The Trouble with Marxism

Normally, I would be a huge proponent for Marxist communism. The idea of an ultimate equity in having the proletariat seems tempting! But, unfortunately, it really cannot be done. For even when the proletariat rises up and supposedly takes control of what they deem is fair, there will still be the same issues as presented in The Communist Manifesto.

The best way to examine this is to break down the actual text. Marx delves into how class struggle manifested itself, and determines that there is a base -- the working class and economics. There is also a superstructure -- the state, religion, and politics -- in the society. To be brief, the people influence the superstructure. This should mean that the base can change society. This should be done through an overthrowing, or revolution, rather than a reform.

The issue with this thinking, though, is that though the proletariat will supposedly eradicate class structure economically, there will still, in a sense, be polarization in political parties. And, of course, people will have to run the government.

One of many arguments as a result of multiple political parties.
A guy was actually beat (to death) with a cane for differing in
opinion.

Let's take a break and first look at how multiple political parties affected a nation. Many people in the United States feel that if there were more political parties, more voices would be heard, and thus we would achieve more progress. Now, I do not have any specific statistics, but there are historical anecdotes. There are two actually. Prior to the American Civil War, there were a plethora of parties. We had the regular Republican and Democrats (though not in the way we have them now) along with the Know-Nothings, the Whigs, and many divisions of Democrats including Copperheads and the War Democrats. There were probably many more since the nation was heading in a direction that no one quite agreed with -- war vs. slavery, slavery vs. abolition, union vs. dissolution. And look what happened: we had a war of factions.

What a wonderful world...

Another instance where this happened was prior to Hitler's Nazi Germany. The battling of all the political parties (I have forgotten much of my European history) led the nation to rally behind the delusions of a psychotic man. And that led them to war and genocide. Oh and an authoritarian state.

OK so what does that have to do anything? Did I just want to show off my knowledge? Well, the idea here is that even if there were a successful uprising from the proletariat, each proletariat has a different perspective in how to manage the nation. This would most likely take form in multiple political parties trying to consolidate their power. And with the waging of war between factions, one wins and that single one tries to rid themselves of its enemies; that way, they are not a liability. Those enemies happen to be the other political parties. It's human nature -- remember Machiavelli and the "Dirty Hands Problem?"

This is not all simple conjecture. It happened in Soviet Russia. Forget for one minute that Leninism was not too close to Marxism. Leninism was mild compared to what was to come. And even if Lenin was a strong Marxist, the same result would have happened: many different parties scramble for power until one won. Then that winner purges its winners. There's a huge mess and the government becomes more authoritarian rather than communist.

When a selective few have the power, they, too, want to feel in control. After clawing your way to power, do you not feel that you are entitled to some reward? That reward would presumably be some preferential treatment. With government ownership of, well, everything, those things become your objects. Because you are the government. You were the one who united everyone together under the cause of fairness and equality. You wanted everyone to have equal opportunities Well guess what? By being able to dictate what people can and can't have -- for the sake of equality -- makes you more "equal" than they are. This was precisely what happened in Animal Farm. With promises of making the farm better, the pigs did make living conditions better while also making themselves better. Read this book if you haven't. It is not only fantastic (in the literal sense of the word) but there is a lot to be learned in such a concise work.

This is only in terms of the government, though.

Let's imagine that the government somehow were morally great. There were no party decisions and the government was entirely neutral, allowing equal opportunities for all. The proletariat does want it desires. If people want to continue in industry then so be it. If people want to practice medicine, they are still allowed to. And at first this system would work out dandy. People would be happy that everyone can receive the same treatment, the same pay, and the same items.

Oh. And then it hits them. Imagine why you are busting your butt off to be a student. Is it because you really want to learn? Then why not learn and forgo the work? You can still learn without doing all the tedious work. Forget essays -- you know you can analyze the politics behind it all!

I think we both know that the reason why you work is to get get good grades. And why get good grades? Well to get into a great graduate school or to get a great job, of course. Those grades are the measure of your performance and in a place where everyone is essentially given the same educational opportunities (at the University of Michigan), the only thing separating you from your friend who wants to major in the same thing are the grades and your classes.

Now picture if you're working hard in college and your friend does not. This may be the fact now. But also imagine if you were guaranteed that same job. Despite all the effort you put in through four years, you and your friend ended up at the same place. Don't you feel a little cheated? I would. (S)he got to party for four years while you were being a nerd. If I were you I would stop trying so hard. Magnify this by however many people are in the population in a given area.

"Maybe I should be working..."

That's the incentives people would face in a communist society. Equality in every aspect leads to one without incentives after time. After all the gild, we realize that it can't work out. It doesn't matter how much more talented you may be compared to someone else. They are the same as you in the eyes of the government and to other people. Though appealing at first, Marxism does end up being just another gilded idea. As much as I hate to say this, class struggles foster a sense of motivation and competition. This, however, is not to say that poverty is good. If only there were a system that implemented a "class" structure and eradicated poverty.