 |
The religious belief called "communism" has a very specific soul, and it is
absolutely evil and inhuman, though often masked in bogus "compassion"
or "fairness." I say religious belief because it is not merely about what
a proper "government" should do (since many communists are
anarcho-communists). Instead, it is purely a belief about what is right
and what is wrong. Communists have put a lot of effort into pretending to
be moral relativists, or claiming to be non-religious (perhaps so imposing
their stupid beliefs by force doesn't count as a state religion), but neither
of these is true.
So what is the heart and soul of communism? It has to do with property.
Since communists also fudge the truth by saying they don't believe in
"property," I should clarify what "property" means. It is the exclusive ability
to control, use, give away, or dispose of something. I know my computer is
mine because I have the moral right to give it away, shoot it with my
AR-15, lend it to other people, etc.
The legitimate basis for "property," according to "extremists" like me, is
production. (Again I should point out the blatant contradiction
and/or lying by the communists. Bozos like Marx blither about the worker
having a right to what he produces. Marx's entire philosophy poops all over
this concept.) I believe that if I build a house, or carve a bowl, or scribble
a picture, it is mine. By my creation, it is mine to dispose of as I wish,
and no other person has a just claim to it without my permission.
The communist philosophy does not believe production is the basis
for legitimate ownership of property (despite what the union morons say).
They believe "need" is the basis of legitimate ownership. Again, they
may claim not to believe in "property" at all, but since they believe that
"need" causes someone to have the right to use something, they believe
it is their property. So far it sounds rather loving and compassionate.
How sweet. We are communists because we care. We want the
people who need to have stuff. Now let's look at the logical results of
this idea.
"I'm a compassionate communist because I give my stuff to the needy."
BZZZZZ. Wrong answer. By your own religious belief, it is not your
stuff. "Well, I give them stuff so I'm a compassionate communist."
BZZZZZ. Wrong answer. Their "need" means it is already
theirs. What exactly is compassionate about giving someone something
that already belongs to them? It is not yours to give. Only property via
production allows the charitable giving of something to someone else.
It's no coincidence that communists are often trying to justify violence by
saying that a "need" makes theft not theft. Because "need" determines
rightful ownership, some homeless person stealing food is merely taking
what is rightfully his (by way of "need") from someone who has stolen it
(i.e. produced and kept it, without "needing" it). Most people, even
commies, would agree that using force to get what is rightfully yours is
justified.
So the communist philosophy makes "charity" and "kind giving" impossible.
If the "giving" makes something go to someone with a greater "need" for it,
then it already belonged to that person, and therefore the act is not
charity. If the giving makes something go to someone with a lesser
"need," then it is evil blasphemy.
Since the whole warped belief system hinges on "need," I think the word
needs to be defined. "Need" and "necessity" are not stand-alone
concepts. For "need" to mean anything at all, it needs an "in order to"
phrase (such as the part of this sentence that says "For ‘need’ to mean
anything at all..."). The usual understood "in order to" phrase (which is
rarely stated) is "in order to live." "I need food" implies " . . .in order to
live." But "I need medical care" means nothing. The following
statements actually have meaning: "I want medical care," or "I need
medical care in order for me to not lose my money if I get real sick."
It's either a simple statement of want, or a worthless redundancy.
So now for the sake of the communist ideal, how do we determine
"need"? Since no "in order to" is mentioned, let's guess one. If the
understood "in order to" is "in order to live," then the only things that
are "needs" are a cardboard box, and cabbage and rice (maybe a few
extra rags for people living in colder areas). I haven't yet found a
communist who will settle for this. So what else could the secret,
invisible "in order to" phrase be?
After the commies admit it is not simple physical survival that they desire,
they usually try to pretend it's a certain level of the "necessities." Again,
they lie. Medical care has been deemed a "necessity" by many
communists, along with air conditioning, indoor plumbing, refrigeration, a
well-balanced diet, etc. Trouble is, if these are "necessities," how did
people do without them for thousands of years? If these are rights
because of "need," doesn't that mean that Joe the commie back in 1900
had a right to air conditioning? I hope even the commies can see a
slight problem with that.
