A champagne socialist reflects on Western culture and the Universe... and whilst gazing at his navel, he comes up with a lot of useless lint. It is the fruits of this navel-gazing that form the substance of this blog.
Published on January 30, 2005 By Champas Socialist In Politics
Communism is often cited as the Leftist utopia. I don’t know a great deal about communism, having never read Communist Manifesto or anything. But what I do know about it does not seem to me like utopia at all.



According to my encyclopaedia, in communism, “all the property of a community is owned by all members and distributed according to the needs of each member”. I disagree with that principle. I think everyone should get the basics of what they need. That is, I believe that everyone is entitled to some housing and enough food and drink to live relatively comfortably. But I also like owning my own CDs and I like being able to work for say the occasional treat. I agree with a hard work ethic, although I think it must be sufficiently rewarded and I think it can go too far as well. (For instance I think Japanese people in general are overworked and unhealthily dedicated to their work).



However, I also disagree with the principle of all property being individually owned and distributed according to greed and competition between individuals. I think it destroys the social fabric when everyone is out for themselves. Humans are herd animals and they rely on a sense of community. Thus, I think cooperation needs to be encouraged. And I think outright hedonism and consumerism should be discouraged, rather than rewarded.



When I say I don’t like hedonism, that is not to say that I want to see enforced Christianity. I like freedom of religion. I have my own hotch potch of religious beliefs and I like being able to contemplate my existence for myself. I think certain questions need to be answered on an individual basis.



One important religious question that comes up in political debate is abortion. As I outlined in my article My Foetus or My Murder, for my own personal religious beliefs I find abortion a little bit disturbing. But I think there is such strong disagreement on this question that everyone has to come to their own answer. For this reason I am pro-choice, though like John Kerry, I probably would not make the decision to have an abortion if faced with the decision.



Back to Communism. Actually, strictly speaking I’m criticisng Marxism, rather than the much older Communist ideology. One problem I see with Marxism is that it still seems to be an industrialist, consumerist society. This goes against my environmentalism. I am very conservative regarding the environment. I believe we need to be more cautious and live in more simple and conservative ways. I strongly believe that we urgently need to move over to alternative energy such as solar energy and hemp oil. There is strong evidence advocated by climatologists that global warming is being caused by pollution. It is not worth taking the risk that this knowledge may be wrong. I am not normally one to stick up for the scientific community, but on this occasion, it is more prudent to gamble on them being right. We have the alternative energy resources available. Unfortunately, our capitalist system does not encourage this switch.



In recent years, Western science has started to catch up to some of the ancient knowledge of other cultures. We have begun to realise the fragility of ecosystems on which we depend and are part of. For these reasons, I believe in living an existence more in tune with nature, that places less stress upon it. I agree with the statement that the price we pay for our domination of nature is our alienation from it. I think this is a problem for us. We are addicted to our city lifestyles in the same way that a junkie is addicted to drugs. Some of us even convince ourselves that the drug is fine, there is no problem. But I believe that it is our concrete jungle lifestyles that has led to the incredibly high rates of suicide and depression that we have in Australia. That coupled with our intensely individualistic society.



However, Western housing and sewerage has led to improved health. I advocate a more conservative approach to housing. I think we should all have smaller houses. I like having the privacy of my own backyard and the separation between houses that allows me alone time and to play music loudly. If we all had houses that were the size of a comfortably sized unit, I think that would strike a good balance. Perhaps there should be no limit on the size of a backyard though.



The King of Bhutan recently declared that Gross National Happiness is a higher priority than Gross National Product. The Bhutanese live a simple yet comfortable existence. There is a very strong sense of community in Bhutan. By law, everyone must help each other out in building housing. This ensures reciprocation, social cohesiveness and adequate housing for everyone.



This reminds me of something Toblerone (a regular forum contributor) once said about bats. He described vampire bat society and the way that when one is low on blood, the other bats in the flock will let that bat eat off them. In the future, the favour is returned. The bats remember if any bat refuses to participate in the exchange and they are later denied if they are in need. (Please note I am not saying that the Bhutanese are a bunch of blood-sucking vampires). I agree with Toblerone that this provides a good model for society.



