Communism..Why is and was it vilified and considered evil??

Question

If communism is a pure state where all are equal financially and culturally, why consider it evil?? Is it not merely the desire of certain elite individuals to consider themselves more equal than others that caused the system to fail?? What would be wrong with equal medical and social systems for all??

Answer 1

Think about it for a moment. The core concept of Comunism is that all are equal right? For all to be equal that means you must bring everybody down to the lowest common denominator. How else can such equality be achieved? You can only bring certain people up to a certain level. There are inherent physical limits that all people are born with. Some may be good at one thing or another. To equalize people is to bring them down to what the weakest link is capable of. In effect you make the whole chain as strong as the weakest link.

Lets look at Comunism on a grand scale. In a pure Commie society you have each person assigned to what is judged to be their best place to contribute to society. On the top it sounds great right? Of course everybody assumes they'll get one of the good jobs. Most jobs suck. So most people will get stuck doing something they hate. If you take it to it's literal ends, then all good jobs would be removed because by deffinition they set somebody up as elite. Astronauts, musicians, atheletes, and so on. By being made one of those they are instantly made elite. In reality many of these jobs are necessary to the functioning of society. So the absolute ideal is literally impossible. Not everybody is capable of singing. To make somebody who can sing like an Angel tote garbage while forcing a tone deaf person to do vocals is a bigger injustice than creating an elite because of an innate ability they are born with. Not everybody can be a rocket scientist or a skilled surgeon. Would you honestly want randomly chosen people to be your doctor if your life was on the line?

So even with the best intents Comunism does and by necessity has to put people up as elite. Instead of people choosing their field and putting their talents out there for the general public to judge relitive talent another group of elites judge. You have to have somebody to decide who does what. Who allocate resources and people to tasks. I guess technically today you could use computers to do that with standardized testing. However what about subjective areas such as art? How can a computer judge that? Or do you do away with arts all together?

Next comes the biggest hidden injustice of all socialisms. The very core ideal of socialism of any sort relies on each person carrying out the collective will. For it to work each person MUST work inside the collective will. By deffinition every dissenter, every person who does not abide by the collective will damages the collective. They reduce the already margional tolerances the society has for survival. Dissenters are a threat to the survival of a collective society. If any large movement starts the collective will collapses. For it to exist the collective MUST have almost unanimous support. Each person must strive to carry out their part of the collective efforts. If the shoemakers for example dissent, then everybody goes without shoes. If the farmers do not pull their share of the work, then everybody starves. So every person must do their assigned work to the best of their ability.

Now think about that for a moment. Try to picture getting 100 of even like minded people to agree completely on even the implementation of a goal they all want. I've never seen it happen. There has always been egos, power plays, disagreements over methods, laziness, poor judgement, emotionalism, favortism and a hundred other very human things which interfere with the collective. It's natural. It is to be human to dissent. To feel that your own opinion and worth is greater than others.

As a result, the collective to survive must prevent dissent. They must curtail any actions which prevent people from doing anything but their best for the collective. All must volentarily bow to the collective will or the collective will becomes a tyranny. Since you cannot get functional humans to lose such things as ego, subjective emotions such as taste, opinion and belief. Then such traits must be suppressed for the good of the collective.

Are you starting to see the dehumanization that socialism requires to function?

People being people, they do things. Some people are born rebellious. They rebel just because they are. They might even agree with the people they are rebelling against. Now get a single rebel with charisma or one with a good cause. That is a problem. It interferes with the collective will. It deviates from the directive of the collective will. Such deviation throws the whole system out of whack. What if for example instead of plain brown shoes a rebellious shoemaker offers several colors? Since it's not in the collective plan, the dye's used for the shoes are dyes meant for other products. So people then instead of colored sheets have colorful shoes. When you have a collective will ALL is planned. Down to the last detail. It has to be. That is the very deffinition of each contributing what they can. For it to work everybody has to meet their quotas. Changing resource allocations without direction from above creates shortages. So if farmers make Vodka with grain it means somebody didn't get to eat that grain.

Now lets examine that culture a little. What a person has, not owns. Ownership is a blight on the collective. Ownership is considered evil and wrong. So what a person has rights to use. Even clothing is a revokable item which is doled out by the party and chosen by what is deemed necessary and practical. Furniture, where you live, who your neighbors are, where you work. All of that has to be assigned too you. Otherwise it creates elitism. Obtaining anything not allocated to a person is to upset the master plan. It robs resources allocated to another area.

People being people, they will find a way to have the best life they can. If one's bed is uncomfortable, the collective be damned, a person will find a way to make a more comfortable bed. It might mean waiting for the granny next door to kick the bucket, then swiping her bed before it's reallocated. However this means somebody else who qualifies for that comfortable mattress has to wait that much longer while the "thief" enjoys a comfortable night's rest with the pilfered mattress.

