First, let me say this. I'm sorry, Ms. Solas, but I never sputtered "well what about the Nazis?" In no way was I saying that Nazism is the same as Communism (in practice it is, really, but we'll get to that later). Shoot. This is going to take longer than I thought.
Okay, let's get started. There are few things that really annoy me in this world. I'm usually a pretty laid back guy, but when people start to talk about Communism as though it is something good, I just can't take it. On any large-scale system (say, greater than about 50 people), Communism will never, ever work. Now, when you say that, Communist lovers will sputter "but, but, but, it's never really been put into practice! You can't know if it would work unless we try it! Seriously, it will be a Utopia!" My response to that is, "well, you're wrong." I'm sorry but if you are going to use the word "Communism" you have to accept what "Communism" means in our world. I don't care if "it's not what Marx thought!" (as though Marx is some sort of freaking misunderstood genius, Christ-figure, perfection-here-on-earth). When you say "Communism" you mean "communism as put into practice by governments around the world." The word is not redeemable. But just for fun, let's look at the track record of nations widely regarded as "Communist." USSR (the big one): Totalitarianism, total social and economic collapse, upwards of 45 million people murdered, ubiquitous wide-spread poverty. China: Totalitarianism, thought police, uncountable murders, ubiquitous wide-spread poverty. Cuba: Totalitarianism, wide-spread poverty, cigars. Vietnam: Totalitarianism, ubiquitous wide-spread poverty, death death and more death. North Korea: Totalitarianism, ubiquitous wide-spread poverty to the point of starvation, thought police. Poland: Totalitarianism, ubiquitous wide-spread poverty. I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Communism does not work on a large governmental system. So it hasn't really been put into practice you say? How many chances do we need to give it before we can say it is an evil failure that has killed more people around the world than all wars, ever? (This is where I made the comparison to the Nazis, one of the few Nazi comparisons that I think are valid. What I said was, saying that it just hasn't correctly been put into practice is like saying the Nazis had some good ideas, they just didn't execute them correctly. In fact, Nazism is slightly less scary because its widespread violence and murder against jewish people, gays, gypsys etc was almost totally irrational. On the other hand, communist regimes tend to murder huge numbers of people because of their ideas. They actively and rationally (rationally because they are right, different ideas are a huge danger to communism) seek out those that disagree with the state and kill them. That seems scarier and more stifling to me. Just for more fun, let's look at what Nazism led to: Totalitarianism, wide-spread murder and poverty, total economic, social and political collapse, thougt police. Hmm, see any similarities here?)
In a related gripe, whenever someone, in the course of an argument, says something along the lines of "well, it's never really been put into practice" or "well, we don't ALL think that," it drives me crazy. Nothing is more stifling to the exchange of ideas than marginalizing the other persons view by changing the terms of the argument. You can't argue with those type of statements because they don't say anything. If someone wants to tell me what a REAL Communist system would look like, go ahead. You're wrong, and you'll never convince me, but go ahead. At least give an argument.
Now, let's talk about why communism on anything but the smallest scales will not work (in this statement I am even including they mythical "communists who got it right" that the world has never seen). Around these parts, communists like to think of themselves as non-conformists. You know the ones, they think that capitalism is stupid (they probably have some good points, I just can't get close enough to them because of the stench. There's nothing capitalist about taking showers, you know), they have long hair, probably white boy dreadlocks, they smoke lots of pot and they like to say words like "proletariat" and "from each according to ability, to each according to need." This is ironic, because if there is one thing that communism cannot survive in conjunction with, it's non-conformity. Imagine this scenario. Ahh, Utopia. Everyone works hard and gives their money and creations and whatever else to the Community purse which then distributes everything to those that need it. What a grand system. Then one day, little Matilda thinks, "hmmm, what if this system isn't the best way to do things? Sometimes it just doesn't seem fair that I work so hard but no matter how hard I work, I just get the same amount of stuff." So she works a little less hard, and there's a little less stuff to go around. Now everybody is getting just a little less than they were before. Now someone else thinks, "hmm, I'm working just as hard, but receiving less of what I need!" Now they start to work a little less hard, and there's even less stuff to go around. And so on and so on until nobody is working hard and nobody is getting as much stuff as they need. For communism to work, it requires strict adherence to the system by everyone involved. There is no place for non-conformity. Now, when the powers that be (and there have to be powers that be, otherwise how will stuff get distributed?) see that people are questioning the system