Homepage of the site 'What to do with your life?'
      

Why are communism and anarchism not a solution?

As often repeated on this site, dealing with a problem involves carrying out the following process:
1. Notice the problem
2. Conduct a serious analysis.
3. Develop a solution, often partial.
4. Implement it.

Communism

We refer to Marx's analysis, in  Capital :

Finding

The bourgeoisie monopolizes the wealth, and leaves the proletariat with only the bare minimum to enable it to renew itself following a life of misery.
Politicians (England) notice, but do not take measures to address the problem.

Analysis

Marx dissects surplus value, to understand how wealth is usurped from workers.

On the other hand, there is no consideration of human nature, and its social ambition dimension, that is to say the desire to become bourgeois... and usurper.

Solution

Eliminate the bourgeois class.

Implementation

Soviet revolution.

The party becomes the new tyranny.

Anarchism

Finding

The state oppresses the citizen through bureaucratic regulations, and justice is largely at the service of the powerful. Large-scale wars are waged by states.

Analysis

Also ignores social ambition, assuming that all humans are moderate, and therefore peaceful as long as they have the means to live decently and freely from their work.

Solution

Delete state.

Implementation

If we implemented it, we would quickly see an invasion by an external country, which would impose its tyranny, or the emergence of multiple microstates which would seek to expand by force.

Our analysis

In both cases, we want to remove power. That of money in the case of communism, that of the state in the case of anarchism. In doing so, we ignore that power is the product of social ambition, inherent in human nature, which therefore cannot be deleted.

Let us note at this stage that it is not because the solution they propose is naive and dangerous that the demands (the observation box) of communism or anarchism are not perfectly legitimate. In other words, once we have discredited these two systems, the problem is not resolved, and the argument 'the problem will resolve itself within the capitalism'remains false and morally shocking.

Throughout history, we have experimented, without decisive and stable success over time, with various methods to try to attribute power to a well-chosen person, who would exercise it with probity and competence. Even today, many believe that the solution lies in a better system of designation of those who exercise power. This vision ignores three essential points:

   •   

The extraordinary abilities of certain people to advance masked.

   •   

Lying to oneself, a product of cognitive dissonance, which means that probity and competence are not enough. We should also not have beliefs.

   •   

Power changes people.

In the end, the solution therefore necessarily consists, not of eliminating power, or seeking to attribute it to the right person, but of regulating power at the level of its exercise, that is to say supervise the decision-making process. The real problem is not who, but how.

Go deeper

See the question close to this one:
Necessary condition for a satisfactory social organization

Refer to the questions:
What is a human?
Why do humans reason massively wrong?
What conditions must be met to produce serious reasoning?
and above all:
How to make decisions consistent with the general interest?

See the paragraph 'The philosophical question emanating from progress' inchapter 1 from the book From capital to reason.

Finally, an effective solution is presented in the second part from the book From capital to reason.

 

New comment

From:

Message title:

Message :