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.