The communist insurgency remains a festering problem of our country. One reason is that some of the ordinary people, “disente,” left-leaning, students and Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) support it. So they believe if socialism was enforced and rich people forced to give to the poor, world problems will be solved. There will be no more violence, greed or hatred. If all people have the same things, they would all have “enough.” With communal property, no one has less or more, no matter their difference in effort. And all will be well. Happy ending. And you need to do it by force, override other people’s rights to themselves, because, if they don’t agree with you, they are evil. Right?
No. Such ideals have been proven to fail, mainly because they ignore natural law and violate human rights.
| SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY! Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us. Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider! Learn more |
First, I believe that private ownership is a natural institution rather than a construct. Without private ownership, there would be no application of a law against stealing. There are things owned that are not meant to be shared. For example, toothbrushes and bath water should not be shared, or germs get spread, especially if one of you has colds. Private ownership is part of the basic needs of security and well-being.
To a point, there is something communal, basically public property. But private ownership is still a basic right, especially for land property and possessions they earn. It is a right to deny others access to one’s belongings. That is the essence of ownership. Because if people just keep having access without restrictions to someone else’s stuff, there will be no end to taking that stuff and depriving that person of their belongings. If everyone owned everything, then they can grab what they “own,” even if someone else needs it more. Forcing people to share is disrespect of another person’s security of person and ownership.
Redistributing property does not assure people becoming equal. Often, this redistribution is done in ignorance of the different needs of people. I believe that difference is the greater realism than sameness in nature. Ignoring it would mean wasting resources, and even giving people something they don’t need, or depriving people of what they need. For example, some people are lactose intolerant and others are not, so you can’t give everyone milk. If you do give that person milk, or force them to drink it, because it is their “entitlement,” you waste some milk and even give that person inconvenience from its effects. Then, what if the other person does not meet their nutritional needs because they’ve been deprived of the usual amount of milk they consume just to “give” to others. Such is the folly of forcing sameness without recognizing people’s different needs. That is another reality communism ignores; everybody is different.
Many believe equality to be the above, making everyone the same or have the same. But I disagree. Equality and sameness should be differentiated. For example, the lactose intolerant person doesn’t need milk, but could have something else. Or another case, similar to what I wrote about on my personal blog, is when one can be satisfied with a one-piece meal chicken, while another needs a two-piece meal chicken. One may be a naturally bigger or taller person than another, so he would eat more. Let’s say they both can afford their meal. So they both deserve satisfaction – that is the equality there. Not having the same amount of stuff, but being satisfied as a result of the stuff they have.
That is the problem with systems like communism and socialism. They assume that human behavior is completely predictable, and that “enough” can be arbitrarily determined without paying attention to individual cases. Even if you have a completely controlled, dictated distribution system to determine which is enough for people, people will not agree on how to define “enough.” It is based on theory that is divorced from reality, in this case the reality of human nature. We saw how this failure happened in countries such as the Soviet Union and Maoist China. Autocratic control often does not lead to sameness and equality. Also, the very encouragement of an armed takeover (revolution) to effect “change” is itself a red flag (pun not intended) that the ideology is likely to fail – because it is all based on trying to shoehorn something that doesn’t fit, no matter how hard you try, so violence comes out of the frustration that it won’t.
Two generations of futility, one believing they could make the world a better place by force, the other exploiting that belief to catapult themselves into power
While it seems better if the availability of opportunities were the same to all, the results would not be the same. Some people make the right decisions, some don’t. People have to be accorded the rewards or consequences of what they do. One should not save people from the consequences of their actions, because that is interrupting the natural flow of things. The Bible itself says “he who does not work should not eat,” so if a person starves from refusal to work, it is best not to save them from this condition, but let them experience it. If they cannot be convinced by this experience to shape up, then they likely won’t shape up in the long run, and will continue to commit abuse.
