Post number 345

Allen, pyongyang
military official, age: 10 - 20 years
independent thinker
  Some really serious problems
10-Mar-2003 8:18 pm

Communism's major flaws

Inconsistencies in the formation of Communist websites

In the reading of this essay, I have found many inconsistencies from the orignal site, www.communism.org. This site claims that the rule of a police state is necessary for the installation of a communist society. The other site claims that no police or professional armies are necessary. Since when were poie not a vital component of police states? As I also typed in my response to the other site, a united government can only can succeed with one or more of the following: religion, wealth, force, or nationalism. See continued pag for explanation of each of these principles...

Relgion: There is a diversity of religion in all countries, not just the United States. Religious rights have been established in all free-thinking countries, so many religions are practiced. It is impossible to unite a country under one religion and have no separation of church and state because there will be many outbursts of protest by the populous. The sole reason the Christian Socialists of the Renaissance sucess in England was because there was not nearly as much diversity in creed back in that time. The Pope was extremely influential, and it was unorthodox in the world to have the separation of church and state. Therefore, governmental nations cannot be united by religion.

Wealth: This is how all capitalist societies are based today. The working class needs incentives to work for. It is a common aspect of human nature: people want rewards for what they do. As John Locke also said, each peson should be able to harvest the fruits of his or her labor. This stimulates industrial and technological growth, which pushes the economy. Each person wants to have luxuries and prestige, so they work harder for the country. I believe it is the only plausible form of government today. In Communism, since each worker receives an equal share no matter how much they contributed, there is no incentive to increase technology or productivity. Therefore, Communist nations have trouble keeping up with other nations in technological and economical output. That was the major factor to the downfall of the Soviet Union, or CCCP, because their governmental system could not keep up with the others during that time and it dissatisfied the populous. However corrupt it may become, wealth is the only feasible solution to industrial, technological, and economical incentive.

Force: When a nation uses force to coerce their working class to increase labor, your definition of "the inevitable peaceful and abundant future of humankind" is debunked. Because of the debauchery in the human nature, it is impossible to prompt production peacefully without wealth being the incentive, so force is used. Any of the populous caught slacking off is liquidated or publicly humiliated. The governmental system would metamorphasize into a 1984 style oligarchy and oppressive dictatorship. It is inevitable. Being a peace-loving person, I do not think it is essential for me to continue in the discussion of force.

Nationalism: Again, this creates parallel lines with force. Nationalism, or extreme patriotism, is a boisterous way of showing support for the country. The citizens would have an incentive to work because it would be for their country. For nationalism to succeed, propaganda, partisan rule, and military expansion is necessary. The propoganda would blame other nations, religions, races, etc. for the problems that occur in that society. It would plead, again similiar to 1984, for more industrial output for each citizen. The populous, with the extreme hatred for the other country, would sacrifice all to do whatever they could for their country. This is probably the second largest issue in the Islamic jihad or the PLO, behind religion. This is where the suicide bombers and terrorist come from: a deadly combination of nationalism and religion. Partisan rule is also required. The United States' bipartisan rule of Democrats and Republicans would never thrive in nationalist circumstances. With equal power behind each party, the public would be torn in an issue. Nationalism and propaganda requires only one party, which usually requires brute force to install. Brute force is also required to convince each civilian to join that party. Last, militaristic expansion is needed. The public needs an enemy, a scapegoat for all their domestic and political problems. With nationalism, war is the main way to produce such an enemy. The public will be united, just as the United States' public is united against enemies such as the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. I think Osama Bin Laden has almost reached the stage of an Emanuel Goldstein (1984). I still question if he ever exists or existed. Maybe George Bush is using him to expand his wars for oil, but that is not the issue I am concerned with now and this essay is not an attempt at a discursive one. However, I must point out that the reason why the US public is not united against Iraq is because we have no proof of US casualites by an Iraqi strike. They do not yet comprehend the policy of a pre-emptive strike, and do not want to start any more wars. But back to Communism. Peaceful communism never has, never is, and never will work in a large society because there is no incentive for labor and increasing technological, industrial, and therefore economical productivity.