Communism doesn't exist (in practice)

A response to Senator Booker’s use of the word “capitalism”

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” 

                                     – Inigo Montoya

Would you believe that communism has never existed on a large scale? Like, ever.

Yesterday, I saw a post by Cory Booker that worried me. It’s a meme that announces the founder of Bob’s Red Mill giving the business over to its workers upon his death, and Booker has tagged it: “Capitalism done right.”

The comments are full of people saying, “Actually, that’s socialism done right.”

Actually, it’s neither of these things.

If anything, it’s communism.

And I’m concerned that people don’t realize these differences.

But it’s understandable. They’ve poisoned us against communism, confused us about it, just as Marx predicted they would.

Let me explain.

First, the simple part. According to Marx and Engels themselves, here are the basic definitions of the words at hand.

• Capitalism: the means of production is owned by the rich (bourgeoisie)

• Socialism: the means of production is owned by the government (state)

• Communism: the means of production is owned by the people (proletariat) – moneyless, stateless, classless

Now that you know this, it’s very clear to see that the countries we’ve called “communist” are actually perverse socialism. In these countries, the state owns the means of production, but the state is not trustworthy.

The People’s Republic of China, for instance, is a socialist state headed by an “elected” dictator. In the west, we call this system “communist” because we have not been properly educated on what the words communism, socialism, and capitalism really mean. The Chinese Communist Party also uses this word, because the roots of their current set-up are based on a foundational lie: that it’s all for the people, that the people have a say. We know this isn’t true, but more importantly, the people don’t own the means of production, so it’s not communism anyway.

The same goes for Russia – a government run by one “elected” dictator, with some active “communist” parties. Again, this word doesn’t mean what they think it means. Power centralized under one authority is actually fascism, which is posited as the opposite of communism, right wing to left wing.

And those in power want us confused about these meanings. Because if we knew what communism really was, if we read Das Kapital (Capital: A Critique of Political Economy), it would transform us and endow us with immense power.

In Marx’s ideal theory of socialism, the state is an elected body that works towards the interests of the people, and hence, the decisions made around the means of production are beneficial to the people. But under perverse socialism, the state uses its ownership and power to control, harm, and limit the people.

What about countries like Sweden? you might ask. I would call this something like free market socialism, where the state owns the means of production, and capitalist markets exist but are highly regulated, and the people have the influence over who is running the state, and/or the state is full of people who respect human dignity, and voila! Happiest countries on earth, full of magical myths like fair elections, free healthcare, public transportation, clean food and air, low crime, quality education, etc.

Let’s get back to communism. The real thing. (Remember: Doesn’t really exist. It’s only a theory, an ideal.)

Now, it can function well in small environments. Communes, if you will. The closest thing we might think of is the Amish, who own the means of their own production, because the people produce almost everything they need to flourish on site. When they need material from outside the “commune,” they barter, or as a collective, find the monetary means to make those things a reality. But overall, the people make the decisions together, with no governments or corporations involved. Moneyless, stateless, classless.

And that’s communism. Beautiful, isn’t it?

So why has it become such a dirty word?

Well. What if we, the people, all realized that the state (perverse socialism) and the rich (capitalism) are not set up in our best interests? There are more of us than there are of them, and hence, we might set forth on a revolution to take back the means of production for ourselves.

The perverse state and the rich, having probably read Marx and Engels, are well aware of this, and they do everything they can to smother our potential.

Remember when the working class began to organize in the 20^th century and the state/the rich manufactured not one, but two Red Scares? Both of these scares resulted in much violence and fear, many deaths, and for our purposes here, they resulted in the west calling China and Russia “communist,” to better instill the ideology that communism is bad. When it isn’t. But they have to make sure we don’t figure that out. And if we do figure that out, we are instantly enemies of the state.

So, to the best of their ability, those in power keep the rest of us:

• Malnourished

• Unhealthy

• Uneducated

• Underpaid

• Desperate

• Fighting with one another

This way, we are much too distracted by our lack of health, our inability to pay our bills, and our hatred of our neighbor, who’s just a little different from us, to ever rise up against them.

Now, if we rose up, if there was a revolution that returned power to the people, could communism ever even work?

