Posts Tagged ‘economic


A Communist Look at the Republican and Democratic Parties

We live in a two-party system and there’s no denying it. No matter who you vote for on election day, it’s going to be either a Republican or a Democrat who wins. And despite the common belief that the two sides represent opposite values and cultures and agendas and so on, the simple truth of the matter is that there’s not a whole lot of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Sure the Republicans staunchly defend gun rights, take pro-life stances (while running, anyways), and Democrats attempt to advance the cause of gay marriage (as candidates anyways) and government programs. Sure we sometimes get the picture that it’s the competent, virtuous Conservative plan versus the decadent, amoral Liberal one (or the compassionate, tolerant Liberal plan versus the heartless, outdated Conservative- depending on how you look at it). Sure we’re constantly being forced to choose between the two, but once you sort through all the apocalyptic campaign ads and vicious rhetoric, you find that both parties hold the same essential values and goals.

Both sides favor a free-market system with some basic form of regulation (arguments about which tend to get depicted as America ‘marching towards Socialism’ or ‘being bought by the corporations’). Both sides favor a strong military and both sides favor strong diplomatic and trade relations with other countries. Both sides favor a strong federal government and seek to maintain the system of law we have currently. The changes that are touted as being capable of saving/destroying the US are in reality minor changes. In short, it’s the same car, just different colors and fuzzy dice.

And it’s a shame. One would imagine that the two-party system is indicative of the will of the public, but this isn’t the case. What we have currently is the crippling fear that the other guy might win, preventing us from ever voting other than Democrat or Republican. For example, you might be in general a liberal but more than anything else you value an isolationist policy. Now you have two options, (1) vote fore the 3rd party isolationist candidate or (2) vote Democrat to ensure that the conservative candidate doesn’t win. People, on both sides of the political spectrum, want to see their ideals represented but ultimately vote Democrat/Republican to prevent the opposition from winning.

The solution? The first step is to realize that with so little difference between the two parties, it’s not worth getting upset over one side winning or another losing. The vast majority of the two-party system’s power stems from the common perception that you’re being presented with two diametrically opposed sides- understanding the situation for what it is will encourage the public to vote according to their values rather than their fears. As a result, there will be a greater dialogue about alternative styles of government and economics- Objectivism, Libertarianism, Isolationism, and of course, Communism.


The Communist World

A few years ago, I was attempting to obtain a permit at a government organization that will not be named here, and after waiting in line for a good hour and a half I finally got my turn to take the test required. As I entered the testing room I was informed that I could have circumvented this entire process by mailing this office some paperwork earlier in the year. Now before I had the chance to inform the low-level civil servant in charge of the testing that I had been traveling and unable to send in the paperwork, he snorted and called me ‘stupid’.

Now I generally dislike being called that, but I had just waited in line for an hour and a half and all I wanted was to take the test and be done with it- chewing the guy out wouldn’t have gotten me out of there any faster. But more importantly than all that, I couldn’t help but pity the guy. He was in his late fifties, seriously overweight, in all likelihood suffering from a heart condition, and stuck- day in, day out- processing paperwork in a stuffy, crowded office.

I can’t help but feel that this wasn’t what he had planned on doing with his life.

Sure, there’s the off chance that when his pre-school teacher asked him as a child what he wanted to be when he grew up, he cheerfuly gurgled “I want to be a low-level civil servant doing a dull and repetitive job as I develop health issues while reeking of stale sweat and despair’, but I doubt this is what happened. And I can’t help but think to myself, maybe society could benefit more if this guy only processed paperwork every other Thursday, and spent the rest of the work week doing whatever he’s talented at. Maybe he’s brimming with raw, artistic talent- maybe he could be a concert musician who takes a couple days out of the month to process paperwork. Wouldn’t that be better not only for him but for all of us?

