The Vegan Marxist
16th May 2010, 11:35
It would be reasonable to conclude that the majority of contemporary nations around the globe abhor communism. Since the Cold War years following the end of World War II, communism has come to be feared and hated, most people believing this to be an evil system designed to check progress and enslave people. A few of the die-hard communist states still in existence are considered socially nefarious, economically inept, and simply “backward.” Communist ideals have received nearly universal disapproval over the past few decades, especially since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
However, for a fairer evaluation of this system, it will be useful to look back at history and ask ourselves: Is communism as bad as this? Due to the intense stigmatization of communism, many people are quick to assume that this system is bound to fail wherever it is practiced and pauperize even a prosperous society. But looking at the origin of leftist thinking—Karl Marx and all that—it wouldn’t be irrational to say that communism can, in fact, be efficient and arguably more effective than capitalism.
BACKGROUND
During the Industrial Revolution that started in England in the late eighteenth century – an epoch in which the use of new technology enabled bourgeois entrepreneurs to proliferate and amass massive wealth – many lower-class workers, who had left farms and villages in search for factory work in cities, were subjected to perilous working conditions at abysmally low wages that were just enough for them to survive and reproduce. This situation was well-documented and theorized by the early nineteenth century economists like David Ricardo and Thomas Malthus.
Toward the middle of the nineteenth century, the merciless exploitation of factory workers caught attention of many radical thinkers who felt appalled by the conditions of workers living in England’s industrial ghettos, an account of which was provided by Frederick Engels – co-author, with Marx, of The Communist Manifesto (1848) – in a 1843 Treatise, The Conditions of Working Class Poor in England. Engels wrote that up to 10 workers would crowd into one single room in dungeon-like conditions in cities like London which, along with poor sanitation and inadequate amount of food that they could buy with their meager wage, would keep them sick most of the time. Indeed, some 150 years later, research by Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Fogel has shown that 43 percent of economic growth Britain enjoyed from the middle of the nineteenth century until the early years of twentieth century was due to the improvement of dietary conditions of its population.
Marx started where Engels left off, developing a theory of exploitation by the greedy capitalists he called bourgeois. He theorized that by their very nature, capitalists are egoistic misers who have absolutely no regard for the welfare of their workers and, in fact, they considered their workers nothing more than a means of maximizing their profit, which they would re-invest to earn more profit. Not only were the communist ideals appealing to the underclass but also that Marx’s vision of society was perceived as the epitome of fairness and forthrightness. Marx further believed that since the capitalist class cannot be trusted to safeguard workers’ rights and share their wealth with them, he advocated a sort of final solution to ending workers’ exploitation—abolition of private ownership of the means of production and its control by the State, run by representatives of the common people.
In theory, then, communism looks attractive and a fairer system than what preceded it – unbridled capitalism that allowed a few hard-driving individuals to amass phenomenal wealth at the expense of ordinary people. The virtues of a communist or command system were obvious. Unlike in the capitalist nations, the need for approval from other constituents of government is eliminated and, therefore, public policy decisions can be reached much faster with little or no opposition. Another benefit that can come from the use of power by a “people’s” government is the virtual elimination of political schism which, ordinarily, can become a huge hindrance to the approval and implementation of policies. One can then conclude that unlimited power over decision-making can make a communist government more efficient than a capitalist one, in terms of the speed and quality of decision-making process and its more effective implementation.
Also, unlike in the capitalist system, financial security can be better assured under the communist system. With the elimination of volatile elements dominating a capitalist economy – excessive borrowing and lending to finance speculation – communist economies can significantly eliminate potential losses from economic downturns which, Marx argued, are less likely when the economy is managed following the socialist principles.
DOWNSIDE OF COMMUNISM
Despite its potential to be an efficient system, communism has been a failure almost everywhere it has been practiced. Countries that still have the communist system are either on the brink of financial cataclysm or subjected to fervid upheavals. This is primarily due to the fact that communist leaders tend to make arbitrary decisions and direct the distribution of income and wealth toward themselves and their close relatives, subsequently putting more worthy recipients at a disadvantage. Most communist leaders of the earlier era, such as Joseph Stalin, would exhibit such traits, resulting in USSR’s inevitable fall and the collapse of communism worldwide. The past experience of how the communist states were run has promoted a sort of ecumenical belief that communism is an unethical and outright egregious economic system that is bound to fail wherever it is practiced.
However, the simple fact that communism can be conducted successfully should not be ignored; it is just a matter of having the right person calling the shots. Due to the ease with which a leader can exploit a command economy under communism, the egoist tyrants are easily attracted to its ideals, which also has added to the belief that communist leaders are avaricious tyrants. Nonetheless, a scrupulous leader with good intentions can in fact direct an efficient command system but few countries have been that lucky—to get a benevolent dictator under communism or any other command system.
It is perfectly sensible to believe that a communist system can be implemented in a successful manner. From s a misanthropic perspective, however, the actual experience with communism has been just the opposite. Add to this the currently hostile world environment for communism, backed up by the vituperation of communism ideals by democratic leaders. But too often the skeptics fail to realize that leaders who commanded the communist system were themselves the reasons for its failure, not the communist system itself, as envisioned, for example, by Marx and Engels. Cynics have to keep in mind that communist ideals were once approved by a vast majority of the working-class people in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution, an epoch in which Marx and Engels were regarded as saviors of the downtrodden people. Communism can work but, unfortunately, human propensity for greed and communist ideals for equality and fairness cannot co-exist.
