For many, these ideals include national and social institutions, which make up the essence of their government allowing its citizens to identify with the status quo and maintain balance in their society. The question is not which institutions should be valued for most would agree that a proper balance of these make up any government; the main question lies in which institutions a society should value in order to achieve their goal, thus separating the school of thought pertaining to conservative and liberal thinkers.
The simple and straightforward institution of a hierarchy comes into play when discussing the ideas of such thinkers. Maintaining a proper government is a delicate and complicated skill only acquired by the educated, rational men set out to implement it. Said skills “require a deep knowledge of human nature… and of the things which facilitate or obstruct the various ends which are to be pursued by the mechanism of civil institutions” and is the civic duty of only certain members of society.
If the government belonged to the State and was the sole property belonging to every individual within that State, there would never be a balance, for not every man is entitled nor has the necessary knowledge to carry out the needs of the State. In other words, not every man in society may acquire these skills in the same way considering some men will be naturally better and faster than others. Specializations do and must exist in society, some belonging to politicians and persons of State, others to farmers and shopkeepers, and others to scholars and true professionals.
It is irrational to assume that one would resort to a professor of metaphysics with regards to food or medicine as opposed to a farmer or a physician1. Karl Marx rightfully entertained the idea, however, that the bourgeoisie eliminated industries and institutions (and will continue to do so), laid out by history hundreds of years before, and in doing so created an unstable and fragile ground for the birth of new institutions which would inevitably meet their doom under the control of the ever changing bourgeoisie revolution.
In this respect, we should commend Marx, for his insight in the matter justifies the idea that the bourgeoisie revolution was performed rashly and ignorantly with complete disregard for the citizens (other than those pertaining to their own group) that would be affected. All the “fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify” and therefore will never maintain what is necessary to carry out a proper, balanced government.
These barbaric groups of individuals only take into account their personal gain; they always seek and will seek the best way to take advantage of their political power. We must acknowledge that, as opposed to the godless society that socialism proposes under what seems like an imaginative state of mind, the bourgeoisie still maintain the stratification system that any society would be lost without. However, this system means very little without the hard-earned and well established institutions which lasted centuries, pleased millions and most importantly survived the test of time when even the greatest of men could not.
With said institutions displaced, there are none to replace them for “no simple disposition or direction of power can be suitable either to man’s nature, or to the quality of his affairs” which makes the bourgeoisie unprepared and simply unfit to compose a brand new government to fill the hole left in current society. Marx justly shames the bourgeois State for not only eradicating long standing institutions. And I venture further in shaming them, for “our institutions can never be embodied… so as to create in us love, veneration, admiration, or attachment…. [And] that sort of reason which banishes the ffections is incapable of filling their place”3. To think that a group of selfish, barbaric, rash individuals can enhance a government that was built on devotion and respect is a false assumption of all that is reasonable. Granted, Karl Marx would do away with all forms of stratification, but he still recognizes one of the greatest faults in the current regime: the bourgeoisie “has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation”. It has converted our most sacred institution into a power- and production-gaining scheme where arrogance is encouraged and love for our country blatantly dejected.
Marx firmly believed that the entirety of the working class was to unite and create a communal system in which every man is entitled the fruits of other men’s labor and vice-versa. This view includes the idea that all property is communal and that man has no country, meaning all major aspects of current economy should belong to the State. Hard working men fulfill their duty for all of society to benefit and no one particular man would be deemed to work better, faster, or for a higher wage than another man, in any form (through wages, property or social status).
Simple measures must be implemented in order to win the battle of democracy which include, among others, the removal of all private property and the appropriation of all rents of land to the State, the “abolition of all rights of inheritance” and the centralization of the State, where all assets pertaining to individuals are to turnover to the government. Thus, property is the least of concerns for the citizen, allowing him to concentrate on providing for the State and continuing the honorable day’s work with shoulders free of the burden of property.
Once this is achieved, the opportunity for one class to gain influence or to oppress another, is abolished and with it the concept of political power and class distinction. Such is the view of the communist thinker: a delusional and imagined society where all that is needed for its success is the simple division of all property and the encouragement of camaraderie between all working men. But a decent, well educated thinker would easily disprove this idiotic belief. Property is one of the best traditional institutions.
It allows for diversity in classes where by nature, no one can or should be equal. One cannot deny that a man’s natural rights “exist in total independence” of government and therefore there is no need for its interference in the most sacred of rights: private property. This distinction, granted from birth is, in the views of a sane mind, “neither unnatural, nor unjust, nor impolitic”7. In simpler words, the right to private property provides, for the stabilization of the State as a whole, security for those entitled to family wealth.
