The Patriot Post® · A Brief Primer

Class Warfare and the Marxist Props of Modern American Liberal-Progressivism

I encountered some discussion from a spoiled child of the 60’s recently. He was sure that the rich got that way by stealing from the poor, and that conservatives waged “class warfare” on the poor and downtrodden, seeking to “hold them down”. The assertion is silly, but perhaps the error is produced by mere ignorance, so I thought I would respond in an effort to clear up his misunderstanding of the world.

First, it is good to have a handle on the ideas.

1.) Conservatism

2.) Class warfare

3.) “Conservatives want to take from the poor and give to the rich”

A brief explanation of each:

1.) Conservatism is a political ideology that maintains that traditional methods, principals, morals, approaches and legal and social structures exist for a reason, and that a wholesale sudden abandonment of these societal foundations will produce unwanted and significantly bad outcomes. American Conservatism seeks to protect and conserve the rights and liberties created or confirmed in the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence, and defend the principles and understanding of Man, Individual Liberty and Government described in those and other American Founding documents. Among others, these principles include ordered liberty, freedom of conscience, the right to property, the right to self-defense, the rule of law and a restricted, limited, constrained general government which interferes with the activities and property of individual citizen very little, and where taxes pay for the operation of government and are neither punitive to the taxpayer or redistributed by the government to others.

To be a true American Conservative is to support limited government, low taxes and the concept that a law-abiding citizen is to be left alone.

The antithesis of modern American Conservatism is modern American Liberal-Progressivism. This ideology has as its deepest core the belief that people are not capable of taking care of themselves, and these powerless and ignorant masses require a powerful, ever present, benevolent and necessarily manipulative Government to protect and nurture them. One of the main ways to accomplish this end is by seeking to “level the playing field”, usually by taking sums of money from those who have earned it, who have “too much”, to redistribute to others who have not earned it. This benevolent and all-seeing government is run by a skilled, socially elite class of highly educated, deeply concerned and well-rewarded bureaucrats who provide for the well-being of society. These people view the average citizen as ignorant, backward, and hidebound; incapable of understanding what is best for their own well-being. Because you are incapable and powerless, not to mention ignorant, they will provide care for you and fulfill your needs as they think best. They will do for you what they think best for you, in spite of your preferences and personal beliefs. They will take care of you, even if it requires force.

Need an example?

Examine New York City’s infamous Bloomberg Soda regulations, where the government determined that sugar beverages are unhealthy in excess, such beverages would be outlawed should they exceed a certain size. The regulations were based on the premise that a government has the power to regulate the most trivial activities of private commerce and personal choice by regulations forced down people’s throats, as long as the justification can be made that: “it is for their own good.”

2.) Class-Warfare is a Marxist theoretical construct which suggests that society is stratified into economic classes, and the upper classes maintain their position by “holding down” those of lower classes, denying them education, power, and status. The fact that “classes” are not generally self-aware entities like tribes or teams makes the concept extremely suspect.

It is noted that Liberal-Progressive elites try to create and then emphasize class distinction, - they ignore “individual rights”. To a Liberal-Progressive, individuals are important only as a member of a particular demographic or tribal group. They press for “group rights”, “group identity” and seek to anoint certain persons as “leaders” of particular ethnic groups.

The Marxist idea, perpetuated by modern American Liberal-Progressives, is to create in this country a series of competing groups or classes, who are at war with each other. They are the antithesis of “E pluribus Unum” – “from many, one”, seeking instead to create “from One, Many”, hoping to disassemble American culture and the American people into a series of warring ethnic and demographic pressure groups. This then requires a powerful government to function as “umpire” or “adult supervision” to distribute pieces of the pie to each group according to the clamor and current concept of “fairness”; group leaders get fame, recognition and a healthy compensation. And the Liberal-Progressive “smart guys” will run the show on the government side- for your own good, of course.

3.) “Conservatives want to take from the poor and give to the rich”.

By what magic does this mechanism operate? Do poor people pay a special tax which is then given to the rich?

What is rich? 50k per year? $100k? Are all the rich people morally bad? Are all poor people morally good?

The only person I have heard specifically utter this untruth is a government employee, a certain Mr. Reid of Nevada – he opined that a tax cut on the wealthy was stealing from the poor.


Actually, it is the other way around, tax-wise, rich people pay a lot, which goes to Washington, and there, Uncle Sam as Santa Claus dispenses that money back out – that is “redistribution”.

I have a story, followed by a simple question.

Let’s look at a guy – let’s call him Emerson J. Gottrox. Gottrox studied hard in high school. He did not stand around smoking and joking – took it seriously. With decent grades, Gottrox made it to State U to get a business degree. His buddies went to Aruba for the summer and Key West for spring break; he worked for a construction company every spring break and every summer, swinging a 9 pound hammer building highways. Christmas break he sold shoes at Target. He finally finished his degree and took a job with a company, he quickly got a reputation for burning the midnight oil. He was promoted several times, changed companies as better offers came along. He managed some savings, made some small investments - still had a reputation for burning midnight oil and as a problem solver. Finally he was hired to be Chief Operating Officer by a struggling shoe company, and took a hefty reduction in salary to do so – they would pay him in shares of stock. Of course, if the company crashed, those shares of stock would be worthless.

After three years of reduced salary, no vacation and 6 day work weeks, he and his team managed to turn the formerly failing company around – the company was again profitable, saving about two hundred jobs in the process. After selling his stock, he realized a hefty sum – let’s say $15 million. After paying his taxes he is left with about $9 million. He is “rich”.

Does a poor person, just by being poor, deserve a chunk of Gottrox money?

Did that poor person work his way through college?

Did he burn the midnight oil as he worked himself up in the business world?

Would that poor person agree to work a job for half salary on the promise of a big return if he achieved success?

Did Gottrox “steal” any money from any poor person by becoming wealthy?

Actually, most conservatives would like to see every poor person doing better financially. Of course, doing better financially requires paying a cost, just like Gottrox did – working overtime to build up investment capital, going to school to get a better education for a business or trade, saving money by buying only one six-pack a week, cutting off the cable, etc. Some people are poor by circumstance, but most so are by choice, even if they do not recognize that fact. Most people, sadly, chose to not do better, because they don’t want to go to the effort or expense of getting the extra schooling, or the second job, or giving up some expense to have money to invest. They treasure cable TV and the Sunday NFL games too much to give them up, they would rather have the second and third six pack than invest those 12 dollars a week in something of lasting value.

The questions which must be answered are, for any individual, “what is the cost” and “am I willing to pay the cost”. For those unwilling to pay the cost, of course, the other approach is to sit and do nothing, and whine about oppression and being “held down”, and the unfairness of society – begging for a government to fix it, and “level” and provide and guide and coddle . The Liberal-Progressives will be pleased to answer the call.