Dangerous Dan

I was involved in a discussion earlier today in which several folks were defending communism. Given how many people thought it was a good idea, or at least was so in theory, I feel compelled to offer a list (which is hardly exhaustive) of reasons for why it's one of the worst ideas to spring from the mind of man.

1. It breeds immorality. One of the key achievements of Western culture and morality is that people are believed to have some kind of inherent worth that must be respected. If you want to be Kantian about it, it's that people must always be treated as ends and not merely as means.

Communist philosophy, however, is centered around a kind of materialism. All there is is material production and consumption and the manipulation of the aspects of that material, e.g. those who own the means of production oppress the workers, is the source of mankind's woes. All other facets of humanity, e.g. poetry, music, religion, philosophy, etc., are only epiphenomenal manifestations of this material struggle. Communism is, obviously, anti-capitalistic as it considers the aforementioned woes to be a result of unfair distribution.

Communism, though, exhibits the very worst vices of capitalism. Since the philosophy looks at the world and the human condition as merely materially-based, then people become nothing more than economic units. They have no inherent value, but are valuable only insofar as they can contribute to society. In other words, they are not seen as ends, but merely as means. This is why the forced starvation of people was ok, wasting lives on industrial projects was acceptable, killing prisoners to make railways was fine, executing academics was good, and forcing people into jobs they didn't like or for which they weren’t qualified was encouraged in communist countries. Individuals are nothing more than economic units to be funneled to different enterprises, to be manipulated for collective gain, or even to be expended if they, as assets, are expendable and there are more units to take their place.

2. It's against individualism. A few were arguing today that communism is not incompatible with individualism, which was presented as roughly equivalent with personal freedom. The problem, though, is that they seemed to think of individualism as being able to wear what they wanted or being different from others. This is hardly the extent of personal freedom. Given the previous discussion about people being economic units, you will not necessarily do what you want to do; you will be assigned to certain tasks. Additionally, engaging in activities that are not conducive to the public good are discouraged and quashed.

3. There's no incentive to excel. What's the point of doing well or working harder when you will receive exactly what you get by putting in the bare minimum? One person offered that some people actually like to work hard because of the personal self-fulfillment out of it. True, but those persons are too few to make a difference in a large economy, and I'd be willing to bet that the majority of them would also admit to other benefits they get by their hard work. The vast majority of any workforce will say that the benefits of hard work is why they do it.

4. It doesn't realize people's desires. Communism is supposed to supply people's necessities. Fine. A roof over my head and food in my stomach are all I really need. That's hardly all that I want, however. I want certain types of food, I want a certain type of lodging, I want certain things that I don't need at all. Under a communist system, I'm not to have things I don't need. If I want an SUV I don't need, but otherwise have the means to obtain it, why should I be told that I can't have it? Why should I not be allowed an excessive five bedroom house for my two-person family? This relates to point 2 in that these things put a severe restriction on personal freedom and individualism.

5. It doesn't work. Communism has been attempted in a variety of countries and a variety of cultures. Each one, with the possible exception of Sweden, has been an outstanding failure with scant little anything positive coming out of it. You would think it a little mysterious, then, why people would still advocate the system. Well, the popular excuse is that A) real communism has never been done and/or B) the countries that tried communism weren't really ready for it since they hadn't yet arrived at the proper stage in the Marxist cycle of history, i.e. industrialized society.

This excuse is poppycock. It's a little like saying that a hundred different shit sandwiches all tasted terrible only because they were lacking mayonnaise. To (A), I counter that what they call real communism cannot be achieved. What looks good on paper is absolutely worthless if it cannot be implemented practically. And the empirical evidence is that when communism is instituted, things always go in about the same horrible direction, with oppression, murder, a fouled-up economy, and a miserable intimidated populace all being the happy norm. If a philosophy that's meant to be practical always goes in the same wrong direction when it meets the real world, that should indicate to any reasonable person that the theory is inherently and seriously flawed and should therefore be rejected.

To (B), what is there to say that communism could be at all successful in societies that are supposed to be ready for it? I see absolutely nothing to suggest that a communist America would be any kind of utopia instead of a quickly devolving hellhole that would suffer from the same ailments as the Soviet Union, China, or North Korea did/do.

The excuse is nothing more than a copout for failure. The failure is attributed to anything but communism itself. Very well. In that case, I will make the claim that any time capitalism had problems, it was only because the form of capitalism being used was incomplete, not fully realized, and/or the people weren't ready for real capitalism. Slavery? Poor southerners were stuck in an agrarian economy when real capitalism needs industry. Underpaid workers? Merely improper capitalism. Endangering workers in building the Hoover dam? Ah, everybody knows that proper capitalism takes care of its workers.

The point is that you can't just take a back door escape for communism's failures. Those failures came about for a reason and that reason was communism itself. Some people say communism sounds good in theory. I quite agree with them, but only if your theorizing also strips away common sense and empirical evidence, and argues that communism should apply to something other than humans. If you do that, you may have something.

The amazing suggestion that communist supporters give is that communism may have failed innumerable times, but that those failures are actually powerful evidence that it should be given another chance. Like hell it should. Let it stay in the dustbin of history where it belongs.