Why Santorum needs to do his homework before speaking about communism and homosexuals

Rick SantorumRick Santorum is at it again. Despite inspiring little more than a peep of approval from the American people in the last presidential election he has, quite annoyingly, kept his nose to the grindstone. His latest rhetorical campaign appears to be oriented fundamentally in the direction of Democrats.

He blames liberal policies for the moral degradation evident in the fallen world of today. In what has become a clichéd attack, Santorum leveled criticisms comparing modern American liberals to communists, having previously made the statement that president John F. Kennedy’s historic 1960 address, during which he affirmed that “[he believed] in an America where the separation of church and state [was] absolute,” made him want to “throw up.”  

I. The Communist Manifesto

This first point may be slightly less important than the rest, however it did strike me as incredibly strange. Rick Santorum recently made the claim that “[A] number of the things that the far left, a.k.a. the Democrat Party, and the president is pushing for and accomplishing actually accomplishes a number of the tenets of ‘The Communist Manifesto,’ including the amnesty, the elevation of pornography, homosexuality, gay marriage, voter fraud, open borders, mass self-importation of illegal immigrants and things of that nature. So I think that’s a huge cause for concern that would raise a number of red flags for any politician…”

Historically the relationship between communist ideologues and the homosexual community has varied significantly. Stances range from the almost universally accepting liberal Marxism of today which has embraced the struggle for LGBTQ equality to real academic arguments of the past contending that the phenomenon of homosexuality within a population of humans, piggy-backing on Marxist terminology, was dependent on the rise of the bourgeois social class-and thus social stratification-(in other words homosexuals became so because of a kind of decadence which only arose as a result of their emancipation from the slavery of the working classes).

Rick Santorum makes the claim that communism, as presented in The Communist Manifesto seeks to “elevate” homosexuality. In reality the text of the Manifesto does not contain the word “homosexual.” Karl Marx had little to say on the subject. Engels, however adopted a stance which was strongly against the acceptance of homosexuality.

A misconception common to many at the time is the likely culprit as his understanding of homosexuality is nearly identical to the phenomenon of pedophilia, which he regarded as destructive. It is also prudent to remember that psychiatric institutions around the world recognized homosexuality as a mental disorder well into the twentieth century.

In 1933, Joseph Stalin‘s regime created Article 121, which criminalized male homosexuality (5 years in prison). The measure was finally removed in 1993. Same sex marriage is still not legal in Russia today and a large socially conservative majority have seen it fit to keep things where they are for some time to come. Furthermore, under the Soviet system, similar penalties existed for the possession of pornography.

It is likely that Rick Santorum was not entirely aware of the real world. For what possible reason would communists endorse voter fraud? Certainly there are a few ideas worth consideration:

1) If voter fraud occurs that means that the population participates in a democratic form of government.

2) A truly communist society represents the end goal of a more or less linear progression up the technological-industrial ladder. This end goal, as has been said, seeks the abolition of the state and, indeed all manner of oppressive ideological systems, like Judaism and Christianity.

3) In a stateless society representative democracy does not exist as it is a state system.

Rick SantorumII. Soviet and Protestant Perspectives

This second point is also quite puzzling. It is relatively unclear how he comes to his conclusions. One thing is certain, they bear little resemblance to the real world. Santorum contends that separation of church and state is inherently a communist idea. This is especially important since the understanding of communism possessed by the common Republican generally amounts to: Stalin was bad, only one kind of peanut butter.

It will not be difficult to show precisely how Rick Santorum was mistaken on nearly all applicable topics. One must also not forget that Santorum is a Catholic and, coincidentally enough, one of the most important and sought after reforms during the Protestant Reformation of the Catholic church was separation of church and state. In fact this was something about which Martin Luther was very opinionated.

The traditional doctrine of the “Two Kingdoms” is found throughout Protestantism but is most common in Calvinists and Lutherans. This line of thought (which came from extremely devout Christians) asserted the necessity for a secular authority on earth to rule through the law (in other words, separation of church and state!). This is still considered to be a part of God’s kingdom, however the divine “authority” is exercised in more subtle, metaphysical ways.

The old standby punching bag of the American right wing has been the late Soviet Union (also to a lesser extent the now-not-so-communist China). Joseph Stalin’s Russia, much like Hitler’s Germany, is too readily evoked in common conversation. It has become the poster boy for what communism looks like, although it is clear that this mirrors little of the desired stateless society.