As a global society, we’re just too big. We’re too steeped in individualism and identity politics and fear of the other to see the need to work together. If we could be convinced that we should work together for the good of us all, we, as a collective, are not generally trained in the skills required for cooperation – civility, the exchange of reasonable justifications, or critical thinking. Besides, who decides what the “good of us all” even is? Would we rely on the very-ineffective theory of utilitarianism? Would we coerce, and thereby, defeat the purpose?

Would a better answer then be to break off into likeminded communes, where the number of people is manageable, both for production of food/materials and for cooperation? Maybe. That’s what the communitarians might propose. But how would that work in a global society that is inescapably connected? I, for one, would miss my however-frustrating conservative-AF family.

What about Audre Lorde’s theory that our differences make us stronger, or Mary Follett’s suggestion that we integrate our knowledge toward co-created solutions? Well, you’ll have to read my PhD dissertation on sodalism to get all the details, but in short, for this to work – and it’s really the only thing that can work to bring power to the people – the majority of us would have to completely reprogram our social perspectives to see difference as a positive, to get past xenophobic tendencies, to think of democracy as a way of life.

John Dewey writes in Democracy and Education: “A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience.”

Now, we haven’t talked about the word “democracy” yet. In The New State, Follett contends that we’ve never even tried it, because if we had, there would be a well-functioning political process. For Dewey and Follett, the political and the social are the same. We cannot do politics without a strong sense of what we owe to those around us. (T.M. Scanlon asks this question and it’s famously referenced in The Good Place, possibly every philosopher’s favorite TV show.)

So this associated living that Dewey mentions, this “democracy as a way of life,” begins with each of us. In an article I wrote, which is currently under consideration, I contend that, in order to realize Dewey’s vision, we must transition from isolated individuals to integrated individuals. The former believes they are separate from society, the arbiter of their own truth. The latter understands their innate social conditioning and connectedness and endeavors to understand the world, the people around them, so that they may live and decide and cooperate better. For Dewey, we can become integrated through an educative approach that teaches us critical thinking, effective deliberation, and most importantly, how to always be conscious and appreciative of our irrevocable immersion in social (political) processes.

People in power want you to be an isolated individual. So that you never understand your true purpose, your true power.

Because of his involvement with some left-leaning organizations, John Dewey was actually investigated by the FBI. What a cool dude. That’s some GOOD TROUBLE.

Jane Addams, who wrote Democracy and Social Ethics (a MUST-read) was declared by J. Edgar Hoover to be “the most dangerous woman in America.” It’s because she worked to empower the people, to bring them together, to create environments and policies that served our common interests. Her writing, like Dewey’s, opens the reader to “communist” ideas – the notion that maybe we are all connected, and maybe we can work together, and maybe we can create a better world for all of us, a world we’re in charge of. But that means there’s no room for the power dynamics of the rich or the perverse state, and believe me, those in power will always fight us, oppress us, harm us – because they know their power is precarious, and that we, the people, would be totally OP (insuperable) if we organized together toward a common goal.

“All those who gain power are afraid to lose it.” 

                                     – Anakin Skywalker

The Empire, by the way, was fascism, but you probably knew that. We’re supposed to think that fascism and its counterpart, communism, are both evil extremes and that capitalism is the good guy.

But we know better now, don’t we?

So, you see, communism is a beautiful ideal. It works in small doses. But it is nearly impossible for it work on a large scale. So the thing that those in power want you to be so afraid of? It couldn’t actually happen.

What could actually happen is that you read this post and some class consciousness begins to arise in you. You start to see how they manipulate us, you stop hating people who are different from you, you read a little about political philosophy or conflict theory, some Dewey or Follett or Addams, you write a letter or run for an office, and if you win, you refuse to be bought. You do what AOC and Bernie Sanders are doing. Because the next best thing to communism is democratic socialism – but only if we, the people, see the value of taking care of each other and we demand that our state (government) honor that value too. We get money out of politics, we uphold just laws (and protest unjust ones), and we elect real people who won’t compromise their ethics. Maybe that real person is you or me.

Now, I should be clear - I’m not a communist. Because I’m a pragmatist. If it isn’t feasible, I’m interested only in understanding its possibilities on an epistemic level that will be productive for my own theorizing. And wow, understanding it sure is incredibly enlightening, isn’t it?

This is your first lesson in Marxism. I hope you’re excited for more soon. (Unless they come for me because I’ve told you the truth.......)

#nerftherich

With love, Your Friendly Neighborhood Philosopher