the freedom that communism brings

7/28/2019 The Freedom That Communism Brings

1/11

The Freedom That Communism Brings

By Glen Wallace

Without the existence of widespread communism in this country our lives wouldbe much more restricted and less free than they our today. Imagine a worldwhere as soon as you walk out of your front door having to pay a toll just to walkon a sidewalk. And thats if your lucky enough for a vendor to have created thesidewalk. !aybe the owner of the property outside of your front door doesntlike pedestrians or anyone for that matter and has put no trespassing signseverywhere" causing you to be a prisoner in your own home# What an awful

world. But that is just the sort of world that you might face if the supporters offree enterprise capitalism had there way. But its not the sort of world I want to

live in. I love being able to stroll down the sidewalk anytime without having toswipe my credit card at every intersection just to pass through. I love havingbeautiful parks" full of nature where people like myself with little money can visitand be with the towering trees that birds flutter about in. Anyone can look upproperty records online and see that most city parks have valuations in themillions of dollars that Im sure some greedy capitalist would love to get therehands on to bulldo$e and turn into a high%rise condo with big iron gatessurrounding the property to keep out the unwashed masses like myself. Im sureit also irks many capitalists that I can go the public library and be able to checkout a book or movie without providing the least bit of revenue to some profiteer.

&he communism that Im suggesting be implemented is not absolute but ratherbroadening of its implementation in this country and abroad. It would be abroadening because this country utili$es a lot of communism already. 'ot onlydoes communism already exist in the ()A" most people use and enjoy it" withoutthinking that they have become the least bit of a pinko commie. What Imreferring to is the publicly owned property that nearly all of us use such assidewalks" the freedom of the open *public+ road" parks" bike paths" libraries"lakes" rivers and streams. &hose properties are owned by the community for allto use and therefore to advocate and support the continued creation andmaintenance of community owned land and infrastructure is to supportcommunism. ,emember" the term communism is derivative of such terms ascommune and communal.

But I recogni$e that there can never be a practical" nor desirable" absolute andcompletely communal society. -or an absolute communist system to exist" there


2/11

would be absolutely no room for privacy" for every space and possession" nomatter how personal would be rightfully accessible to everyone eually. /veryhouse" apartment and bedroom would be freely available to all to enter and useat their pleasure. )uch a state would be absurd and completely unacceptable to

virtually all members of society. &herefore" a balance needs to be drawnbetween maximi$ing communal freedoms while retaining what individualscherish as personal and private.

Im advocating for collectivism for the sake of individualism. &his is what I calltranscendental communism. In many ways transcendental communism is thepolar opposite from the 0egelian communism that was the foundationalphilosophy for the systems such as those found in the cold war era countries

behind the iron curtain that we usually associate with the term communism.With 0egel the goal is to somehow use the citi$ens as vehicles to create a great

mind or spirit of the people as a whole as it progresses through a dialectic tosome 0egelian utopia. -or 0egelian communism the whole is more importantthan the parts and thus justification was achievable for all the human rightsabuses that occurred in such places as )talin1s )oviet (nion. While !arx mayhave claimed that religion is the opium of the people" I would counter that0egelianism is a religion in itself. Whenever presented with the teachings of0egel" I would think to myself of what a interesting construct it was" but it wasstill merely a construct of 0egel1s imagination. 0egel would go on and on withthese long convoluted sentences that are difficult to follow" but in the end" hemerely has come up with an ontology of history and society that could be the

case" but nowhere in my readings did I find him even attempting to provide anykind of compelling justification for believing that his version of reality is thecase. It seems as though we are supposed to accept 0egel1s teachings based on acombination of faith" appeal and maybe some intuition of it being correct. Butfor me" I have no faith in 0egelianism" nor do find it the least bit appealing orintuitively spot on. And yet Im told that 0egel has had a profound influence onthe development of history not just in communism but also with capitalismaround the world from the time of his writings to present. &he thing is" I dontknow how this happened where someone whose writings are so difficult to

comprehend" and whose ideals dont seem all that idealistic could ever have beenadopted by so many in positions of power. I suppose if my reactions to0egelianism were so uniue and just about everyone else loved his conceptsthen I would understand. But I dont think that is the case. Instead" I believethat" in general" 0egelianism runs counter to the unwritten social contracts ofcivil etiuette and ideals of fairness and social harmony. I believe thattranscendentalism is much more consistent with the dreams" ideals and socialcontracts of most members of society especially here in America.


