Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, GETTR, Truth Social, Twitter
Although both hailed from an aristocratic background, to the Romillys Communism meant that when they were invited to a grand home as guests they could steal whatever was not tied down, and usually did, because they no longer believed in private property. To quote Lovell’s book: “The young Romillys regarded this behavior as amusing and acceptable, for in their persistent war against the upper classes no holds were barred.” (Lovell, p. 256) Other people found their behavior disgusting, however. Jessica’s story comes to mind, though, whenever I read about “left of Lenin” American liberals from prosperous backgrounds who want to impose their visions of a socialist workers’ paradise on the rest of us.
Readers of The Easton Gazette are no doubt aware of my colleague Jan Greenhawk’s exclusive series about the troubles in Oxford, MD, where a town council and town manager have wreaked havoc with the natural beauty and daily lives of citizens in what was once called the “Colonial Capital of Maryland.” Everyone should especially read “A Cautionary Tale For Small Town America” because it describes a situation not unique to Oxford, Maryland but one recognizable to anyone who has had to live with or work with small-time corruption. In such situations one may encounter a disregard for the opinions of others, especially those of tax-paying fellow citizens, as well as a contempt for private property.
Oftener than not, such attitudes are likewise characterized by an excessive liberty with the town coffers. Also known as champagne socialists and, if very wealthy, limousine socialists, such persons are liberals who embrace the Leftist agenda of Wokeness, pleading toleration and acceptance while having none for those who disagree with them. They are people who are fascinated by the ideas of Karl Marx as long as they do not have to live like Communists themselves.
Wokesters are mostly Democrats but their worldview is closer to Marxism. Women have equal rights unless they ask for sports and gym lockers reserved for biological females. Despising the American flag, they hang rainbow flags and sport Black Lives Matter bumper stickers. They have endless pity for slaves who lived two hundred years ago but none for the unborn babies of the present generation. During the Freddy Gray Riots, which occurred in Baltimore, and the Floyd Riots, which occurred all over the country, we saw businesses destroyed, stores looted, cars set on fire and people killed, all in the name of building a more equitable society. We were told that insurance would pay for the damage, which was obviously said by someone who never had to fill out insurance paperwork.
Now we Marylanders are witnessing the rise of carjackings even as, in the rest of America, squatters are stealing homes just by moving in. I am reminded of the scene in the 1965 film Dr. Zhivago where the doctor returns from war to find that the Revolution has triumphed and that the entire neighborhood has moved into his home. Is the rise in theft due to the fact that we are being ruled by people who wanted to defund the police in order to create a non-violent Utopia?
If you ever wonder how American citizens came to have such a Communist outlook then it must be recalled that Marxist indoctrination has been occurring in colleges and universities at least since the 1930’s. By the sixties and seventies even some Catholic universities had several lefties on their faculties.
So what did Marx think of private property? He wrote a great deal about the benefits of not having it; in 1844 he wrote: “The abolition [Aufhebung] of private property is therefore the complete emancipation of all human senses and qualities….” (Marx, Karl. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844) Marx thought people became more human when they had no private possessions and that the State had the right to take it from them.
This is in stark contrast to the Gospel message which implores people to willingly give up possessions for love of God. “Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me.” (Matthew 19:21) Such renunciation of material possessions in the Judeo-Christian tradition is only meritorious if done willingly, as a personal choice, not imposed by the government.
Defenders of Marx claim he did not mean to abolish all private property, just that which belonged to capitalists, like the railways, mines and factories, which leaves the loophole for Marxists themselves to have property. As is public knowledge, the founder of Black Lives Matter, has become a wealthy woman. Black Lives Matter founders bragged about being “trained Marxists” and asserted the following about their movement: "We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable." To many this sounded too much like the policies of Lenin who hoped that the Soviet State would come to replace the family, including easy divorce and free abortions, an agenda which ended up being disastrous and leading to mass juvenile delinquency. I have always been curious as to why Black Lives Matter does not lead the battle against abortion, since black neighborhoods are often chosen as the site of abortion clinics.
So how has the Marxist ideal of the abolition of private property worked out in other countries? In the former Soviet Union we know it was an economic disaster, and has slowly been replaced by privatization. In China the Maoist collectivization called “Land Reform” involved mass murder and mass starvation, resulting in millions of deaths. Cuba under Castro imitated the Soviets leading to the economic decline of a once prosperous country. The Pol Pot regime in Cambodia involved the forced removal of city dwellers to collective farms in the countryside, also involving the deaths of millions. Anyway, the examples of failed Communist nation-states are endless. To date there is no country that has successfully implemented the ideals of Karl Marx. So why do American liberals continue to push for socialist policies to be implemented in American cities and even in small towns?
The Communist Esmond Romilly died fighting in World War II during the Battle of Britain; Jessica Mitford Romilly moved to America, married a lawyer, and eventually broke with her Communist past. She never forgave her Fascist sisters, Diana and Unity, who supported Hitler. I have trouble forgiving them, too. Many in the British upper and middle classes in the 1930’s saw fascism as a political solution and a viable response to the proposed Communist takeover of the world. Similarly, there were Americans and British in the 1920’s and 30’s who were infatuated with Communism and saw “Uncle Joe” Stalin as a great guy, oblivious to the thousands whom he and Lenin had already murdered.
Looking back, there is so much more we now know about the Communists, Nazis and other socialist and fascist groups than their contemporaries did at the time. Any association with Nazism, even from a distance, can taint someone for all posterity. Strange how we can forgive supporters of Stalin but not supporters of Hitler? Is it because Stalin fought on our side after Hitler betrayed him? We need to see that both Hitler and Stalin were opposite sides of the same coin, proposing and implementing Utopian visions of society in which the nation-state was god. Both visions cost millions of lives and led to world upheaval. Both views are tyrannical, bestowing a gnostic sense of superiority upon the elect, lacking all tolerance for those who disagree.
