Issues around freedom of speech and education

This talk follows on quite nicely from what Steve was discussing yesterday. John Sebastiaan very kindly asked about the connection between cultural Marxism and the Three Blessings, and I will explain that as well. There are some issues around freedom of speech in education that give us a sense of why Marxism is still important to study today, even though the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the communist regimes collapsed. Yet, we find that Marxism is very prevalent in universities around the world. This is a typical lecture given by Professor Paul Frey, one of the most eminent professors of English literature in the English-speaking world. He gave an introduction to literature at Yale University, stating that art is the best and most relevant way to approach the subject matter. Whatever the historical outcome of Marxism may have proven to be, it remains the case that the most devastating critique of existing ideas about states of affairs is still the Marxist one, together perhaps with the Freudian perspective. This gives you an example of how the Marxist view is regarded as the most profound, critical, useful, and interesting on university campuses throughout the Western world. I studied Marxism when I was at university; it is a very interesting analysis and critique of the world in which we live, but it is only one of many perspectives. The problem now is that it has become the dominant one, and people very rarely encounter an alternative, especially a conservative perspective on the nature of reality.

So, who was Marx? He was a German philosopher, a left-wing Hegelian, and the grandson of Jews, which is significant. He himself wasn't Jewish; he was an atheist, as his parents converted to Protestantism. This was important in Germany because if you wanted to get on in life, you needed to convert and assimilate. Despite not being a believer in God and his parents not being Jewish, he still experienced anti-Semitism, as did many others. Anti-Semitism is a racial issue; it doesn't matter if you change your religion; you are still perceived as a Jew from a racial point of view. He encountered a huge amount of social injustice and economic injustice around him, which motivated him to try and change society and overthrow the existing order. He inherited a sort of Jewish passion for justice and a desire to change society. The first question was, how are you going to change society? He analyzed what was wrong, identifying the problems with society as a class society of rich and poor, rulers and workers, and the exploitation that led to alienation for both capitalists and workers.

Next, he sought to identify the cause of these problems. He envisioned a primitive communal society where everyone was equal, and people specialized in various trades like fishing, farming, or making shoes. This specialization led to the division of labour, and then some people became managers. The managers persuaded others that they were not only good at managing but also owned the property. Thus, the introduction of private property occurred. The solution, based on his analysis, was the abolition of private property and state control over the economy. He expected this to happen through a violent revolution but also recognized the possibility of communists or socialists coming to power through the democratic process. However, he understood that the ruling class would not be happy about losing their property, which led him to consider the possibility of exterminating them and creating a new identity. In the Soviet Union, this new identity became that of a Soviet citizen, rather than identifying as Russian, Lithuanian, or Kazakh.

Yesterday, I talked a little about how we can analyze Marxism from a principled point of view. I discussed our existential reality and what it means to be a human being, focusing on the three fundamental dimensions of life: the relationship we have between mind and body, the relationship we have with other human beings and the family, which is the basis of society, and our existence in a physical or natural world where we want to express our creativity and sense of ownership. So, how can we analyze Marxism or communism using this framework of the Three Blessings? What is communism? First of all, communism leads to the abolition of the third blessing. Marx and Engels, in their manifesto, summed up communism with the phrase that it is the abolition of private property. With that comes the transfer of all property to the state. In a communist society, the state owns all the land, factories, shops, businesses, houses, and buildings. The largest thing a person in the Soviet Union could own was their car; everything else was owned by the state. They could use it but had to pay rent for property owned by the state, and there was no free market. The free market was abolished, creating a planned economy guided by state bureaucrats.

The state also controlled the arts and creative expression. You weren't allowed to get your poetry published unless you belonged to the Soviet Society of Authors, and you had to be a member of the party to do anything or get anything published. The implications of this are significant. If the state owns everything, it becomes impossible to become a true owner. Without ownership, it is impossible to become a lord of creation. If you cannot become a lord of creation, it is impossible to inherit God's creativity. Renting something means you do not have the authority to change it or express your creativity through it. People like to own their own homes and cars because it allows them to shape and make things the way they want as an expression of themselves. With communism, the abolition of private property leads to the impossibility of living a creative life. This is why many brilliant people in the Soviet Union turned to mathematics; all you need for that is a piece of paper and a pencil, not many resources.

