Mike Oren.com

As I stated in class today, things written for propaganda purposes tend to generally upset me because I tend to feel they insult my intelligence as the holes in such things tend to be large enough to stick a bowling ball through. The Communist Manifesto is definitely no exception to that rule, and I apologize to anybody who loves the document and was at all offended by my intent to argue against some of the ideas it espouses. While I do wholeheartedly believe that Marx was fundamentally wrong about the nature of human nature and that most individuals will usually seek to gain over other individuals (that they do not know--the rules change when direct social bonds exist) and thus the notion that everybody will choose to share and share alike in some idealistic community of the world while a very nice notion (it would be very nice to see something similar happen) is not realistic in the world that I know. In class we began discussing how such a system could be made to work and while we could socialize everybody to believe that sharing is the nrom (opposite of current) and that will fix part of the problem (for those born into that system) there is still the problem of those born into the system of self-interest known as capitalism and the fact that not all those born into the new system and socialized to share will end up subscribing to those norms. We could eliminate all of the capitalists and those socialized into the ideals of self-interest, that would end up being a bloodbath and the loss of knowledge resulting from those deaths would be extremely tragic. Imprisoning them all and keeping them from inserting the ideals of self-interest into the system is equally impossible. We may still be able to assume that as time goes on the current ideals of capitalist society will be replaced by the new ones and, for the sake of argument, we can assume that through this socialization people will stop acting in their self-interest and will be happy having an equal share of the profit. Until such a thing happens (if ever, again I note I'm a pessimist), we would need some type of system to ensure that individuals are not trying to take more than their share. However, by setting up such a group we introduce a source of inequality that (based on the history of almost every government ever set up) has the potential to (and almost certainly will) abuse this social power to take advantage of others. However, for such an abuse to occur individuals have to be able to hold power long enough and have enough of an understanding of the system. If we eliminate professional politicians, have compulsory government service, and limit the terms to a reasonably short period that prevents a single individual from gaining enough of a foothold that would allow them to gain enough social power to control the system. The panel in power would need to be limited to a sufficient number that all governing and enforcement decisions are not stuck in constant debate but large enough that it would be difficult for an individual to gain power over the entire group. The governing body should be explicitly forbidden to extend terms, allow more than 1 term, or assign any individual executive control. However, it is recognized that in the event of emergencies, large panels are completely ineffective and during such times a small group of 9 individuals will be in charge for a period not to exceed 1 year--all decisions will be based on a simple majority vote and the executive powers will be limited as they will lack the power to pass any laws that extend beyond their tenure as executives, cannot extend the executive term, and do not have direct control over any military forces (which pledge their loyalty to the populous). To maintain some semblance of organizational memory the installation of new members to the governing body will be stratified so each year a portion of the governing body (most senior) are removed to be replaced by the new members.

The military is another beast that would need to have clear controls to prevent abuse, but I have not pondered that beyond how to prevent an executive body from using it to advance their own self-interest. Astute students of history will likely see echoes of the Athenian and Roman governments within this system, and I do not deny that I have taken elements from each (more heavily borrowed from the Athenians, whereas our current government borrowed more heavily from Rome). I see the most important elements as being limits to the number of years of a term and limit to terms for ALL government officials and for the government officials to be pulled from the entire populous (otherwise what's to stop one group from deciding they are 'better' than another and shoring up the power--sure this may result in individuals who are less than mentally capable being part of the governing body but I fail to see how that is different than our current government). As was pointed out in class today, Marx himself came to realize that while the idealist dream of one of his periods of life was a nice dream that revolutions often resulted in a single individual ascending to power (Tucker 1978:594-617).

I make no claims that this is a good form of government, nor do I make any claims that this is a desirable direction. I still stand by my previous claim that throughout the history of the world there have always been some individuals held above others and that there's nothing wrong with that so long as it is based on MERIT and that there are CAPS on rewards an individual can gain (and that slightly more than basic needs are provided to all people--not just enough for them to survive until the next day). I see this as more of a blending of socialism and capitalism that FDR began as an attempt to move the country out of the Depression, although since that time most of the efforts to expand said programs have been consistently blocked and those defending the notions of the long dead 'pure capitalism' have labeled such measures as 'pinko commie propaganda'. While I will not deny that the Communist Mainfesto is propaganda (and offensive to me), nor do I deny that the young Marx was full of mostly hot air, but I will say that Marx (primarily the economist, when not a propagandist swing, and occasionally the social historian) makes some very astute observations of the failings of Capitalism and the crisis that the current economic slump illustrates that it has not found a way around. I think how far down the line of socialism we need to go is up for debate; however, I don't think whether Capitalism can survive without walking somewhat down that line is possible (we did it once in the past and it saved us, but much of what was built up to allow Capitalism to be more sustainable was destroyed by those foolish enough to believe that pure Capitalism results in anything less than oligarchal businesses in the BEST case scenarios), but I don't think going all the way to full socialization of all businesses and resources is practical or desirable at this time--if ever (although I am aware that some of my colleagues will disagree with me on this point).