Posts Tagged ‘Human nature

13
Jan
12

Arguments for Communism

A while ago, I wrote a post listing brief counterarguments to the claims usually used to “disprove” Communism. To this day, it’s been one of the most read pieces I’ve written, so I thought it might be time to expand it a bit. Written below are the most common arguments people use against Communism, and my responses to them.

 

Communism Has Been “Tried and Failed”:

The problem with this commonly used argument is that more or less everything has been tried and failed. Take democracy for example. Can I argue that democracy is a futile endeavor because it failed not once but multiple times it was tried?

"I propose we write really depressing plays!"

If I recall, democracy didn’t work for the Athenians.

"I propose we totally rip off of the Greeks!"

And the republic didn’t exactly wind up being a lasting facet of Roman society.

Even in America, democratic government needed to be reworked- but despite the many failed attempts at democracy, the idea that anyone today would want anything other than a democracy is laughable. Let’s keep this in perspective before claiming that Communism was tried once and should now be abandoned for all time.

 

Communism is “Great on Paper”:

I’m particularly irked by this argument because most everything is “great on paper”! Now there’s no real response to the whole “Communism is great on paper but doesn’t work in application” because of how broad it is. Really, it’s more of a prefix to an argument (such as the ones below), and any response is going to have to be more specific. Still, if you really do need an immediate response, simply point out that egalitarian, classless societies that shared work and held common property have existed since the beginning of time.

Remember us?

Communism Conflicts with Human Nature:

I’ve found this line of reasoning especially prevalent among religious groups, and while you could debate whether or not humans are basically good or bad till the end of time, there is an argument you can use in defense of Communism even if humans are inherently evil (which, for the record, I myself believe).

 

Now the argument tends to go “If humans were also basically good, Communism would work. But humans are basically bad- that’s why Capitalism works. Capitalism takes humanity’s evil nature into account.”

 

See, this argument is just ridiculous- first, if humans were basically good, we wouldn’t even be having to bring up Communism to begin with. Second, Capitalism doesn’t so much “take humanity’s evil nature into account” at it does reward it. Greed, deception, selfishness, reckless individualism, decadence, and the like- these are all things that Capitalism not only makes excuses for, but encourages! If we’re going to base our economics on the concept that greed is acceptable, should we then base our legal system on the concept that perjury, harassment, and murder are acceptable?

There's actually a big market for furniture made from human skin...

Just because humans are naturally bad doesn’t mean we should base our entire society around the hopes that they’ll act badly.

 

Communism Is Against Religion:

Let’s face facts- Marx was an atheist, as were many prominent Communists. However, to assume that Communism and religion are opposed would be wrong- indeed, if you take a look at what Marx wrote about religion, you’ll find his issues weren’t so much with faith, as the use of religion by the powerful for control, and the use of religion by the powerless as an excuse for not taking action. In reality, even Communists who would describe themselves as “anti-theist” almost universally hold to the belief that what you believe (or don’t believe) is your own business. On the other end of the spectrum, you will in fact find Christian Communism, liberation theology, and social justice movements arguing that it is not Communism but Capitalism that is antithetical to the basic principals of religion.

Totally what Jesus had in mind...

Communism is Against Democracy:

My response to this accusation is two pronged- first, we need to point out that not all Communist leaders seized power, most prominent among Marxists democratically elected to power was Chilean president Salvador Allende, who lost his life in a CIA-backed military coup. Second, while there were dictators who claimed to be Communist, these men were Marxists in about the same way that the propagators of the Spanish Inquisition were Christian. Take a look at the writings of Marx or Engels or Luxembourg and you’ll see the demands for power to be put in the hands of the people, not the party chairman or head of the military. Communism believes in democracy- it is with Capitalism that democracy doesn’t mesh so well. Democracy is meant to be a system in which all have equal power. However, in a system where money is power, any inequality in wealth is going to mean an inequality in influence over government. The wealthy man can hire lobbyists, give campaign contributions, fund advertising, hire people to smear his opponents, and so on (and let’s not forget the straight-up bribe). Is that equality? Let’s take a look at what democracy looks like in the US.

Not exactly faith-inspiring is it?

Planned Economies Aren’t Efficient:

It’s not a common argument, but every once in a while you’ll run into someone with a penchant for economics who’ll take this line of argument. They state “Hey, there’s no way a planned economy will work unless you’re always over producing ______ or trying to catch up to the demand for ______. It’s inefficient.”