And then I think to myself, what if we applied that to everyone working a repetitive, dull, unskilled job? What if everyone took a turn filing papers, mixing cement, sweeper the streets, stacking boxes, or serving coffee? Wouldn’t thousands- no, millions of people suddenly be freed up to pursue what they were born to do- be it writing or teaching or studying medicine or astronomy or the like? Wouldn’t we be healthier, physically healthier as a society if we all did a share of manual labor? Wouldn’t we have a greater respect for each other if we understood what’s it’s like to scrub a mountain of dirty dishes or pick litter off the sides of the highways? The simple fact of the matter is that with everyone contributing, we would have a happier and more efficient society.

And this is what Communism is- the sharing of menial labor so that everyone can pursue the profession of their choosing. Classism, the separation and segregation of people based on wealth, falls to pieces. The need for an oppressed and exploited working class to support the luxuries of a decadent minority is gone with the creation of this new classless society. This, combined with the abolition of private property, creates a society free from the struggles between the haves and the have-nots- poverty and pointless excess become things of the past. In short- we have Marxism, a society of shared wealth, shared work, and a shared future.

And is it perfect? Of course not. People will always be people- greedy, xenophobic, deceitful, lazy, and irrational. There will always be crime, there will always be war, and there will always be corruption.

But hey- it still beats the system we have now.


Socialism vs Capitalism vs Communism (and a quick note about the tea-party)

According to some pundits the US is currently locked in a struggle between its so-called Capitalist, free-market heritage and the looming threat of Socialism. Keep in mind that the term ‘Socialism’, while once synonymous with ‘Communism’, is currently used to describe a country where the majority of property lies in the hands of the government. Now as you can see by simply looking at some of the policies being enacted by the current administration that the US isn’t moving towards Capitalism or Socialism. Property isn’t being privatized or nationalized to any major extent. What has happened is that the federal government has been increasing in size and power, leading some elements on the right (namely the “tea-party”) to begin making dire predictions of an oppressive Orwellian future.

Now before I start, I feel that I should comment a bit about the tea-party:

Now I don’t have a problem with people protesting big government. As a Communist, I’m as opposed to a powerful central government as much as the average member of the tea-party, perhaps even more so. The problem is that the tea-party isn’t protesting big government! Where was the tea-party when the Bush administration pushed through the Patriot Act? The simple reality of the tea-party is that it’s not about resisting big government, it’s about resisting Democrat big government (in the same way, many of those who protested the Patriot Act have failed to complain about the increases in Government power under Obama- yeah the rule applies to Democrats too).

Now back to the point.

Despite the typical, melodramatic slap-fight between the Democrat and Republican parties, it can’t be denied that every once in a great while, the issues of privatization versus regulation of the markets comes up. On one hand there are the Libertarians who state that government involvement in all areas of life should be minimized. The markets should be allowed to boom and crash of their own accord and government interference only exacerbates existing issues and prevents natural growth (an argument Adam Smith first came up with). On the other hand, there are Socialists and Progressives who point out that history has shown businesses to be corrupt and dangerous if not regulated.

It seems more and more that the public is seeing this debate as an either/or dilemma- free market Capitalism or government regulation?

The sad truth of the matter is that both options are equally awful. Consider this: if there’s no government regulation of business (or as anarcho-Capitalists and objectivists would have it, no government at all), what’s to stop the meat industry from selling dangerously unclean meat? What keeps the pharmaceutical industry from selling us untested cough medicine, or even flavored sewer water labeled “cough medicine”? It is true that history has shown us, time and again, businesses have only one goal in mind- profit. Child labor, slavery, dangerous working conditions, chemical dumping, pollution- what would the state of our world be in if there were no laws against these things? If there were no regulations or watchdogs?

At the same time, regulating the free market has serious side-effects as well. Corporations will do anything to get around labor laws or environmental regulations and the like, and the government will find itself forced to constantly increase the number of regulatory departments and their power and extent of jurisdiction. The result is an inevitably gargantuan, bureaucratic government. State capitalism- as the USSR has demonstrated- is inefficient and oppressive.

But despite what the proponents of free market Capitalism and regulated Capitalism would have you believe, it’s not an either/or situation! Communism advocates the abolition of both Capitalism and the state, offering instead a system based on public property and public choice.


