Skip to comments.Why you're wrong about communism: 7 huge misconceptions about it (and capitalism)
Posted on 02/04/2014 5:40:41 AM PST by Travis McGee
As the commentary around the recent deaths of Nelson Mandela, Amiri Baraka and Pete Seeger made abundantly clear, most of what Americans think they know about capitalism and communism is arrant nonsense. This is not surprising, given our countrys history of Red Scares designed to impress that anti-capitalism is tantamount to treason. In 2014, though, we are too far removed from the Cold War-era threat of thermonuclear annihilation to continue without taking stock of the hype weve been made, despite Harry Allens famous injunction, to believe. So, here are seven bogus claims people make about communism and capitalism.
1. Only communist economies rely on state violence.
Obviously, no private equity baron worth his weight in leveraged buyouts will ever part willingly with his fortune, and any attempt to achieve economic justice (like taxation) will encounter stiff opposition from the ownership class. But state violence (like taxation) is inherent in every set of property rights a government can conceivably adopt including those that allowed the aforementioned hypothetical baron to amass said fortune.
In capitalism, competing ownership claims are settled by the states willingness to use violence to exclude all but one claimant. If I lay claim to one of David Kochs mansions, libertarian that he is, hes going to rely on big government and its guns to set me right. He owns that mansion because the state says he does and threatens to imprison anyone who disagrees. Where there isnt a state, whoever has the most violent power determines who gets the stuff, be that a warlord, a knight, the mafia or a gang of cowboys in the Wild West. Either by vigilantes or the state, property rights rely on violence.
This is true both of personal possessions and private property, but it is important not to confuse the two. Property implies not a good, but a title deeds, contracts, stocks, bonds, mortgages, &c. When Marxists talk of collectivizing ownership claims on land or the means of production, we are in the realm of property; when Fox Business Channel hosts move to confiscate my tie, we are in the realm of personal possessions. Communism necessarily distributes property universally, but, at least as far as this communist is concerned, can still allow you to keep your smartphone. Deal?
2. Capitalist economies are based on free exchange.
The mirror-image of the oppressive communism myth is the liberatory capitalism one. The idea that were all going around making free choices all the time in an abundant market where everyones needs get met is patently belied by the lived experience of hundreds of millions of people. Most find ourselves constantly stuck between competing pressures and therefore stressed out, exhausted, lonely, and in search of meaning. as though were not in control of our lives.
We arent; the market is. If you dont think so, try and exit the market. The origin of capitalism was depriving British peasants of their access to land (seizure of property, you might call it), and therefore their means of subsistence, making them dependent on the market for their survival. Once propertyless, they were forced to flock to the dreck, drink and disease of slum-ridden cities to sell the only thing they had their capacity to use their brains and muscles to work or die. Just like them, the vast majority of people today are deprived of access to the resources we need to flourish, though they exist in abundant quantities, so as to force us to work for a boss who is trying to get rich by paying us less and working us harder.
Even that boss (the apparent victor in the free exchange) isnt free: the market places imperatives on the ownership class to relentlessly accumulate wealth and develop the forces of production or else fail. Capitalists are compelled to support oppressive regimes and wreck the planet, as a matter of business, even as they protest good personal intentions.
And thats just the principle of the system. The USs particular brand of capitalism required exterminating a continents worth of indigenous people and enslaving millions of kidnapped Africans. And all the capitalist industry was only possible because white women, considered the property of their fathers and husbands, were performing the invisible tasks of child-rearing and housework, without remuneration. Three cheers for free exchange.
3. Communism killed 110 million* people for resisting dispossession.
*The number cited is as consistent as it is rooted in sound research; i.e., not.
Greg Gutfeld, one of the hosts of Fox News The Five and a historical scholar of zero renown, recently advanced the position that only the threat of death can prop up a left-wing dream, because no one in their right mind would volunteer for this crap. Hence, 110 million dead. In declaring this, Gutfeld and his ilk insult the suffering of the millions of people who died under Stalin, Mao, and other 20th Century Communist dictators. Making up a big-sounding number of people and chalking their deaths up to some abstract communism is no way to enact a humanistic commitment to victims of human rights atrocities.
