COMMUNISM : STILL UNBEATABLE IN THEORY

AN ESSAY

During the Cold War, America faced a serious intellectual challenge. It fought several wars and invested its entire economy into proving that its free market economic system was superior to communism.

Between 1945 and 1990, communism appeared a viable alternative to the free market. In both theory and practice, the Soviet Union and China loomed as proof that major world powers could function under communist governments. During this era, America did what it could to demonize communist countries: They were repressive; they did not allow free expression; they made it hard to earn a living; they were gray, forbidding places; they did not offer limitless opportunities for wealth; you couldn't own a home. Yet until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, America did not have really tangible arguments to show that communism was ineffective. After 1991, it gained a valuable new rhetorical weapon. From then on, free market defenders could say: "See? Communism doesn't work. Look what happened in Russia. Our system is better. I told you so."

Many Americans accept this argument without further thought. If educational and social indoctrination did not suffice to bias them against communism, the "Soviet example" put the nail in the coffin. "Our system is better," goes the argument, "because the Russians lost and we won."

But why exactly did the Soviet Union "fail?" And why do Americans use the Soviet failure to claim that "communism does not work?" In my view, the answers are not so simple. To the contrary, the Soviet failure does not reflect that communism is theoretically flawed. It merely reflects that communism did not work in practice in Russia. More vexingly, Americans base their conclusion that the free market is "superior" to communism only after making some embarrassing assumptions about human nature. In a word, capitalist defenders must admit that human beings are greedy, rapacious, egotistical scoundrels in order to sustain their argument that "the free market is better" than communism.

Think about how Americans craft their traditional responses to the Soviet failure. They say: "Well, communism might be great in theory, but it doesn't work because of human nature." What exactly does that mean? After all, in theory, Marxism posits that every human being is equal and that every human being deserves dignity and respect. It warns against the divisive influence of private property on human relationships. It also posits that labor is free and that no man should exploit another for profit. Further, Marxism posits that government has a responsibility to care for people because government is essentially humanitarian. From a Marxist perspective, the people deserve care, not merely the freedom to exploit one another for money. Moreover, Marxism supports these principles by assuming that human beings are naturally good. It also places great emphasis on individual worth as opposed to economic "instrumentalization" that sacrifices individual identity for "usefulness."

Are these bad principles? Do they reflect a vicious attitude toward our fellow man? Certainly not. If anything, Marxism espouses an extremely positive--even brotherly--approach to human nature. Yet according to the capitalist defenders, this approach fails because it misapprehends what humans are "actually like." To defeat the Marxist vision, the capitalist defender must say: "No, this system does not work because humans are not brotherly. Rather, they are conniving rascals who seek at all times to enrich themselves, even if that means backstabbing and betraying their brothers. Individuality is only useful to the extent that some individuals can reduce other individuals to economic servitude. Additionally, this system does not work because humans do not live for equality and dignity, but rather for crass personal gain, even if that means oppressing and exploiting their fellow man. Finally, government does not exist to care for these rascals, but rather to allow them to engage freely in rascalry, because self-interested rascalry leads to economic prosperity."

In a word, the American response to communism confesses that human beings are ruthless, savage, insensate exploiters who have no duty to their fellow man. In a sense, it admits that the communist vision is admirable. But it discounts that vision by sighing: "We are not so noble." In a strangely depressing way, capitalist defenders take solace in the recognition that human beings are brutal competitors without decency or compassion. After all, that brutality and competitive spirit keep the shelves stocked and the children fed. Who cares about theoretical appeal when merciless self-interest gives you all the shaving creams, sneakers, steak varieties and breakfast cereals you could possibly desire?

In this light, I do not believe that the Soviet failure theoretically debunks communism. No historical event will ever discount Marx's hopeful vision of human society, nor will any one State's experience tarnish the communist ideal in theory. Perhaps communism will never escape its theoretical constraints. Perhaps no State will ever live up to its high theoretical ideals. Perhaps we are just not good enough.

But sometimes ideas are beautiful, even if they are not realizable in present circumstances. I think communism fits in that category. We can all dream about utopia, even if utopia is not attainable given our limitations. Still, that does not detract from the dream. If anything, it merely shows that we are not capable of living the dream. And that is not something to be proud of. It is just an embarrassing confession that highlights our weaknesses.

Maybe human beings will never successfully practice communism. But that does not prove that communism is "bad in theory." It merely proves that we are weak, selfish, fungible, vicious creatures. Non-communist governments accommodate that weakness and harness it to good effect. Yet I would argue that there is nothing laudable about our natural weakness. The sad truth is that free market prosperity depends on inequality, exploitation and savagery. Although the benefits might outweigh the burdens, it does not change the fact that it is an ugly business. And the individual only matters to the extent that he can use other individuals to enrich himself. That is pretty bleak.

