[Marxism] Why you’re wrong about communism

Break Chains breakthechains02 at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 6 15:16:48 MST 2014


http://www.salon.com/2014/02/02/why_youre_wrong_about_communism_7_huge_misconceptions_about_it_and_capitalism/
 
Sunday, Feb  2, 2014 04:00 AM PST
Why you’re wrong about communism: 7 huge 
misconceptions about it (and capitalism) 
Most of what Americans think they know about capitalism and communism is total nonsense. Here's a clearer picture Jesse Myerson

As the commentary around the recent deaths of Nelson Mandela, Amiri 
Baraka and Pete Seeger made abundantly clear, most of what Americans 
think they know about capitalism and communism is arrant nonsense. This 
is not surprising, given our country’s history of Red Scares designed to impress that anti-capitalism is tantamount to treason. In 2014, 
though, we are too far removed from the Cold War-era threat of 
thermonuclear annihilation to continue without taking stock of the hype 
we’ve been made, despite Harry Allen’s famous injunction, to believe. So, here are seven bogus claims people make about communism and capitalism.
1. Only communist economies rely on state violence.
Obviously, no private equity baron worth his weight in leveraged buyouts will ever part willingly with his fortune, and any attempt to achieve economic 
justice (like taxation) will encounter stiff opposition from the 
ownership class. But state violence (like taxation) is inherent in every set of property rights a government can conceivably adopt – including 
those that allowed the aforementioned hypothetical baron to amass said 
fortune.
In capitalism, competing ownership claims are settled by 
the state’s willingness to use violence to exclude all but one claimant. If I lay claim to one of David Koch’s mansions, libertarian that he is, he’s going to rely on big government and its guns to set me right. He 
owns that mansion because the state says he does and threatens to 
imprison anyone who disagrees. Where there isn’t a state, whoever has 
the most violent power determines who gets the stuff, be that a warlord, a knight, the mafia or a gang of cowboys in the Wild West. Either by 
vigilantes or the state, property rights rely on violence.
This is true both of personal possessions and private property, but it is 
important not to confuse the two. Property implies not a good, but a 
title – deeds, contracts, stocks, bonds, mortgages, &c. When 
Marxists talk of collectivizing ownership claims on land or “the means 
of production,” we are in the realm of property; when Fox Business Channel hosts move to confiscate my tie, we are in the realm of personal possessions. Communism necessarily 
distributes property universally, but, at least as far as this communist is concerned, can still allow you to keep your smartphone. Deal?
2. Capitalist economies are based on free exchange.
The mirror-image of the “oppressive communism” myth is the “liberatory 
capitalism” one. The idea that we’re all going around making free 
choices all the time in an abundant market where everyone’s needs get 
met is patently belied by the lived experience of hundreds of millions 
of people. Most find ourselves constantly stuck between competing 
pressures and therefore stressed out, exhausted, lonely, and in search 
of meaning. — as though we’re not in control of our lives.
We aren’t; the market is. If you don’t think so, try and exit “the market.” The origin of capitalism was depriving British peasants of their access to land (seizure of 
property, you might call it), and therefore their means of subsistence, 
making them dependent on the market for their survival. Once 
propertyless, they were forced to flock to the dreck, drink and disease 
of slum-ridden cities to sell the only thing they had – their capacity 
to use their brains and muscles to work – or die. Just like them, the 
vast majority of people today are deprived of access to the resources we need to flourish, though they exist in abundant quantities, so as to 
force us to work for a boss who is trying to get rich by paying us less 
and working us harder.
Even that boss (the apparent victor in the 
“free exchange”) isn’t free: the market places imperatives on the 
ownership class to relentlessly accumulate wealth and develop the forces of production or else fail. Capitalists are compelled to support 
oppressive regimes and wreck the planet, as a matter of business, even as they protest good personal intentions.
And that’s just the principle of the system. The US’s particular brand of 
capitalism required exterminating a continent’s worth of indigenous 
people and enslaving millions of kidnapped Africans. And all the 
capitalist industry was only possible because white women, considered 
the property of their fathers and husbands, were performing the 
invisible tasks of child-rearing and housework, without remuneration. 
Three cheers for free exchange.
3. Communism killed 110 million* people for resisting dispossession.
*The number cited is as consistent as it is rooted in sound research; i.e., not.
Greg Gutfeld, one of the hosts of Fox News’ “The Five” and a historical scholar of zero renown, recently advanced the position that “only the threat of death can prop up a left-wing dream, because no one in their right mind would volunteer for this crap. Hence, 110 million 
dead.” In declaring this, Gutfeld and his ilk insult the suffering of 
the millions of people who died under Stalin, Mao, and other 20th Century Communist dictators. Making up a big-sounding number of people and 
chalking their deaths up to some abstract “communism” is no way to enact a humanistic commitment to victims of human rights atrocities.
For one thing, a large number of the people killed under Soviet communism 
weren’t the kulaks everyone pretends to care about but themselves communists. Stalin, in his paranoid cruelty, not only had Russian revolutionary leaders assassinated and executed, but indeed exterminated entire communist parties. These people weren’t 
resisting having their property collectivized; they were committed to 
collectivizing property. It is also worth remembering that the Soviets 
had to fight a revolutionary war – against, among others, the US – which, as the American Revolution is enough to show, doesn’t mainly 
consist of group hugs. They also faced (and heroically defeated) the 
Nazis, who were not an ocean away, but right on their doorstep.
So much for the USSR. The most horrifying episode in 20th Century official Communism was the Great Chinese Famine, its death toll difficult to identify, but surely in the tens of 
millions. Several factors evidently contributed to this atrocity, but 
central to it was Mao’s “Great Leap Forward,” a disastrous combination 
of applied pseudoscience, stat-juking, and political persecution 
designed to transform China into an industrial superpower in the blink 
of an eye. The experiment’s results were extremely grim, but to claim 
