritarianism, minus the spiritual concept of Divine Right of Kings. Liberalism, on the other hand, is the recognition of the divine right of each individual to govern themselves - the opposite of authoritarian and totalitarian thought.

For millennia these authoritarian rulers had ruled the people everywhere. They did so by making a claim to a divine right from God to rule. They, and they alone, had “liberty”. Liberty existed in contrast to its antithesis, serfdom and slavery. However, the printing press set things in motion that allowed the average individual to avail themselves of the written word. Never before had it been practical for the average individual to express themselves with language, as scrolls were all hand written and very expensive. How expensive? A scribe, working full time, might spend several years making copies of other works, and only the wealthiest in society could afford such a luxury, least of all a serf. In our modern times, we tend to take for granted our ability to speak, think, write, and learn so freely. Ironically, if we read more history, we would likely take reading more seriously. We forget that widespread literacy was achieved following the rise of philosophical liberalism. Our ability to read and write, to express ourselves, is our artistic ability. An individual exists, self-evidently, by virtue of their selfexpression. This is art, in it’s simplest, purest form. You

can respond to what you’ve read, or write what matters to you.

The Pro-slavery Perspective

Written by George Fitzhugh,

1854*, With commentary from Joshua Fryfogle, on MLK Day, January 16, 2023

(Note from Joshua Fryfogle: I’m including this in Liberty, Liberally, for the purpose of comparison. I’ll ask the reader to consider as they read this pro-slavery sentiment from 1854 (nine years before the Emancipation Proclamation) how the justifications presented for slavery are not unfamiliar today. Consider the arguments put forth by Fitzhugh in 1854, in his academic response to the abolitionist movement. They mirror precisely the arguments made today against the Liberty movement in general. Below are excerpts from the writings of Fitzhugh, with my comments added here and there.)

“TEN YEARS AGO (I) became satisfied that slavery, black or white, was right and necessary.... Liberty and equality are new things under the sun. The free states of antiquity abounded with slaves. The feudal system that supplanted Roman institutions changed the form of slavery, but brought with it neither liberty nor equality. France and the Northern States of our Union have alone fully and fairly tried the experiment of a social organization founded upon universal liberty and equality frights... The experiment has already failed, it we are to form our opinions from the discontent of the masses... Liberty and equality have not conduced to enhance the comfort or the happiness of the people... The struggle to better one's condition, to pull others down or supplant them is the great organic law of free society. All men being equal, all aspire to the highest honors and the largest possessions... None but the selfish virtues are encouraged, because none other aid a man in the race of free competition... The bestowing upon men of equality of rights, is but giving license to the strong to oppress the weak...”

Fitzhugh rightly points out that the ideas of Liberty and equality were new ideas on the earth, and that slavery is ancient. He points to the discontent that inevitably becomes apparent of any free people who are not prohibited from speaking freely, and characterizes that ongoing public discourse as failure. He claims that Liberty and equality have not made people happier, presumably because we now know how we, the People, truly feel. He claims, like his contemporary Karl Marx, that individual Liberty as presented by the liberal philosophers was giving the strong power over the weak.

“There is no rivalry, no competition to get employment among slaves, as among free laborers. Nor is there a war between master and slave. The master's interest prevents his reducing the slave's allowance or wages in infancy or sickness, for he might lose the slave by so doing His feeling for his slave never permits him to stint him in old age. The slaves are all well fed, well clad, have plenty of fuel, and are happy. They have no dread of the future - no fear of want. A state of dependence is the only condition in which reciprocal affection can exist among human beings- the only situation in which the war of competition ceases, and peace, amity and good will arise. A state of independence always begets more or less of jealous rivalry and hostility. A man loves his children because they are weak, help less and dependent; he loves his wife for similar reasons...”

In his second paragraph, Fitzhugh points out that the slaves do not have to compete in the job market, but are assigned by their masters a guaranteed, but mandatory position in the workforce. This, too, is consistent with Marxist theory. The master is not at odds with the slave, he says, seemingly oblivious to the moral wrong that he is describing. Ironically, slaves know better than to speak freely, so he would necessarily be unaware of how they feel. To Fitzhugh, this all makes sense. It makes sense to a dictator as well.