Individual likes and tastes for the most part have to be stifled. The collective good has to come first. A limited variety can be made availible. However the variety has to be one that meets with resources. That fits in the master plan. If providing variety reduces production of a good, then the variety is likely to suffer. Standardization always increases production. Increased production means a higher standard of living. So variety is going to be a very low priority.

Now lets take a look at human nature put in such a system of resource allocation. By design so as to not be wasteful with resources there will be key points of distrabution and selection. Certain people with skills considered best for the job will be given the job of allocating resources by how they see fit to people who are placed under their jurisdiction. This can be especially harsh if there are shortages of an item. In all societies a system of monetary trade develops. The most primitive form is barter. Technically if you have a friend who is a plumber and he fixes your leaky sink as a favor, then you have violated the collective will. You have set yourself above the rest of the people as deserving your sink fixed before it was scheduled to be fixed by priorities. Your friend the plumber has robbed the collective of his skills by allocating his free time to work on your personal problem. The reality is such trades are considered innocent violations of the spirit and overlooked.

Once this system of barter is established, then if you love bacon and your neighbor does not, you will trade something of yours for their bacon. Soon people will collect bacon for trade for more valuable items. The most skilled of these will become rich in goods from such under the table trades. Soon an entire black market will develop. This will be especially fueled by any unfilled needs. The barter system inevitably degenerates into theft of allocated items to meet increasing demands. The theft is often perpetrated by bribing the people in charge of the allocation. No matter what your currency, corruption is unavoidable.

Now, lets look at corruption and it's effects in a socialist system. Since everything is allocated and since production is geared to meet need. Then anything reallocated is to deny somebody of a good. So the effects of corruption are felt much more by a socialist system. Since control of resources by necesity is concentrated in a smaller group of people (to allocate more people to distrabution is to rob manpower from production) then this group of people is provided with more temptation and opportunity to indulge in corruption. The system will also provide fewer safeguards.

On the same topic. In a free market system. If you do not like what your choices are you always have the choice to provide your own or find an alteranate source. In a socialist system, by design of the economic system all goods must come from the same sources. To strike out and provide a better service or product is to go against the collective will. It also means that your assigned work is no longer done. That means if you made waffles, then there are that many fewer waffles being made. If you worked in a soap factory then there are that many fewer bars of soap availible. Since production is geared toward need, then any loss of production means somebody does without. So in your quest to gain a pillow by making pillows which are more comfortable or that are just plain availible, then you have robbed people of soap by your actions. As such enterprise cannot be tolerated. The collective will must be obeyed for the system to work.

That is a core conflict with human nature. People disobey. They do it from the cradle and finally stop when they are buried. The concept of each contributing what they are able requires people to participate in the collective will and to live it. Otherwise you are not contributing as society sees as necessary. The fact is somebody has to tote trash. Somebody has to make sure the sewers work, take care of the sick, clean things, work dull monotinous jobs. Most people in fact have too. Most people do not want to do work like this and will avoid it if possible. People will always come up with ideas. When put through channels most ideas will be shot down for a variety of reasons. Even if an idea is accepted that does not mean that the origionator will be seen as fit as the one to develop the idea. Remember each is assigned to what the collective thinks will be their most valuable contribution to that society.

As for evaluation of ideas and innovation. Almost every radical idea in the history of the world has been met with scorn. Many of those who conceived these ideas have been imprisoned, economically ruined and even killed for having the idea. A socialist system is one that does not have room for mavereks. If the collective doesn't deem the inventor fit or the idea as feasible and desirable it cannot go forward. Everyone contributes as they are able. As such everyone is necessary for society to work. Unsanctioned activities rob the collective. They reallocate resources and manpower. When everyone contributes as they are able then there is no room for such.

Now lets talk about reality and human behavior. Rebelliousness and dissent are natural human reactions. They are also intolerable to a society that needs every person to work toward the collective for the survival of the comunity as a whole. If all the sanitation workers said they deserved better. Then the sewers would overflow in short order. Of course such dissenters are misguided and in need of "re-education" to show them the value of the collective will. Those who once re-educated continue to persist in subversive activities must be mentally ill or be made to contribute to society in accordance with the collective will. For dissent to spread would mean an end to the collective will. So close monitoring is necessary to ensure compliance with the collective will and to fight corruption.

Marx hated religion. He felt that man should be their own God. Though religion really has nothing to do with the economic or governmental systems of socialism, Marx's prejudice against religion has become embedded in every socialistic movement. There is nothing to prevent a religious man from being a good citizen and very obedient to the collective will. Religion however is the potential for dissent, and if it's done with religious fervor it can be very dangerous to the collective will. As such religion or any competing philosophy cannot be tolerated.