 

Now you can probably argue exactly how a planned economy could work- and that’s a debate for another time. The easiest response to this argument is to point out that Capitalism isn’t exactly efficient either. When someone can take natural resources, use them to create a product, and finding that the market for novelty sumo tables doesn’t actually exist, be stuck with a warehouse full of the stuff, you can’t exactly assert Capitalism doesn’t have just as much potential to be wasteful.

All this and more garbage available from SkyMall!

Society Won’t Function Without the Free Market:

Another argument sometimes used by the economically minded is that the only way for society to function is through the natural process of supply and demand. Now my response to this is to use my own conditions- unless you attend a college set in an extremely rural area, I’m geussing you won’t be able to use the exact same points, but hopefully you’ll be able to use the basic logic behind them.

 

Now as I said, I attend a college surrounded by miles of forest and not much else. There is a massive demand for theaters, restaurants, shops, grocery markets, and other diversions, yet nothing happens. See, what the acolytes of the infallible system of supply and demand don’t realize is that supply and demand is like fate- it only works in retrospect. Yes, demand is met (or else, it moves elsewhere), but how long and how much do you have to demand for a product or service before it shows up? There’s no standard, no pattern, no system. Things were either meant to be or not meant to be- all in all, the whole “supply and demand will answer everything” stance taken by some really can’t be held.

Communism is Against My “Right” to Private Property:

You ever see ads for buying a star, or property on the moon? You laugh at it- maybe you’ll think it’s a nice sentiment- but at the end of the day you don’t take it seriously. After all, the moon and stars can’t be bought because they’re not anyone’s to sell. It all makes about as much sense as buying a cubic foot of air from a man named Steve. Steve can’t actually give you a cubic foot of air, can’t prevent you from moving through said cubic foot of air, and has no way of owning a cubic foot of air to begin with.

Yet we view land (and private property, made from resources from land) as a sacred right. Why? Land is just land- land didn’t belong to anyone until some neanderthal took up a club and declared that all dirt between points A, B, C, and D were his and his alone. Yet today if I were to attempt to do the same thing and claim that all within an invisible border belongs to me and no one else, I would be called a thief. That’s the origin of this so-called “right”, someone in the distant past just took it, and because of this, you can “buy” a plot of land, never use it for anything, and yet have every right to keep anyone from living there. That’s just not rational- the world belongs to everyone, and you can only “own” property in as much as you can be the one currently using it.

Communism Is Against Prosperity:

Come one- you don’t have to be a Communist to recognize that we can’t live in decadence and luxury. Communism isn’t against prosperity, but it is against mindless excess. Private jets, whaleskin leather seats for you SUV (look it up), imported caviar with every meal- there’s no way that we can live like this- the planet is having a hard enough time keeping up with current rates of consumption as it is. Further, let’s not imagine for a moment that fast cars and big houses are what make a life worth living. Freedom, dignity, peace, equality- I’d take that over a gold plated BMW any day.

If You’re a Communist, Why Aren’t You Poor?

The inbred cousin of the question of “Why can’t I be stinking rich?” is the question “Why aren’t you desperately poor?”.  Now I’ve touched on this question before, but it comes up a bit and I’ll try to address it here as well. We might not believe in decadence, but we don’t want people to be poor either- that’s not what Communism is about. Equality in wealth will mean the end of millionaires and billionaires, but for countless people across the planet, the standard of living will dramatically increase. We aren’t poor because we’re not supposed to be poor- no one is!

We’re not big fans of either extreme…

Big Government Doesn’t Work:

We couldn’t agree more. Communists don’t believe in big government, we believe in collectives,  communes, and communities working on a local level to address problems and issues unique to them. If they choose to band together for whatever reason, they may of course do so, but at the end of the day, we do not believe in the state. Even Lenin, a Communist who was about as “big government” as Marxists get, called for the abolition of the state. Communism is about power to the people, not the politician.

Communism  Has Killed Millions:

Here’s the big one.

Now if you’ll take a look at the texts of Communism, nowhere will you find anyone say “By the way, you should totally purge entire sections of your population”, yet nevertheless, it cannot be denied that millions are dead at the hands of “Communists”.