Live Long and Prosper?

If you were to look up “Communism” in a philosophy book, you’d probably find it under a section dealing with “Materialism”. The problem with this is that the popular meaning of the word “Materialism” has changed radically over the years. In terms of philosophy, the original meaning of “Materialism” was a category of philosophies primarily concerned with the concepts of property and their effects on human society/history. If I were, however, to use the term “Materialist” today, it would commonly be assumed that I was referring to the idea that the end goal of life is to accumulate wealth (radical hedonism, essentially). This is a recurring problem with many terms connected to Communism- in Marx’s day, “Socialism” meant a society embracing shared property and rejecting the class system, today we use it to refer to a politico-economic system where the majority of property is owned and managed by a massive government- but perhaps that’s off topic.

The issue with trying to categorize Communism in philosophy is that Marx was rather critical of philosophy as a whole. He asserted that analyzing the world should not be an end but merely a means to bring about change and advancement (“Philosophers have merely interpreted the world. The point, however, is to change it!” -Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach”). While Communism definitely does offer a socio-politico-economic perspective, to claim that Communism is an all-out philosophy wouldn’t be quite correct. While most philosophies make some basic assumptions about the purpose of life (hedonism, as much pleasure as possible; Socratic philosophy, preparing for death;¬† aesthetic realism, finding harmony in life; the list goes on and on), Communism on the other hand functions more like a scientific theory than a code of ethics or an understanding of existence (indeed, one of the reason people find Marx so hard to read is the fact that he treats economics almost like a branch of physics). Don’t misunderstand me- Marx did have convictions. He saw the exploitation of the proletariat as the principal factor in the toppling of Capitalism and the class system and believed that the toppling of the Capitalism and the class system would propagate justice and equality. It’s like a scientist discovering that running electricity through a gas filled bulb not only creates light but it is his moral imperative to run electricity through a gas filled bulb and create light. As a result of all this, you’ll find no single, coherent Communist philosophy but rather a number of philosophies espousing Communist political theory. On one side you have philanthropic, altruistic humanist communists who have become Communist out of love for their fellow man. On the other side you have cynical and bitter antisocial communists who have become Communist out of a belief in morality rather than man (the author falls into this category). And between these two extremes you’ll find any number of other philosophies- religious Communism, green Communism, Anarcho-Communism, etc. If there’s a mainstream philosophy out there, you’d be safe to bet that there’s a Communist version of it (baring, perhaps, Ayn Rand-style Objectivism).

Now one might argue that the exact same rules apply to Capitalism. “Capitalism is a socio-economic theory too. You can hold any philosophy or worldview and still be a Capitalist!”.

Now this is partly true. You can indeed be a Capitalist and hold the purpose in life to protect and preserve the earth and all its natural wonders. The problem is that if you also accept Capitalism, you have to maintain that it is perfectly legal (and indeed, a basic human right) to purchase a mountain, to prevent anyone else from walking on it, and if the owner so chooses, to blow it to pieces.

“Alright, so Environmentalism and Capitalism don’t mesh so well- but there’s still a ton of other philosophies out there.”

Absolutely, and they too don’t seem to mesh well with Capitalism. If you hold the purpose of life is to live honestly and decently, then you’re presented with a number of challenges (the primary of which is that in Capitalism, the highest profits come from underpaying and overworking your employees and overpricing your products- not exactly honest or decent, is it?). If you declare that the end goal in life is to live long and prosper and see your family happy and secure then you have to deal with the fact that this is the wish of not only you but a large percent of humanity and since in Capitalism there’s only so much room at the top you’ll have to viciously compete with your neighbors for this lifestyle (unless you’re born into it, in which case you just have to worry about the huddled masses eying your house and pool. Even if you believe that the sole purpose of live is to live in decadence and luxury, you have to contend with the very definitions of the words. Do two houses in Monaco count as decadence and luxury, or should you get a yacht as well (or more importantly, will you be any more happy and fulfilled with the yacht than you are now?).

