In Defense of Communism

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Ironically, the article comes from freerepublic.

Communism and human nature (Bolshie Mod sez, Arise ye kittens of the earth!)
Bolshie Mod Manifesto ^

Posted on 04/05/2005 10:50:57 AM PDT by Sammy sam

Many argue that communism will never be possible because of "human nature". The essence of this false argument is the belief that a communist society would consist of an all-powerful central government that would tell everybody what to do--and would therefore undermine the creative initiative of individuals and the search for happiness.

• This argument is based on two false assumptions:

(1) It assumes that a communist society will look like the former Soviet Union, or the current China, North Korea, etc (ie: corrupt police states with a feudal-style ruling class) (2) It assumes that people will only work in order to own bigger and bigger piles of commodities.

• The truth is that: (1) There will be no government in communist society--people will do what they want without being pushed around by anyone. The development of a corrupt police state or a new ruling class will be prevented by the struggles of the masses who will be armed with the weapon of transparency. (2) In a world of abundance for all no one will have to struggle (or even work) for the necessities of life (which will be a birthright--just like the air we all breathe). People will work on projects of their own choosing because (a) they find the work fun and interesting; (b) they enjoy the work relationships with talented and dedicated co-workers; (c) they want to make the world a better place; or (d) they want social status and recognition. A world of abundance for all where work is fun (and voluntary) will be made possible by a much higher productivity of human labor.

• An example of communist work relationships is provided by the Linux computer operating system--the core of which was created by many thousands of people--all working for free. A 2nd example is the "work" involved when people post to this forum. No one gets paid to post here--but people do so--because it is an expression of their principles and convictions.

• Who is in control? Under capitalism (and previous economic systems such as feudalism and slavery) only a small fraction of the population has control over their conditions of work--and the life of society as a whole. Only under genuine communism will the masses control their conditions of work--and the culture, economy and politics of society.

Interesting, and I mostly agree with the article.

Whenever people say "communist", the first thing they think is mostly Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc. However, I believe the article strikes me home when it mentioned that those countries are actually police states with feudal-style ruling class instead of genuine communistic society (besides, I think I'm a libertarian socialist and individual anarchist myself ).

I think the biggest mistake of Karl Marx is the assumption that it needs a totalitarian government to establish a communist society. But you don't have to look too far: isn't this forum communistic? (or every other forums out there for that matter?) Are you getting paid for every post you contribute to this forum? Isn't Linux development communistic? Isn't open source development? Didn't things like primitive communism and religious communism exist? Besides, isn't open science communistic?

The model of open science is "communistic" in the sense of community ownership--or rather community stewardship. But innumerable highly successful organizations and institutions in America are founded upon the ideal of community stewardship--including our democracy itself.

To be frank, I have to admit that the article above is not even close to answer the question whether a genuine communist society can exist solely and self-sustainedly, especially since economy is always based on scarcity. Nonetheless, I think communist society can, and does, co-exist with our moden society today.

*wears flameproof armor +5*

[SirNitram]

This is an idiot who never read the Communist Manifesto.

[LadyTevar]

I would like to point out that the father of Communism was jobless, living in an attic, borrowing money from friends, and hiding out from debt collectors. Of course he wanted to have a society where he didn't have to work or pay for things.

Personally, I think Communism is impossible. Look at what this article is stating:

• The truth is that: (1) There will be no government in communist society--people will do what they want without being pushed around by anyone. The development of a corrupt police state or a new ruling class will be prevented by the struggles of the masses who will be armed with the weapon of transparency.

That worked so well in Russia
Transparency is a pipe dream. Even chimps will hide food from others of the tribe. Hell, I've told Nitram white lies about how much money I spent on lunches at work, and I'm sure he knows that. To believe a Mob of people would be more honest is sheer stupidity.

(2) In a world of abundance for all no one will have to struggle (or even work) for the necessities of life (which will be a birthright--just like the air we all breathe).

Maybe in StarTrek. Who's going to farm those necessities, harvest them, drive them to market, stock and sell them... and NOT EXPECT PAYMENT? Even if it's a barter system, someone's getting paid for it.

People will work on projects of their own choosing because (a) they find the work fun and interesting; (b) they enjoy the work relationships with talented and dedicated co-workers; (c) they want to make the world a better place; or (d) they want social status and recognition. A world of abundance for all where work is fun (and voluntary) will be made possible by a much higher productivity of human labor.

Humans are by nature lazy, and not everyone is good at what they find 'fun' and 'interesting'. Yeah, Cyncat might make money with his stories, but I wouldn't with mine although we both love the job of author. I love my co-workers, but there are several days I drag myself to work for the sole reason that Nit and I need the money.
To believe this rosy-glasses view of the working class ignores how many people buy into the "Win The Lottery/Never Work Again" myth.