3/11

&ranscendentalism values the breaking of barriers that prevent our full pursuitof self actuali$ation and achievement. &ranscendentalism treasures and valuesthe individual" but does so in the context of the individual as metaphysicallyconnected with all the other members of not only fellow members of humanity

but also with the rest of the universe. While transcendentalism values socialharmony" 0egelianism values societal conflict as a necessity for societaldevelopment. While 0egelians may think that there is a valuable conflict here

with transcendentalism as the antithesis to thesis of 0egelianism" I wouldcontend that transcendentalism is superior on its face and should have beenadopted as the foundational philosophy in the ordering and development ofgovernments around the world instead of as has been the case with theintractably faulty 0egelianism.

With transcendental communism the priorities are the reverse of!arxist20egelian communism so that public ownership is maximi$ed in orderto maximi$e every individuals freedom. When touting the benefits of wealth"

very often at the top of the list of benefits is the freedom that wealth brings.Wealth is said to allow the freedom to travel" sample different fine cuisines"pursue hobbies" live anywhere one chooses" enjoy the arts. 3overty" on the otherhand" is a shackle of economic tyranny that strictly restricts freedom. Iffreedom" then" is a moral ideal" then is it fair to have in place a system ofeconomics that allows so much poverty that prevents access to that ideal4

)ome may argue that wealth disparity is necessary to provide motivation to workand come up with ideas that will either lift someone out of" or avoid poverty.&he argument continues that those acts of work and idea generation that were

used to avoid poverty also helped develop the rest of civili$ation that we all enjoytoday but would not exist without the threat of poverty always hanging over theheads of those workers and idea generators and risk takers. I would counter thatto make such an argument is to make the jackass fallacy that underestimates andover simplifies human nature as that which is only motivated by base instinctssuch as the pursuit of material wealth or avoidance of its lacking. All sorts ofironies can be found in the jackass fallacy" one of which is the fact that many ofthose activities that are considered the freedoms that wealth affords also involvea considerable amount of work. )ports such as suash that the wealthy areknown to widely love involves a great deal of work" but those wealthy suashplayers never expect to be paid for all that work 5 instead the opposite is thecase 5 they usually fork over a hefty sum of cash every month in a health clubmembership just for the privilege of engaging in all that work . While societymay not benefit much from people playing suash" there are all sorts of hobbies"like woodworking for one that builds things of both practical and aesthetic valuethat people build without any compensation whatsoever. Another irony can befound in the fact that the wealthy" free%market advocates also seem to just love


4/11

the philosophy of Ayn ,and. &he irony there is that ,and did not herselfcommit the jackass philosophy" but instead touted the drive in individuals tocreate and achieve greatness in action. According to ,and" that drive comesfrom within" not from without by way of the lure of wealth and avoidance ofpoverty. 'or where the heroes from the novels of ,ands favorite author" 6ictor0ugo" greedy" money hungry individuals. )omething from within that wasmuch greater and more noble than greed drove 6ictor 0ugos characters. Withtranscendental communism" the goal is to harness that noble drive to build theutopian ideal. All we have to do is create a government that gives people theopportunity and means to do the sort of work that each individual is driven todo. As an example" there could be government centers of invention" where theinventive minded citi$ens could be provided all the tools" supplies and spacethey need to build their prototypes. What those inventors create" if deemeduseful" would then become public domain as far as intellectual rights go. 'oinventor would become rich off of their inventions" but I dont believe that greed

is what drives inventors in the first place. I think one of the greatest inventors ofall time" 'ikola &esla said it best when he stated 7I do not think there is anythrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as hesees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... )uch emotions make aman forget food" sleep" friends" love" everything.7

As you can tell" Im also using a rather liberal definition of the termcommunism. I do not believe the government has to own all of the means ofproduction for that government to at least be partially communistic. I recogni$ethat competition can be a good motivating force. 0owever" private ownership is

not necessarily the only route to a healthy competition between producers ofgoods and services. &here can always be some way of measuring performancebetween two or more government owned producers along with all the samepageantry that goes along with an athletic competition. &he winner then wouldget bragging rights that could be cherished at least as much if not more thanprofitability by competing private companies. Additionally" in a competition forcompetitions sake" with the competing government companies" the employees

would be more apt to share in any victory much the same as team members doin an athletic team achieving victory. With the current capitalistic system ofprivate companies competing among themselves" the rank and file employees

often dont feel much sense of victory or satisfaction even when their employerdoes better than any of its competitors. !ost of the employees feel like meregrunt servants and are just happy to be able to keep their job as they livedesperately from paycheck to paycheck. And when it comes to the topexecutives" many of them have more money than they could ever know what todo with and so it becomes primarily the challenge of the competition itself

between their fellow executives that is what is now motivating them" not money.'ot only do many have more money than they know what to do with" the list is


5/11

long of individuals touted as some of the greatest and richest capitalists of alltime that have lived a rather modest lifestyle that would be best described asupper middle class at most. &heir motive clearly wasnt money. &heir motiveseems to be rather competition and the challenge itself of building a business.

Well" couldnt that same sense of challenge also exist for building a governmentowned business4 I dont see why not.