Conservatives take things another step further, however. They claim that even political stances, such as maintaining an active interest in the separation of church and state, represent dangerous steps in the direction of the overthrow of the American dream. Of course there are only two directions on this hypothetical line, which represent what this argument seems to claim are the only two directions that society is headed.

One is, of course, hyper-authoritarian communism. The system embodied under Stalin, although officially atheistic, fully, and implicitly assumed the authority that it had taken from the Orthodox church, as well as the defunct monarchy. Stalin placed himself at the center of this, infusing his ego (symbolically), and thus his will, with the state.

The other is an entirely free system. This is where Rick Santorum seems to have failed to remove his rose colored glasses, as he envisions Jesus and capitalism on that end. The important question: is Christian theocracy nearer to Stalinist authoritarianism (where all dissenting views are oppressed and systematically stamped out?) or the hypothetical “Utopian” society? One inevitably decides for oneself, however it seems apparent that it is far closer to the former than anything else.

If one chooses to analyze the Soviet Union one must consider how the relationship between the old state religion of the Tsars (Orthodox Christianity) and the controllers of the new government deteriorated. The communist ideology implemented in the Soviet Union did not seek by any means to allow anything close to a neutral relationship with any religion.

Under what came to be a Stalinist, highly conservative authoritarianism all ideologies existing independently of the state narrative were to be either destroyed, crippled, or severely weakened. In this sense Stalinist communism, which was openly atheistic, actively sought out the destruction (what amounted to a long silencing) of the ideology and, by extension the symbolic power held by the Orthodox Church.

In the United States the government, in so far as the constitution can currently be interpreted, is set up to be a wholly secular entity. This does not mean that the individual members who make up the government are barred from religious belief, however (as in the case of the Soviet Union).

There are certainly benefits to this construction. First and foremost the state, as an entity, is barred from passing laws which directly act upon the establishment of any religion (also religious entity). Second, all religions are given a neutral status with respect to the state, and, in the process, equal protection and rights under the law.

Rick SantorumIII.  Communist Ideology and Social Competition

One can plainly see, then, that the separation of church and state is a phenomenon which arises concurrently with the appearance of representative democracy. If one visualizes this as a system, then this acts as an internal organ of the machine, providing (what was intended to be) an endless source of calm between the chaotic ideological forces at work in the bowels of the myriad competing radical theocratic groups vying for political power and dominance through oligarchical Republican control of the Congress and White House.

Communism, as an ideology, seeks to move society towards a stateless society (although it must be noted that the journey is a bit more bumpy). What Rick Santorum doesn’t seem to understand is that fundamentally, communism could never be in favor of a permanently separated church and state system. The reason for this lies in economics.

The productive classes, in so far that an industrial, capitalist society still exists, sit at an extreme disadvantage in their relationship to those who own the capital (“capitalists” in the Orwellian sense). Because of this, in communist ideology, there is an imbalance which forever characterizes capitalism.

It is also important not to forget that communists recognize the raw productive capability that capitalism has proven itself able to muster. In fact Karl Marx thought that capitalism represented the most productive state of human economy, at least in terms of raw production.

The Manifesto reads: “The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes, directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.”

As technology progresses further along the timeline society is pushed and pulled in many directions. The force, according to Marxist theory, which will always be exerted onto the capitalist system, due to its inherent inequality, consists in a regulating form of representative democracy.

On the way to achieving the goal of communism, theoretically, the cycle must progress such that the state apparatus absorbs most, if not all, operative elements of the  economy in question (this is a slow process). Once this is complete attention can then be focused on achieving freedom from the state apparatus itself, as it has served its purpose by liberating the populace from the inherent inequalities in capitalism which become apparent over time.

IV. Conclusions

Rick Santorum is afforded the right to express the content of his mind to the public with impunity by the constitution of the United States. I am also given the same right by law. My point is simple: One can play at rhetoric all one wants, however one must first read the texts to which one refers in one’s statements, otherwise the value of one’s statements will gradually decrease as rational moderate after rational moderate is slowly alienated by the abundance of lies and nonsense.

If one pays even a modicum of attention to the political process in the US then one will already know that the ideological struggles of the present date far back and are now only subtle alterations of their past selves. Those who influence these alterations are, apparently, neither informed, nor eloquent, as evidenced by Rick Santorum and the seemingly endless series of strange and often absurd statements which emanate from him.

Leave a Comment