The second aspect of communism is the abolition of the second blessing, which is the impossibility of establishing a second blessing. Alexandra Kollontai, the first women's commissar of the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union, wrote about the family, stating that the worker state would replace the family. Instead of a God-centered family, the state would take over people's sense of identity. People would identify as citizens of the state rather than as members of a family. The obligations of parents to their children would gradually wither away until society assumed full responsibility. Traditionally, parents were responsible for the socialization of their children, including their welfare, education, and health. Kollontai argued that as the state expanded and occupied this space, civil society would be squeezed out, and the state would take over these responsibilities. Marriage, she said, would give way to the free and honest union of men and women who are lovers and comrades. In the early years of the Soviet Union, there was no official legal formula for marriage, reflecting this vision of free unions.

The state took over the law, education, and health services, nationalizing schools and determining the curriculum. Marxism-Leninism was taught, with pictures of Lenin in classrooms. There was no possibility of alternative education; if you didn't like the state school, there were no independent schools or homeschooling options. The state socialized people into developing a Soviet identity and believing in Marxism-Leninism. Civil society was entirely politicized; you couldn't even establish a chess club without official permission from the Communist Party. In a free society, you could start a chess club without any issues, but in a non-free society, you needed permission from the state, which would require a representative from the party on your board.

The third aspect of communism is the abolition of the first blessing. Lenin stated that atheism is an inseparable part of Marxism and the theory and practice of scientific socialism. The first blessing involves mind-body unity, becoming the incarnation and dwelling place of God, and developing integrity. If you are a Christian, living in a communist society is obviously incompatible. Bukharin, the first ideologist of the Soviet Union, stated that communism was incompatible with religious faith. Alexander Solzhenitsyn remarked that in our country, the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the state. In a society where you are not allowed to believe in God or teach your children about God, you face a choice between telling the truth and being arrested or lying. If you lie, there is a disunity between what you think and what you say and do. Solzhenitsyn's point illustrates that you cannot live in a communist society without telling lies unless you are willing to be arrested and have your children taken away. If you believed in God, you were barred from attending university or becoming a schoolteacher, among other restrictions. There was no freedom of speech or religion; saying politically incorrect things could lead to arrest and imprisonment.

In 1941, there were only 500 churches still open in Russia, whereas before the Revolution, there were 54,000. During that period, thousands of churches were destroyed or closed, and many were repurposed as warehouses or museums. This illustrates the impossibility of realizing the Three Blessings under communism. I became very interested in this topic when I was 13. I went on a school trip, the first tourist visit allowed to the Soviet Union. Until then, no tourists were permitted, but in 1970, they opened up a little, allowing one cruise ship full of schoolchildren to visit. I was fortunate to be part of that group, which went through the Baltics, Leningrad, and Moscow. It made a profound impression on me; everything was grey, and we couldn't take photographs of interesting things. There were policemen everywhere, and nothing worth buying in the shops. We were taken to Red Square, where we had the privilege of going straight into the mausoleum to see Lenin's mummified body. I wondered why people would line up for hours to see that. It left a lasting impression on me, and when I returned home to England, I began to look into this further.

My life was radically changed when I discovered the existence of labor camps, where hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people were living in dire conditions. I felt a moral imperative to dedicate my life to addressing this injustice. As a schoolboy of 15, I imagined myself as James Bond, learning Russian and immersing myself in the world of espionage. This fascination led me to explore the broader implications of communist ideology, which I will briefly outline.

Communist ideology is a philosophical system rooted in dialectical materialism, which posits that only matter exists. This perspective raises significant questions about consciousness, as it denies the existence of God, the soul, or spirit. According to this ideology, progress is achieved through the dialectical conflict between thesis and antithesis, which is applied to social development through historical materialism. The productive forces, such as the level of machinery, determine economic relationships, which in turn shape society. Marx argued that progress occurs through class struggle, justifying the potential for violent revolution, particularly in advanced capitalist countries.

The development of communism began with the 1917 revolution in Russia, leading to the establishment of the Soviet Union and its spread across Eastern Europe after the Second World War. This expansion continued into China, Korea, and later into Africa. However, after 1989, communism receded to its core strongholds in North Korea, Cuba, and nominally in China. While these countries claimed to be communist, they often faced severe persecution of religious individuals, with many being executed.