Socialism/Comunism appeal to the insecure and those who have nothing to lose. The lure of knowing that a person will always have food, clothing. That false security promised by socialism is a big draw. There is also the element of jealousy and injustice. Many of the wealthy in a society did nothing to earn it. Many are arrogant and use wealth to impose views and prejudices on others. In class systems from which Comunism was born there was little chance of upward mobility. If you were born poor you'd live poor then die poor most likely. Comunism was one approach to end such injustice and to exact revenge against a group that was seen as oppressors.

So to answer your question here are the reasons why socialism and it's deeper cousin comunism are universally reviled by any who give it a deep look.

Socialism is to debase man. Instead of celibrating the gifts of what is human, socialism attempts to stifle it. To enfold everybody in the collective will and standardize human beings.

Socialism is oppressive to mind, body and soul. The very regimentation of society that is necessary for socialism to work stifles inovation. It prevents a person from pursueing something right or wrong in the belief that their way is right. To succeed socialism requires people to be of like mind and purpose. This is to bleach people into pre-concieved mold that fits the greater good and blights the individual. It grates on the soul with the heavy conformitism that is absolutely necessary to carry out the collective will.

Socialism is very fertile grounds for corruption and injustice. It places great power into the subjective opinions of a very small minority. Worse than that it removes alternate paths to get around that minorities opinions.

Socialism makes a huge mistake by combining Government with an economic system. Government's jobs are to assure justice. Economic systems are there to provide trade and meet people's needs. They often conflict. When both are part of the same system then you build in a split personality. You remove checks and balances that would otherwise keep a system from swinging too far to one direction or another. Seperation of the two systems is a good thing. It externalizes the conflict and implies balance. Of course corruption can and does disrupt this. No current societal system or economic system can avoid corruption.

Socialist systems work against human nature in many ways. For example motivation. Why work extra hard when there is no personal reward for such effort? If a person can do the minium and get the same as the person who works extra hard how many people are going to do more than the least they can get away with?

Socialistic systems are oppressive. The necessity to enforce the collective will means invasive monitoring, active attacks on any hint of dissent. It means forcing people to accept the will of the collective. This is to literally tell people what they must think. To most people that is a very revolting concept. Yet how else can the collective will be enforced if %100 of the people do not accept and live by it's ideals and directives? So by nature it MUST oppress people to survive.

To the religious socialism means to have their right to religion stolen from them. It is a challenge to their faith and an insult to their beliefs.

In the West. Most people have at least a decent standard of living. People LIKE owning things. I don't know about you but I get mad when somebody steals something from me. I worked hard to get that and I wanted that item and I bought that item. Somebody steals it from me I'm going to get them. Socialism is mass theft. It is to remove the concept of personal ownership and to say everything is everybody's. It is too allow somebody else to decide what you can and cannot own. It is to regulate the most intimate of personal articles. To assign societal values on things with no way to disagree or dissent. A personal example. I collect swords. I like swords. I have a love of Fantasy fiction art and such. Swords are not practical. They could be used as a weapon. The manufacture of swords could better use those resources for something more vital. So socialism even if it's just economic oppression which taxes me to the point where I cannot buy a sword, means I am deprived of a hobby. Of the ability to express a rather unimportant but very individualistic choice. You might like to collect salt shakers or firearms or antiques. Doesn't matter. The fact is that the more regulated the society. The more socialistic, the more the priorties become that rob humans of such self expressions. I won't die if I lose my swords. I'd just have a piece of me stolen from me.

Speaking of firearms. There is fierce debate in this country about firearm ownership. Both sides of the debate really do not address the key issue. That issue is one of self determination. Socialism is a system of external determination. That is why firearms proponents on an instinctive level will abhor socialism. A gun is the ultimate tool of self determination. That is what it all boils down too. If you have weapons, then you can be independent of everybody in terms of self defense. You can as a group fend off the imposement of an unpopular act/law. The very term "armed rebellion" really says it all. If you are armed you always have that last resort to use those arms to oppose what you feel is wrong. Those who want the nation disarmed are the insecure. The ones who do not feel capable of defending themselves. That do not wish to or feel that people should have self determination. The more self confidence a person has, the more likely they are to feel the desire to determine their own fate. To rely less on others and more on their own means and judgement.

So the conflict over socialism and our current system boils down to the same divides. Those who believe strongest in themselves want only the freedom to pursue their own aims and ambitions. Those who feel insecure, who lack the will or confidence in their own judgement and capabilities wish to be led. To have that security blanket to fall back on in case they fail.