But this is what makes America strong. What a strange business. In the end, the question is: "Who am I? What am I worth? Does anyone care about me?" The communist says: "You are a valuable individual. Everyone cares about you. If you are in need, you will receive help." The capitalist says: "You are nothing unless you make something of yourself. And if you don't, that's your fucking problem, because no one is going to help you, pal. So get out there and start earning."

Guess which perspective won? So much for humanity.

SOLDIERS ARE SOCIALISTS, EVEN IF THEY DON'T KNOW IT

AN ESSAY

Last summer, I wrote an essay arguing that the United States military is essentially a socialistic institution. http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2009/06/military-is-socialistic-because-it_25.html. I made that conclusion because American military authorities "care about men under their command" both in war and peace. I pointed out that soldiers live a "rarefied" existence insulated from harsh commercial reality. That insulation allows them to focus on larger ideals, like "honor" and "political missions." Soldiers also receive free medical care, housing and living necessities from the government. As a whole, these characteristics led me to conclude that the military is "socialistic," even if its armed service protects a capitalistic society that condemns "socialism."

I continue to believe that the American military is a socialistic institution. In fact, I believe it more now than I ever did. When I wrote my previous essay, I focused primarily on larger themes to identify socialistic currents in American military life. But the military is not just abstractly socialistic; it is socialistic right down to the men themselves. It is socialistic in spirit as well as action.

To be clear, when I say "socialistic," I mean that the military provides a comprehensive security net for everyone under its control. But this means far more than merely providing tangible benefits. It also means that people in the military regard their fellow man differently than the way comparable civilians regard others. In commercial American civilian life, other human beings represent potential profits. Civilians have to think this way. Unlike soldiers, they do not get free rent, free health insurance or free child care. They have to fend for themselves. They cannot worry about their fellows too much or they will lose their own commercial struggle.

In the military, however, soldiers must care about each other. In combat, men treasure each other. They do not simply abandon their buddies when they get hurt. They are never indifferent. They put themselves in harm's way to ensure that their comrades survive. They even risk death to retrieve the bodies of friends killed in action.

I find this especially socialistic. Care for one's fellow man is a bedrock in socialist philosophy. In the military, individual soldiers practice that care every day. It is not obligatory care: Soldiers are not related by blood or even bound to each other by contract. No, they are simply comrades in arms. They refuse to allow ill to befall their fellows and they risk all to save them from it. The emphasis lies on one's fellow man, not on oneself. That marks a key distinction between both the military and civilian life, as well as between socialism and capitalism.

Karl Marx criticized capitalism because it tended to separate human beings from one another. When every man must selfishly pursue his own economic fortune in a free market system, he naturally begins to regard his fellow man as a commercial instrument, not as a human being with equal dignity. Although Marx wrote at length about economic esoterica, his main criticism was humanitarian: Capitalism distances human beings from one another and leads to human exploitation.

But in the military, soldiers learn to live with each other and depend on each other to an extent almost unrecognizable in civilian life. They do not distance themselves from each other; they come closer together. While such tight cooperation might reflect the most effective way to accomplish military missions, it also reflects a fundamentally humanitarian outlook. In the movie Black Hawk Down, for instance, one character echoes many "real" American soldiers when he explains why men serve in the military: "We're in this for the guy next to us." In other words, military life leads to a deep care for one's fellow man, no matter what the ultimate political objective may be. In fact, for individual soldiers in combat, "the guy next to us" is everything.

This is no Hollywood sentiment. This is really how soldiers think. They always have, and not just in the United States. Soldiers sign up for additional tours not because they care about the geopolitical ramifications of their deployment, but because they do not want to abandon their friends. They care that much. They care so much that they willingly face death in order to make sure their friends will not face death alone. "We're in this for the guy next to us."

That is a noble motivation. And that is why it is distinctly un-American. In American civilian life, no one really lives "for the guy next to us." No, most people live for "me." Think about catchphrases that encapsulate success in American civilian life: "It's all about me;" "I'm gonna do what I gotta do to make it;" "I need to think about Number One." These phrases might describe effective ways to achieve success in a capitalistic society. They might even yield riches and fame. But there is nothing noble about them. "The guy next to you" is irrelevant to the man who says "It's all about me." Yet that's what it takes to succeed in a society committed to individual profit. And that's the attitude people must take toward their fellows in order to survive. In the end, the motivation necessary for success in American civilian life leads precisely to the danger that concerned Marx: Human alienation and exploitation.

