Communism is possible

Communism, in theory, espouses noble ideals for humanity. It encourages, essentially, blind equality and shared resources, and discourages the stratification that seems to plague the planet's human societies. However, though we may learn many tidbits of wisdom with which we may perfect human existence, a truly unadulterated Communist society we shall never see. While I normally would not write a case in this fashion, today's arguments will be primarily in essay form, as my advocacy requires it. My apologies. My primary assertion today is that it is genetically and instinctually impossible to achieve a society in which stratification and self-interest are not a part of the political or ideological equation. Everything that humanity does may be attributed, either directly or indirectly, to its instincts. We are animals. We make the supreme & egotistical mistake time and time again of forgetting our membership in this kingdom of beasts. Yes, we have an ability to rationalize that extends far beyond our animal brethren, but we, like they, are still slaves to our genetic urges. The only difference is that we have more chance of overcoming some of them than other animals do. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ We'll start with stratification. Marx, in his manifesto, makes some very damning claims against the bourgeois class at the time, and blames Capitalism for a number of things: "The bourgeoisie…has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors," and has left no other bond between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment." It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom--Free Trade." (http://www.marxists.org...) Unfortunately for Marx, this is largely unwarranted, since feudal, monarchical, dictatorial, and even "communist" systems have exhibited the same evils as a society that is operated by a free market. Materialism, therefore, cannot be blamed for the cold calculations of the wealthy against everyone else. Stratification, light or severe, can be found in every society on the planet, without exception. Something so universal, and something that existed long before the concept of Capitalism, must be to blame. Stratification, therefore, is much more likely due to human nature, even if it is a "misfiring" upper class amongst a sea of altruism. Even in the most peaceful societies in existence, some sort of social hierarchy is present. Just as in the rest of the animal kingdom, a chain of being exists naturally amongst humans. We can be compared to packs, prides, or flocks. A social theory that seeks to break apart our natural understanding of the world will inevitably fail, because people will inevitably gravitate toward this hierarchy. Now, it does not compute that this hierarchy must be bad. This is, perhaps, where humanity could learn something from men like Marx & Freire. A readjustment of how we perceive the hierarchy would probably lead to a far more peaceful existence than the power struggles we witness today. However, that's not what Communism wants. It wants a full restructuring in that it wants an elimination of social structure, which would go against every societal instinct within the human condition. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, onto self-interest. I do not want my opponent to mischaracterize self-interest negatively right off the bat as selfishness. The two are distinct in that self-interest has a clear instinctual foundation. Every animal in the animal kingdom is concerned with its own survival. Granted, instinctually, we are all also concerned on some level with helping our species thrive, as well. This would be the altruistic side of our genetics. But, self-interest is undeniable. While we, unlike other animals, have the unique ability to interpret, weigh out, and even deny some instincts, we won't categorically do this. Hence, any political theory that seeks to paint the human animal as something that it cannot physically be will fail monumentally, as it cannot account for even the smallest variations from the concept of blind equality. Adam Smith, expositor of capitalist theory and moral philosopher, characterizes a positive system of societal order as one which uses the instinct of self-interest to the benefit of the society. He says, in Wealth of Nations: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." While this may seem callous, it is not. It is merely a metacognitive examination of rhetoric which speaks to instincts, and seeks to manipulate our natural desire for self-preservation in order to benefit society as a whole. Adam Smith, of course, did not categorically apply this to all of society's transactions. This quotation, as I said before, is merely an examination of more extreme rationale. Though not every member of society provides goods and services in order to self-serve, it is the butcher, baker, or brewer that is overly concerned with self-interest that Communism has no place for, but that would exist in the world even if it weren't for Capitalist theory. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The gist of this analysis leads me to two final theoretical concerns regarding Communism: the tragedy of the commons and the oppressed turning oppressor. Tragedy of the commons, attributed to Garrett Hardin, claims that it only takes a handful of overly self-interested people to exploit the resources of a shared community, which then make it impossible for that community to survive. Hardin uses the example of a shared pasture for cattle grazing. A handful of farmers may agree to share this land, but if 1 of those farmers sneaks out into the middle of the night to graze his herd more out of self-interest, it will cost the community severely. Let's pretend, for a moment, that self-interest is merely a fluke, an anomaly in the genetic world. Statistically, those who abuse others due to self-interest will find their way into these Communistic communities. After all, self-interest would compel you to reside with such altruistic people, for they are the easiest to exploit. Secondly, Paulo Freire describes the problem of the relationship between the oppressed and the oppressor. Quite readily, self-interest manifested turns to vengeful and retributive behavior. When a people has suffered to such a great extent, the psychological need for justice, for what is equitable, will make equilibrium nearly impossible to achieve. This need for retribution expresses itself in every justice system in the world, though some are more severe than others. The US and other first world nations have tempered retribution with a delicate and convoluted system of proportionality. In places like Rwanda, retribution is manifested in genocide. Either way, the oppressed, the victim, will generally require some sort of psychological or philosophical satisfaction that moves beyond simply removing power from an oppressor. The need for penalty or punishment is another universal human interest that my opponent will need to deal with on a biological level in order to convince us that Communism will succeed.