It’s amazing—and horrifying—what can happen when people have mushy-headed, vague beliefs in their heads, lacking what I refer to as “clarity of thought.” Most people have general feelings, and nebulous ideas and ideals, but they’re not even clear about the specifics, and the real-world applications, of their own belief systems.
Perhaps the most heinous example in history has been communism. Many millions of well-intentioned yet muddle-headed people (along with a much smaller number of opportunistic megalomaniacs) have put forth a “philosophy” that has ended up getting tens of millions of people murdered. How could that possibly happen?
After all, doesn’t this sound nice, and caring, and loving?: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” (For anyone who doesn’t already know this, that is how the Communist Manifesto, by Marx and Engels, sums up the essence of communism.) Isn’t that a noble, caring sentiment? Shouldn't we each contribute to the world whatever we can, and shouldn’t all people have the things they need in life? So how does such a compassionate, glorious, enlightened idea end up doing this?:
As is often the case, “the devil is in the details.” For example, what do people literally and specifically mean when they say things like, “Everyone should have the necessities of life,” or “Those who can afford to help others, should”? In a general sense, I agree with both of those statements. Other than a sociopath, who wouldn’t? Who would object to the idea of all people having what they need? And who would argue against prosperous and successful people helping out the less fortunate? Certainly not me.
At the same time, for decades I have pointed out that communism is an insane, horribly destructive and profoundly evil idea that is completely immoral and anti-human. But why? How can I agree with the general sentiments expressed, and yet vociferously condemn the philosophy? In this case, the distinction comes down to something that might not occur to most people, but is actually quite simple:
When someone says that the wealthy “should” help the less fortunate, I totally agree, as long as the giver is the one who gets to make that choice. Communism, in contrast, dictates that the one in “need” is entitled to whatever he “needs,” that his “need” makes it rightfully his, and that he therefore has the moral right to take, by any means necessary (which usually happens via “government” violence) whatever he “needs.” In other words, communism says that it is not up to the wealthier person to decide whether to give, or how much to give.
Because of this, communism is absolutely incompatible with genuine compassion. Charity and generosity are expressed by someone voluntarily giving up what is rightfully his to someone else. In contrast, violently robbing another in the name of “compassion” is immoral, hypocritical and dishonest. When I say, “the rich should help the less fortunate,” I mean, “It would be nice if they chose to do that.” When a communist says it, they mean “the rich should be forced to give to the less fortunate.”
Notice how often leftist politicians are intentionally dishonest in their propaganda. They might say, for example, when talking about “tax policy,” “We are just asking the rich to pay their fair share.” But taxation has absolutely nothing to do with “asking.” Taxation is always a demand backed by threats of violence. It is theft. It is extortion.
I think that a person owns—i.e., has an exclusive right to decide what is done with—anything and everything he acquires through his own efforts or any other voluntary means. I also think it can be good when such people freely choose to give away some of what is theirs to others. But it absolutely must be their choice when and whether to do that. If a billionaire chooses not to give a penny to anyone else, that is his choice. I can think (and say) that he is a selfish twit, but I have absolutely no right to initiate violence against him based on what he chooses to do with his own property. Nor does anyone else have such a right, on their own or by way of “government,” or in the name of some collective.
A communist, on the other hand, believes that true ownership comes from “need,” and that the successful person merely hanging onto the fruits of his own labor is guilty of theft, if he doesn’t “need” all of it. To them, “need” determines ownership, which in turn justifies whatever violence is necessary to get people what they “need.” (And, of course, people will always disagree about who “needs” what, and so in communism a centralized “need-determiner” will inevitably appear and forcibly impose its decisions on everyone else.) And that is why communism, put into practice, leads to widespread poverty and starvation, and mass violence.
In short, communism is the “philosophy” of cockroaches and sewer rats. Described honestly, it amounts to this:
“What I need, I am entitled to. What I am entitled to is rightfully mine. What is rightfully mine, I have the moral right to acquire by any means necessary, including violence. Therefore, I have the right to use violence to take from others whatever I need.”
