Communism / Socialism – good on paper…?

Now we all know that communism cannot work, and I hope that we are learning that Socialism doesn’t either (as we see it being implemented in our own United States) but I encounter this sentiment often: that communism and related systems are good in theory and is only not possible because of the human element.

 Now, certainly, there are many people that use such terms incorrectly and I don’t intend to increase their number. So, here is the definition that I will work off of (and also for sake of brevity):

  1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
  2. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Now disregarding the dictatorships which are often a result of such systems, let us look at these definitions. First, the collective ownership of property and the organization of labor – who is to organize this? Naturally, the government or legislative body, who is put in charge of the socialistic system, whether they be democratically elected or not, and do not forget: democracy alone cannot prevent tyranny.

Now as for property: a person, as stated in our charter of independence, is entitled to his property. The communists argue that all things come from the Earth, recourses which have been bestowed unto us without charge, so should they not be shared by everyone? However, most things that come from the Earth must be improved upon to be useful or practical to us, and when an individual or group of individuals are willing to do this, through the effort of their labor, it becomes their property. But communism, at least as described above, would allow some to live off the labor of some others, through the communal attitude of property.

Now the communists would respond, every man would, in a perfect world, do a part. Is that not what we have in a free market? In order to live, one must do his part, in order to eat. The advantage of the free market is that they have pure freedom to do as they wish where they wish. Labor, in a free market system, would be organized by default naturally, instead of artificially by a governing body, which seldom, if ever has the ability to see the full picture of the entire market and possible implications of governing decisions. So, then, what is the point?

That is the flaw, but only because the human element is factored. Let us take it out and what do we have left? A perfect system? Certainly not. Let us consider that not all employments are equal.

We see that more effort is put forth in construction than a cashier at a fast food restaurant. Perhaps you disagree, but what you must understand is that different employments require different amounts of effort and – are, in a free market, compensated accordingly.

But in a communist system, everyone is equally compensated for an hour’s work – but not all hours of work are the same.  Yet, all compensation is the same in a communist system. Hardly fair.

Disregard all systems or ideals and systems involving force, and only favor one, either in application or on paper – freedom.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s