During parts of my sophomore, junior, and senior years in high school I was a communist. I received a lot of different responses from different people, but was almost universally misunderstood. I was not a Stalinist, Leninist, Maoist, or even a Marxist. But there were few people who could consider the idea of communism as separate from any of those. I propose that American history along with the totalitarian governments that call themselves communist have caused most Americans to discard a whole notion of social structure that may be highly beneficial to consider. Let me preface this by saying that I am no longer a communist and do not advocate communism as a good form of government for any nation today -- my next post will detail why I don't think communism can work as a formal system of government. That being said I would like to address the benefits of communism as an ideal simply to combat the overwhelming misunderstanding that I have encountered when talking about communism.
The main ideal of communism is the elimination of need. Although the Soviet Union was evil and Americans were right in labeling it as un-Christian (although I don't know that I would say the American system is "Christian" in any meaningful way, either), there is nothing more Christian than the communist ideal. In fact, one of the only records of a communist society functioning well for more than one generation is that of the early church. The driving force behind ideal communism is the desire to eliminate suffering as much as possible. To do so each individual must consider the needs of every other member in the society to be more important than his own. Then when someone has a need that he can fulfill, he sacrifices his own comfort to provide for their need. This type of communism does not necessitate the elimination of currency or democratic government. Marxism does, Communism in general does not.
Communism became popular in the mid-1800's in Europe because the Industrial Revolution had created a culture of suffering for the masses at the hands of a small minority. Factory owners enacted near slave-labor on their workers with no heed to their health or safety. It was obvious that something needed to change, that a more communist approach to society was necessary. Marxism was one attempt. Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto and from that point on everyone equated Communism with his particular attempt to implement it in his society. I propose that there is a more general ideal of communism that does not answer many of the "how" questions and therefore is not bad or failed the way Marxism is.
Furthermore, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, and all other supposedly "communist" systems that have been made into governments are not communist at all. In fact, they are totalitarian forms of government that are closer to the ideals of Fascism than those of communism. These governments increased the suffering of their people in the name of equality rather than easing it. These governments solidified absolute control over the common man by a very small ruling class. These governments used the name "communism" to cover their true nature and do not reflect in any way the true ideals of communism. Unfortunately, these governments have so polluted the average person's mind that it is difficult for them to separate the ideal of communism from these repressive regimes.
There is more I could say on the subject, but I think this gives a decent overview (especially after this on my last post). In summary, communism is an ideal dedicated to easing the suffering of each member of the society. To this end communism necessitates that every member of the society be willing to sacrifice his excess to eliminate another member's deficit. No country has successfully implemented anything like communism as a formal government and those that claim to are actually totalitarian. Communism is a valuable if unattainable ideal and should not be so quickly dismissed simply because bad people have been associated with it. The ideals of communism are particularly useful today because they combat consumerism, cut-throat capitalism, and ferocious individuality -- all of which are cancers eating away at our society today. As I said earlier, my next post will explain why communism cannot function as a form of government. However, we should still consider its ideals when considering what a good society is and how we can improve ours. If you ever talk to someone that claims to be communist, take time to figure out if what they mean is a wonderful ideal before dismissing them as anti-Americans in league with Satan.
4 comments:
I agree that the ideals of communism are not bad. I do think, however, that not only have evil men contorted it to their wims, but that communism allows them to do so. I'm not saying I've put enough research into it to explain exactly how, but that it seems to be almost an inevitability. Even in the early church, as recorded in Acts, the early church suffered because Gentile widows were not getting the same treatment that Jewish widows were. Maybe it's human nature, maybe it's something else. But I do not think that a truly communistic society can last for very long. But, I'm sure you'll tell us why soon.
Wow! You sure are quick to make quite a lot of assumptions about a post that specifically says that there is another coming after it to explain in greater detail. Calm down.
"there is plenty of evidence to show that the apostles and members of the early church still had houses and possessions that they called their own"
Barnabas, I specifically mention that the kind of communism I'm talking about doesn't necessitate the end of democracy or Capitalism, and I meant that to imply that it also would not mean the end of personal property. Furthermore, there is nothing in my post to imply that communist interaction should be involuntary -- you seem to assume it. I think you are proving my point of people denouncing communism based on what they have seen in practice rather than the ideal alone. Your assumptions that communism has to be involuntary, eliminate personal possessions, and "slowly starve the population to death" show that you are basing your beliefs mostly on Marxism and Stalinism, which I specifically address in my post -- one of which is not even real Communism. Did you even really read my post? Or just skim over it briefly and then comment with your predrawn conclusions about the evils of Communism? I'll post about why I don't think communism can work, and then we'll see if you still disagree so much.
well, I take small issue with this:
"there is nothing more Christian than the communist ideal"
I find "forced altriusm" to be profoundly un-Christian. As we talked about in your libertarian post, I think this is the strongest point Ayn Rand and the objectivists ever made - forcing people to be giving, altruistic, etc., is wrong. It's not the place of the government. So while Communism could in theory be voluntary (like the early Christians), it's impossible to implement it that way as a government, and hence not really "communism".
It's also worth noting that NOT voluntarily giving of yourself is also to an extent morally wrong. I believe we're morally required to donate money and time and effort to helping others. It's just that state sponsored enforcement of this moral ideal is also wrong, and that's where communism goes off the deep end.
Post a Comment