There is a strange irony in all this. Americans praise the military all the time. They thank soldiers for their service. They ascribe immensely positive results to their work. But military life could not be more different from the civilian society soldiers protect. It takes a fundamentally different outlook to be a soldier than it does to be an entrepreneur. What motivates a soldier does not motivate an entrepreneur. What matters to a civilian does not matter to a soldier. Strangely enough, conservatives are the first ones to talk about a "strong military," yet reject socialism across the board. If they just looked at the way military personnel think about their fellow men, they would see the foolishness in that position. The military does not just practice "economic socialism" by ensuring material welfare for its men. It also practices "individual socialism" by inculcating a spirit of concern in every man for the well-being of his fellows. Those sentiments should enrage an American conservative. Yet they keep on saying: "God bless our troops."

God bless those socialists? What a laugh.

In sum, there is more to socialism than tangible social welfare programs. Socialism means true respect for one's fellow man. A socialist does not just concern himself with spending money on people who ostensibly "don't deserve it." A socialist also thinks a certain way about other human beings. He refuses to leave anyone behind or let his neighbor suffer. He does not view him as a potential profit, but rather as a friend who needs help. There is a motivational element to socialism that is--in essence--very noble. There is nothing "evil" about it, no matter how much we learn that "socialism" is a "dirty word." After all, how could something be "un-American" if our own soldiers practice it?

Socialism is about caring for others. Capitalism is about caring for oneself. There are essential motivational differences. When a soldier says: "I'm in this for the guy next to me," his motivation is clear: It's not about him. It's about the other guy.

Why is this a bad sentiment? It might be socialistic. But it's also Christian. And noble, too.

"GOT FIVE FRIENDS? THERE COULD BE $500 IN IT FOR YOU" : YOU'RE NOT A PERSON; YOU'RE AN AMOUNT

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

Several banks currently offer “bounties” for referrals. Citibank, for instance, offers $100 to any accountholder who tells a “friend” about the bank and the “friend” opens an account. Its advertising pitch entices with the words: “Got five friends? There could be $500 in it for you.” But Citibank likely feared that “really popular people” with “lots of friends” would “cost too much,” so they limited the bounty to five friends. Wachovia offers $75 for referrals; I’m not sure whether there’s a “friend limit” on their offer. So I guess people are worth more at Citibank than Wachovia. One hundred dollars can buy more than seventy-five.

This whole “cash for referral” business disturbs me. Yet it is capitalism at its purest; it assumes that people cultivate friendships in order to exploit them for personal financial reward. That is the reason it bothers me so much. I do not have friends because I secretly wish to make money from them. I have friends because I respect them as individual human beings. In short, I resent the banks’ insinuation that people maintain friendships solely for their economic potential.

Among many other things, Karl Marx criticized free market enterprise for its tendency to reduce human beings to “exploitable labor power” or “amounts” useful to some economically superior master. In the eye of private enterprise, for instance, an employee is no longer “Fred Johnson,” the nice man from down the street with the model airplane collection who dreams to be a violinist. No, he is a “Junior Claims Clerk (Position Code 45A)” who represents 8 man-hours per working day, which in turn translates (after taxes, wages and costs) to $2,000 profit per week. He might be “Fred” to his co-workers. But in the economic hierarchy, he is an instrument. His labor does not even belong to him. It inures completely to his master’s benefit. In short, Marx argued that capitalism depends upon dehumanization and exploitation.

In essence, Marx made a humanitarian objection. Marx posited that human beings are unique individuals with hopes, dreams, ambitions and emotions. They are not mere commercial objects to be exploited for others’ gain; they have non-economic value, too. I certainly agree with Marx on these points. But it is impossible to talk about Marxism without considering the inevitable objection: “Well, it doesn’t work. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. People want to exploit each other and make money. They don’t want to be equal. It’s against human nature.”

This is the familiar “human nature” response to Marxism. According to this argument, socialism does not work because human beings are inherently selfish and only want to enrich themselves, even if that means trampling on others. To a large extent, experience bears this argument out. In our society, commercial hungers induce people to ruthlessly exploit one another. Everyone works for personal reward, and those with greater power take full advantage over those with less.

Still, is this not a pathetic admission? Put simply, the “human nature” objection to socialism assumes that it is “in our nature to exploit one another.” It assumes that human beings enjoy exploiting each other and—to some extent—being exploited. It assumes that human beings don’t really mind being reduced to instruments and amounts, as long as they get what they want from the exchange. In this sense, the real objection to socialism reads as follows: “We can’t be socialist because we are only human. We like exploiting and being exploited. Exploitation gives us lots of neat things and we like having more neat things than our neighbor. It would be really nice if we all were equal and everyone owned the same things. But that makes us feel angry because we want the full rewards from our work.”

