Home More advice Politics & Law
The problem with collectivism... of any degree... is that to the extent a society is collectivist; the society in general is disenfranchised. It's directly proportional. Sounds counterintuitve... but when a person relinquishes property rights... in favor of the "common" good... the person relinquishes all leverage they have that might assuage the ability of any authority to trespass against them.
Under a strict laissez-faire capitalist market... the individual is sovereign and empowered to sink or rise by their own merit... at least as much as is possible.
Once you begin to collectivize property/authority... etc... you centralize power... and like moths to a candle... or in socialisms case... a flood light... that power attracts people who seek to use the centralized power towards their own goals. Then you can go one of two ways basically; towards a complete autocratic dictatorship... like the U.S.S.R. under Stalin... or towards a fascistic plutocracy... like the crony corporatism we have in varying magnitudes in the west... in which big business works in collusion with big government to further their best interests to the detriment of the people.
This should not be as counterintuitive as it seems to be for folks. The purpose proponents of collectivism give is an attempt to rein in the marketplace bullies. It's the intellectual equivalent of deterring a siege on an encampment by placing a huge armory between those attacking and those besieged. Once the armory is taken... game over. I've never cme across any system that can prevent such a power grab. So... despite the admirable goals... it is a devilish system... and I for one don't buy into the concept that a compromise between systems is the best way to go. Once Pandora's box is open... the minions are out. Sometimes shades of grey are from the smoke clouds of the fire that dare not spread.
During the cold war people often talked about democracy vis-a-vis communism as if they were opposites. Communism, socialism, and capitalism are economic ideologies. Democracy, monarchy, dictatorships, plutocracy, kleptocracy and oligarchy are political systems. Communism is the ideology that the means of production should be commonly owned. To industrialists who grow to be rather fond of owning the means of production communism is especially threatening. In recent history when the US was faced with supporting democracy or supporting capitalism we have sided with the capitalists. We have supported brutal anti-communist dictatorships over democratically elected leftist leaders. The best I can tell communism only works well in small and/or homogenous groups. It is difficult to implement in large heterogeneous societies. Socialism is an economic system somewhere between capitalism and communism. In socialism the means of production are heavily regulated and controlled if not owned by the state. In one sense nearly everyone is a socialist. Few people would want the extreme forms of either capitalism or communism. We all agree that there should be some rules in the marketplace and I don't see anyone lining up to give away all of their property. Socialism got a negative connotation due to the fear that it is a slippery slope to totalitarian communism. This view was popularized during our cold war and is still a dominant viewpoint of many people.
China is not really communist. Nor was the USSR. They say they are. But that's not communism according to the original idea. The original idea was that communism would work without oppression and that the people would hold all authority. In both China and in the USSR, there is a powerful elite organization and people who belong to that organization have access to education, to power and to luxury while others have not. And hose who criticize are oppressed. In the original idea of communism all people should have been EQUAL and everyone should have the same rights and opportunities. All the states who claim that they are communist are in reality led by a small, powerful elite.
There are some examples of working small communism. Let's take the example that 5 families buy a farm together everyone works and they share everything. I'ts better than 5 small farms, because you don't need to buy every tool 5 times. And if someone gets ill or something the others will help him. This stuff can actually work in small. In larger places like- for example - an entire nation it cannot possibly work. Communism stops working as soon as someone starts to slack and someone else gets the idea that he must control and punish the slackers.
Nope, the theory in communism is that the people own everything and share everything. And that everyone is equal. Nice idea, it just doesn't work. It never worked for any society larger than a few dozen people. There are some examples or existing small communism. But as soon as the group is so large that it no longer feels like family, it stops working.
States where the government owns everything is what happens when people try to make a communistic state. That never worked, not even for a second.
In theory it seems like a good idea, but it doesnt take into account for human behavior. If a society of robots were to emerge they would likely use communism. Everybody does their job, everybody gets their compensation. If robots could display greed or pride they would start to try to get more pay, (maybe even more than they earned?) or feel they need to get more pay because they are better than the bending robots at the bending plant.
A communist is basically someone who believes in a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of production and property. In theory, everyone is payed the same, has the same type of housing, food, etc. Communism may seem good, almost like a utopian society, but in practice it almost always results in a totalitarian dictatorship. For example, this happened to Russia under Joseph Stalin's rule (... I think haha).
Agreed that it is a concept ideal. And it does work when "everyone" is on the same page with it's principles. However, when it comes to a nation and the population numbers? The mindset of some, addresses how to corrupt those principles for their self gain. This is true of those that claim they live by communism as those who claim democracy.
To put in simple words, the government owns everything. They own all businesses, enterprises, etc. It was extremely exaggerated during the Cold War, leading to the Korean War, the Vietnam war, Cuban Missile Crisis, and other events that increased tensions between Russia, China, most of Indochina, and some European nations. Hope I helped.
China and Russia were communist and they did fine, they probably are still.
A communist believes in a classless and stateless society.