When expressed clearly and specifically like this, the true nature of communism, and the reasons for the inevitable violent outcome of that heinous idea, become obvious. And it is the opposite of genuine compassion. Indeed, ownership of private property—which communism opposes—is essential to being generous and giving. Why? Because you can’t give what isn’t yours. It is only virtuous when it was up to you; when you had a choice. Neither asking a ruling class to rob your neighbor to “give to the poor,” nor getting robbed yourself to “give to the poor,” is charitable. It is only kind generosity when you freely choose to give away what is rightfully yours.
Read the following article, which I wrote many years ago, for a more thorough explanation of why communism’s soul is horrendously destructive and purely anti-human, although often disguised as loving compassion. (If you don’t, you won’t know why there is a picture of an egg salad sandwich here.) Also, feel free to skip down to where the article says “Communism’s Soul.”
(Larken Rose is a speaker, author and activist, having advocated the principles of non-aggression, self-ownership and a stateless, voluntary society for over twenty years. Donations to help support his articles, videos and other projects can be made by PayPal to "[email protected]" or by Bitcoin to 13xVLRidonzTHeJCUPZDaFH6dar3UTx5js.)
Arguing with a socio-communist is very difficult, because they put up the front of "we are helping the poor" or attack you with "you must love the rich and hate the poor". But, none of these are real reasons.
It appears that the socio-communist's real drives are pure selfishness. That, they see their life being better, if more distribution happened.
Or even worse, they see poor people, and improperly empathize with them, saying they are hurting, and so we should take from people richer than men and give it to people poorer than me, so that I do not have to feel this pain.
Steal from someone else, so you do not have to feel pain... bleah
And the worst piece. They thing money is all of the problem, and that throwing money at it will fix everything. Every time I talk about building houses for the homeless, I get extreme pushback. And they argue more fervently for UBI to give them money to pay for houses.
A dead give-away that it is about selfishness is that "communist" Americans are perpetually talking about how THEY are owed this or that by the "evil rich," instead of talking about how they ARE the "evil rich" compared to most of the world (India, Africa, etc.).
I like this. Communist Americans suck.
Communists of all flavors suck.
Exactly. I find this to be spot-on and perfectly expressed.
Right, otherwise what they're saying is that there needs to be this "entity" (this person or group of persons) who has the power to decide that and somehow force it to happen.
And even if it's true that it's good in this case, now there's still the issue of these people having a mechanism to force whatever other things they want to happen.
Which should ring a bell that this doesn't seem quite right, to anyone who doesn't want a power disparity.
Respecting people and accepting that you can't coerce your will on them -- for any reason at all -- is actually the way to get the egalitarian society that communists want anyways.
They just need the "clarity of thought" that you refer to, and to think more about the specifics of what they're actually advocating.
I would add that any collectivist scheme, whatever the label given it, is contrary to human nature. And that is its fatal flaw.
It's quite hard for a libertarian to confront and argue that capitalism is still a usable concept. You are correct to limit this point to private property.
The cronies have sullied the word capitalism with their insidious corruption that turned it into soft-fascism, getting less soft all the time.
Ya! The word "capitalism" has essentially become meaningless, to the point where I usually just assume people mean "the type of world we have right now" when they say it. And in that case it has nothing to do with libertarian/anarchist ideas.
And equally meaningless is the term "socialism". I try to avoid use of both words because there are just so many different interpretations of what they mean floating around out there.
I have a disdain for the advocacy of 'noble' Robin hood act. You might be taking from the rich, the rich will take it back in a smarter way. And in this process you are only robbing the poor psychologically...anyone that consider himself poor is defeated anyway.
The Communists only pay attention to equality neglecting totally the efforts put by individual or group. The fair word is equity... Give everyone a level playing ground and let each effort determine will group he belongs.
I believe extreme wealth should be abolished by any means necessary. The extremely wealthy should be forced to give their fair share. Unequal wealth distribution has always been one of the biggest problems facing the people of this world. There has always been enough to go around, just too many greedy people who thrive off a capitalist system that thrives off the existence of a poverty class. If not some form of socialism, then what ??
Keep working, stop paying.
Inequality, in and of itself, is not a problem, or an evil, at all. Getting wealth via coercion or fraud is wrong. But it is people who complain most loudly about financial "equality" who are CONDONING widespread violent aggression, which you basically just did.
