It has become clear to me, after many months of waiting, that a
counter-topic is necessary in order to bring a little bit of "political and philosophical composure" back to the forum after the recent elections. Since it is blatantly obvious that their are several Communists and Socialists who belong to this forum, or at least idolize Stalin and Marx to some degree, these are the views that this topic will be addressing.
For me, Communism has always been a philosophy I've disliked, if not outright disgusted by.
The basic core principle of Communism and Socialism is "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". Which is to say, doing things which benefit's those most 'worthy' by those who can 'give' the most. People seldom recognize that these idea's are the same idea's that have been used by thousands of years in both feudal and totalitarian regimes to justify the cruelty and despotism used by it's ruling classes. The difference is that Communists and Socialists simply switch the needs of the people around, so rather than the rich taking from the poor everything they have and distributing evenly among themselves we have the poor taking from the rich everything they have and distributing it evenly among themselves. Few seem to recognize that these idea's, while different to a degree, are fundamentally the same and have the same general effect on everyone. Most Communist idea's come from Carl Marx's and Friedrich Engels book "Manifesto of the Communist Party" and their later and earlier works, both together and separate.
Now, according to Communist theory, all social problems can be brought back to the principle of class struggle and, as proletarians, it is our duty to fight for our class and make sure it finally wins the war of class struggle.
This scares me greatly. Communist idea's, built upon the principles of selflessness, worry me. The idea that 'We owe Society" seams foolish to me, and utterly flawed. It speaks of class derogation and almost Orwellian conformity and oppression, which isn't really revolutionary at all if you look back to the Romans and the times of the Middle Ages. The assertion that a majority of people 'deserve' something more than a small minority simply because they 'worked harder' is highly offensive to me. My second response is bewilderment; I hold the view that the advancement of civilization (not society) is the work of everyone who belongs to the said civilization, not just the working class or the wealthy. The view that only the 'working class' produce everything for society and that the rich are simply there to leech and to parasite of the work of the lower classes is simply a lie meant to dehumanize the upper classes and paint them as monster . To me, this view neglects to take into account the reason that a man is 'above' another man, at least in terms of ability to create and lead effectively. Communism neglects this reasoning and instead naively goes into tirade about how repressed the working class is by everyone above them, even if the wealthy don't care in the slightest about the working man or are even trying to help the working class in some way.
Secondly, the endorsement of complete state control of the economy, which was prevalent in Soviet Russia and Communist China before it became a simple totalitarian society. The idea that government should intervene in every aspect of business so that 'society' benefits the most, simply baffles me. As I am very liberal when it comes to social issues and believe in equality when it comes to things such as freedom and gun laws; I also believe that we should warrant liberality when it comes to matters in business, at least up until a certain extent. Communists believe, however, that all private business interests act unethically and unscrupulously and that somehow if we hand over all our economic controls over to the 'people' that things will suddenly be fair and that everything will get better for everyone. To me, this view is much more naive than believing that all businesses are evil. It practically relies on the fact that the people voted or put in charge running the business is good at what he does and not some government or political hack, which more often than not is what is required of the person in order to be put in the position in the first place. This also brings into focus the first contradiction of Communist business, the claim that their are no 'bosses' running the business. This is a contradiction because even though all people of higher office's are elected or put in their positions by the authority of the people they still have the same authority that a boss would normally have over them and the same responsibilities to meet quotas, increase productivity, and improve profits as would any other boss, except that these needs are dictated by the people nonetheless. In other words, he may be a democratically elected boss elected by the people but, just like the president or the Prime Minister, he is still a boss and still has authority over you. Another idea prevalent in Communist ideology is the idea that a free market economy somehow breeds poverty and makes it so that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. While this may have been true in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the advent of unions, ways to voluntarily control industry, and certain limited government controls and regulations have largely negated one half of the reasoning behind communism. The rich may be getting richer but the poor certainly aren't growing poorer or more repressed. In fact, if one looks at the rights of citizens and compare it to the economic status of the time, we find that as the wealth of a nations business (locally) grows the wealth and freedoms of it's people grow too.
Now, this is not to say I am a complete Laissez-faire Capitalist. I believe that some government controls are necessary only to keep a nations economy in equilibrium. However, the type of government restrictions and controls set in place by Communism only lead to economic stagnation and that a wrong move in economic planning by the government in charge can lead to total economic depression and eventually collapse. This has been proven true in 3 cases, the Soviet Union at the end of the 1980's, the North Koreans since the founding of the country, and the Chinese before the 1970's.
Thirdly, is the irrational hatred of anything upper class, be it helping out the poor or building a multilevel skyscraper. This hatred is at the core of Communist class struggle and hence the heart of Communism itself. Yet it is this belief that is Communism's greatest lie. While it is true that some upper class members are cold, heartless bastards that aren't even worthy of being spat at (Paris Hilton for example) it is also true that some of them are truly worthy of wealth and their place in society (Warren Buffet and Thomas Edison just to name a few). What I can't seem to understand about Communists is why they all seem to think that they don't produce anything in society. This may be true of some of them, but surely they must understand that without this financial inequality we would have never had some of histories greatest works or art or fantastic inventions. To drive in my point, name one great thing artistically, technologically, or philosophically EVER created by a man living in a communist country? Can't think of one, that's because there aren't any. Without individual creativity and individual wealth, such discoveries can never have been made and even if such a discovery is made by an individual, the state always takes all the credit. Now look at the rest of the world and what it's created artistically, technologically, and philosophically. The light bulb by Thomas Edison, E=MC2 by Einstein, the Eiffel Tower by Gustav Eiffel, the list goes on and on. Even the Mona Lisa was commissioned by a wealthy family in the city Florence. To say that the rich contribute nothing to society is a lie. Yet this is what Communists spout every single day, to millions all over the world. Now, I'm not saying the rich the rich are the intellectual lifeblood of the nation, the middle and lower classes have contributed just as much to society as have the rich. But to take something away from someone that they have rightfully earned, that's thievery. To take something away from someone that they have rightfully earned and trying to justify it by using philosophical and political means, that is what Communism is at it's heart, plain and simple.
I guess that's all I have to say on the subject right now. Please feel free to rip apart, dissect, or otherwise desiccate in any way you see fit. Good day, gentlemen.
Show Posts