The only "in order to" phrase that fits the philosophy is "in order to have
things be equal." While communists, for propaganda's sake, like to use
the word "fair," they mean "equal." The only way it can be "fair" for a lazy
bum and someone who is productive to end up with the same stuff is if
"fair" is defined as "equal." The communists only claim "rights" to
things after the things exist, meaning after other people have them.
As soon as an item exists, then everyone who "needs" it has a right to it.
Therefore, the communists' use of the word "need" is bogus too. So how
about "equal"? Can they at least say they want things "equal" and still
sound loving and caring? Nope.
Bob Citizen has two "Zonkos" (a made-up word referring to an item of
property). Joe Citizen has no Zonkos. Joe "needs" a Zonko (which,
as we now know, either means that Joe simply wants a Zonko, or Joe
has a right to one simply because Bob has one). So Joe blithers some
Marxist garbage to justify evil, and then steals a Zonko from Bob by force.
Swell. Everything cool now? Nope. There are a billion Chinese with no
Zonkos at all. Therefore, by the communist philosophy, that Zonko did
not rightfully belong to Joe. It belonged collectively to Joe and a billion
Chinese. Oops.
Heaven forbid there are more people who "need" (read "want") Zonkos
than there are Zonkos. There is also that slight, little, insignificant problem
that maybe, just maybe, six billion people won't agree on who
"needs" what. Bummer. And since the value of an item depends on how
much a person wants it, the value of an item is not equal to all people.
Therefore, if Bob really wants two Zonkos as much as Joe wants
one Zonko, there is equality
. . .sort of.
For now, just for the fun of it, let's dodge reality for a moment and pretend
we have achieved the communist utopia, and examine the economic results.
All the property is now equally distributed among everyone (or at least
everyone except those who the commies killed for resisting their all-loving
redistribution plans). Then Joe Citizen thinks "I want to make a flute and
play a song." Nice non-violent hippyish endeavor, right? But there's a
problem. Under the communist philosophy, he has to make a flute for
everyone on the planet who wants one before he will have a
rightful claim to one himself (as opposed to free market theory, in which he
makes one and therefore owns one). Well, he's not feeling up to
making a few million flutes today, so what else can he do? Have a fit and
demand that he needs one more than his flute-possessing neighbor.
Once again, communism favors violence and dissuades production and
cooperation.
How about trade? Why would someone trade something they "need"? If
the ownership comes from "need," then how could they trade it? And by
definition, they wouldn't own anything they didn't "need" (even if they
possessed it). Oops. So much for cooperation and trading. This utopia
isn't looking very good.
Does a trade change who "needs" what? I can trade a Zonko for your
Flingo, and then say I still "need" the Zonko, and therefore it is still
mine. What it will always boil down to is that when a commie says
"need," they mean "want." Which in return means that what you want,
by definition is yours. Sounds a lot like the animal kingdom . . .almost.
So communists are as bad as animals, right? Nope. Worse.
Animals make no moral judgments (not that this in itself is a good thing).
They take what they want by force (and they don't whine about "need"
either). Communists manage to be one step worse. Not only do they
not judge theft as immoral, they judge a lack of theft as immoral. By
the communist philosophy, it is immoral not to take from the "rich" and
give to the "poor." A lack of violence is intolerable to true communists.
Whenever there is inequality (which is always), violence is not just
justified, but required. If "need" is the basis for rightful ownership,
then not only is there no possibility for charity or compassion, but there is
no room for non-violence. By the backwards and evil communist
philosophy, to allow the flute-maker to keep his flute is an act of violence,
but to take it from him by force is just reclaiming what rightfully is someone
else's.
Time for a summary. Under communism, "need" determines rightful
ownership, and equality of possessions is, by definition, "fairness." This
being the case, there is no room for cooperation or charity. There is no
incentive for production, and every incentive for violence. Stealing
becomes a virtue, and producing becomes a sin. Wanting becomes good,
while creating becomes evil. Making something for yourself is evil, greedy
theft. Stealing something from someone else is rightful "reclaiming."
That is the soul of communism, no matter how much tie-dye, flowers, and
love-ins you try to bury it under. Humanity requires freedom and
non-violent cooperation. Communism bans them. Communism requires
the initiation of force against people who create, and the destruction of
cooperation. Humanity rules it out. I choose humanity.
--Larken Rose
|