So essentially, no matter what your philosophy is, it has to be accepted that in all likelihood, you’d be able to pursue it better in a society free from Capitalism. You want peace and happiness for your family? Maybe you should opt for a system where a starving homeless man is going to gun down your wife/husband for her/his necklace/wallet. You want to be able to do whatever you love doing? Maybe you should opt for a system where you aren’t forced to take whatever job pays the bills, no matter how painful or bland. You want to be able learn everything there is to know about a subject? Maybe you should opt for a system where education is a high-priced commodity available only to some.

Maybe you should opt for Communism.


Capitalist Pigs

Recently, I was traveling across the US. As I was waiting at one of the gates, a man sat down next to me. To say he was ‘large’ would be a gross understatement. This man was grotesquely overweight, and nearly as wide as he was tall. As we waited for the plane to be refueled, he began to eat a cheeseburger, the sheer effort of which had him panting, wheezing, and sweating. It was, in short, a nauseating experience.

Of course, there are those who would object to my diatribe. One could argue “It’s the right of a person to choose his or her own weight or amount of consumption!”. Really? If there’s a man who is sitting next to me starving, is it my “right” to devour a steak dinner in front of him? When a child dies of starvation every five seconds, is it the right of a country to be suffering from obesity?

Yet the wealthy countries of the world continue to get fatter, and the poor countries stand in lines handfuls of rice. Sickening, isn’t it? The most obese state in America (Mississippi), is only 2,300 km from the second most impoverished country in the western hemisphere (Haiti). This is obesity we’re talking about- the result of constant binging on food- it’s not an epidemic, it’s not something that people cannot control. In a world where the vast majority of humanity lives in poverty and every year, fifteen million children die of starvation and malnutrition, this kind of egomaniacal indulgence is, as I’ve pointed out, sickening.

Of course, the companies selling the food aren’t exactly helping the situations. It is, after all, in the best interests of these corporations to exacerbate humanity’s propensity to gluttony. The more willing the public is to stuff food down their throats, the higher the demand, the greater profits for the food industry. As a result, the food industry will do all it can to convince you that your happiness hinges on your consumption or that food is a central part of tradition (just look at Christmas). They will attempt to sell the greatest amount of food to the greatest number of people for the lowest cost of production possible (and of course, cheap production tends to mean the food will be low in quality and nutrition). Everywhere you look, there are advertisements telling you to eat this or to drink that. Granted, the obesity level is due largely to individual choice, but at the same time, the food industry plays a significant role.

So what’s the relation of obesity in the West and other so-called “developed countries” to the starvation in others? Well, think of it this way. Aside from the now rare family-owned farm, we get our food from corporations. Since the purpose of Capitalism is capital (money), corporations will naturally attempt to maximize their profits by selling high-quality foods for exorbitant price and low-quality foods for next to nothing. Those who have little or no money to begin with (those who are, for example, living in areas that have been devastated by disease or drought) are of course, unable to purchase any food at all. This leads to the people of these areas to become dependent on charity- a¬†solution which merely prolongs the suffering of the impoverished (exactly why charity doesn’t work is a topic for another day). Of course there are those who would claim that all these people need to do is begin farming in their own countries- conveniently forgetting that the materials and resources needed for farming are controlled by massive corporations. What possible reason would these companies have for simply donating material? Corporations usually don’t rise to the top of the economic food chain through altruism. Of course, when the majority becomes hungry enough, everything becomes a source of food- including the juicy, Capitalist pigs wallowing around at the top of the social spectrum.


The Cases for Communism

We all know what it’s like Comrade- whether it comes up casually in a conversation or it appears as we flick through channels on the TV, we almost inevitably manage to hear some form of anti-Communist argument. So it occurred to me, since there are countless anti-Communist arguments being shot at us, it is necessary for us to have some good counter-arguments. Listed below are some of the more common anti-Communist arguments and several proposed defenses.

Human Nature (1)

Argument: Communism cannot work, because Humans are inherently evil.