The human cost of communism is staggering, and I encourage everyone to read about it. One profoundly moving book I encountered as a teenager details the ordinary lives of people who were arbitrarily arrested and sentenced to labor camps for decades. Films like 'The Killing Fields,' which depict the horrors of communism in Cambodia, are also worth watching. It is striking that while many books and films expose the evils of Nazism and fascism, there are far fewer that address the atrocities committed under communism and socialism.

Communism is as evil as fascism, yet it is often treated with sympathy in the media. For instance, during the centenary of the Bolshevik Revolution in 2017, many media outlets commemorated it without acknowledging the atrocities committed by figures like Leon Trotsky. This contrasts sharply with how the media would likely treat a commemoration of Hitler's rise to power, highlighting a significant bias in the portrayal of these ideologies.

In terms of functionality, communism has failed. None of Marx's predictions came true; communists did not rise to power in advanced capitalist countries but rather in impoverished nations. When the Soviet Union collapsed, people did not identify as Soviet citizens but rather as Russians, Georgians, or Armenians, leading to a resurgence of national identities. Economically, communism stagnated because it lacks a viable planning mechanism. Without a price mechanism to indicate supply and demand, it is impossible to make informed economic plans.

Ludwig von Mises argued that the necessary calculations for a planned economy cannot be made. For example, how can one determine the demand for a specific style of women's shoes? The knowledge required for such decisions is often tacit and cannot be easily quantified. The market serves as a vital tool for transmitting knowledge and information, allowing businesses to respond to real-time conditions rather than relying on outdated data.

Michael Polanyi further emphasised that all knowledge is tacit, meaning much of what we need to know cannot be explicitly stated or programmed into a computer. For instance, a farmer knows when to harvest based on years of experience, not from a manual. The future is inherently unknowable, making economic planning futile. Events like natural disasters or technological innovations cannot be predicted, which undermines the feasibility of a planned economy. Thus, communism collapses under the weight of its own assumptions about determinism and control over the future.

After the fall of communism, the Marxist left did not disappear but rather adapted. Some turned to environmentalism, promoting centrally planned economies under the guise of saving the planet. Others became cultural Marxists, shifting the focus from class struggle to new categories of oppressors and oppressed, primarily targeting white heterosexual males as oppressors. This rebranding allowed them to maintain control over societal narratives while pursuing their ideological goals.

In contemporary society, movements like Extinction Rebellion reflect this shift, aiming to dismantle capitalist structures under the pretext of environmental concerns. Their motivations often align with anti-globalist sentiments, seeking to restrict property ownership and increase state control. This evolution of Marxist thought illustrates how the ideology continues to influence modern discourse and policy, despite its historical failures.

Destruction of the Western economic model is a concern for many, including myself. I am particularly worried about the decline in insect populations. In the past, when driving through the countryside, your windscreen would be covered with insects. Now, you can drive for hours without even seeing a fly. This represents a complete decimation of the insect population in the UK and other parts of Europe. The loss of insects will affect pollination and, consequently, the entire ecosystem, including birds. Yet, the focus seems to be solely on carbon dioxide, which is, in many ways, irrelevant compared to the loss of insects. There are no demonstrations advocating for the preservation of insects, despite their crucial role in our environment.

The government has been making efforts to address these environmental issues, but many people are unaware of the extent of these actions. Their motivations often revolve around the belief that more government regulation is necessary, which can lead to an overreach of government control. I personally find idealism dangerous, as it has historically led to misery and destruction. Idealists, whether they are communists or fascists, tend to impose their beliefs on others rather than allowing individuals to pursue their own ideals. This imposition creates a dangerous environment where dissent is not tolerated.

One of the significant issues today is the rise of cultural Marxism, which encompasses identity politics, gender politics, and the push for gender fluidity. These movements threaten traditional institutions like marriage and family. The goal remains the same as it was during the communist era, albeit approached differently. The origins of these ideas can be traced back to the Frankfurt School, which emerged in the 1920s and 1930s. Most members of this group were Jewish and atheists, except for Walter Benjamin, who believed in God. They sought to address social and economic justice and the roots of anti-Semitism, which had been largely ignored in German intellectual life.