Source (http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=18670)
And my response to it as well:
http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/response-to-my-republicas-article-on-communism/
However, for a fairer evaluation of this system, it will be useful to look back at history and ask ourselves: Is communism as bad as this? Due to the intense stigmatization of communism, many people are quick to assume that this system is bound to fail wherever it is practiced and pauperize even a prosperous society. But looking at the origin of leftist thinking—Karl Marx and all that—it wouldn’t be irrational to say that communism can, in fact, be efficient and arguably more effective than capitalism.
BACKGROUND
During the Industrial Revolution that started in England in the late eighteenth century – an epoch in which the use of new technology enabled bourgeois entrepreneurs to proliferate and amass massive wealth – many lower-class workers, who had left farms and villages in search for factory work in cities, were subjected to perilous working conditions at abysmally low wages that were just enough for them to survive and reproduce. This situation was well-documented and theorized by the early nineteenth century economists like David Ricardo and Thomas Malthus.
Toward the middle of the nineteenth century, the merciless exploitation of factory workers caught attention of many radical thinkers who felt appalled by the conditions of workers living in England’s industrial ghettos, an account of which was provided by Frederick Engels – co-author, with Marx, of The Communist Manifesto (1848) – in a 1843 Treatise, The Conditions of Working Class Poor in England. Engels wrote that up to 10 workers would crowd into one single room in dungeon-like conditions in cities like London which, along with poor sanitation and inadequate amount of food that they could buy with their meager wage, would keep them sick most of the time. Indeed, some 150 years later, research by Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Fogel has shown that 43 percent of economic growth Britain enjoyed from the middle of the nineteenth century until the early years of twentieth century was due to the improvement of dietary conditions of its population.
Marx started where Engels left off, developing a theory of exploitation by the greedy capitalists he called bourgeois. He theorized that by their very nature, capitalists are egoistic misers who have absolutely no regard for the welfare of their workers and, in fact, they considered their workers nothing more than a means of maximizing their profit, which they would re-invest to earn more profit. Not only were the communist ideals appealing to the underclass but also that Marx’s vision of society was perceived as the epitome of fairness and forthrightness. Marx further believed that since the capitalist class cannot be trusted to safeguard workers’ rights and share their wealth with them, he advocated a sort of final solution to ending workers’ exploitation—abolition of private ownership of the means of production and its control by the State, run by representatives of the common people.
In theory, then, communism looks attractive and a fairer system than what preceded it – unbridled capitalism that allowed a few hard-driving individuals to amass phenomenal wealth at the expense of ordinary people. The virtues of a communist or command system were obvious. Unlike in the capitalist nations, the need for approval from other constituents of government is eliminated and, therefore, public policy decisions can be reached much faster with little or no opposition. Another benefit that can come from the use of power by a “people’s” government is the virtual elimination of political schism which, ordinarily, can become a huge hindrance to the approval and implementation of policies. One can then conclude that unlimited power over decision-making can make a communist government more efficient than a capitalist one, in terms of the speed and quality of decision-making process and its more effective implementation.
Also, unlike in the capitalist system, financial security can be better assured under the communist system. With the elimination of volatile elements dominating a capitalist economy – excessive borrowing and lending to finance speculation – communist economies can significantly eliminate potential losses from economic downturns which, Marx argued, are less likely when the economy is managed following the socialist principles.
DOWNSIDE OF COMMUNISM
Despite its potential to be an efficient system, communism has been a failure almost everywhere it has been practiced. Countries that still have the communist system are either on the brink of financial cataclysm or subjected to fervid upheavals. This is primarily due to the fact that communist leaders tend to make arbitrary decisions and direct the distribution of income and wealth toward themselves and their close relatives, subsequently putting more worthy recipients at a disadvantage. Most communist leaders of the earlier era, such as Joseph Stalin, would exhibit such traits, resulting in USSR’s inevitable fall and the collapse of communism worldwide. The past experience of how the communist states were run has promoted a sort of ecumenical belief that communism is an unethical and outright egregious economic system that is bound to fail wherever it is practiced.
However, the simple fact that communism can be conducted successfully should not be ignored; it is just a matter of having the right person calling the shots. Due to the ease with which a leader can exploit a command economy under communism, the egoist tyrants are easily attracted to its ideals, which also has added to the belief that communist leaders are avaricious tyrants. Nonetheless, a scrupulous leader with good intentions can in fact direct an efficient command system but few countries have been that lucky—to get a benevolent dictator under communism or any other command system.
It is perfectly sensible to believe that a communist system can be implemented in a successful manner. From s a misanthropic perspective, however, the actual experience with communism has been just the opposite. Add to this the currently hostile world environment for communism, backed up by the vituperation of communism ideals by democratic leaders. But too often the skeptics fail to realize that leaders who commanded the communist system were themselves the reasons for its failure, not the communist system itself, as envisioned, for example, by Marx and Engels. Cynics have to keep in mind that communist ideals were once approved by a vast majority of the working-class people in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution, an epoch in which Marx and Engels were regarded as saviors of the downtrodden people. Communism can work but, unfortunately, human propensity for greed and communist ideals for equality and fairness cannot co-exist.
Source (http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=18670)
And my response to it as well:
http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/response-to-my-republicas-article-on-communism/