Also" there is a distinct disconnect and confusion in the field of medicine wherein the capitalistic system it is recogni$ed and glorified that many if not mostpeople who go in the field of medical research do so primarily out of desire tohelp others in finding a cure or better treatment for some horrible disease. Andat the same time the medical field is still fundamentally profit motivated withthe prevailing assumption persisting that the only way to motivate people tocome up with cures is to provide the profit incentive" not the charitable incentivethat is touted as the reason so many are trying trying to find a cure# )o whichmotive is the one driving medical research4 !oney or altruism4 &he response

one might hear is that altruism is motivating. Well" I believe that charity isenough of an incentive for researchers and profits get in the way of" more sothan helps" in finding cures. &herefore" in the field of medicine" I believe themeans of production should be much more government owned so that the peskynuisance of constantly having to search for profits is no longer an obstacle andthe focus can be solely on helping patients. )eeing how capitalism gets in the

way of medical progress" there is clearly a need to expand sociali$ed medicinewell beyond what is currently employed. In medicine the people should indeedown all the means of production" and if necessary" distribution as well. &hen all

the focus can be solely on letting the researchers" scientists and visionaries in thefield of medicine focus solely on finding cures without having to be pestered bythe relentless bean%counters of capitalism.

I think whenever someone sees the term communism" people tend toautomatically assume the word is referring to the system used by the so%calledcommunist states of the former eastern block and some Asian nations. I say so%called because they are2were pseudo%communist nations that merely paidoccasional lip service to communist principles to help build what was in reality a

tyrannical oligarchy that only cared about gaining power and cared nothingabout the welfare of the community they were governing.

3erhaps the biggest mistake was to use 8arl !arxs philosophy on therelationship between a workers labor and the material wealth created by thatlabor as a complete playbook for how to run an entire government system. Idont know if !arx ever even intended for his philosophy to be used as acomplete system" but some did" and in doing so" left the door wide open to theabuse of power. And when it comes to political power" if you give an inch they


6/11

take a mile % and a !arxian system gave several feet of leeway to thebureaucrats. And its now historical record that the bureaucrats that got thatleeway used it in such a horrific manner that the some of the pseudo%communistperpetrators such as )talin and 3ol 3ot have become rightfully vilified asordering some of the worst cases of mass murder not just in modern history" butin recorded history as well.

&he solution then is to implement a communist system measured bylibertarianism. While most people automatically consider libertarianism andcommunism to be mutually exclusive" close examination reveals that not to betrue at all. Instead" utilitarianism9 the belief that it is acceptable to sacrifice

justice for a few individuals for the betterment of the society at large" is theantithesis of libertarianism.

But in a true communist system" there need not be any sacrifice of principles forthe sake of the greater community good. If one is living within a civili$ed society

then by doing so" the citi$en agrees to an unwritten social contract to behave in acertain way based on the need for the society they live within to be labeledcivili$ed. In any social contract there is never any allowance for the breach ofany individuals inalienable rights for the sake of the common good. Built intothe rules of the social contract are a respect for the rights of the individualinsofar as the reason for civili$ation is as a vessel for precious souls sharing theexperience of life. It is understood by the citi$ens that civili$ation is not the endin itself but rather the means to the end of an ideal for the individual to explorelife.

&he so%called free market economy has never encouraged the greatest amount offreedom for the individual as the name implies. &he term free market is simplythe re%branding of the out%of%favor term laissez%faire. &he term laisse$%faire

went out of favor because it rightfully implied that that form of economy wasdesigned to help the wealthy elite. :ne might wonder what the difference is

between a free market economy and a laissez%faire economyand the answer isthere is no difference. It just sounds so much better to the common man a termthat uses the word free. Additionally" the common man has little to noinclination to go out of their way to be politically active in an effort to create aneconomy that will benefit primarily the elite as a laisse$%faire system clearly

does. But everyone wants to be free. And a cursory look at what the proponentssay is a free market" one might think that getting the government off the backs ofbusiness will allow for more freedom in general. But in fact the opposite is thecase insofar as the government is the only thing stopping business fromexploiting workers and the environment to the point where the common man isa slave to the corporation that owns all the land to point where there are nomore parks where the common man can roam free. :nly a few plutocrats whoown the remaining private land left have the ability to roam free in nature.


7/11

/veryone else in a truly maximally free market is now in bondage to theirowners who now own the workers and all the land. A free market encourages asort of economic ;arwinism where instead of survival of the fittest you end up

with survival of the evilest where the business owner willing to stoop to thelowest moral level in aggressive tactics corners the markets and becomesindistinguishable from a mob boss.

