Words are amazing inventions, and like any invention, words can be simple or complex. Words like "tree," and "water," and "orgasm" have a definite meaning, and are not ambiguous. Other words however, travel from the auditory nerve into our brains and touch off a whole series of impressions and associations. In this process, words can come to convey different things to the listener than what they originally meant to the speaker.
Therefore, when we set out to discuss something complex, something abstract, something philosophical and far-reaching, it is necessary to agree on what our words mean. To that end, I would like to propose some definitions.
What I seek to define is more than a word. What I seek to define is an entire philosophical attitude. What I would like to begin define is the concept of Communism. How, after all, can we have a meaningful discussion of this important and influential philosophy without a common language?
First of all, what communism is not:
It is not fascism. Fascism is a dictatorial political system, whereby a small group of powerful rulers seek to control all actions, and even the thoughts of the people. Communism cannot exist in a fascistic environment. Communism is based on freedom.
Communism is also not socialism. Socialism is a political system whereby a theoretically benevolent State controls all means of production and all social systems, and directs these systems for the good of the people. Karl Marx envisioned a socialist environment as a stepping stone towards general communism. Marx was, unfortunately wrong in his belief that socialism could lead to communism. Before I get into that however, let me finish my definitions.
Communism is, in fact, not a political system at all. It is, in its most tangible form, an economic system. In pure form, communism isn't even that. In pure form, communism is an ideal, a goal, a statement of the social perfection that truly civilized people will eventually all strive for.
As a tangible economic system, communism is relatively simple to understand. It states that all means of production, including land, should be shared communally.
Compare this to the idea of Democracy. In democracy, the people who make the laws are elected by the people. In a good democracy, the rights and interests of all are considered and represented.
Is there a conflict between democracy and communism? No! There is no conflict, because democracy is a political system that determines how laws are made. Communism is an economic system that determines how wealth is divided. In fact, I propose that communism and democracy are not enemies at all. They are, instead, made for each other. How could you have a society that shares all things in common, yet the members of that society do not freely choose the leaders who establish the rules and systems by which the society functions? You cannot. Communism is impossible without democracy.
The confusion arises when democracy is confused with Capitalism. Capitalism, like communism, is an economic system. In fact, capitalism and communism are directly opposite to each other. In capitalism, all means of production, including land, are held in private hands, and members of the society are encouraged to compete freely in an effort to gain control of as much of the wealth as they can. In communism, there is no competition, no striving for domination of others, no megalomaniacal kingdom-building, no petty tyranny. That's the ideal, anyway.
Many people, in deriding communism, point to countries like the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. They say that the downfall of the Soviet Union proves that communism cannot work. I agree that communism did not work in Russia, but I maintain that communism died not in 1988, but in 1927 when Stalin solidified his power. From then on there was no communism. There was only fascism.
China came closer to emulating the ideals of communalism, but it also fell short of earning the title of Communist Nation. This is because of the fundamental fact that you cannot force a higher ideal on anyone. You cannot take a people and tell them that now they are going to share everything. You cannot walk into a patriarchal society and tell them that now women have equal influence. You cannot force people to think the way you want them to.
Communism cannot be anything more than an ideal for us right now, because the minute you force it on someone else, you destroy it. That's a paradox shared by all higher aspirations, and it's where most spiritual systems fail. A religion loses its soul the minute it consciously attempts to gain new members.
Communism, in the final analysis, is a spiritual system, and Marx's great failure was in trying to relegate his philosophy to the materialistic plane. Communism holds a common thread with all the world's great religions. Altruism, cooperation, and transcendence lie at the heart of the communalist philosophy. That's why I don't understand why modern christians are so opposed to it.
Modern christians cling to capitalism as if it were a sacred cow, and they hate communism as if it were anathema. Why? Capitalism is the very antithesis of the stated tenets of christianity. Capitalism is based on competition, on usury, on manipulation, on meanness, greed, and deceit. It's no wonder this system has been so successful. It's the system of the animals, of the earth, of the base forces of nature.
Christianity is based on the opposite of these base forces. It is based on cooperation, generosity, respect, kindness, and honesty. These are also the elements necessary in a truly communistic society. That's why as far as I can see, true christians must, by definition, also be communists.
Our world is pretty confused right now. People who espouse the right to life argue for the sanctity of capital punishment. People who seek to be in harmony with nature champion causes and practices that fragment and divide society. The christians champion competition and greed. The doctors practice a science that's killing us.
Maybe the reason we're in so much trouble is because we're trying to use the same systems we've used for our entire species- history. Maybe we need to look for new ways to communicate, new ways to order our world, new ways to look at our lives.
At the least, I believe that we have to stop accepting the most base aspect of our natures as the dominant force that shapes us. We need to stop engendering competition. We need to learn to get along.
Remember: the "new lemming" is running away from the cliff.