The Frankfurt School members experienced anti-Semitism themselves, despite many not being aware of their Jewish heritage. For instance, a law professor was arrested by Nazis who informed him he was Jewish, despite his belief that he was Christian. This incident highlights the pervasive nature of anti-Semitism in German society. The members of the Frankfurt School fled to America as the Nazi Party rose to power, hoping to escape the fate that befell their families in Europe. They were shocked to find that anti-Semitism existed in America as well, leading to a halt in Jewish immigration and tragic events where Jews were sent back to Europe, often to their deaths.

The failure of Christian churches to speak out against anti-Semitism during this period is a significant stain on European Christianity. Not a single institutional church in Europe condemned the extermination of Jews. In Britain, however, churches did establish the Council of Christians and Jews in 1942, pledging to protect Jews living in Britain from the horrors occurring on the continent. This lack of action from churches is a profound disappointment, as they should have been at the forefront of challenging social injustices, including anti-Semitism and racism. Instead, it was left to Marxists and socialists to address these issues.

When the Frankfurt School members arrived in America, they were met with the same anti-Semitic attitudes they had fled. Theodor Adorno, a prominent figure in the school, sought to understand why Nazi soldiers were willing to persecute and kill minority groups. He posited that a particular personality trait predisposed individuals to obey authority, which was evident in the responses of SS guards who claimed they were merely following orders. This inquiry into human behaviour was crucial for understanding the Holocaust and the societal conditions that allowed such atrocities to occur. The Jewish community sought to make sense of their suffering and the reasons behind the widespread acceptance of anti-Semitism.

The Christian Church has historically taught contempt for Jews, perpetuating the narrative that they rejected and murdered Jesus. This misunderstanding has led to centuries of persecution. The reality is that Jesus was well-received by many, including religious leaders, and was seen as a threat by the political establishment. His popularity led to his arrest and crucifixion on political charges. The narrative that Jews rejected Jesus has created a long-standing animosity, resulting in justifications for anti-Semitic actions throughout history. Understanding this context is essential to grasp the complexities of Jewish-Christian relations and the roots of anti-Semitism.

The encounter with the risen Christ became the core of what later evolved into the Christian Church. If Jesus had been rejected by the Jewish people of his time, there would be no Christian Church. In the first couple of hundred years, all the leaders of the Christian Church were Jews who accepted Jesus. They were Jews who believed in Jesus, while others did not. The Jews who believed in Jesus tried to persuade those who did not, arguing that Jesus was the Messiah. However, the Jews who did not believe in Jesus contended that he could not be the Messiah because he was put to death. They believed that the Messiah would bring world peace, and since Jesus was executed, he could not fulfill that role. The believers in Jesus, on the other hand, pointed to verses from Isaiah found in the New Testament to argue that everything that happened to Jesus was to fulfil prophecy, asserting that his death was necessary for the resurrection and the forgiveness of sins.

This debate created a significant divide within the Jewish community. Over time, those who believed in Jesus began to see themselves as Christians rather than Jews. The format of worship in the Church was based on the synagogue, reflecting their origins. As the early Church spread into the Roman Empire, they faced persecution. The political charge under which Jesus was executed complicated their message, leading them to transfer the blame for his crucifixion from the Romans to the Jews. Consequently, despite what is written in the Gospels, the Jews were accused of rejecting and killing Jesus, even though it was the Romans who executed him. This shift made it easier for Romans to convert to Christianity, as Jesus was no longer associated with a group perceived as a threat to Roman authority.

The political and social dimensions of the messianic vision were largely removed from the narrative, reducing belief in Jesus to a matter of personal salvation and forgiveness of sins. This transformation is significant, especially in light of the rise of anti-Semitism following the Holocaust. The complex issues surrounding Israel and Palestine further complicate the understanding of these historical tensions. The battle, in a sense, revolves around whether we are in a monogamous marriage, but I prefer not to delve into that topic. Instead, I want to focus on the origins of the Frankfurt School and its implications.

