THE PROBLEM OF COMMUNISM

The idea of communism is now a little less than 200 years old, and since then, it has had a remarkable history. It is one of the fastest proliferated ideologies in political history. More interestingly, however, is that since its emergence, communism has been able to inform many, and also large, state systems, such as China and the Soviet Union. As an ideology, it survived although all communist systems either failed or have been modified to a degree that they are rather socialist or state-capitalist systems than outright communist political systems. In our landmark work “Why Do We Love/Hate Communism?”, we examined why this political ideology is still popular, despite its mechanical failures. In this article, we are going to examine what the main problem of communism is. Here, we go beyond the standard explanation, although fully valid and important, that sees its main weakness in the unplannable nature of state business, and adopt a more human-focused perspective.

Core Assumptions Of Communism

At its core, the communist idea rejects the idea of private property, as it paves the way for economic power imbalances between people within a nation. It is assumed that an individual should neither have more than he needs to live, nor should individuals have power over one another through economic means of reproduction. Rather, the nation is an undivided whole of equals in which the state coordinates production and redistributes wealth. Already, it becomes evident that such a planning process is incredibly difficult and inflexible. Of course, there are different structural approaches to the organisation of production and the redistribution of its results, but the core idea remains the same among all communist systems: A cohesive society of equals without excessive consumption and amassment of wealth.

It could be validly argued that communism, although coming into existence almost 200 years ago, addresses the societal problems of today. We have shown that the current capitalist life-cycle is about to come to an end because of excessive consumption (click here to read the full article). As consumption reaches a point of exhaustion due to a lack of added value and a distortion of consumers’ perceptions, the system cannot uphold growth rates and normative decline set by it. Communism arose as a response to those problems that quickly arose during the Industrial Revolution. With the development of machines, the scalability of production and little social regulation that could have protected social balances and workers’ rights, societies experienced major shifts that massively increased the social distance between producing groups of societies and owners of the production.

Communism is an attempt to counteract the unregulated market dynamics that led to these circumstances. Benevolently described, communism wanted the groups within a society to come closer together. Therefore, it must be said that the idea, or intention, of communism is not to be viewed as normatively bad. Rather, it is a technically clumsy ideology, and it is built on wrong political and anthropological assumptions.

Problem 1: Radical Structure & Emotional Change

Just because a situation is ineffective or inefficient, it does not follow that the adoption of the exact opposite will produce the exact opposite effects. Politics is too complex for such one-dimensional thinking. Communism disregards that people, and by extension societies, only behave in ways structures allow them to behave. So, if a political or economic system creates unwanted effects, it is not the system that creates the behaviour, but its structure allows people to behave in ways that put their self-interest above the societal interest, thus creating ineffective or inefficient outcomes. So, if early forms of capitalism produced social imbalances, this is due to the structural design that allowed the owners of production to intensively pursue their individual interests without having to regard societal effects. Changes, often incremental, led to such a situation, and if governments had been more forward-looking, these problems would have been either eliminated quickly or would have never arisen in the first place.

This does not mean that private property should have been abolished altogether, as communism suggested. As we can see today, as capitalist systems went through a maturity process, much of the poverty of the last century was eradicated. Of course, there are different structural deficits today that capitalism as an economic system brings and, therefore, harms politics, but these can also be tackled with adjustments, not revolutions. Communism, however, posits that: “If A produces X, and X is undesirable, we must go with B, as we believe it will produce Y”. This led to communism being fundamentally reactive and emotional. Next to being an ideology, it is also an aspirational political ideal for many, embodying the direct juxtaposition of the negative effects of capitalism.

This is a serious problem for policymaking under communism, especially in transitional situations from a capitalist economic mode to a communist one. Political participation and movement is secured through the identity of “being against” something, making communism inherently relational. In addition to that, its universalist approach makes it radical. Nuanced policymaking is nearly impossible under communism without infringing on the clear ideational boundaries. Absence of nuanced policymaking makes politics always inefficient.

