Communism is very possibly the most vilified political ideology in existence. Its core principles, influential figures, important literary works — everything is ignored or skipped over or misrepresented in the worst ways possible. In schools, we are taught that communism is slavery, drudgery, statism, authoritarianism. We are taught, if the theoretical principles of communism are gone over at all, that they are impossible and idealistic. They propagate the same stock phrases and lines that supposedly "refute" communism, the same lines that go on to be regurgitated time after time by people who fancy themselves knowledgeable on the topic; people who went over the subject in a two-day unit in their freshmen history class and fell prey to those
…show more content…
All of it — from human nature to the notion of “payment” — is a confused mess that nonetheless circulates in capitalist society as a legitimate response to …show more content…
Definitions vary a great deal. In some cases, it actually is taught that the core principles of communism emphasize stateless, classless, and moneyless society, but that such values fail to apply in reality, a notion for which some of the stock arguments rise to support, e.g., the human nature argument. In other cases, the basic principles are not gone over at all, and communism is characterized as state control over the means of production, equal "pay" for all, complete disassociation from not only private but also personal property (a distinction that is never gone over), and centralized power in a state regime. In these cases, states like the USSR or PRC are taken to be communist, and little care is taken to make any distinction at all between that and anything Karl Marx or others ever wrote about. In either case, there is a distinct lack of background provided for the students being fed this information. Marx is very likely not read, the history of socialism not covered, basic definitional problems not even resolved, and yet this goes on impassively. So why should we take anything that comes out of such brief and confused understandings with anything more than a grain of salt?
And yet arguments do arise from these brief and confused understandings, and inevitably make their way to the communists. “Communism is impossible”, the layman says, “Human nature doesn’t allow for it! How do you expect people to work when they all get paid the same?
All of it — from human nature to the notion of “payment” — is a confused mess that nonetheless circulates in capitalist society as a legitimate response to …show more content…
Definitions vary a great deal. In some cases, it actually is taught that the core principles of communism emphasize stateless, classless, and moneyless society, but that such values fail to apply in reality, a notion for which some of the stock arguments rise to support, e.g., the human nature argument. In other cases, the basic principles are not gone over at all, and communism is characterized as state control over the means of production, equal "pay" for all, complete disassociation from not only private but also personal property (a distinction that is never gone over), and centralized power in a state regime. In these cases, states like the USSR or PRC are taken to be communist, and little care is taken to make any distinction at all between that and anything Karl Marx or others ever wrote about. In either case, there is a distinct lack of background provided for the students being fed this information. Marx is very likely not read, the history of socialism not covered, basic definitional problems not even resolved, and yet this goes on impassively. So why should we take anything that comes out of such brief and confused understandings with anything more than a grain of salt?
And yet arguments do arise from these brief and confused understandings, and inevitably make their way to the communists. “Communism is impossible”, the layman says, “Human nature doesn’t allow for it! How do you expect people to work when they all get paid the same?