that the victims died because they, in their right minds, would not 
volunteer for “a left-wing dream” is ludicrous. Famine is not a uniquely “left-wing” problem.
4. Capitalist governments don’t commit human rights atrocities.
Whatever one’s assessment of the crimes committed by Communist leaders, it is 
unwise for capitalism’s cheerleaders to play the body-count game, 
because if people like me have to account for the gulag and the Great 
Sparrow campaign, they’ll have to account for the slave trade, 
indigenous extermination, “Late Victorian Holocausts” and every war, genocide and massacre carried out by the US and its proxies in the effort to defeat communism. Since 
the pro-capitalist set cares so deeply for the suffering of the Russian 
and Chinese masses, perhaps they’ll even want to account for the millions of deaths resulting from those countries’ transitions to capitalism.
It should be intuitive that capitalism, which glorifies rapid growth 
amidst ruthless competition, would produce great acts of violence and 
deprivation, but somehow its defenders are convinced that it is always 
and everywhere a force for righteousness and liberation. Let them try to convince the tens of millions of people who die of malnutrition every year because the free market is incapable of engineering a situation in which less than half of the world’s food is thrown away.
The 100 million deaths that are perhaps most important to focus on right 
now are the ones that international human rights organization DARA projected will die climate-borne deaths between 2012 and 2030. 100 million more will 
follow those, and they will not take 18 years to die. Famine like the 
human species has never known is in the offing because the free market does not price carbon and oil-extracting capitalist 
firms  have, since the collapse of the USSR, become sovereigns of their own. The most virulent anti-communists have a very handy, if morally 
disgraceful, way of treating this mass extinction event: they deny that 
it’s happening.
5. 21st Century American communism would resemble 20th century Soviet and Chinese horrors.
Before their revolutions, Russia and China were pre-industrial, agricultural, 
largely illiterate societies whose masses were peasants spread out over 
truly vast expanses of land. In the United States today, robots make 
robots, and less than 2% of population works in agriculture. These two 
states of affairs are incalculably dissimilar. The simple invocation of 
the former therefore has no value as an argument about the future of the American economy.
For me, communism is an aspiration, not an 
immediately achievable state. It, like democracy and libertarianism, is 
utopian in that it constantly strives toward an ideal, in its case the 
non-ownership of everything and the treatment of everything – including 
culture, people’s time, the very act of caring, and so forth – as 
dignified and inherently valuable rather than as commodities that can be priced for exchange. Steps towards that state of affairs needn’t 
include anything as scary as the wholesale and immediate abolition of 
markets (after all, markets predate capitalism by several millennia and 
communists love a good farmer’s market). Rather, I contend they can even include reforms with support among broadly ideologically divergent parties.
Given the technological, material, and social advances of the last century, 
we could expect an approach to communism beginning here and now to be 
far more open, humane, democratic, participatory and egalitarian than 
the Russian and Chinese attempts managed. I’d even argue it would be 
easier now than it was then to construct a set of social relations based on fellowship and mutual aid (as distinct from capitalism’s, which are 
characterized by competition and exclusion) such as would be necessary 
to allow for the eventual “withering away of the state” that libertarians fetishize, without replaying the Middle Ages (only this time with drones and metadata).
6. Communism fosters uniformity.
Apparently, lots of people are unable to distinguish equality from homogeneity. 
Perhaps this derives from the tendency of people in capitalist societies to view themselves primarily as consumers: the dystopic fantasy is a 
supermarket wherein one state-owned brand of food is available for all 
items, and it’s all in red packaging with yellow letters.
But people do a lot more than consume. One thing we do a huge amount of is work (or, for millions of unemployed Americans, try to and are not allowed). Communism envisions a time beyond work, when people are free, as Marx wrote, “to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, 
fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after 
dinner… without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.” In that way, communism is based on the total opposite of uniformity: 
tremendous diversity, not just among people, but even with in a single 
person’s “occupation.”
That so many great artists and writers have been Marxists suggest that the production of culture in such a society would breed tremendous individuality and offer superior avenues for expression. Those artists 
and writers might have thought of communism as “an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all,” but you might want to consider it an actual instantiation of universal access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
You won’t even notice the red packaging with yellow letters!
7. Capitalism fosters individuality.
Instead of allowing all people to follow their entrepreneurial spirit into the 
endeavors that fulfill them, capitalism applauds the small number of 
entrepreneurs who capture large portions of mass markets. This requires 
producing things on a mass scale, which imposes a double-uniformity on 
society: tons and tons of people all purchase the same products, and 
tons and tons of people all perform the same labor. Such individuality 
as flourishes amid this system is often extremely superficial.
Have you seen the suburban residential developments that the housing boom 
shat out all over this country? Have you seen the grey-paneled cubicles, bathed in fluorescent light, clustered in “office parks” so indistinct 
as to be disorienting? Have you seen the strip malls and service areas 
and sitcoms? Our ability to purchase products from competing capitalist 
firms has not produced an optimally various and interesting society.
As a matter of fact, most of the greatest art under capitalism has always 
come from people who are oppressed and alienated (see: the blues, jazz, 
rock & roll, and hip-hop). Then, thanks to capitalism, it is 
homogenized, marketed, and milked for all its value by the 
“entrepreneurs” sitting at the top of the heap, stroking their satiated 
flanks in admiration of themselves for getting everyone beneath them to 
believe that we are free.


More information about the Marxism mailing list