Why I think that Communism is the way Date Friday, April 19, 2024 - 01:57 PM PST Topic Politics Today we complain constantly and bitterly about government. Bush, Blair, Chirac, you name it. It is becoming more and more clear that, to the majority of thinking people, elected representatives are simply not the way. 'What do we do about this?' we don't bother to ask. I think that the answer may well be that greatest of threats to freedom (read capitalism): the socialist world. Think of a world where one need no longer sit on election day and think, 'Shit, it is about to be the same old thing all over again,' because there is no longer an election day. There are no conflicting parties interested in their sponsors or their own financial or socil furtherment. There are no adverts on television promoting this or that expensive car, personal claims attorney or credit card company. Where there is no longer gargantuan avarice, hunger, powermongery and corruption. How can this come about? Through the Socialist ideal 'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.' OK, rhetoric over. I feel that Global Communism is the way because it is the epitome of equality and fairness. There can be no room for discrimination according to nationality where there is no nationality. No more patriotism means no more inter-country war. No way for two creeds to fight when the one creed in the world is humanity. Marx wrote that 'Religion is the opiate of the masses' but it is also its firestarter. Without religion there is no more blunt acceptance of our lot knowing that 'The good Lord has his plan.' We would constantly strive for betterment of the least, and the feeding of the hungry. Improvement and advancement would be almost an imperative. The colour of ones skin would be no more a reason for hatred than the colour of ones hair and there would no longer be economic causes for war on account of there being no economy. The arguments so often pitted against Socialism are, I feel, relatively easily countered: 'There will be no freedom to do as one wishes' - There is not really that freedom anyway. People would be able to do more or less as they wish within a framework of rules, as in the society we have now. There is no need for overarching police involvement, especially since personal greed should, over time be eliminated. The re-education issue raised as a freedom issue is, to my mind, nonsensical. To beleive that re-aligning humanity's views away from the self and towards the whole is a curtailment of personal liberty is a non-sequeter. The single is part of the many. One works for oneself and all others,just as all others work for the one and all others. That it is towards a larger good that one works shouldbe an incentive to work harder, not a disincentive. 'That is not the way that human nature works' the reply comes - Says who? the people who try to shape human nature, as far as I have ever been able to see. The lust for power and wealth comes from a society whose focus is personal power and wealth. It is society reflected in its citizens and then vice versa, spiralling into perpetuity. Change the focus and the drive will change. I admit that this is no easy task, but then how many worthwhile tasks ever are? There would be resistance, but I would expect it to be from those who profit under the old regimes, hence the 'workers' revolution' rather than one from the aristocrats. These people are supposedly the most civilised of us, so would it not be possible to argue them around, rather than the slightly more crude method of 'Up against the wall, motherfucker, here's your cigarette...FIRE'? Their numbers are also very few. A utilitarian ethical view would even see the greater good profiting by their deaths, but I would rather any transition remainded peaceful. I say, and I will maintain I'm sure, that any species which can be convinced that vast swathes of tarmac across a landscape upon which vast wheeled machines travel at tremendous speed is a normal state of affairs can, within a few generations be convinced that anything is normal. 'What about crime?' - So there will be crime, one regrettable fact that I imagine is unchangeable, but I suspect that once the individualistic aquisitional instinct has become redundant, much related crime will cease, become atrophied or in some cases, due to a new areligious moral code, simply be legal. 'And what about those spongers, doing nothing, reaping our rewards?' - Again, I feel that some of this may well fade with a more collectivist mentality in place. Again, what has changed, many people claim social benefits unneccessarily. Again I state, 'From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.' How much does a non-worker need? Less to eat, sure, less to drink, sure. Less recreation, of course, because they have nothing to wind down from. I do not see socialism as blanket evenness. That would be foolish, a biological fact is that the more people do, the more energy they burn, so the more they need to consume. Because greed would become essentially nonsensical after generations of no possessions, people would not feel jealous of the bridge builder who eats more than the educator. Jealousy is a function of greed. 'What about the massive beurocracy required?' - As opposed to our tiny streamlined ones? Yet another case of us being no worse off in one area, and better in so many others. Another benefit of a brand new beurocracy is that it could be totally transparent, so trust in the 'government' such as it is, could easily be made absolute. True freedom of information. 'With no competition in business progress will stagnate' - Not so. How many truly great advancers of our, or previous, times have done so with the sole intent of beating the competition? Some, admittedly, but many do so for the love of what they do, for the joy of finding a more efficient system, more elegant design or just more interesting concept. Intellectual stimulation does not die with personal gain. Someone who does something first just to be the first to have done it does not necessarily do it first so that everyone else can know that they are the first to have done it, but for personal satisfaction. My final point is the transition. The few generations for whom personal possession is an actual memory may have difficulty adjusting. I simply do not know how it can be done. Marx thought revolution, but revolution needs a head, and from that comes personal power. Then you end up with the Soviet Union.There must be a better way. I will continue to think on it, as I'm sure will many others, but until then: Sempre Hasta La Victoria, Comrades. I invite, welcome, and hope for comments and discussion on this topic. One very close to my heart. Any worries I will try and calm, any arguments I will try and counter. Greater minds than mine have thought on these subjects, and greater yet will come, but that was written for the pleasure, and I hope the pleasure of debate will continue it. This article comes from Shmeng http://www.shmeng.com/ The URL for this story is: http://www.shmeng.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=769