The family, one of the strongest and most important traditional institutions in present-day society, depends on “the power of perpetuating property [for it is]… one of the most valuable and interesting circumstances belonging to it, and that which tends the most to the perpetuation of society itself”7. Without the appropriation of property to the rightful group, the institution composed of family and its values is dissolved. Any paradigm advocating the abolition of property and the removal of family values cannot act as the basis for a successful government.
There must be a deprivation of the power to subdue the labor of others through the unequal distribution of products, they say, but “let [the] large proprietors be…the ballast in the vessel of the commonwealth” to allow for balance in society so men can understand the value of their work and the importance of their family. Revolutionaries of any breed, the bourgeois or the socialists, must learn that stomping their feet in protest will merely cause them pain against the cold, stone ground.
That is to say, only a well educated, pious, well mannered people should and must control a government to guide and protect the ignorant minds of its subjects for “even in the mass and body as well as in the individuals, the inclinations of men should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection”9. We simply cannot allow a group of uneducated, irrational men to control a government meant for an elite, highly educated and well mannered society.
For this very reason, not only is the bourgeoisie unfit to rule society but also the socialist party must be prevented from assuming any sort of political influence on the State. The current state of affairs is an utter disgrace where inferior, mechanical and unlearned men have the fate their peers in their hands. If Marx’s socialists were to have their way, society will meet its doom much faster and under more shame than if any other form of barbaric, rashly driven group were in its place.
The pride and essence of any government or institution relies on a well established, patient and fitting group of individuals for “it is [this] substance and mass of the body which constitutes its character, and must finally determine its direction”10. Marx’s socialists are merely workers, petty wage-laborers that rely on a week’s work for a day’s subsistence; the very same people that cloud the streets in filth, spread disease and would barely be able to make out the headline of a newspaper.
To even slightly entertain the idea that such a group is equal or shares the same sensibilities and needs that accompany a respectable and cultured man throughout his day, is preposterous. And to venture further into saying that the work of every man, regardless of merit or education or natural social status, shall be uniformly divided amongst every participant and no one man shall acquire more or less than the man next to him, is an even more appalling idea than the latter.
To substitute an ignorant bourgeois regime, “we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for free development of all” and where the stratification of class shall be abolished. Is this really the rational conclusion men have come to? Have we no faith or hope for the progress and rightful place of the well respected man in society? That in order for our world to succeed, we must work for the benefit of godless men who have no filial or patriotic attachment to any substance of value and who regard proper morals as a form of subjection?
This so called proletariat class of unskilled or semiskilled workers will shortly meet its demise for even throughout the leadership of the great royal family, one could easily identify the greed and avarice in the eyes of the lower class and surely a concentrated group of these people with a shameless lack of education and culture will stray into the hands of said petty feelings once more if only given the opportunity.
We cannot entrust and put forth our most sacred ideals and morals in the hands of those who know not what they are or what to do with them. Simply put, “by having a right to every thing, they [will] want every thing” and thus we can expect they will take from those who respectfully and naturally obtained their fortune, both material and otherwise. The irrational concept of socialism and the so called solution to the bourgeois problem is clearly and undoubtedly the offspring of uneducated and cold hearted thought.
We cannot expect for such decisions to comply with the proper and just ideas behind a successful government and we certainly cannot accept those who wish to implement it under the pretence that we are all equal and should strive for a communal society. Class stratification maintains the balance and social order of the strongest of governments and institutions and should never be compromised to fulfill the greedy wants and arrogant needs of the uneducated, unfit and socially incompetent lower class. We must keep in mind that these people have no regard for our values, morals, property, attachments, or ideals.
They want to take our land and our possessions, in the process destroying the essence of each of our families and the great institutions which they represent, and divide it equally amongst those of lower rank in order to claim, dominate and revoke the traditions which so peacefully maintained social order throughout history. These godless, soulless beings merely want to abolish all that our ancestors spent centuries to build and replace it with the irrational concept of socialism which will inevitably collapse and leave no trace or strand of hope for those of us remaining faithful to the suitable and just form of social standards.
Burke would agree that the bourgeoisie destroys long standing institutions. “All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify” (manifesto pg 6) And yet disagree with Marx’s theory on how to solve this The question is what kind of institutions we ought to value, and it is in this field that conservative thinkers stake out positions that separate them from liberals and libertarians alike.