What makes "Communism" such a bad idea? Well you may begin by referring to the use of communism in different countries as a means for government, associating it with the red communistic USSR and its propaganda, and unfortunately there were some bad cases that arose. Primarily due to the fact, I believe, of greed amongst those in power. Any one person will say that once given power, they will not in turn become like the dictator of another country for they are considered to be the "bad example" of what a ruler should be like. However, there are many problems with this assertion. For one, it is within human nature to focus on the negative outcomes of events as opposed to the positive for it refers to our awareness of Murphy's law: what can go wrong, shall go wrong at the most inconvenient time. As such, focusing on what can be categorized as things going wrong is beneficial to the individual attempting to partake in such an endeavor for they will at least be aware of what can go wrong, and how to avoid that possible outcome. Using the "bad example" dictator as the model of what not to be for a communistic leader, this alters the standard from being absolutely "communist" in its inception, to simply not being as bad as the previous leader. Now I know what you are thinking (not really, but that statement was rhetorical). If you follow this process, at the end, you will yield a leader who is good in them of themselves, and completely altruistic towards their neighbors and fellow communists. This never happens. One of the reason why is that it is within human nature to have a preference towards greed. Even the most altruistic person is greedy. Not in the sense you may be thinking of, but for some, altruism itself is greedy due to motives: the motive/duty to give back to a community based on obligations towards others, or, as in Elements of Moral Philosophy (Rachels) touched upon, the act of altruism is motivated by pity for another or to satisfy one's self. What if someone donated money, just to donate money for charity? From hindsight, it seems as if the act is, in it of itself, beneficent for the act of philanthropy is to give to others solely based on care for others. But is this the central motivation that drives a person to "give back" to one's community? There are other underlying factors that may not be made completely obvious. Think about it, until telepathy is established in humans, we will never know what drives a person to act in a way that they do. This includes that the person may have wanted to donate for the purpose of boosting their image so that they are seen as being superior to others who are less caring towards those who need help. It can also be the case that one pities others in third-world countries for they are seen as less-fortunate than us, and in turn it is our responsibility to help them out for we have the ability to do so. Or it could simply be the case that a community is on the brink of death by starvation and the only way to save them is to send money so they can buy food for their community, by which it will easy the philanthropists conscious if they in fact donate money instead of letting the community die when they in fact had a chance to do something about it.
To keep it short, although ethics is almost never short, there are various motivations for why people partake in philanthropy and know that there are instances where what may seem as pure intentions, may have an underlying reason. Not to diminish the fact that the act may be, in it of itself, a selfless act with no other intentions whatsoever. This sort of outlines and sets up reasons why communism does not work all that well. It's a rather simple idea, really. Everyone does something, gives back to the community, and the community flourishes. But what weighs tasks in terms of equality for all those within the community? That is to say, in a communistic community, the work of a doctor is equal to that of one who is a janitor. Hindsight tells us that there is clearly a difference, for growing up in a Capitalistic society we view doctors as being more important for they are the ones who have the ability to treat and save lives, while janitors only clean up trash. But if you really think about it, a doctor is only as great as the conditions he is given to work in. Each contributes towards the work of the other. The doctor creates mess, the janitor cleans up the messy area. With this simple outlook, both seem equally important. But then the idea of workload enters the equation and asks that if a janitor works harder than a doctor who is private practice, meaning the janitor not only has to work more hours, but is also verbally abused if they do not finish cleaning on a timeline, or has to scrub for hours to get stains off the walls, does the workload equal for the two professions? Similarly, comparing a janitor with a lifeguard, are the two professions equal? One of the main reasons communism doesn't work is this notion of equality, for some people view their tasks as being more important or more work-intensive than others, which leads to this sense of unfairness. Another is greed, as I mentioned earlier. Greed is a horrible trait that humans have, for we are, by nature, drawn towards having ownership of things. If you own anything, then you fall under this category. Once we are comfortable, then we begin to give excess supplies away for we are able to do so, meaning that until the community reaches a state of equilibrium, there will be a competition of resources and a lack of generosity amongst those who live in that community. Which brings up the position of power, where those who are in power have priority to resources if there is no abundance. As such, greed takes over so that those in power can reach a state where they are comfortable. But this most never happens, since innovations will never cease to exist. As such, there will always be items that will be created and discovered that the ones in power do not have, and if they want it, they are given the power to get it, despite disregarding those who are suffering in the environment where resources lack.
This is an abnormally long post, and I will not really draw it out much longer but I lightly touched on the ideas as to why communism does not work. There will be those who are greedy, and those who wish only for power and will not give up the position of power they hold that has the ability to fuel their greed. I realized that there is a fine line that exists and outlines the differences between communism and a dictatorship: communism relies on the power of a LEADER, while a dictatorship has a DICTATOR. Going off of general definitions, if you have an individual unwilling to give up their power and use it solely for their benefits and those whom they deem to receive the benefits, that is a dictatorship. But like Jesus (you can choose to believe him or not, I have no preference and am open to both opinions since I am not that in touch with religion), there is a difference between what a King is, and what a Leader is; hence why Jesus abhorred the name "King of Kings" and "Messiah," for I believe that it was his thought that he did not see himself as a king, but he saw himself as a leader. In that respect, really quick overview, Jesus was primarily in dirty clothes much like commoners, held no money for that associated with empire and he wanted to be equal with his fellow commoners, and he walked by foot. Sorry this is so long, but this is my final point: a Leader is one who guides and allows for people to decided on their own whether they wish to follow a certain system or not, whereas a King is one who forces upon followers his ideals and makes everyone his "bitch" basically for he is seen to have the right to all lives in the empire/kingdom by birth (and him being the closest entity to a deity is a factor). Communism will only work as long as it has leaders to guide those under the system but once a king/ruler comes into the once-communistic system, it changes to a dictatorship.
-JuzoInspired
(PS Since this is primarily on politics, I will post another entry later today about a scientific revelation I have had LOL)
No comments:
Post a Comment