and ruining it for everyone, well they can't just let that happen, right? Not in Utopia they can't! So they start to enforce the system and crush out the non-conformity and you see where I'm going with this, don't you? The direct and inevitable end of this process is Totalitarianism. The state must control everything down to your thoughts if the system is going to work. Opting out is not an option. And if you don't think that this scenario pretty much follows current human nature, well, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Now, let's look at another scenario. So, we're back in Utopia and everyone is happy giving up all they have etc. One guy has the job of distributing the resources "to each according to need." One day he wakes up and realizes that maybe he needs a little bit more than he thought. I mean, he wants his kids to have what they need, right? So he goes into the office and maybe keeps a little bit of everybody elses' stuff for himself. Just a little bit, so it's okay. He keeps doing this, and no one ever notices. Then he realizes that he can probably help out his friends, too! They each get a little more than everyone else. Eventually, the neighbors start to notice that they have less stuff and are going hungrier than those people next door, what gives? So the next time they go in to get whatever, they try to bargain to get some more. Just a little homemade apple pie in exchange for 10 more units of currency, not big deal. Well, this eventually leads to a system in which those that control the resources easily control everyone. The haves and the have-nots. "Wait," you say "haves and have-nots only exist in capitalism, that's why it's evil!" Sorry to burst your bubble, but even Jesus (the communist) said that we'd always have the poor with us.
So do you see what I'm saying? It only takes one person to ruin the whole system by seeking out an advantage for themselves or even just questioning the whole system. That's why large scale communism will always lead to totalitarianism. It cannot survive if anyone does not conform to the system, the state, the leader, whatever. You cannot be both a non-conformist and a communist. They are mutually exclusive. I have my doubts, knowing what I do of human nature, that communism could even successfully exist on the small scale. That'll be easier to prove though. I'm sure there are at least several communes out there that have put into practice the writings of Marx. Find one that has been completely successful and show me and maybe I'll start to rethink this. But probably not, because I don't think you'll find one.
But don't take it too hard. A lot of things didn't pan out. Communism is just another ideology that should be left on the ash heap of the twentieth century. It's nothing personal. But if you want to make it personal, we can.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
But I did get you to talk politics on your blog!
And ... I actually happen to agree with you in a certain sense. The problem is that Marx left Machiavelli out of his equation. Remember, The Prince? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Which is what happened in Russia, China, Germany, Cuba, etc., etc., etc.
Communism can only work in small cooperatives in which all the people really buy into the idea wholeheartedly. And hold each other accountable and don't allow any one person to rise to the top. The problem is that that is "utopia" or heaven on earth and as Christians I believe we're called to attempt it, but I'm not sure we'll ever achieve it.
Touche, I guess this is sort of political. It wasn't what I had in mind when I said I wouldn't talk about politics since I was thinking more about DC politics, but touche indeed.
I'm amused every time I watch The Wizard of Oz about that merry little part where they arrive in the Emerald City, they're having their hair curled and ribboned and shoes shined and all, and the happy little Emerald Cityans are singing about how they get to work two hours a day, giving their services, and then they go home -- hooray! Maybe you have to read the book to flesh out all of that, but it always amused me that Oz was essentially Communist. Haven't really looked into L. Frank Baum's leanings. Maybe there's something there.
Oh, also -- something I've been wondering about. I don't know much about applied economics or even politics, so I would very much appreciate if Schuyler or someone else would approach Socialism. How's that working for current Socialist countries? pros/cons, etc.
From what I understand (and that's very, very little) Baum was writing about the evils of leaving the gold standard behind when he wrote about the wizard (hence the yellow brick road).
No, a much better and more scathing indictment of communism is George Orwell's Animal Farm.
Karl Marx was very much a product of his time. The mid to late 1800 when the ultimate perfectibility of humankind was just over the horizon and part of the overall Industrial Revolution.
Schuyler, I hope you won't go away, because I'm sick as a dog (whatever that means) and I need some good diversion.
So ... my original quote was that Jesus was the original communist.
What say you to that?
Some have done research on the Wizard of Oz and the fact that it is a parable on Populism and the Populist Party at the turn of the last century (for what its worth).
If communism fails, it was never communism to begin with. If communism succeeds, it's communism. That's the tiny prayer commie idiots tell themselves to lull themselves to sleep. It helps alleviate hunger pangs.
Post a Comment