It is ironic that free market proponents treat property rights with such a level ofsacredness that they do when property rights are determined by the government.&here is no necessary euivalency between legal property rights and moralproperty rights. ;ont forget that slaves were considered legal property in the(nited )tates and


8/11

building that helps create both opportunities for the entrepreneur and thecustomers of that businessperson in the community. &here is no oppositionfrom the community mindset against having a genuinely meritocratic system inplace that rewards for innovation and hard work in bringing better products andservices to the market.


9/11

gone. &he problem with that argument is twofold. -irst is the mistake ofprioriti$ing values whereby specific freedom of action is given a lower priority to

vague theories about both to the benefits to society as a whole in the form ofbetter arts and entertainment and improved profits garnered from sales thatwould have been lost to file sharing. )econd" no attempt is made to prove thatpeople would no longer create music without the incentive of money. ,ather thetheory is put forth and the legislatures consider the theory" especially a theorycoming from large campaign contributor" sufficient justification for restrictingthe freedoms of individuals handling digital works. &herein lies the problem

with utilitarianism= some theory about the benefits to society as a whole canalways be thought up to justify any given restriction on freedom and justice forindividuals. And typically there isnt any demand by lawmakers that the theoriesabout societal benefit be in anyway corroborated with evidence. ,ather if thetheory makes any sense at all" by the principles of utilitarianism" it is justifiableto impose any degree of draconian laws that impose tyranny on a people" if it can

be successfully argued that in the long run society will be better off for it. Whatends up happening though is the government or corporate official puts forth theappealing utilitarian argument for the tyrannical measures while at the sametime" being motivated by entirely different" selfish reasons for implementing themeasures. If utilitarianism is allowed any acceptability by society" all that isreuired by the ruling elite to impose a harsh draconian tyranny onto thepopulace" is merely a little creativity to generate a useful fiction that the people

will buy.

While some may argue that the injustice faced by those that can no longer file%

share pales in comparison to the injustice endured by the millions of individualssent to )talins gulags" I would counter that" in a way" we already effectively haveour own sort of gulag system in this country in the form of the prison industrialcomplex. And there are many capitalists that benefit tremendously from ourprison system" that since the start of the war on drugs" this country hasincarcerated millions of citi$ens for engaging in the non%violent act of merelypossessing or selling a substance that people wanted to use out their own free

will in their own bodies. Industry groups that act either as vendors forgovernment run prisons or operate privately run prisons" have lobbiedlegislatures to pass laws recommending or mandating longer prison sentences

for non%violent drug offenders. &he utilitarian justification presented for thelonger prison sentences is that society as a whole will benefit by limiting thescourge of narcotic drug intoxication but undoubtedly the real reason fordesiring the longer prison sentences is that it will result in more prisonersreuiring more product and therefore more profit for the prison vendors andprivate prisons operators. It may be a very poor justification for the grave act oftaking away someones freedom and putting them in a cage for years at a time"

but therein lies the problem with utilitarianism % any excuse" reason or


10/11

justification that has some appeal to the public can always be found with it forimplementing tyrannical measures. But the actual reason for measure that

would be unappealing to the public" can remain hidden by the tyrants.

-reedoms are something that should be held with a degree of sacredness bythose who are responsibly for managing them. In a free society" it should be the

freedoms that come as a first priority" and it should then be the problem ofbusiness and police to find ways to deal with the reuirement of citi$en freedom"not the other way around as it is uickly becoming in this country. In thecommunist system I envision" a society is organi$ed to allow the most freedomspossible with the understanding that there is a certain degree of necessaryscarcity in the world. In any given community" there is only so much space forroads" sidewalks and natural park areas on surface lands within the confines ofthat community. I think there is a degree of unwritten understanding byindividuals of that fact already and has resulted in the open widespread

willingness of citi$ens to think there is a need for public roads" sidewalks and

parks to use and enjoy and not think they should be converted to privatelyowned and operated entities with the same accompanying property rights by theowner as a homeowner has. But in a society that values capitalism and freeenterprise while decrying communism so much" the properties owned and used

by the public are rarely called by the communist leading term the peoples as inthe peoples sidewalk" or the peoples library. Instead the leading term public isused even though both the peoples and public used in the same contexts mean

basically the same thing" regardless of whether you live in a communist countryor a free market capitalist one.

I would contend that )talin and company perverted and thus gave a bad imageand reputation to the term communism in much the same way as the 'a$isperverted the swastika symbol. >ust as the swastika is one of the oldest knownsymbols that was used by mankind for literally thousands of years before the riseof the &hird ,eich" communism as a form of ordering society was used forthousands of years before the


11/11

greatest anti%government sentiment among the populace that is also one of themost anti%communist policies ever invoked. -or" it is through income tax as theprimary source of federal government revenue that capitalistic enterprises areable to avoid the burden of funding the government through having their ownprofits taxed.

the freedom that communism brings

Documents