I disagree with you here @larkenrose, inequality is an evil, I'm not against the rich getting richer, but I am against the rich feeling entitled to having more than most.
I agree with you here, but I also think that you are twisting your arguments a bit so that they can fit your conclusion better.
I don't think Marx had any idea how others would interpret his words and he also probably lacked an understanding of human nature(I'm an optimist).
I think this assumes that everyone would know what his own abilities and needs are(and would act accordingly).That's not realistic at all.
Here you are generalizing and from should it became similar to must. It's not the idea or the philosophy that is somehow "evil ". It's just that it's naive and assumes a set of conditions that don't exist. People just aren't ready for such an idealistic way of living. Of course anything that is enforced becomes ugly.
Suppose you created the idea of voluntarism. And then a lot of people liked it and got exited about it, then twisted it when it suited them and started enforcing it(totally contrary to the core idea). I guarantee you wouldnt like the result.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that there is no perfect government or system. It all depends on the individuals.If the individuals are mature enough any government system would work even monarchy or dictatorship.
Thanks for the info.
thanks for sharing this post.i apricate you...please carry on..
nice story.....
communism is best i see
good collectivism.........
i will wait for this in next........
It helps if you read the article and then respond, instead of just spamming a reply.
He didn't even make it halfway through the TITLE. Or else he doesn't know what "vs" stands for, or means.
I think it's an IA trying to tell us something. Hmm lets see...
First line ends with 5 dots, second 0, third 8 and last 9...
5 0 8 9... I give up It could be anything
@iqbalhossin you are making it too hard. Try a new method dot dot dot
I feel kind of comforted by this, like we have to have at least a few more years before the bots take over...
Unless it's a next-level misdirection ploy :O
I have to say this is the best post in 2018 I read on Steemit. Thanks and please keep up the good work.
Large scale socialism always leads to communism. Communism leads to death! Why the F don't people learn from the past. smh
Very sad that's history , i want everyone peoples keep do the honestly life. all the best .carry on your life
Great article, Larken. It's so frustrating to me that so many people don't get this. "I need it so it's mine"--that can be stretched to cover almost any "need", like a politician's need for a luxury limousine with a jacuzzi in the back. So who decides who needs what and how people's needs rank in relation to each other? Well, probably the politician. :/
Thanks for the post. Resteemed!
This is not what Marx's Communism is. Or rather not what Marxism is.
This is actually not very correct. A communist believes in the right of every man to be rewarded accordingly. Not the top 1% having everything while some people suffer.
Nice article though, really. P.S I am not a communist.
Thanks for the thoughtful and nuanced analysis - we need more of this and fewer sound bites.
Wildly intriguing and well-written article -- one of the best I've seen on here. The headline immediately struck me. I was like, "Damn, ok that is my life's dilemma." Really great piece, excited to explore your stuff further.
I share the impulse to help those in need and so communism appeals to me. But like you say mushy thinking .
How to satisfy this impulse, to make sure that those in need are helped in a non-mushy-thinking way? Like your impulse to call the rich selfish person a twit, what does twit mean exactly? Selfishness is based on self serving mushy thinking too. The selfish billionaire is free to withhold his generosity. Are we free to be mushy thinkers?
I suppose the question is an ethical one and we need to study ethics to have a position of kind generosity that isn't mushy.
I feel that there is a healthy morality, almost a science of morality. That clear thinking ultimately leads to a shared morality that once understood we would all freely live in accord with. A sort of communal spirit born not of politics but of moral understanding. Hope so.
That's what your article go me thinking about. Thanks!
@larkenrose but how to adrress the systemic inequality caused by a bias system that funnels cash and power to the select few, The govt, corporations and their cronies effectively steal their wealth by the rigged system...... how do we rebalance that..... for me its a more important question than is communism evil..... communism wouldnt need to steal or take from anyone if the system was fair..... but it isnt.....its so unfair that it borders on evil.
I already see government in its current form as much a problem as solution; so how to balance it out. Even the sudden adoption of a completely free market wouldnt address the problems we see in the system.... we can critisize all isms as none seem to work for alll.... none take into account huge environmental costs and the mass extinctions being caused by humans.......How to address these thing? Eventually we become a smear of plastic in the geological time record. slow hand clap humans.