That’s “Communists” in quotation marks- you see, mass murder reflects on the ideals of Communism in about the same way that (as I’ve said above) the Spanish Inquisition reflects the ideals of Christianity. Let’s face it, people will use any justification for their actions. The men who killed in the name of Communism only used Communism as a facade for their own agendas. After all…

The Tuskegee Spyhilis experiments did nothing to treat African American farmers the researchers knew were infected, and did so  in the name of science, but exactly how is (secretly) giving someone a disease reflective of the goals of science?

And the reign of terror- was this the product of enlightenment and reason?

And is this democracy?

People kill people- that’s the sad truth. Communism has nothing to do with it.

26
Feb
11

I Agree With You But…

A few weeks ago, I and some friends were protesting an unfair policy at my college. Exactly what the policy was isn’t important, suffice it gave the student body unequal treatment, depending on which class you belonged you. So as I and my friend stood in hallway, holding homemade signs, the students getting the special treatment began to file past us. Some ignored our calls for them to refuse the preferential treatment they were being offered, a few stopped to talk to us, and some even listened to us and turned around and left. For the most part, however, the students smiled at us and said “I agree with you but-“. Exactly what there justification was isn’t really important either- it tended to be something along the lines of “-but I don’t want to stand in the other line…” or “-but my friends are waiting for me in there…” or “-but they’re going to give your class something nice as well…” and so on. As I said, the justification isn’t really important- it’s the “I agree with you but-” part.

 

Now I wanted to tell them “Hey- you either agree or you don’t- you’ll either take our side or you won’t”. If you agree that killing kittens for sport is unethical (don’t panic- that not what the college was doing) then you won’t kill kittens- if you don’t agree, then you’ll have no issue with it. However, you can’t ever say that “I believe killing kittens for sport is wrong, but [insert excuse here]”. Again, you either agree or you don’t.

 

And the issue I have isn’t with which side people take- it’s with attempt to hold two conflicting positions. In the words of one of my favorite rappers, “Hypocrisy- it bothers me” (Lowkey- I recommend his song “Terrorist”). You see, this “I agree with you but…” scenario is reflective of a much greater problem we have in society. On one hand we say we believe something- most of the time we believe that we believe- but when it comes to acting on our purported beliefs we’re nowhere to be seen. I saw this issue earlier when I was going door to door collecting signatures for a boycott of Coca-Cola. I’d ask if the residents believed that sweatshop labor was wrong- they’d say “Yes.”. I’d ask them if they thought people should boycott sweatshop made products- they’d say “Yes.”. I’d ask them if they would boycott Coke and they’d say “No- we agree with you but-“. Again I want to yell at these people “No, you don’t agree with me! I don’t care if I get your signature or not- just don’t tell me you agree with me but you won’t do anything!”.

 

Maybe it’s a post-modernist thing- values are held for the aesthetic qualities, not for their application. When you get a poster of Picasso’s Guernica, it’s because the picture fits well with the general decor of the room you’re hanging it in- not because you espouse an anti-war view. In the same way, you might have (or rather, claim to have) an anti-war view because it looks good- not because you’d ever act on it.

 

Or maybe I’m over thinking it. Maybe the “I agree with you but…” is just a human problem.

 

Not too long ago, I was listening to a Socialist give a lecture on human nature. She made the claim that in times of disaster, humans didn’t immediately turn on each or hunt each other down. Melodramatic, yes, but her point was that even when you strip away government, the police, the army, and all social constructs for the protection of humans against each other, people didn’t start murdering each other left and right. She argued that this disproves the belief that human nature is inherently evil. Of course, while the points she offered are correct, the conclusions she drew are all wrong. Humans aren’t basically evil because we do terrible things to each other- humans are basically evil because we do nothing. One of my favorite movies, The Boondock Saints, opens with a priest giving a sermon on the murder of a young woman who was killed in public, with no one responding in any ways to her calls for help. The priest declares “We must all fear evil men, but there is another kind of evil that we must fear most, and this the indifference of good men…”.

 

Maybe the problem is here. Maybe we’re just too egocentric to imagine anything as unfair unless we’re being affected. Maybe we’re just naturally apathetic.

 

Of course, that’s no excuse. Just because we have a proclivity towards selfishness, hypocrisy, and laziness doesn’t mean we should get away with it. Is it right to tolerate injustice and oppression? Of course not. Should we resist, engage, dissent, and fight for what is moral and right? Naturally. So we’re going to shake ourselves out of apathy?