I think that a more communal approach to things like child rearing is also a good idea, though this is arguably a point of culture. But psychologists have found that many parents in poorer communities benefit greatly from programmes that provide them with more contact with other parents that can help and share knowledge. And richer families often find problems where family members are detached from each other because of an excessive devotion to work. It is perhaps a piece of cultural knowledge advocated by Aboriginal societies that we could learn from. I think we have a lot to offer each other.



The King of Bhutan has outlawed things like television as part of his anti-materialist stance. I am divided on this point. I think television is potentially a good medium to provide entertainment, in the same way that the stage was. Yet I think that our materialist obsession is an unnecessary problem.



I love my radio. I love my music. Yet I can see John Phillip Sousa’s (the guy who popularised the marching band) point that it has led to people no longer producing their own music. It has led to an elitism in music where music is only produced by those deemed talented enough, and this has deemphasised live music. Yet I also like being able to listen to music that was played by someone living in the USA. Perhaps this is really a cultural question. People are free to listen to whatever music they want, and it is up to us to revive live music produced by ordinary people for their own entertainment rather than for money. In which case, it would seem that I disagree with the Bhutanese King’s strict anti-materialist stance.



19th and 20th Century Communism goes against my principles of non-violence. Marx advocated social revolution by violence and Stalin and Lenin, who instigated totalitarian and oppressive regimes, had many people killed in order to achieve their utopias. What is the point in utopia if you have to kill everyone who disagrees with you? I want everyone to be happy. Killing does not make people happy.



So perhaps I am more of a traditionalist Communist. Opposed to Marxism, which is quite similar to liberal socialism, but in favour of communism. According to the aforementioned encyclopaedia, “socialism is related to consumer-oriented industrial societies, whereas communism refers to more agrarian societies in which very little is actually produced by all for general consumption”.



The same encyclopaedia has an entry about communes. There is a fair bit of appeal in those communes that were based on peace, freedom and harmony (and none in those based on anarchism and revolt). Apparently 10,000 Americans lived in communes in the 19th Century, and there was a bit of revival during the 1960s. Communes have had a wide range of different religious and cultural beliefs, from Christianity to Occultism. Some would describe the Bhutanese lifestyle as a form of communalism. It seems to share many similarities with principles established by tribal societies. I’m not so keen on the group sex idea that some communes have gone for, but I suppose I don’t object to others making that choice. The group approach to child rearing is beneficial and a strong sense of community is fostered. Sharing is stronger, including sharing of domestic duties.



I referred before to housing. My views on housing actually cause some problems for nomadic societies, like the Aborigines and the Romony (otherwise known as the gypsies). If everyone has a fixed brick house, then what of nomadic societies, with no fixed address? The destruction of the environment since European occupation of Australia has placed a lot of pressure on traditional Aboriginal society as I outlined in my last blog. The Aboriginal way worked perfectly well for milennia, with their more conservative approach to procreation that led to a much smaller population. However, with a growing Australian population, Westernised housing is taking up more and more room in this country and is thus encroaching upon traditional societies. Of course, Aboriginal societies are having to change and adapt (as all cultures do over time) and if a better balance can be struck, then I would be happier, along with many Australians I believe.






Comments
on Jan 30, 2005
I was meant to post this the day after "What is My Leftist Utopia" but I forgot *gasp* Champas is going to beat me up again when he gets back!

For those that don't know Champas is on holiday in New Caledonia and I, Toblerone, am posting his articles for him. So don't expect a reply on this forum until late next week.

In yet another shameless plug I'll ask you to visit my blog "Keeping It Surreal" Link I've been writing a series called Understanding The Universe and some articles with random facts and added siiliness.

on Jan 30, 2005
Communism works out well on paper and plans, but in a real life situation it goes straight to hell. As we've seen with several communist governments they turn out very, very badly. The main concept of communism is equal distribution among all members of a society. Sounds great, right? It is...but there's something in humans that screws up everything up...GREED. Those in the actual government get really greedy....therefore they tend to keep a rather large chunk of money and goods to themselves, while the peasants(for lack of a better term) get shafted. Poor get poorer and the rich get richer....kind of like a monarchy after all is said and done. That is why communism doesn't work, a great plan if only it weren't for the people working in it.

Well...I suppose that supports your theory, just giving my 2 cents worth.