[SirNitram]

A basic primer on the Manifesto's important bits; where Marx lays down who Communists are and how such a state works.

Communists 'they have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.'

Get that? Communists must be divulged of even the most basic Human urges.

"The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."

The idea that an entire social class can seize power is absurd on it's face.

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

Absurd again: The theory of the Communists is to divide everyone into two camps, demonize one camp, overthrow and seize power from them, and then.. Well.

"The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer."

More absurdity. The minimum wage is a very smaller percentage of the whole.

"It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us. According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those who acquire anything, do not work."

Claiming that without having to work to gain property will not cause idleness, he cites the idle rich, who do not have to work, being idle. Colloquially, 'Shooting argument in foot'.

"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists."

Well, destroying the familial social structure is absurd as anything else here. Not many people talk about it, obviously. But humans are built for families.

"Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love."

Capitalism is a few centuries old. People cheated on spouses for thousands of years. The man is hallucinating. Also: Hippies.

Now the Commandments, sort of.

"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."

No house for you, ever. The government is now your landlord.

"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

Now we've got your house, we need to insure you can't gain any funny ideas by taking the money you earn working.

"Abolition of all rights of inheritance."

You can give nothing to your children.

"Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."

Rebels you can understand. 'Emigrant' means you've moved away. If you move out of the communist society, they take everything.

"Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly."

Monopolies are always destructive unless they have the law and competition nipping at their heels. With the law saying you can't have competition, it will always be destructive.

"Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state."

Remember how if you move away, they take all your stuff? This is more of the same. The Manifesto is explicit, you cannot travel or communicate without the OK of the State. It happens to help disguise any wrongdoing by, say, a destructive banking monopoly! Or the 'wrong sort' being declared Rebels.

"Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan."

Redundant: He already declared the state seizes the land.

"Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture."

The coercive nature is obvious. With no reward, you must make the risk obscene.

"Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country."

Anyone who grasps how industry is done knows you can't spread it out 'more equably'; it is dictated by natural and man-made infrastructure and resources.

"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc."

Abolish 'Child factory labour in it's present form', then immediately says combine education with industry.

Hmmm.

It is set down as a dictatorship by a ruling class which we are to believe cares about everyone but themselves. Except they control even your right to tell people things.

[LadyTevar]

So... what -was- Marx smoking? Or was he another Absinthe-drinker?

[Dartzap]

So... what -was- Marx smoking? Or was he another Absinthe-drinker?

Since he was in Paris and then London at the time....probably gin.

[SirNitram]

So... what -was- Marx smoking? Or was he another Absinthe-drinker?

In the grand play scribed, Karl is the prime mover, the liberator, the benevolent ruler, the savior of the man from the depredations of the few. He makes himself a quasi-deity, supplanting the normal religious and familial structures with himself and his creations.

Power, massive power, and he would be the immortal hero because of it.

[LadyTevar]

So... what -was- Marx smoking? Or was he another Absinthe-drinker?

In the grand play scribed, Karl is the prime mover, the liberator, the benevolent ruler, the savior of the man from the depredations of the few. He makes himself a quasi-deity, supplanting the normal religious and familial structures with himself and his creations.

Power, massive power, and he would be the immortal hero because of it.

Meanwhile, he's still hiding in the attic so the bill collectors can't find him?

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

This is an idiot who never read the Communist Manifesto.

In all fairness, I think the author is defending anarchist-communism while disagreeing with Karl Marx, as opposed to defending Marx's communism.

Personally, I think Communism is impossible. Look at what this article is stating:

Agree. His idea about the entire society work voluntarily is a pipe dream. However, he mentioned cases of "mini-communistic" societies like open source development while everyone involved is working voluntarily. Such thing already co-exist with the mainstream economy today, although, like I put before, whether such thing can exist solely and self-sustainedly is another thing (even DOSBOX developers still doing it in their spare time).

Or maybe we better call such things "communalism" instead?

[SirNitram]

This is an idiot who never read the Communist Manifesto.

In all fairness, I think the author is defending anarchist-communism while disagreeing with Karl Marx, as opposed to defending Marx's communism.

Then he should have called it Libertarianism, the only system that actually defined itself as anarchistic. Of course, this offends Libertarians who refuse to grasp that no enforcement of the social contract ensures society shuts down until coercive forces can enforce society.

[frigidmagi]

isn't this forum communistic?

No. No it is not. If you think it is, watch what happens when you "communistic" another forum goers stories or ideas. Cat for example owns all rights to his stories just because they're posted here doesn't mean you can run off and try to take them to an editor.