Christian Totalitarians and the Means of Production

The New York Times recently printed an article about the Social Conservatives (Cultural Conservatives). They may not support the Republican Party if they do not take a harder line on their ‘moral’ policies such as abortion, homosexual persecution, and their generally totalitarian governmental ideas. By acting like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum they expect to get some results, and they may get some Republicans to toe their line; but in reality they are better off ignoring them. In fact the Republican party is better off letting the Christian Totalitarians go and start over. The majority of people do not like these policies, and people in general are against the Christian Totalitarians from controlling the government. The Republicans have the power, where else are their Nazi-like allies going to go? If they form a third party it will go the wayside like most other parties.

If you read my sidebar you can see that I’m reading Peter Drucker’s “The Post-capitalist Society” and I generally agree with his views. This is how I see what I have read so far.. In the far past it was the state that owned everything, the means of production as it were. There was a gradual move to ‘capitalists owning the means of production. This meant that a new class had more power, this new group is so wonderfully called the bourgeoisie by the Socialists. This meant that governments lost more power, and they lost enough that they bent to the will of the bourgeoisie. After the World War II (and solidified by the end of the cold war) the capitalists won and dictatorships were proven to be an outdated system. Dictatorships continued to exist in some third world countries but were all failures. The Cold War was less about socialism vs. capitalism then it was about social progress instead of social regression. Communism is a regression to the totalitarian governments before the bourgeoisie took power.

There was no social evolution in communism as there should be in socialism. The government was a dictatorship that would run things because after the destruction of the bourgeoisie the means of production needed to be in the hands of someone. Religion was disallowed because before states had power religions had the power, the means of production through a monopoly on knowledge. The state was to be the new religion. In this view communism was maintaining the status quo; states have control of the means of production and our lives.

The non-totalitarian countries (mainly the United States, Western Europe, and Japan) instead proceeded with socialism. This sounds funny but look at it, who owns the means of production? Many would say the bourgeoisie but this is not exactly true. Through stocks and corporate bonds a new class is becoming the owners of the means of production. This new class is gathering more power and the trend looks as if they will be the new power holders taking power from but the governments and the bourgeoisie.

So what are the Christian Totalitarians? They are trying to stop social evolution. Using religion as a base they want to return social control to the government and hand the control of the means of production to the bourgeoisie. Meanwhile the developed world is moving on, and parts of the developing world are skipping the bourgeoisie phase. As more and more countries allow foreign ownership then state borders will mean less and less, and governments will become more and more marginalized.

This is not an overnight process the transferring of power takes decades but the spread of knowledge sharing technology may facilitate the speed of this social change. Where does this leave the Religious Totalitarians? It can not be determined what will happen, but it can be determined what will not happen. They will not gain control of the means of production simply because this is not its goal. Without the means of production they will always be marginalized. Knowledge transfer has become too decentralized to effectively control.