 

Well, I agree with you, but…

18
Jul
10

The Alienation of Labor

A common question asked during the aftermath of every great industrial disaster is “Could all of this have somehow been avoided?”. It’s an important question too- ‘those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it’ and all that. Marx, who grew up and lived during a time when industrial accidents happened with tragic regularity, saw this and developed from it his theory of the ‘alienation of labor’.

Marx states that as businesses develop, those profiting from the sale of a product/service become further and further removed from the actual creation and creators of that product/service and as a result cease to see the workers creating the product/service as humans and instead merely see them as resources. When one starts seeing his fellow man as ‘profit-versus-cost’ rather than as human beings, it becomes a lot easier to exploit them.

If the owners of GAP actually had to meet with the child laborers in their sweatshops, it wouldn’t be nearly so easy for the owners to pay a mere forty-four cents as a day’s wages. It’s that basic human connection makes us see ourselves in the places of others. Maybe if things were different I’d be the one making t-shirts for forty-four cents. Maybe if things were different I’d have lost a hand working with dangerously outdated machinery.

Of course I say “it wouldn’t be nearly so easy”, because the simple truth of the matter is that better worker-owner relations aren’t the solution to the problem. You don’t get to be a leader of industry by being honest and generous and kind- relying on the benevolence of those who got to where they are in the world being more cunning, deceitful, and brutal than their fellow man doesn’t strike me as the wisest choice. The sad truth is that people will always be selfish and willing to take advantage of others.

And this is the crux of the matter. How do we deal with the problems of the alienation of labor and still deal effectively with the selfishness we find in human nature? The answer is public ownership.

Now we’ve discussed the issue of a Capitalist ignoring the plight of his workers even if he is (somehow) forced to meet with them on a regular basis, but what if we remove the element of private ownership? Suppose the factory is owned collectively by those operating it (and who better to run it than they)? Even if there are those there who, despite working alongside their fellow laborers- sharing the same burdens, the same rewards- still attempt to work solely for their own benefit, they’re not about to say “hey, we could be making more of this product/service if we work fourteen hours a day rather than ten!”. In a collective setting, the only way to benefit oneself is to benefit the whole- cooperation, not competition.

Imagine that the Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig hadn’t been owned by BP but by the workers of the rig. Considering that they’re the ones who will be the most affected by a spill or accident, would they pass up an inspection to ensure their place of work is safe for them? How would they benefit by cutting corners? The same goes for any field of work.

Now no Marxist is going to claim that public ownership will bring an end to all avoidable industrial accidents or similar disasters. What we can state for certain is this:

Public ownership is (1) a more just system, (2) a more democratic system, (3) will give the power to avoid accidents to those who have the greatest potential to be affected by such accidents, (4) will shift focus away from profit to the welfare of the workers and the quality of the product/service, and lastly (5) will be infinitely more effective than either private or government ownership (why should someone who’s never set foot in a factory make decisions on how to best run it?).

It might not be a perfect system, but the pros definitely outweigh the cons.

01
Dec
09

The Myth

Perhaps the greatest lie originating (and arguably, perpetuated by) Capitalism is the idea that the wealthy are wealthy because they are intelligent, disciplined, and hardworking and the poor are poor because they are ignorant and lazy. As a result, if a man in a business suit and flawless grammar knocks on your door and asks if he can use your bathroom, chances are you’ll let him. You probably wouldn’t do the same for a man in a ragged bathrobe whose grasp of the English language was sub-average. Indeed, the quality of treatment you offer people is usually determined by what social class they hail from. We make assumptions about people based on whether or not they seem to be poor, middle-class, or wealthy.

Quite simply, we’re bigots.

And not without reason either. If a person is less willing to let a homeless man into his house than a man who is (or at least, seems to be) doing quite well for himself, then the person’s fear is not completely unfounded. A wealthy man has less reason to rob you than a poor man. Crime rates, alcoholism, and drug abuse are highest among the lower classes. Likewise the poorer classes tend to have the lowest levels of education. Statistically speaking, yes, you are more likely to be mugged by a poor person than a rich one, but so what? Bigotry is never tolerable, no matter what. So what if you’re more likely to be mugged if you get a poor guy into your house instead of a rich one? You don’t know either man. Maybe the man in the bathrobe is an honest, honorable person who’s had a run of bad luck. Maybe the man in the suit is a sociopathic murderer or a con artist. Judging people according to how wealthy they are is, no matter how you look at it, wrong!

