Saturday, April 2, 2011

Is Communism Fundamentally Flawed? (Repost)

Karl MarxCover of Karl Marx
Supposedly, communism is created by Karl Marx to address the evils of capitalism (pursuit of profit at the expense of the "proletariat"). But is it fundamentally flawed?

Think about it: the idea that all properties are "shared" and belongs to the community/state is fine if you don't consider the following: someone must administer the whole thing. And doesn't that make the administrators the elite in this supposedly class-less society?

In other words, communism may work well enough in a small village, but if you go for large scale, the bureaucracy you must create to administer the realm is fundamentally opposed to the principle of "class-less" society. In other words, a "communist nation" is an oxymoron. You cannot be a nation, and be communist at the same time.

Also keep in mind, Karl Marx, and his Marxism, is trying to address the "evils" of industrial revolution. Lenin's main "contribution" is his re-interpretation / adaptation of Marxism, which is meant for an urban environment with industry, to the agrarian nature of Russian peasants. In fact, Lenin himself saw Imperialism as the most evil version of capitalism, in his book published in 1916. When the real Russian revolution in 1917 started, and the Tsar was forced to abdicate, Lenin was sitting in Switzerland. With some help,he returned to Russia to stir up trouble for the provisional government. With some popular support, such as his proposal of the "Soviet" system, where farmers can form "soviets" to elect representatives to speak for them, but revocable at any time, he eventually got elected as the leader of New Russia. In other words, he had stolen the revolution.

So what does that make Lenin, if he doesn't see this fundamental paradox? He did, but he did not care. In 1918, in the interest of expediency, he started appoint ministers to administer each industry. While the workers can advise (i.e. have a voice), the ultimate decision is made by the minister. In other words, he just turned his little "soviet" which was supposed to be "worker's voice" back into a dictatorship.

The Bolshevik government then formed a secret police, i.e. the Cheka, to crush any and all opposition, grouped under "counter-revolutionaries". So now, they are just as corrupt as a dictatorship. Then they started to ban "independent soviets", any soviets that were NOT created by the Bolshevik government, and started control of the newspapers and the media.

In other words, Lenin went against his own words and ideals. He told the workers and farmers that soviets are great, form them and they'll be your voice. A few years later, all non-government sanctioned soviets are crushed and disbanded. Any one against Lenin or the government policies (many of which are counter to his own principles and promises) are branded as counter-revolutionaries and persecuted, exiled, jailed, etc.

So we can pretty much conclude that Leninism is a fraud. Lenin himself abandoned it as soon as he came into power. It's just a trick to get the peasants to support him so he can get the central power.

Then of course, Lenin's successor, Stalin, decided to export their excuse to gain power to China, and it was picked up by Mao Tse-Tung. Mao and his band of fighters, who fought both the Nationalists AND the Japanese during WW2, got a LOT of arms when the war ended, "left" by the Japanese invaders, and handed over by the Russians. Add to that a good propaghanda campaign, lack of responsiveness by the Nationalist government (who's still trying to run the country with war-time policies), and blaming widespread corruption and lack of improvements on the Nationalists, Mao got his army to fight harder than the Nationalists (whose army has been fighting the Japanese for YEARS before WW2 started, and is war weary), and eventually forced the Nationalists to retreat to Taiwan.

Mao then used his influence to form a virtual cult. The Little Red Book created a national fervor, swept him into power, and the Cultural Revolution destroyed countless artifacts and cultural history, all in the name of 'ridding themselves of capitalist past'. Millions are publicly humiliated, beaten, or killed for owning SOME property that managed to survive the war. After the fervor is over, they had to get rid of the Red Guard, so they invented this new movement that says "go back to the countryside and farm". Of course, by then there isn't much left.

None of this, of course, sounds very "communistic". That's because they aren't. They are tools to consolidate power, to turn one group of people against another. One can draw similarities with Hitler. As Hitler blamed Jews for everything bad happening to Germany, and made the Germans believe it, Mao blamed everything on any one with some property left, on former Nationalists, and on any one with enough knowledge to see through these tricks, such as teachers, historians, and so on, grouped together as "the five black types", that must be found, interrogated, defeated, and destroyed.

Thus, one can conclude that it is NOT the Soviet Union and the PROC's founders that had somehow gotten it wrong along the way. They did not really "misinterpret" Marxism. They simply used Marxism as an excuse to usurp power from an established revolution. Once the power is usurped, they chose to ignore everything they had stood for or promised, but instead borrowed the flag of the revolution and destroy any opposition to their rule in the name of the revolution. They know that Marxism is NOT meant to rule a nation, as fundamentally it is unsound and cannot be implemented. It is merely a facade to cover their own ambition to power.

Soviet Union has already dissolved and fractured into the various republics. China is managing to delay the inevitable by soaking up foreign capital to build things, everything from skyscrapers to cars and iPods and whatnot. The question is... at what cost?

At least one commentator have stated that the current "economic miracle" in China cannot last, because what is really happening is the government is basically BUYING good press from International communities with cheap labor. Special economic zones are setup to allow special tax incentives for foreign investments. Workers get workable wages (low by Western standards), Western companies get rich, whom in turn pays huge taxes on their profits to governments, whom in turn tell the the world that China is great to do business with. In other words, you could say that the current Chinese government, which was supposed to be champion of the proletariat, the worker's paradise, and all that, has sold out the workers for International good press, and a share of the profits (as wages ARE taxed!).

(and 2 comments)

ssfsx17 said...
Yes, communism is fundamentally flawed. This is because I believe that humans are not inherently good, and therefore, a system which requires them to be good all the time can never succeed.
jackie901 said...
Communism could be boardering on facism as it can only work if every person has the same ideals, beliefs, ect. and any person against those must be removed from sight to prevent damage to communism, however what is widely accepted is that regardless of us looking and believing the same things we are all unique and a system reliant on a collective ideals cannot work.

Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments: