In Opposition to Communism (Debate transcript)
Published here is the opening statement that I wrote and inexactly delivered for the purpose of a public debate, hosted by my high school’s philosophy club (of which I am the president). For ease of reading, I have put into quotations everything in this text that was spoken aloud.
As the club president, I was forced to defend capitalism (which I, somewhat unfairly, took to mean only oppose communism), after our stauncher free market defender and originally aligned debater, Nick, came down sick, the day before our debate.
Opening
On behalf of the HSE Philosophy club, I first want to thank the audience for joining us today, we hope that this debate will be both entertaining and informative.
Alright, today we have been asked to debate over the question: “What is the utility and superiority in terms of function and morality of your proposed economic system, notably in comparison to its opposition?”
Today, I will be defending capitalism, as preferable to communism.
Conversationally, of the audience:
Of our audience, who has ever said something along the lines of, “Communism is a perfect system in concept, but it could never work in reality.”
Some raise hands
And who has read the communist manifesto?
Few to none raise hands
Right — the manifesto itself is a call for violent revolution, it is explicitly opposed to democratic political revolution, and it includes calls for land and property seizure from immigrants, the criminalization of religious practice, and an initial monopoly on power by the working class.
There is nothing perfect about it.
I have read the Communist Manifesto. The pamphlet is remarkable, not only in its historical significance and literary brilliance, but also in the validity and necessity of some elements of its critique. Marx is not to be dismissed, and the problems that he addresses are real. He rightly points out that the social and communal are far-too-often relegated in the face of economic prosperity. Communism, as a whole, cannot and should not be flippantly dismissed with statements like, “It’s never worked when it’s been tried before.”
In all fairness to Marx, let us only secondarily consider Communism as it has so catastrophically manifested itself in the world, and first consider the root itself, the Communist Manifesto. The disease, however, is easily identifiable in that root.
First, Communism necessitates violent revolution. When people say, “Communism is a perfect economic system in concept, but it would never work,” they reveal themselves as people who have not seriously examined the philosophy. There is nothing perfect about a political system which, as declared in the Manifesto, necessarily and uncompromisingly can only come about through violent revolution.
Secondly, hierarchy is an inevitable property of social reality. The abolition of economic class, if hypothetically achieved, will not and cannot lead to true social equality. Social hierarchy is embedded into everything that we interact with. Societies, throughout history, have not always organized the wealthy atop the social hierarchy. Priests or warriors, for example, have often inherited higher social positions than merchants and landowners throughout history, despite possessing less wealth. Hierarchies are not exclusively organized by the economic, but they are ubiquitous and inescapable. Accordingly, the leveling of economic hierarchy does not lead to social harmony, it only brings about hierarchy organized according to different principals. In past approximations of communism, this new social stratification has often been based on degree of devotion to the state or degree of usefulness to the state.
Communism came about through a unidimensional interpretation of history and social interaction. In the first sentence of the manifesto, Marx states, “The history of all hitherto existing human society is the history of class struggles.” Freud believes that the basis of human motivation in repressed sexuality. The Nazi’s believes that the story of human history is the clashing of racial and ethnic populations. Marx believes that the story of human history is class struggle. These are all oversimplifications. It would logically follow Marx’s view, then, that through the industrial revolution, as class hierarchies were in flux and class divisions were antagonized, that acute and decisive action would be necessary to reorder the world. But Marx was wrong. There is more to history and human society, however, than class struggle. History and human society are complex and multi-factorial. And accordingly, we made it out of the industrial revolution alive — although not without some scrapes and bruises.
I would be foolish to not point out that utopia, aside from being impossible and bloody, is not even desirable. My favorite author, Fydor Dostoevsky, weaves this observation into his famed novella, Notes from the Underground, as his anti-hero protagonist spitefully states that, should he have everything that he want or need, he would intentionally ruin it, only to have some challenge — something to do. What we want and need is not all of our appetites endlessly met, but rather a noble burden to meaningfully carry. Communism does not account for this.
Although capitalism is flawed, the rising tide truly does lift up all ships, and the numbers of people living in abject poverty is slashed by the day. In 1990, 35% percent of the world population was living in extreme poverty. As of 2015, that number has decreased to 10%. Economic freedom and economic growth are linked. Although economic progress is not the ultimate aim of all social organization, that poverty number is certainly worth something.
Winston Churchill famously stated, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.” And similarly, I declare that capitalism is the worst system of economic organization, except all the others that have been tried.
Thank you, this concludes my opening statement.