What I suggest is a whole different idea. Populism got co-opted by socialism but they are actually completely contradictory philosophies. Populism is the belief in people and justice. Unlike socialism which commits one injustice to right another, Populism instead believes that injustice should be done away with altogether. The core belief is one where people are good. That given the right environment almost all people will contribute volentarily. That individualism rather than a collective will is the best route to a just society. That the role of government is to remove roadblocks from people, not place them. Populilsm is a proponent of free enterprise. This is different than free market. Free Market is to be without controls and to favor the the most competitive blind to any social ills this might cause. Socialism seeks to control the market and bring everybody down to the least common denomonator. Free enterprise seeks to promote the best ideas. When combined with Populism it is to seek the best ideas but also to acknowledge social consequences and address any injustices in a fair means. Playing Robin Hood only changes the victim not the crime itself. Injustice is injustice no matter who is on the recieving end of it. It is hypocracy to think that changing the victim somehow makes an act just. If there is a victim by deffinition it is injustice. When you tax one group more heavily than the other then you are just changing the victim.

Instead I suggest a system that promotes the competitive abilities. That focuses on more than the bottom line. Social and environmental concerns are crucial to any good business if a long term view is taken. The rewards may take decades to reap but they are far richer than the quick profit stolen at the expense of a companies future. Management and employee are a team not enemies. Practices like using pyschology to get the most work for the least pay are unjust. Workers doing less than the best they can is just as unjust. A company IS it's employees. They are the heart and soul of any company. So the way a company treats it's employees is it's soul. If it's corrupt and devious then it is a wickedness that should be blotted out. If it is fair and benificial it will have loyal employees who will carry the company into the next generation.

People are a nation's greatest resource. Nobody should be wasted or held back. They should be given every opportunity to succeed and the opporunity to fail as well. Merit is the fairest system ever devised for the division of goods and resources. So the most just system is not one that takes away from people but one that provides avenues for people to earn what they are capable of earning. Even if it's only a better life for themselves and their children, all people deserve that opportunity. All people have certain rights. Freedoms like speech, freedom to live life as they believe as long as it does not interfere with others rights, freedom of self determination. These are all things not possible under a socialist system. These are the cores of a Populist system. Democracy works very well with a Populist system. Democracy can work with a socialist system but the lack of opportunity greatly hinders upward mobility necessary for all leaders to have an equal chance to speak their views. A Populist system is one that encourages people to seek out their limits and abilities. To explore them, even thought it often means failing at many endeavors. It is the ability to be completely wrong and have that right to hold that belief. To have whatever religion one wishes and practice in any way they choose that does not interfere with other's rights.

While Populist values are derived from the same principles as the US Constitution, unfortunately in the US we do not live by the Constitution any more. Nor do we have a free market system much less free enterprise. I do suggest Populism as a better way than Comunism. A much better way. Populism combined with free enterprise and a heavy emphisis on freedom.

Answer 2

Basic definition of communism, "An economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members", is not workable for two reasons:
- there's no incentives system to drive productivity (hence powerty)
- there's no (as of yet) distribution system powerful enough to ensure "common advantage".

Hence, all known instances of communism are actually either:
- hybrid cases where UNequal distribution of goods is combined with (frequenty forced) common labour (these generate large amounts of negative publicity for communism)
- faux-communism cases where the name "communism" is applied to a system where heavily unequal benefit distribution AND private ownership system are present but are tightly controlled by government / other enforcement entities. China is one bold experiment to this effect.

Answer 3

Capitalism!!! Capitalists and the "elites" of the world felt threatened. People with little education and narrow mind are also easy to convince that what they don't know is bad. So Capitalist had an easy time convincing many that Communism was evil. Many open minded, smart people were prosecuted because they wouldn't fall in line with that view of Communism

Answer 4

It's considered evil because it is associated with the totalitarian regime in Russia. In theory, communism is the best economic system, but it take a lot to change the thinking of our consumer-oriented society.

Answer 5

I agree. I don't agree with the fact that evil is a good thing... but I do feel that it is a natural part of life. With the good, there is always bad. There is always the yin and the yang in life. And I feel that unless we have been in the gutter, we may take some of the better things in life for granted.

Answer 6

it is evil because it is an utopia. it is an all-dominating idea and a lot of lives are sacrificed to this idea. I come from Russia, I suppose you know how many thousands of people died during Soviet times. read about it on Wikipedia. just one example, people who were richer (because they worked more and harder then their drunk neighbours!!!) were deprived of everything they had by force and put in prisons, many died. that`s one of the examples how they tried to make things EQUAL

Answer 7

i dont think its eveil, i think it is a very just government, its like the apartment newlyweds live in, its the before governmentm an interim, but it gives nothing to the little man and america percieves that as evil, because of americas roots thats against everything we re for

Answer 8

ah