So why is it that we’re prejudiced to trust the middle-class and wealthy rather than the poor? Is it because the poor are ignorant and criminal while the wealthy are intelligent and decent? Of course not! The poor aren’t poor because they’re criminals; the poor have high crime levels because they are poor. Sure the poor man is more likely to mug you, but is that because of him or the fact that he’s cold and hungry? Obviously there are those who are poor because of their own issues- all humans have a propensity towards greed and indolence. At the same time, it is ridiculous to claim that the poor are only poor because they’re lazy. It’s the poorest of the poor who have the heaviest workload. Across Africa, Asia, Latin America and yes, even Europe, Australia, and North America there are millions of those who for ten hours a day for wages of less than a dollar a day! There’s a reason we call them the Proletariat– the working class! It’s because they’re the ones doing all the actual work. They do the farming, the mining, the sweeping, the building, the cleaning, the producing and manufacturing! Why on earth would we even dare to consider these people to be lazy?

Because we’re lazy.

As I’ve said, humans are lazy. More often than not we don’t take the time and effort to investigate something for ourselves; we simply make assumptions or believe whatever our leaders and the media feed us. Since the poor are poor and unable to afford decent (if any) healthcare, we immediately assume that the poor are simply dirty. Since the poor can’t afford decent (if any) educations, we immediately assume that the poor are ignorant and stupid. Since the poor are poor and can’t always afford food/medicine/etc., many are forced into lives of crime- we immediately assume that the poor are naturally criminal. But laziness isn’t the only reason we don’t ask why the poor live in poverty.

Humans are also naturally arrogant. The idea- no, the myth– that the poor are poor because they are lazy makes us feel better about ourselves. We’re where we are because of our efforts! We’re wealthy because of our intelligence, our skill! We’re where we are because of our work-ethic, our self-discipline, and our decency!

Egotistical lies.

We’re where we are because of our own efforts and the efforts of our parents and their parents before them and because of the state of the world we live in and the class we were born into. Personal effort makes up about ten percent of it- the rest is accident of birth and dumb luck. A person pulling himself to the top from nothing is such a rare event that we make a major Hollywood film out of it. If you’re born poor, chances are you’ll stay poor no matter how hard you work unless you get not one but a whole chain of lucky breaks. If you’re born into a middle-class family, you’re probably going to stay middle-class unless you get a bunch of lucky breaks (though less than if you were poor). If you’re born into wealth and privilege than you haven’t done anything to deserve your life and don’t have to do anything to maintain it. Like I said, it really comes down to accident of birth. If you’re lucky, you’re wealthy, if you’re not, you’re poor and probably will be poor for the rest of your life. The Caste System isn’t exclusive to Hinduism.

So in short, don’t believe in the fairy-tale that the wealthy are the best of society and the poor are the worst, or that the poor are poor only because of their own efforts. We are, for the most part, fixed in our place by statistical chance- individual effort has very little effect on us.

It isn’t fair, is it? Only a sadist or an idiot could honestly state that this is an ethical system. Most of us simply shrug our shoulders and say that “life isn’t fair” or “that’s just the way things are…”. I say that when someone’s been murdered, we can’t stick our hands in our pockets and say “life isn’t fair”. I say that when any injustice has been committed, no matter on what scale, the only ethical course of action is to establish justice. Yes, life isn’t fair- but maybe that’s because no one’s doing anything about it!

27
Aug
09

Et Vox Dei… (Part 2)

In the previous post, I described human nature and the supply-and-demand system- specifically how the supply-and-demand system is flawed since many of the demands that humans make should never, never be supplied. This of course goes against the fundamental principles of Capitalism, bringing up yet again the question of whether or not Capitalism and morality are compatible. Now there are two solutions to this issue (1) do as some (such as Ayn Rand) have done and redefine morality or (2) attempt to replace Capitalism with a system that can co-exist with ethics.

It is frequently said of Communism that the theory was based on the idea that humans are perfect- that Communism expects people to put away sin and selfishness and work solely towards the benefit of the whole. On the contrary, Communism was created because of human envy, murderousness, and depravity. It is because humans have a natural tendency to demand genocide, gluttony, and greed that Communism was created as a way of combating injustice, racism, exploitation, and imperialism.

For you see, therein lies the greatest difference between the Capitalist and Communist code of ethics. Capitalism fully acknowledges humanity’s issues- the greed, the  hate, the fear. Capitalism takes an almost-casual “come-as-you-are” attitude. Greed? Greed is a natural human feeling, don’t fight it, use it. Deception? Deception can be used against your fellow competitors to get them to slip up- deceive away. In short, selfishness, self-interest, and egoism aren’t treated as vices but rather as assets.