Problem 2: False Normativity

Communism adopts a very strict understanding of the equality of people. Under communism, the worker is the main target group. This makes sense as this ideology emerged in times when work safety standards and worker protection laws were absent. Especially during the Industrial Revolution in Europe, the conditions of the working population were potentially the worst in human history. This took a heavy toll on the population in every regard. Communism, however, radicalises the solution. Of course, it arose from a situation of misery, and emotional responses to the situation are understandable. However, the conclusion that the worker is the centre of every society is false. In some societies, the centre of society is formed by farmers, soldiers, scientists, artists or white-collar workers.

Further, it cannot be universally established that the worker in the communist sense is free of normative conflicts. Communism misses that most workers, if they were owners of a productive enterprise, would have behaved in the same way the current owner would have behaved, once again underlining the importance of structures. Viewing it the other way around, if a factory owner had turned into a factory worker, he would immediately also advocate for communism. Ideology is not an inherent aspect of people but a selfish cognitive paradigm to conceptualise and institutionalise one’s individual interests. There is no established argument that safely asserts that workers are fully working in the interest of society and not for their individual interest; the structure just did not allow them to pursue their individual self-interest in a way that would become evident or even harmful to society. Putting the worker in the spotlight is more like an effective marketing strategy of communism than a valid argument for this ideology.

Problem 3: Statism & Decline

The most dangerous problem of communism is that it is a political system that is structurally status quo-oriented. Within communism, there are no material differences between citizens, due to the full equal distribution of national wealth. Ownership in excess of the human need is abolished. In such a system, if a person is not highly intrinsically motivated, there will be no development. There is no incentive to innovate. There is no competition that would fuel innovation and progress. As the state coordinates economic conduct, development is also coordinated.

For example, let us suppose a formerly capitalist nation becomes communist today. Everyone has everything they need. In a couple of years, the technology will be outdated and will need innovation. To realise this, the state officials will need to identify the need to innovate and give orders to innovate. However, neither is the innovation intrinsic, nor can it be ensured that the officials always know the best way to develop. Finally, such a system can never lead to innovation. Constant innovation is not possible because there is no individual gain, or even the political possibility (let us suppose a self-developed innovation is rejected because it does not fit the state planning).

The individual gain should not always be viewed in terms of material gains, but in social ones, too. Why would somebody want to stand out in a society where the equality of all people is the core of the political concept? Brilliant minds will receive their medals, but still be indistinguishable in regular life. They cannot independently pursue building on their success, always being subject to the state's strategy. Just a system is unjust towards the brilliant minds in society because others who do not work half as hard live in the same way. A regular person without ambition for himself or his nation will live the same life as someone who constantly adds to science and innovates.

Considering the above, communism is a system that inevitably leads to stagnation and every organism, including societies, that stagnates will inevitably decline and vanish – as all communist systems have done so far. Curiosity and the human urge to discover more are suppressed in communism. If one does not stand out in society for exceptional work, one will simply not do it.

Concluding Remarks

It needs to be stressed that communism’s ideas are, in a normative sense, not bad; they are just immature. Of course, it is important that people live under conditions that respect human dignity; how could someone argue against that? On the other hand, nobody should have the reproductive means to influence societies and political systems with their economic power, as we can see today. Societies should only be governed by mandated institutions, and overly excessive gains need to be the basis for securing a social construct in which everyone within a nation can live in dignity.

However, man is by no means equal. While some devote their lives to the good of their nation, sacrificing time, energy and talent for society to advance, others do not do so. They should never be treated the same. A production owner, ideally, owns productive enterprises because he has the vision, ambition and structure to build, operate and grow them – the worker (generally) does not have these attributes. The worker is a worker because the production owner offers a venue for the worker to be a worker. To avoid exploitation and social imbalances, the state must regulate and redistribute in a sophisticated manner. For one, to shield the worker from exploitation, but also to offer the worker the chance to pursue his vision in a productive enterprise. Over time, different policies are needed to ensure smooth socio-economic functioning.

However, at no time does it follow that all people must strictly be treated equally in all regards of life. Communism’s biggest problem, therefore, is that it is an emotional economic, and in extended forms political, ideology that misses that growth of societies is dependent on the innovative drive of people.