~Zoo
on Jan 30, 2005
Also, Communism tends to foster totalitarian regimes. That leads to the killings, which I can see (and hope) you're not too fond of.
on Jan 30, 2005
I'm not a fan of communism but I also don't think it has ever been tried in its true form. As far as I know communism in its Marxist form was never meant to be a totalitarian regime. Saying that communism leads to totalitarianism is like saying smiking pot leads to using heroin in that although can happen in isn't inevidible.
on Feb 02, 2005
You say that you don't know what socialism is and that you haven't ever read the Communist Manifesto but you seem to have alot of opinions about socialism. You really should look into things before you start spouting off and claiming that you understand socialism goes against your personal beliefs. Alot of what you criticized about Marxist theory contradicts the principles of Marxism itself. In short, read up before you start running your mouth.
on Feb 02, 2005
I agree with the response from -AnActualSocialist- there is alot of confusion about socialism because there are inset ideas about it and people often do not take the time to read up about it. One of the biggest misconspections is the difference between Marxism and Communism in the Stalinist-Soviet bloc-totalitarian regime sense of the word. Those were perversions of what the theory of Socialism and Marxism advocate. Still others believe that in a Socialist society your belongings are no longer yours. That is simply not true. In no way, shape or form does socialism support that theory in any way. Marxism is a complicated process of analysis and would take pages to give reason to, but I will attempt to sum up some major points for you.

Marx talked alot about the class struggle that is ever present in our society. Socialists recognize this as a battle between to groups of people in society, the bourgeois and the proletariat. The Bourgeois is, as Marx puts it, the modern class of capitalists that control the means of production and exploits the proletariat for their financial success. In the modern society Socialists view the owners of mulit-national corporations and those affliated with the explotation of the prolitariat for their own gain as the bourgeois. In the term prolitariat, Marx meant the working-class of people, which is basically all inclusive unless you are the one who owns the company and exploits its workers, who have no means of subsistence unless they sell their labor-power to the capitalist in return for wages. This is an undeniable fact of life. Think about it: unless you are an independent businessman who has never been employed by any other person you have been exploited by someone above you who makes way more than you for basically no work.
Don't believe me? Try this: Would company A, a restaurant for example, make any money without the labor-power of the workers? If the workers weren't out there selling their labor-power the company would wither away. Ironically the workers are the lowest paid in the company but no all the profit-generating work.
This truth lies at the core of socialism. When Champas Socialist reads from the encyclopedia "all the property of the community is owned by all members of society" it is not that all your own personal stuff suddenly becomes property of everyone else, but rather the public ownership of these companies that exploit the mass of workers in a given country for the inmeasurable wealth of a few CEOs. In a socialist society the 500 largest corporations would be taken into public ownership and run in a manner that reflects the needs of society, not the profit margins of people like Bill Gates. This means no more company leadership, but rather massive worker committees that would democratically deciede the means of production. This is a point that is hard to get across to some people because most have an ingrained idea that a socialist economy would be centrally controlled by some beaurocratic entitie. The workers control the economy through an intricate system of planning in which overproduction no longer exists and greed is not part of the corporate vocabulary. The fact is that capitalism is the economic system that is centrally controlled the most: thinkabout it, who makes the decisions that effect everyone else in a company? a select few board members or one CEO. If that's not a centralized system of control I don't know what is.
This means (are listening champas socialist) no more rape of the enviroment, which is committed by corporations in the never-ending pursuit of the bottom line. This also means no more advertising - which is a product of capitalism itself - because there would be no more competition to increase profit margins. This means just the opposite of what you claim Champas when you say that socialism is consumeristic. It's the polar opposite of that and much more.
The government would shift it's funding to provide massive public programs that would include: Free socialized health care, housing for all, community centers, free education k-college and a living-wage job for everyone. Socialists believe that a worker democracy in which everything is decieded out in the open and not behind closed doors is the job of 'government'. Systems of oppression within the state would essentially wither away because everything would be debated with the good of society as a whole being the lynchpin of that debate. Religion is not barred like some of you think in fact Socialism is very secular in oreintation and believes that everyone should worship as they please.
In short, socialism isn't some radical totalitarian regime or even a system of control. Socialists don't advocate for some utopia in which every thing is perfect- that's completely irrational. We rather just advocate for the take back of society from the greedy and destructive hands of capitalists that only serve to exploit the working-class of this planet for the financial intrests of a few.
for more info about socialism you should check out www.socialistalternative.com