[« Bush & Cheney Should Resign] [Book Review of 'The Historian' by Elizabeth Kostova »]

11/10/2006: "In Defense of Communism"

The title of this essay may be a little misleading since I really do not intend to defend Communism so much as attempt to accurately describe it. I have grown weary of Leftists taking offense when you point out that a particular policy or attitude is Communist. Communism (or Marxism or Socialism) is not a slur, but a description of a particular economic and political theory. Calling someone or something Communist should not be viewed as a slur so much as a description (which like all descriptions may be erroneous, vindictive, etc.).

Now the best shorthand definition of Communism that I can come up with is the following: A political economic theory that relies heavily on a historical analysis of the distribution of wealth and power, which proposes the communal ownership of property, and which strongly favors the ethical societal value of equitable distribution of wealth and power above other competing values.

Most ethical opposition to Communism is found in the rejection of the value of equitable distribution of wealth in favor of equitable access to wealth and power, which is often described as equality of opportunity and equality before the law. This philosophy in favor of equality of access was traditionally referred to as Liberal. Although the two values sound similar, they are diametrically opposed since to obtain equality of outcome requires the sacrifice of equality of access to some degree.

Let us begin with a model. Let us start with 100 men from the same culture, education, race, religion etc. The only way these men differ is in the following qualities: intellect, emotional stability, and motivation. These characteristics are distributed through the group in numbers representative of any random group of humans. We shall give each of the men enough resources to provide for their individual survival using only a moderate amount of effort on their part. We shall also give each man 10 silver coins to be used as a means of exchange of value. Over the next year each man will be allowed to freely trade with each other. All transactions will take place in the absence of compulsion and in good faith, and there will be no theft.

After one year, depending upon your view of human capacities, the likely result of this experiment is that 10 of the 100 will most likely have between them 500 of the 1000 silver coins, and perhaps a greater part of the resources necessary for survival. There will probably be from 10 to 20 men who due to misfortune or foolishness have lost virtually everything, including not only the 10 silver coins, but also their resources necessary for survival. The remaining men will most likely have maintained their resources necessary for survival and some if not all of their 10 silver coins. We shall call the top 10 men the Haves, and everyone else the Have-Nots.

The Communist will see this inequitable distribution of goods as an evil in and of itself which must be remedied. There is abundant historical evidence to validate and support this view. The history of mankind has shown that this sort of arrangement leads to all manner of injustice and chaos. The conflict between the Haves and the various levels of Have-Nots can arguably be blamed for much of the misery found in the human condition. The Haves historically use their position of wealth and power to buy the services of the bottom tier, often on unreasonable terms and under duress, and then use their position of power and authority to create divisions among the other levels of Have-Nots in order to insure that there is never a united front against the Haves. When successful this leads to a tyranny of the Haves. When unsuccessful it leads to bloody revolution where all levels tear each other apart until there is nothing left for anyone.

Although Liberals of the 17th, 18th and 19th Century did not see the inequitable distribution of goods and services as the root of the problem, they did recognize that the situation is dangerous and likely to lead to the endless cycle of tyranny of the Haves and the ultimate revolution of the Have-Nots. The Liberals tried to break this cycle of misery by defining a free marketplace where all could participate equally. Adam Smith, the “father” of modern Capitalism, recognized that the result of the above experiment was likely to lead to collusion among the Haves and oppression for the Have-Nots, and suggested that the role of government was to prevent such collusion. True Liberals sought to create a society where the Haves could not so easily manipulate the government so as to oppress the others. However, history suggests that creating such a government is very difficult. Humans have proven susceptible to the corruption of power and authority. Most governments become the exact opposite of the Liberal ideal: instead of discouraging monopoly and oligarchic power and removing obstacles to entry of others into the marketplace, most governments have simply selected one group of tyrants over another. This has proven most unsatisfactory, and thus the appeal of Communism.

The above explanation would suggest that Communism could provide a fair and just solution to the question of how best to order human society. However, it misses one profound and important variable in the equation. The history of the human race does suggest that the above experiment is fairly accurate and will reflect human interaction over not just one year but over time. However, this does not take into account the dramatic growth of productivity over the last two centuries. For thousands of years, since man began to forge tools and build communities, productivity has grown at a slow and plodding pace or not at all. Centuries have passed with zero improvement in the productivity of individuals, and when some technology or another has emerged the growth in productivity has often been marginal. Under these circumstances the Static Economic Model is quite accurate. Under the Static Economic Model there is a fixed amount of resources available for distribution, and without proper regulation there will be inequity and subsequent injustice; for one person to gain another would have to suffer. Furthermore, due to the static nature of economic growth even the most Liberal structure would eventually fall prey to greed, corruption and mismanagement as resources become scarce and demands increase.

The industrial revolution changed all that. No longer did mankind live within a static zero sum world, but instead society could create wealth and resources by increasing the productivity of the individual and therefore the group. No longer did the gain of one person have to come at the expense of another. This is called the Dynamic Economic Model and more accurately reflects the modern world. Our above experiment did not include the dynamic aspect of productivity growth. If it had, there is a very real possibility that the Haves may have obtained their wealth by “creating” it, not necessarily by taking it from another. Under this model, increasing growth in productivity justifies inequitable distribution of wealth since such wealth is most likely being created by those who either work harder, have invested in better technology, and/or have greater skills and inventiveness thereby increasing their productivity and thus the amount of wealth available for distribution. As such those individuals should be allowed to keep the product of their increased productivity as a reward and encouragement. Under this modern dynamic system, Liberalism has a chance to prosper. It should be possible to create and maintain a system that fosters equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law while at the same time regulating against cartels and other oppressions commonly used by the Haves of the world. Where fairly and honestly applied, Liberalism or Capitalism has proven to be a tremendous liberating force providing the ability to create wealth and means by anyone capable of increasing productivity. Of course under Liberalism there can never be equality of outcome since people have dramatically different abilities and skills and thus will create dramatically different levels of wealth. But there need not be the cycle of oppression and revolution since the rich are not taking the poor's portion so much as creating their own increased portion, and as long as the marketplace doors remain open to everyone who wishes to enter, there is hope and opportunity for everyone.

Communism on the other hand has proven to be wholly ineffective at managing societal interaction. By failing to take into account growth of productivity, Communism cannot compete with “free” societies. However, on a more fundamental basis it would appear that Communisms does not work because it deprives people of their fundamental desires to compete and excel, even at the risk of failure and loss. From each according to his means and to each according to his needs is an easier thing to say than to implement. Without adequate reward to encourage productivity, Communism has found it difficult to coerce the “from” part of the equation, yet the “to” part of the equation has proven to be an unending stream of unmeetable needs.

So when someone says one particular political party or politician or even idea is Communism by another name, this is not a slur, but merely a description that may or may not be accurate. Please do not take offense.