Communism, on the other hand, demands more of humanity than to act according to our base appetites. Just because Marxism accepts humanity’s inherent evil as natural doesn’t mean it considers it to be acceptable. Not remotely. Communism has no easy way out- there’s no cheating or deception and greed is never rewarded. If we take away greed then how do we motivate humanity to better itself, to be more than just animals in the jungle? A love of doing things for their own sake, a love of justice, a love of truth. Freedom from greed, is what is truly needed, not slavery to our weaknesses. And to those who would state that attempting to advance humanity beyond what we have now is a blasphemous attempt to become gods, I simply respond “I’m not a theologian but isn’t that what God would want? I doubt- as Galileo did- that the same God who has endowed us with sense, intellect, and reason would have us forgo their use!”. All in all, Capitalism states that humans ought to be greedy while Communism states that humans should be more- the voice of the people is not the voice of god. I for one would rather have a system that matches morality, than have to shred morality to make room the system.

05
Aug
09

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!”.

28
Jun
09

Communism and Human Nature

As a Communist, I’ve heard many arguments against the Marxism but not quite so common as the “Human-nature-argument”.

Essentially what is argued is that Marxism is a “Utopian” system which can only work if humans were perfect. Since humans are naturally fallible, Communism can never work- indeed, the only system that can work in an imperfect world is Capitalism, which functions on the assumption that humans are naturally greedy and egotistical.

This argument, while popular, is nonetheless flawed due to (1) false assumptions about Communism, and (2) false assumptions about the nature of government, society, and economics.

Firstly, Communism is by no means a Utopian system. There will always be issues with any system, and Communism recognizes this. Where in the works of Marx or Engels is Communism labeled a panacea for humanity’s ailments? Where in Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto is Marxism promised to solve all of man’s problems? Nowhere. If anything, Marxism promises increased conflict, class warfare, and revolution! Hardly what one would call a “Utopian” system. It is because humans are naturally greedy and self-serving that Marx argues for Communism and against Capitalism. Humans are naturally violent and even murderous- that doesn’t mean we create a legal system that makes allowances for humanity’s shortcomings. As James Madison once put it, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary…”. How then can it be argued that Communism, a form of government, is based on the idea of humanity’s perfection?

Secondly, advocates of Capitalism will point to the fall of the Soviet Union and claim that this is prove that Communism doesn’t work because of human nature. One, the Soviet Union was not Communist (and this cannot be emphasized enough) and two, if the person making this claim would only look at the state of the world, he would realize that nothing works in the long run. According to the laws of physics, everything goes from a state of order to a state of disorder over varying lengths of time. This applies not only to eroding rocks or decomposing meat but to society as well (this is often referred to as “Social entropy”). Every society, regardless of it’s political, economic, or legislative system will, at some point, become corrupted and self-destruct (or become weakened to the point where it is wiped out by another system or force). Is there anything inherently wrong or flawed about democracy? In general, no. Will democratic countries last forever? Absolutely not. Athens, the Roman Republic, pre-WWII Germany were all democracies and they all fell in ruin. Was it the fault of the system? Of course not- it was the fault of humans. As much as we try to halt the advance of disease in our bodies or corruption in our governments, we can only delay the inevitable process. The ancient Chinese were aware of this and rather than attempting to come up with a system of government that could circumnavigate social entropy, they based their political theory on the simple belief that what goes up, must come down. Their system was called the “Mandate of Heaven”, which stated that when a dynasty became corrupt, the people had not the right but the obligation to revolt and instate a new government- a philosophy later echoed by America’s founding father’s in the Declaration of Independence (“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men… That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government…”). Yes, a Communist government would eventually become corrupt and collapse on itself, but so would a Capitalist government. The laws of physics aren’t optional.

In short, since Communism is based on the belief that humans are naturally predisposed to greed, lawlessness, and violence, it is impossible and illogical to argue that Communism relies on the belief that humans are naturally good. Likewise, because a Communism government- like everything else- will at some point self-destruct (though hopefully, only to be replaced with a new Communist government), it is impossible and illogical to argue that Communism is an unattainable Utopia capable of solving the human curse of war, disease, crime, and conflict. And even if, purely for the sake of the argument, Communism is a Utopian cure-all for death, destruction, and decay, aren’t there worse things to struggle for?