The Frankfurt School emerged as a response to the horrors of the Holocaust, with thinkers like Theodor Adorno analysing why their families and communities were targeted. Adorno's work, 'The Authoritarian Personality', posited that harsh and punitive upbringings led to two types of children: those who became excessively respectful of authority and those who displaced their hatred onto minorities, making Jews a scapegoat. This dynamic was evident in the United States during the 1970s and 1980s, where criticism of America was rampant, yet criticism of the Soviet Union was rare due to the fear of repercussions. Adorno's ideas gained traction, leading to a critique of traditional values, including family pride, Christianity, and gender roles.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the ideas of the Frankfurt School became increasingly popular, coinciding with significant student unrest. The protests in Paris in 1968, for example, began as a student movement against the authoritarian French education system. The slogan 'All power to the imagination' encapsulated their desire for a cultural revolution. Although the protests did not succeed in seizing power, they highlighted legitimate grievances against the educational system. The failure of the establishment to address these issues led to a radicalisation of students, who sought to change the system from within.

One notable figure from the Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse, argued that the economic convulsions in Western societies between the two world wars indicated a breakdown of capitalism. This contradicted Marxist theory, which predicted that such breakdowns would lead to communism. Many in the Frankfurt School sought to re-examine Marxist ideas in light of historical realities. They left Germany in the early 1930s, just before the Nazis came to power, and many of them settled in the United States. Their influence has since permeated various academic departments, particularly in the humanities, shaping contemporary thought.

The student leaders of the 1968 protests in Germany, despite their initial failure, sought to understand why they did not succeed. They concluded that the establishment's resistance was the primary obstacle. Rudi Dutschke proposed a strategy of a 'long march through the institutions', advocating for engagement within established systems to effect change. Many of these students later became influential figures in academia and politics, embedding their radical ideas into the fabric of society. This generational shift has led to rapid changes in cultural norms, including attitudes towards marriage and gender fluidity, as the ideas of the 1960s continue to resonate in contemporary discourse.

It's about eliminating anyone who disagrees with you, not giving a platform or a voice to anyone who has a different point of view or critiques the traditional liberal perspective. The traditional liberal perspective is that anybody can say anything. However, in practice, they have these things called 'no platform' for racists and fascists. You might think this is a new phenomenon, but when I was at the University of Manchester in the early 1980s, the student union, like student unions everywhere, was controlled by the left. A couple of friends and I began to criticise Marxism and the left, which led to us being banned. We were accused of being racists and fascists, which meant we were not allowed to participate in discussions or debates. The irony is striking; I am Jewish, a minority among minorities, and my friend from Jamaica, along with another British person of West Indian descent, were also accused of being racists and fascists. This demonstrates how simply labelling someone allows you to dismiss their views and voices.

You see, once you label someone as a racist or a fascist, you no longer need to listen to them. This is evident in the current climate of 'safe spaces' where criticism is not allowed, and there are restrictions on research and speech. For instance, if a book isn't on the reading list, it might be removed from the library. Conservative books often do not appear on reading lists, and if a book isn't checked out within a certain time, it is frequently taken off the shelves. Gradually, all conservative alternative perspectives are being removed from libraries because no one is aware of them, and lecturers are only presenting one viewpoint. If you want to understand this phenomenon, read George Orwell's '1984'.

A recent survey indicated that eight out of ten university staff identify as left-wing. The two exceptions are almost exclusively in the Natural Sciences. Even asking questions can be deemed transphobic. For example, a surgeon who performed gender reassignment surgery wanted to research individuals who wished to revert to their original gender. When he applied to Bath University for a master's degree to conduct this research, he was told that merely asking the question was transphobic, and he was not allowed to pursue it. This indicates that uncomfortable questions and research are no longer welcome in universities.

The current president of the National Union of Students, Lysa, has expressed a desire for an Islamic takeover in Britain. Interestingly, she has not been accused of promoting hate speech or racism. This is one of the shocking aspects of our current climate. Recently, Sir Roger Scruton, a notable philosopher and professor of aesthetics, lost his job for stating that the term 'Islamophobia' was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is true. However, it was deemed politically incorrect to say so. This term was created to protect Islam from criticism, similar to how anti-Semitism was used to shield Jews from critique. Such developments are affecting education, which has become more about indoctrination than genuine learning.

In Britain today, even though many universities have religious foundations and still offer theology and religious studies, it is rare to find conservative thinkers. If you do find one, they often keep their opinions to themselves because expressing conservative views can jeopardise job prospects. The situation is dire; if you criticise certain ideas, such as the scientific basis for global warming, you risk being labelled a climate change denier. This stifling of inquiry affects not only the humanities but also the sciences. We must confront these issues, as the current environment is not conducive to open dialogue or critical thinking.