He also describes the economic providence of the master to the slave, with the master making sure that everyone is cared for at a bare minimum. Marx thought that the

State should do this for all working class people, just as Fitzhugh thought the master should provide for his slave. He then compares the master’s relationship with the slave as being like a parent to a child. Marx, interestingly, believed that class society exists because the State and the Family unit serve to reinforce it. Both the slave master and the Marxist think it morally acceptable to mimic the family unit in their designs to control others. This desire for paternalistic control over other people was, when both Marx and Fitzhugh lived, still the prevailing perspective all over the earth. Remember, liberty and equality were still quite new in 1854.

Describing the economic conditions of the slave-holding South, Fitzhugh argued:

“This ratio of improvement has been approximated or exceeded wherever in the South slaves are numerous... Wealth is more equally distributed than at the North, where a few millionaires own most of the property of the country. (These millionaires are men of cold hearts and weak minds; they know how to make money, but not how to use it, either for the benefit of themselves or of others.)”

Fitzhugh invokes equal distribution of wealth, the clarion call of anyone influenced by Marx’s philosophy. He then goes on to blame the “millionaires” for being heartless. These are modern, progressive talking points, talking to us from the year 1854. They remind us that dictators believe themselves noble, enslaving those who would be enslaved, “caring” for them. In reality, they seek power and control over other human beings.

Modern progressivism and actual Liberalism are at odds. They always have been. The liberty movement, in it’s infancy, was opposed by men like Fitzhugh, who might have even read the writings of Marx, since they were contemporaries. Neither Fitzhugh or Marx agreed

I can’t be sure of this, because it is only my own perception of Marx and the time of slavery in the US, but my view of history has never placed Karl Marx as living during the same time period as American slavery. For whatever reason, Marx has been presented to us as sophisticated, forward thinking, somehow removed from the milieu of history. Simultaneously, however, I perceive slavery as an antiquated, and thankfully discontinued practice. In truth, Marx lived during that time, when liberty lovers were actually abolishing slavery for the first time in history. Meanwhile, Marx dreamed of “ending” slavery by making everyone a slave - never needing to look for work, because they were assigned work. Never going hungry, because they were allotted just enough. While the liberal philosophers and founding fathers actually did something to end the ancient abomination of slavery, Marx imagined how to make it more efficient.

I have so many friends who call themselves ‘liberal’. Truly, I love these people in my life, and I usually get along with them a little bit better than most Republicans and conservatives that I know - although I certainly count many conservatives as close. My interests are in literature and letters, music and culture, the liberal arts - the arts of Liberty! So those who call themselves liberal, but then embrace these so-called ‘criticallyconscious’ concepts that are rooted in Marxist theory... it’s just so perplexing for me. I worry that they conflate Marxist thought with liberal thought, when Marx hated liberalism more than anything else. He believed that liberalism was a means of exploitation, while being blind to the hell his philosophy would soon unleash on the earth. Liberalism is the wellspring of Liberty, and it’s for this reason that I’ve entitled this monthly publication Liberty, Liberally. We must remember that these repackaged ideas of Marx are not, and cannot possibly be construed as ‘being liberal.’ It’s imperative that the tradition of liberalism not be destroyed, in name or in practice. We liberals, who are actually liberal in character and belief, must not forget that while communists have failed miserably all over the world, their repeated attempts all ending in mass-murder, we liberals have brought lasting liberty to much of the world.

*Source: George Fitzhugh, Sociology for the South, or the Failure of Free Society (Richmond, Va., 1854), pp. 225-55

“The time is always right to do what is right.”

- Martin Luther King, Jr.

“I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence.”

“But, to protect men, we must have the power of controlling them. We must first enslave them before we can protect them.”

- George Fitzhugh

“Political economy is the science of free society. It’s theory and its history alike establish this position. Its fundamental maxims, laissez-faire (“let do”) and ‘Pas tromp gouverner’ (“govern not too much”) are at war with all kinds of slavery, for they in fact assert that individuals and peoples proper most when governed least.”

- George Fitzhugh

You can respond to what you’ve read, or write what matters to you.

WWW.MAKEASCENEAK.COM

We’ve gotten a surprising number of donations from community members at The People’s Paper and Make A Scene Magazine over the years, and recently it’s increased with the publication of Liberty, Liberally.

We’ve also received many requests for subscription services, requests to mail Liberty, Liberally, and our other publications to people near and far...

So we thought, why not make it easier to donate, and get something in return, too?

With a minimum $8 per month donation, you’ll receive a copy of each publication - and even special publications and other things that might fit in a Manila envelope!

Thanks so much for your words of encouragement and financial support over the years. We take your trust very seriously, as we steward content from you and your neighbors onto the printed page. It’s an American tradition which we are blessed to uphold.

www.LibertyLiberally.com