What Is Wrong With Nearly Every Communist of Today

L. T. P.



As should be clear to anyone who even occasionally reads the news or turns on the television or looks out the window, communism at the moment is not at its height of popularity. Hence one might argue that I should feel privileged to live in a country that even happens to have a communist party — a party of people who, although not represented in the parliament (for obvious reasons), sincerely do their best to present some kind of an alternative to the destructive insanity marketed as growth and progress. But when one pauses to examine some of the things they advocate, one can only conclude that they're not being radical enough, not nearly radical enough. Sure, taking from the rich and giving to the poor might seem like a good idea, especially if you happen to be poor (as communists invariably are) and wouldn't mind some more wealth for yourself — which, you assert, is only justified because everyone is equal and equality is first and foremost measured in material possessions. Currently one of the primary objectives for these so called communists is to secure a basic income for every citizen, particularly for the unemployed — an income which not only would suffice for a relatively large apartment and a luscious meal every day but would enable every single person to surround themselves with piles of useless junk, the production and transportation and eventual disposal of which is such a huge waste of natural resources that any healthy society would prevent it either by enormous taxes or other means of punishment. Admittedly the current situation is not far from such a disaster. The only way for the governments to limit the damage, if even just a little bit, would be to let the rich stay rich and make damn sure the poor keep getting poorer.

It would most likely be fruitless to speculate upon what makes equality, in an economical context as in many others, so much more appealing than diversity — as fruitless as it would be to attempt to find a rational motive for defending democracy at a time when democratic countries are advancing the decay of humanity more efficiently than any dictator ever could. But if there are any such benevolent people who would seek to redistribute wealth not for their own greedy reasons but simply because they find the wealthy to be unreasonably wealthy, let them stop and ask themselves which would do the world more damage, a few insanely rich leaders and businessmen or a whole lot of unrestrained, mindless consumers?

To reiterate, what I mean when I say the communists of today aren't radical enough is that they only attack the rich — and what's worse, they paradoxically believe that dragging themselves up towards the same luxury and extravagance would somehow be an improvement! Instead of putting their already plentiful welfare moneys to good use and happily living the life of leisure — a life which undoubtedly would be less harmful to nature and humanity than most professions of today — they ridicule themselves by crying about injustice and protesting against whatever dreary triviality while voraciously grabbing every crumb that falls from their supposed oppressors' tables. As a contrast let us consider the words of the one true communist who allegedly didn't even own the clothes he wore: »Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them.» Is this not the greatest abundance, to receive what one requires when one requires it and to be free of everything else? How can we ever see the beauty around us when we keep surrounding ourselves with more and more stuff? »It is easier for a rope (and perhaps even a camel?) to go through the eye of a needle . . . »

In an ideal world people would know what is the best for them and there would be no need for any form of government. Since that is not the case, one would hope that the communist parties all over the world, being, even with their obvious flaws, not too far from to the voice of reason, would take up the duty of defending and promoting a way of life that would be both enjoyable and truly sustainable — if not for the current, sadly overblown human population, then at least for the third or fourth we can justifiably expect the Earth to provide nourishment and room for.