For one thing, a large number of the people killed under Soviet communism werent the kulaks everyone pretends to care about but themselves communists. Stalin, in his paranoid cruelty, not only had Russian revolutionary leaders assassinated and executed, but indeed exterminated entire communist parties. These people werent resisting having their property collectivized; they were committed to collectivizing property. It is also worth remembering that the Soviets had to fight a revolutionary war against, among others, the US which, as the American Revolution is enough to show, doesnt mainly consist of group hugs. They also faced (and heroically defeated) the Nazis, who were not an ocean away, but right on their doorstep.
So much for the USSR. The most horrifying episode in 20th Century official Communism was the Great Chinese Famine, its death toll difficult to identify, but surely in the tens of millions. Several factors evidently contributed to this atrocity, but central to it was Maos Great Leap Forward, a disastrous combination of applied pseudoscience, stat-juking, and political persecution designed to transform China into an industrial superpower in the blink of an eye. The experiments results were extremely grim, but to claim that the victims died because they, in their right minds, would not volunteer for a left-wing dream is ludicrous. Famine is not a uniquely left-wing problem.
4. Capitalist governments dont commit human rights atrocities.
Whatever ones assessment of the crimes committed by Communist leaders, it is unwise for capitalisms cheerleaders to play the body-count game, because if people like me have to account for the gulag and the Great Sparrow campaign, theyll have to account for the slave trade, indigenous extermination, Late Victorian Holocausts and every war, genocide and massacre carried out by the US and its proxies in the effort to defeat communism. Since the pro-capitalist set cares so deeply for the suffering of the Russian and Chinese masses, perhaps theyll even want to account for the millions of deaths resulting from those countries transitions to capitalism.
It should be intuitive that capitalism, which glorifies rapid growth amidst ruthless competition, would produce great acts of violence and deprivation, but somehow its defenders are convinced that it is always and everywhere a force for righteousness and liberation. Let them try to convince the tens of millions of people who die of malnutrition every year because the free market is incapable of engineering a situation in which less than half of the worlds food is thrown away.
The 100 million deaths that are perhaps most important to focus on right now are the ones that international human rights organization DARA projected will die climate-borne deaths between 2012 and 2030. 100 million more will follow those, and they will not take 18 years to die. Famine like the human species has never known is in the offing because the free market does not price carbon and oil-extracting capitalist firms have, since the collapse of the USSR, become sovereigns of their own. The most virulent anti-communists have a very handy, if morally disgraceful, way of treating this mass extinction event: they deny that its happening.
5. 21st Century American communism would resemble 20th century Soviet and Chinese horrors.
Before their revolutions, Russia and China were pre-industrial, agricultural, largely illiterate societies whose masses were peasants spread out over truly vast expanses of land. In the United States today, robots make robots, and less than 2% of population works in agriculture. These two states of affairs are incalculably dissimilar. The simple invocation of the former therefore has no value as an argument about the future of the American economy.
For me, communism is an aspiration, not an immediately achievable state. It, like democracy and libertarianism, is utopian in that it constantly strives toward an ideal, in its case the non-ownership of everything and the treatment of everything including culture, peoples time, the very act of caring, and so forth as dignified and inherently valuable rather than as commodities that can be priced for exchange. Steps towards that state of affairs neednt include anything as scary as the wholesale and immediate abolition of markets (after all, markets predate capitalism by several millennia and communists love a good farmers market). Rather, I contend they can even include reforms with support among broadly ideologically divergent parties.
Given the technological, material, and social advances of the last century, we could expect an approach to communism beginning here and now to be far more open, humane, democratic, participatory and egalitarian than the Russian and Chinese attempts managed. Id even argue it would be easier now than it was then to construct a set of social relations based on fellowship and mutual aid (as distinct from capitalisms, which are characterized by competition and exclusion) such as would be necessary to allow for the eventual withering away of the state that libertarians fetishize, without replaying the Middle Ages (only this time with drones and metadata).