In short, socialism “fails” because human beings lose emotional control when they think that others benefit from their work. It is too much for the human mind to accept. To avoid that emotional response, people prefer the old exploitation system. It might be unfair. It might be difficult. But at least it feels “natural.” It accords with people’s emotions. Hey, people in a free market system might face exploitation. But one day they might get to exploit others. And at day’s end they get to own as many cars as they want and take home their own pay. Who doesn’t want that?

In this light, is it not sad that the “human nature objection” to socialism reveals itself to be based entirely in emotion? There is nothing intellectually better about capitalism. It just panders more effectively to the innate emotional satisfaction that flows from exploiting others and being exploited. After all, it feels good to exploit. So everyone strives for it. Plus they get to own stuff in the process.

This explains why people willingly see themselves as amounts. In our society, people simply do not mind thinking in instrumental terms. They do not mind thinking of themselves—and others—as economic units. True, they also regard themselves as unique individuals with talents, desires, dreams and ambitions. But those “non-economic” characteristics take a back seat to economic viability. If becoming an instrument pays the bills or helps amass a fortune, that is exactly what most people will do. Judged against these objectives, individual “talents, desires, dreams and ambitions” mean little. After all, this is the mental outlook necessary to win in the great competition for the right to exploit others and get rich.

This is not just cynical resignation, either. This is merely the logical consequence of the bleak “human nature” that galvanizes capitalism defenders. The same “human nature” that rendered socialism an impossibility also transforms every person into a drab economic entity that alternately exploits and endures exploitation. This “human nature” reveals an inherent willingness in people to both debase themselves and to act with ruthless self-interest. Humanitarianism goes out the window in this analysis. If this is our “nature,” then it is hardly surprising that banks assume we view our “friends” as potential $100 “cash bounties.”

I suppose I should have expected these sentiments from a private bank. After all, banks are quintessentially capitalistic institutions. They provide capital to individuals, who in turn start enterprises. These enterprises instrumentalize employees, bringing the “investors” capital as a “reward.” In short, banks provide the grease that keeps the exploitation gears turning. They provide the means by which human beings sate their “nature” as commercial creatures. They indulge the “natural” human desire to both exploit and be exploited. It is thus no surprise that banks expect people to regard their friends as potential profit opportunities. Even more insidiously, there are two layers of exploitation at work here. Through their “referral rewards” programs,” banks exploit people’s natural desire to exploit others. In the end, two exploitations result: The man who refers a friend gets $100. At the same time, the bank makes untold interest on the new accountholder. “Everybody wins.” And everybody “feels good about it.” Personality had nothing to do with it. This is instrumentalism at its finest.

People are perfectly willing to engage in this sort of common exploitation. Banks know it. They would not offer rewards for referrals unless they knew people would respond to their entreaties. Economically, it makes perfect sense. But I still don’t like it. I like to think that people regard themselves as more than mere amounts. I like to think that people have other motivations for friendship than transforming the relationship into a check. I try my best not to exploit others, even when it may be economically prudent to do so. Still, it is difficult to escape the “exploitation cycle,” precisely because it is allegedly “part of our nature.” Because exploitation and its rewards provide such emotional satisfaction, it is difficult to fully ignore them. Human beings do not like abandoning things that make them feel good.

Marx was right that there is more to human beings than purely commercial motivation. But he failed to understand the deep psychological desire in most humans to exploit one another. That is why socialism did not work, at least in the 20th Century. It angered too many people because they did not get to exploit others as freely as they would have in a capitalist system. Worse, they did not get to own as much; they felt resentful that their work went to help others, rather than themselves. This failure was not about theory. It was about emotion: Namely, anger and resentment. People wanted to be selfish and the government did not let them. That was a recipe for failure in the 20th Century.

But what about the future? Will we ever escape the seductive emotional intoxication that flows from thinking in exploitive economic terms? Socialism failed in several countries because it required too much hyper-intellectual commitment. It required that people adhere to abstract principles, such as practical equality, common property ownership and humanitarian commitment to one’s fellow man. Those principles offered no outlet for the human emotional need to exploit and gain. As appealing as the principles were in theory, they could not subdue the burning emotional desire in most people to exploit one another, compete with one another and win personal rewards. People were not intellectually ready to surrender their own comforts for the common good. After all, there is no personal emotional reward in knowing that a poor person can get health care. Yet there is an immense personal emotional reward in knowing you just earned $500,000 that belongs solely to you.

Until human beings change the way they feel about personal gain, they will continue to regard one another as “instruments” and “amounts.” The strong will dominate the weak. Meanwhile, the young, enterprising weak will work to dominate those who come after them. Emotion drives this cycle onward. Perhaps emotion will play a lesser role as our species evolves. But for now, people are quite happy with the way things are.

Humanity will have to wait. For now, you are not my friend. You are $100 in my pocket. I think you’re great and everything, but $100 is $100.