Friday, June 25, 2010
The Problem of Communism
I would like to start this post out by saying that true utopic communism is indeed a noble goal, and that if I thought it were remotely possible for all people to consume as much as they produce and live together in utopic harmony and sing kumbayah,etc., I would be its biggest advocate. This kind of communism, however, is an impossibility for exactly the same reason men have aspired toward it: human nature. Human nature itself is a complicated beast that even the best philosophers have struggled to examine, so for this post let's just say that human being have the potential to act selflessly and nobly, but also have the potential for greed and selfishness. According to Karl Marx, communism is the eventuality of human progress, but it can only be achieved by the state first taking control of all property and business. Marx asserts (quite truly, I believe) that power rests in money, thus the bourgeoisie. They have the money; they buy machines; they control the industry-- they have the power. While the ultimate goal of communism would be for every person to have an equal share in society, there must first be the transition period. And therein lies the problem of communism: the entire philosophy- the morals, the economics- can only come to fruition if the state takes the side of benevolence and relinquishes control of everything back to the people. The success of years of bloodshed and strife (which will come if you try and take money from some to redistribute to all) all depends on a leader deciding that they don't want power any more. Why is this a bad thing? I'm not a natural cynic and do believe that people are inherently good, but there has not been a single example in history where those in power were willing to give up that privilege for the benefit of their people. The problem isn't the system, the problem is the transition, and, human nature. This is why communism can never work. Plus, we live in an age now where it is not justifiable to take money from others just because they have a lot of it, for many people have earned their money. They are not noble or living off a family inheritance--they are just smart and able. What right does a society have to determine some people have too much? That, I'm afraid, is a different topic for a different day.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would agree that the utopian idea of communism is a great one, but it is an implausible idea because any body with power never wants to lose it. An example in today's world is that the people of congress get into office and they do not want to leave. They make shady deals and other things to help fund their reelection. Another example would be that when Napoleon was exiled the first time to Elba, he was treated like royalty there, but the second he thought he could get his power back he left it knowing very well that he could die. The problem with power is that it becomes addicting; all you want is to keep it and get more of it. It is the same with money that is one of the reasons power and money are always synonymous.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Communism, as Marx saw it, is simply not applicable to the real world. Marx accused other socialists of being idealistic Utopians- Fourier, Saint-Simon, etc. But I think Marx's vision is even more Utopian. His first error is his notion of labor as the source of human essence. I think this core philosophical premise of Communism is up for debate as much as any of the specific means of the program. And the idea that all non-economic distinctions would fade in a Communist society is ridiculous. People define themselves through race, nationality, and religion as strongly as they do class. It may not be logical, but it's human nature.
ReplyDeleteCommunism may have been a good idea in theory, but I just don't think it would have ever been possible to actually apply it. I really dislike redistribution of wealth, and it pains me to see policies today that try to implement this. While the idea may have been passable in Marx's time, since 90% of the population didn't own private property, I think that it would be impossible to implement communism in today's world. While there are arguable still a small number of incredibly wealthy people, a large number of today's population would be quite averse to having their wealth taken from them.
ReplyDeleteIt would near impossible for America to make the complete transition to communism because in America the majority of wealth is earned through talent and merit rather than oppression and tyranny. There is still exploitation but the opportunity to exploit is available to all who seek it, hard work and intellect are rewarded while laziness and immaturity are not. So, the working class has less reason for revolt because the opportunities of owning property, retiring, and enjoying life are still available to people of all professions. In America there is no revolutionary proletariat, there may be proletariats, but the need for revolution is not present. The idea of a utopian communism may sound nice but I think we have found a utopian economical system here in America with the perfect blend of capitalism and socialist safety nets. Great Post.
ReplyDeleteAs we discussed in class, one of the criticisms of Marx's theory is the failure to accurately describe how the transition to Communism and Communist society itself would function "on the ground." Yet, regardless of the accuracy of Marx's predictions, his critique of capitalism exerted (exerts) a powerful influence on society. What merits if, any, are to be found in the critique itself, rather than his proposed solution?
ReplyDeleteI would also argue that while America does not have official, legal restrictions that bar people from rising in society (such as existed in France prior to 1789,) to claim that American society is based solely on merit, hard work and intellect ignores our history of racism and sexism as well as the structural constraints of poverty.