A while ago, I wrote a post listing brief counterarguments to the claims usually used to “disprove” Communism. To this day, it’s been one of the most read pieces I’ve written, so I thought it might be time to expand it a bit. Written below are the most common arguments people use against Communism, and my responses to them.
Communism Has Been “Tried and Failed”:
The problem with this commonly used argument is that more or less everything has been tried and failed. Take democracy for example. Can I argue that democracy is a futile endeavor because it failed not once but multiple times it was tried?
"I propose we write really depressing plays!"
If I recall, democracy didn’t work for the Athenians.
"I propose we totally rip off of the Greeks!"
And the republic didn’t exactly wind up being a lasting facet of Roman society.
Even in America, democratic government needed to be reworked- but despite the many failed attempts at democracy, the idea that anyone today would want anything other than a democracy is laughable. Let’s keep this in perspective before claiming that Communism was tried once and should now be abandoned for all time.
Communism is “Great on Paper”:
I’m particularly irked by this argument because most everything is “great on paper”! Now there’s no real response to the whole “Communism is great on paper but doesn’t work in application” because of how broad it is. Really, it’s more of a prefix to an argument (such as the ones below), and any response is going to have to be more specific. Still, if you really do need an immediate response, simply point out that egalitarian, classless societies that shared work and held common property have existed since the beginning of time.
Communism Conflicts with Human Nature:
I’ve found this line of reasoning especially prevalent among religious groups, and while you could debate whether or not humans are basically good or bad till the end of time, there is an argument you can use in defense of Communism even if humans are inherently evil (which, for the record, I myself believe).
Now the argument tends to go “If humans were also basically good, Communism would work. But humans are basically bad- that’s why Capitalism works. Capitalism takes humanity’s evil nature into account.”
See, this argument is just ridiculous- first, if humans were basically good, we wouldn’t even be having to bring up Communism to begin with. Second, Capitalism doesn’t so much “take humanity’s evil nature into account” at it does reward it. Greed, deception, selfishness, reckless individualism, decadence, and the like- these are all things that Capitalism not only makes excuses for, but encourages! If we’re going to base our economics on the concept that greed is acceptable, should we then base our legal system on the concept that perjury, harassment, and murder are acceptable?
There's actually a big market for furniture made from human skin...
Just because humans are naturally bad doesn’t mean we should base our entire society around the hopes that they’ll act badly.
Communism Is Against Religion:
Let’s face facts- Marx was an atheist, as were many prominent Communists. However, to assume that Communism and religion are opposed would be wrong- indeed, if you take a look at what Marx wrote about religion, you’ll find his issues weren’t so much with faith, as the use of religion by the powerful for control, and the use of religion by the powerless as an excuse for not taking action. In reality, even Communists who would describe themselves as “anti-theist” almost universally hold to the belief that what you believe (or don’t believe) is your own business. On the other end of the spectrum, you will in fact find Christian Communism, liberation theology, and social justice movements arguing that it is not Communism but Capitalism that is antithetical to the basic principals of religion.
Totally what Jesus had in mind...
Communism is Against Democracy:
My response to this accusation is two pronged- first, we need to point out that not all Communist leaders seized power, most prominent among Marxists democratically elected to power was Chilean president Salvador Allende, who lost his life in a CIA-backed military coup. Second, while there were dictators who claimed to be Communist, these men were Marxists in about the same way that the propagators of the Spanish Inquisition were Christian. Take a look at the writings of Marx or Engels or Luxembourg and you’ll see the demands for power to be put in the hands of the people, not the party chairman or head of the military. Communism believes in democracy- it is with Capitalism that democracy doesn’t mesh so well. Democracy is meant to be a system in which all have equal power. However, in a system where money is power, any inequality in wealth is going to mean an inequality in influence over government. The wealthy man can hire lobbyists, give campaign contributions, fund advertising, hire people to smear his opponents, and so on (and let’s not forget the straight-up bribe). Is that equality? Let’s take a look at what democracy looks like in the US.