6. Communism fosters uniformity.
Apparently, lots of people are unable to distinguish equality from homogeneity. Perhaps this derives from the tendency of people in capitalist societies to view themselves primarily as consumers: the dystopic fantasy is a supermarket wherein one state-owned brand of food is available for all items, and its all in red packaging with yellow letters.
But people do a lot more than consume. One thing we do a huge amount of is work (or, for millions of unemployed Americans, try to and are not allowed). Communism envisions a time beyond work, when people are free, as Marx wrote, to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. In that way, communism is based on the total opposite of uniformity: tremendous diversity, not just among people, but even with in a single persons occupation.
That so many great artists and writers have been Marxists suggest that the production of culture in such a society would breed tremendous individuality and offer superior avenues for expression. Those artists and writers might have thought of communism as an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all, but you might want to consider it an actual instantiation of universal access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
You wont even notice the red packaging with yellow letters!
7. Capitalism fosters individuality.
Instead of allowing all people to follow their entrepreneurial spirit into the endeavors that fulfill them, capitalism applauds the small number of entrepreneurs who capture large portions of mass markets. This requires producing things on a mass scale, which imposes a double-uniformity on society: tons and tons of people all purchase the same products, and tons and tons of people all perform the same labor. Such individuality as flourishes amid this system is often extremely superficial.
Have you seen the suburban residential developments that the housing boom shat out all over this country? Have you seen the grey-paneled cubicles, bathed in fluorescent light, clustered in office parks so indistinct as to be disorienting? Have you seen the strip malls and service areas and sitcoms? Our ability to purchase products from competing capitalist firms has not produced an optimally various and interesting society.
As a matter of fact, most of the greatest art under capitalism has always come from people who are oppressed and alienated (see: the blues, jazz, rock & roll, and hip-hop). Then, thanks to capitalism, it is homogenized, marketed, and milked for all its value by the entrepreneurs sitting at the top of the heap, stroking their satiated flanks in admiration of themselves for getting everyone beneath them to believe that we are free.
(Pro-communist stooges at Salon are reaching out to a new generation of idiots.)
The fruits of socialist indoctrination in our public schools.
All the communists I have known spit and sputter when you ask them to name one (just ONE) communist system that has ever worked.
So much crap in that article...need to call a big honey wagon.
All those horrible things attributed to Communists? Those weren’t the result of the real, pure Communism that our teachers are trying to teach us about. The future Communist societies will be the nice ones Karl Marx wrote about. After all, even Microsoft Windows didn’t get it right the first and second time.
Where does this guy point to all of the successful Communist Nations?
Good to see the folks as Salon have exposed their COMMUNIST IDEALS.
Yes, you Salon fools try and tell this to the Ukrainians.
Captilism relies on freedom.
Communism takes it away.
Wow! Someone has a jumbo koolaid sipper and fills it frequently. A poster boy for cognitive dissonance. How do some Americans get so lost? Or, did he just have a tough daddy he’s still trying to hurt back?
What a novel idea!
salon.com isn’t worth the money they pay yearly to keep the site online.
Well, it is great in concept. Everyone works for the benefit of the other. I sounds great.
Except in groups of more than two it doesn’t work. Because we are inheritly competitive by nature. We strive to survive. My goodness, just watch animal planet and you will see how animals are hard wired.
The typical distortions and twisting to try and convince people that communism and statism are good things. This yob knows nothing about freedom and liberty.
Thinking “is this the best you have?”... Well, this is salon, so yes, maybe this is the best they have.
A liberal friend told my husband, when he mentioned the millions of people who were murdered in the name of communism - “Communism has never been implemented properly.’
Communism is built on child like innocence. The very idea that it is possible to amass vast power without criminals worming their way in makes as much sense as leaving a thousand carcasses to putrify and not expecting buzzards to circle. Communism is always corrupt because it depends upon people addicted to power to do the right thing when they are given absolute power. Government authority is the well spring of corruption.
Socialism is simply the default choice of the stupid. Only a moron unwillingly or unable to look beyond the superficial falls for the idiocy of marxist “thought”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.