Counter-Argument: Communism does not and can not function on the idea that humans are perfectible, otherwise there would be no need for Communism.

Human Nature (2)

Argument: Capitalism is a better system than Communism, since Capitalism is based off of human (fallen) nature.

Counter-Argument: If we set up a socio-economic system based on humanity’s inherent greed, then why don’t we set up a legal system based on humanity’s murderous, thieving, and destructive disposition. If human nature is basically flawed, then how can we not expect an economic system based on human nature to be flawed as well?

Historic Precedent

Argument: Communism has proven time and time against to result in oppression and failure- just look at the Soviet Union and North Korea.

Counter-Argument: These are not Communist countries but Socialist dictatorships which claim to be Communist, in much the same way that Batista (a dictator) masqueraded as a democratically elected leader. Communism is no more responsible for the atrocities committed by Stalin than Jesus is for the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition.

Religious Issues (1)

Argument: Communism cannot work because it is godless- it denies any role of religion within the government.

Counter-Argument: Depending on your religion, one might also be able to call the Greek, Roman, and Mongolian Empires “godless”. Even the US has no state religion, yet it- like the empires of Greece and Rome- is generally productive, prosperous, and free.

Religious Issues (2)

Argument: Communism cannot work because it is godless- there are no moral restrictions placed upon the public and/or government.

Counter-Argument: The lack of a “religion” does not mean the lack of ethic or moral values. The Russian Revolution was generally atheistic, yet the revolutionaries were driven by a sense of social justice. Besides, countries which do have religion (either in the sense that religion is present or that religion plays a role in the government) have not been stopped from committing atrocities such as the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII or the Crusades and witch hunts…

Size Problems

Argument: Communism can only work in small communities and cannot be applied to nations and states.

Counter-Argument: Firstly, the world is a smaller place than it was fifty years ago. With advances in technology, communication and transportation are incredibly easy, making it easier to manage massive areas with ease. Secondly, humans don’t need massive states to live- indeed, most countries are, if you look at a map, small compared to the four “super-states” of the US, Russia, India, and China. Communism would probably result in smaller countries.

Governmental Issues (1)

Argument: Communism requires a massive and intrusive government to function. Citizens would lose all freedom.

Counter-Argument: Communism calls the general abolition of the state. Like the Jeffersonians, Communism calls for a basic level of centralized government, but puts most of the power on local government. Control rests in the hands of the public, not the politicians. It is the public and the public only who decide how intrusive to let their government be.

Governmental Issue (2)

Argument: Communism lets the people be lazy- they can sit back have the government take care of them.

Counter-Argument: Communism requires people to work even more than Capitalism does. The “to each according to his needs” requires a “from each according to his abilities”. People must work for their daily bread, people must vote and take an active role in their own governance.

Governmental Issue (3)

Argument: Communism has been attempted and it failed- even if we accept everything about Communism, we can see that it doesn’t work since Leon Trotsky, the populist leader, was ousted, exiled, and assassinated by Stalin. Communism doesn’t work.

Counter-Argument: Neither does Democracy. Corruption entered into the Greek political system and brought the democratic city-states crashing down. Do we claim that Democracy is impossible? Do we give up on it? Not at all- we simply figure out what went wrong, fix it, and try it again. It’s what the founding fathers of the US did, it’s what the French and English did, and so on.

Lifestyle Dilemma

Argument: Communism brings about a lower standard of living. Capitalism is better than Communism since Capitalism can provide a higher quality of life.

Counter-Argument: In this Capitalist world, it is only a slim minority who benefit from the free market. Yes, some standards of living will decrease but across the globe, billions of people will have a massive increase in their standard of living. Besides, even if the world could live as the average American does, we would need at least three more planet earths just to sustain our decadent lifestyle.

And so Comrades, with these arguments we should have a pretty decent defense against the attacks that are most often brought against us. Naturally none of these arguments are air-tight, but please keep in mind, they aren’t meant to be. These are simply the bulwark against the preliminary attacks.

As we said in the BSA, Comrades- “Be Prepared!”.