Not exactly faith-inspiring is it?
Planned Economies Aren’t Efficient:
It’s not a common argument, but every once in a while you’ll run into someone with a penchant for economics who’ll take this line of argument. They state “Hey, there’s no way a planned economy will work unless you’re always over producing ______ or trying to catch up to the demand for ______. It’s inefficient.”
Now you can probably argue exactly how a planned economy could work- and that’s a debate for another time. The easiest response to this argument is to point out that Capitalism isn’t exactly efficient either. When someone can take natural resources, use them to create a product, and finding that the market for novelty sumo tables doesn’t actually exist, be stuck with a warehouse full of the stuff, you can’t exactly assert Capitalism doesn’t have just as much potential to be wasteful.
All this and more garbage available from SkyMall!
Society Won’t Function Without the Free Market:
Another argument sometimes used by the economically minded is that the only way for society to function is through the natural process of supply and demand. Now my response to this is to use my own conditions- unless you attend a college set in an extremely rural area, I’m geussing you won’t be able to use the exact same points, but hopefully you’ll be able to use the basic logic behind them.
Now as I said, I attend a college surrounded by miles of forest and not much else. There is a massive demand for theaters, restaurants, shops, grocery markets, and other diversions, yet nothing happens. See, what the acolytes of the infallible system of supply and demand don’t realize is that supply and demand is like fate- it only works in retrospect. Yes, demand is met (or else, it moves elsewhere), but how long and how much do you have to demand for a product or service before it shows up? There’s no standard, no pattern, no system. Things were either meant to be or not meant to be- all in all, the whole “supply and demand will answer everything” stance taken by some really can’t be held.
Communism is Against My “Right” to Private Property:
You ever see ads for buying a star, or property on the moon? You laugh at it- maybe you’ll think it’s a nice sentiment- but at the end of the day you don’t take it seriously. After all, the moon and stars can’t be bought because they’re not anyone’s to sell. It all makes about as much sense as buying a cubic foot of air from a man named Steve. Steve can’t actually give you a cubic foot of air, can’t prevent you from moving through said cubic foot of air, and has no way of owning a cubic foot of air to begin with.
Yet we view land (and private property, made from resources from land) as a sacred right. Why? Land is just land- land didn’t belong to anyone until some neanderthal took up a club and declared that all dirt between points A, B, C, and D were his and his alone. Yet today if I were to attempt to do the same thing and claim that all within an invisible border belongs to me and no one else, I would be called a thief. That’s the origin of this so-called “right”, someone in the distant past just took it, and because of this, you can “buy” a plot of land, never use it for anything, and yet have every right to keep anyone from living there. That’s just not rational- the world belongs to everyone, and you can only “own” property in as much as you can be the one currently using it.
Communism Is Against Prosperity:
Come one- you don’t have to be a Communist to recognize that we can’t live in decadence and luxury. Communism isn’t against prosperity, but it is against mindless excess. Private jets, whaleskin leather seats for you SUV (look it up), imported caviar with every meal- there’s no way that we can live like this- the planet is having a hard enough time keeping up with current rates of consumption as it is. Further, let’s not imagine for a moment that fast cars and big houses are what make a life worth living. Freedom, dignity, peace, equality- I’d take that over a gold plated BMW any day.
If You’re a Communist, Why Aren’t You Poor?
The inbred cousin of the question of “Why can’t I be stinking rich?” is the question “Why aren’t you desperately poor?”. Now I’ve touched on this question before, but it comes up a bit and I’ll try to address it here as well. We might not believe in decadence, but we don’t want people to be poor either- that’s not what Communism is about. Equality in wealth will mean the end of millionaires and billionaires, but for countless people across the planet, the standard of living will dramatically increase. We aren’t poor because we’re not supposed to be poor- no one is!
We’re not big fans of either extreme…
Big Government Doesn’t Work:
We couldn’t agree more. Communists don’t believe in big government, we believe in collectives, communes, and communities working on a local level to address problems and issues unique to them. If they choose to band together for whatever reason, they may of course do so, but at the end of the day, we do not believe in the state. Even Lenin, a Communist who was about as “big government” as Marxists get, called for the abolition of the state. Communism is about power to the people, not the politician.
Communism Has Killed Millions:
Here’s the big one.
Now if you’ll take a look at the texts of Communism, nowhere will you find anyone say “By the way, you should totally purge entire sections of your population”, yet nevertheless, it cannot be denied that millions are dead at the hands of “Communists”.
That’s “Communists” in quotation marks- you see, mass murder reflects on the ideals of Communism in about the same way that (as I’ve said above) the Spanish Inquisition reflects the ideals of Christianity. Let’s face it, people will use any justification for their actions. The men who killed in the name of Communism only used Communism as a facade for their own agendas. After all…
The Tuskegee Spyhilis experiments did nothing to treat African American farmers the researchers knew were infected, and did so in the name of science, but exactly how is (secretly) giving someone a disease reflective of the goals of science?
And the reign of terror- was this the product of enlightenment and reason?
And is this democracy?
People kill people- that’s the sad truth. Communism has nothing to do with it.
It is often said by the proponents of communism that democracy vs. communism dichotomy is an incorrect one, because democracy is a form of government as opposed to totalitarianism or authoritarianism, and communism is a socioeconomic ideology, as opposed to capitalism. Their basic principles, they continue, are more or less the same and can be boiled down to the expression “power to the people” – therefore, they state that any truly communist state is by definition a completely democratic one.
This, however, is pure sophistry which becomes clear to anyone who has any knowledge of history. “Democracy vs. communism” dichotomy is quite real for the sheer reason that these two ideologies follow two completely different philosophies which are incompatible within one system. In other words, the inherent qualities of these two systems make it impossible for them to co-exist within one state.
First of all, let’s talk about “power to the people” principle. In democracies this goal is achieved by giving all citizens the right to vote and take part in electing the people and political parties that are going to rule the country for a period of time, and these people and parties are responsible for what they do before their voters – if they don’t live up to the expectations, they are going to lose the next elections. While the system is not ideal and potentially susceptible to abuse, in longer-standing democracies it has been tried and tested enough to work stably for hundreds of years.
Communist states, however, may or may not have elections, but even if they are present, they play purely ornamental function – there is only one party, organized opposition is non-existent, mass media are subject to strict politically-dictated censorship. While formally power belongs to the people, in reality it rests on a single individual supported by officials belonging to the ruling party, and the aforementioned people have no say in deciding which people are ruling them and how they do it. In other words, in case of communism “power to the people” is nothing but a declarative slogan that justifies the totalitarian nature of the state.
The reason why communist states are always totalitarian is simple – as a socioeconomic ideology communism is based on the idea of big government, of governmental control over all spheres of human existence. The main area of control is economical one: private property and enterprise are prohibited, and all citizens are more or less employees of the state. Prices, production and distribution of goods and economy in general are under strict control of the governmental officials. And although communism per se is nothing but an economic system that states that means of production should not belong to individuals, the very nature of big government is that it cannot stop from getting bigger – it will always strive to control more and more aspects of life.
What people should read and watch, what they should think and believe, where they should live and work – a communist state aims at controlling all this and more. As a result, a communist state can hardly be called a system that practices what it preaches. While a democratic state strives to exist for the sake of its citizens (sometimes more, sometimes less effectively, but it does so), a communist state is by definition a state that exists for its own sake and uses its citizens as means of amassing even more power.
So, the dichotomy of democracy vs. communism is by no means faulty. They may not belong to the same set of concepts, but there is nothing wrong with putting them into opposition to one another, as they are incompatible.
0.00 avg. rating (0% score) - 0 votes