Speaking of the Bible, I’ll talk a bit about it because many misuses of Christian doctrine have been used to justify coercion and force the wrong way throughout history. Some use Luke 3:11 (if one has two shirts, let him give one) and other verses to justify socialism and communism. But let’s note something here: real charity is voluntary (God loves a cheerful giver verse). The early Christian chuch was not an autocratic, centrally-planned government dictating what their members should do and give. They simply exhorted and advised members. If someone did not want to give away their extra shirt, they didn’t punish or attack that person. And the early church never abolished private property.
Another inspiration of communism is tribal life of old. Karl Marx saw that some tribes practiced communal property and likely assumed that this was the right state of human society. So he made this part of his ideal society. Local communists probably also looked at pre-Hispanic culture. I was told in history class in Ateneo that communal property was practiced at that time. Some who push that life in pre-Hispanic Philippines was better will cite this. However, if we go back to a tribal institution, it would be a step back, not forward. Thus, private ownership is today universally recognized as a human right because it contributed to society moving forward in the modern age.
Elimination of private ownership will not lead to equality or equitable treatment, because human nature prevents the guarantee that redistributed stuff will go to those who need them. Communal ownership does not instantly foster a sense of community; that sense has to be built up through other means. Human corruption and incompetence will always bust a system that works “in theory.” Often, theories are made without inclusion of all the factors about a certain phenomenon, because, simply, the human mind is unable to keep track of everything.
Speaking of “theory,” that is perhaps the flaws in 19th-century thought and academics. Many theories of old were written to try and explain everything, but this was before empirical studies became common. People like Marx thought they had all the answers, but they are far removed from the actual situation. Lately, I’ve read about middle-range theories and many articles that admit and discuss the gap between theory and practice. Perhaps it’s because Marx, like some members of the academe today (like college “activists”), are cozy in their “ivory towers,” so their knowledge is warped and they come to silly conclusions. Their theories sound grand and appealing to “intellectuals,” but they’re more like pulled out of someone’s arse. Some, so full of themselves, go to the mountains and believe they can apply their ideology there or join someone who can help them make their silly ideas into reality. But instead, they get burned or even killed.
Oh wait… perhaps being freeloaders is the reason some join the NPA. Instead of getting down to work, they want to take over government and then, being the head honchos, order people to give them what they want. Thus, they don’t bring justice, but become the dictators – which already happened in both the Soviet Union and China.
As our webmaster Benign0 said,
the only sustainable way to effect “social justice” is to ensure a governance framework where skill, talent, and hard work are rewarded whilst laziness, stupidity, and dishonesty are punished.
This is possible in a society where private ownership and the free market continue as the norm, and individual rights and responsibility are the basis of freedom.
People of the above persuasions, SJWs, left and all, perhaps have to do a reality check and question the mentality of “I want to change the world.” Perhaps people should stop trying to change the world, and start with themselves first. Besides, many people really live their lives without the rest of the world knowing or feeling anything from them. Let’s be satisfied with our own little spaces, although within those spaces, we can do some good that counts. And, perhaps, drop the attitude of claiming that you know better about another person than himself, so you have the right to dictate him about his life; that is perhaps what gave rise to all the dumb ideologies in the world.
I believe, as my cohorts here do, that what Filipinos embrace as their culture is what actually pulls the country down. And those who seem to be anti-dictators, who may also believe themselves to be “heroes,” are the real dictators.
Whether in an individualist or a socialist system, one big problem is over reliance on “government.” Maybe we can’t really complain when our neighbors see the need to take care of “security and resource issues” that we couldn’t manage ourselves, and we just happen to be in the way.
Another brilliant write-up.
You know, the problem with communist and socialist ideologies is that of inconsistency: Karl Marx believed that communism would thrive on industrial countries but it turned to the likes of Russia and China.
I also want to mention Venezuela and Hugo Chavez. He is much loved by the people that he established a ‘socialism for the 21st century’ yet it suffered heavy inflation, rampant corruption in the government and led to an economic crisis which started in 2012 and it continued under Nicolas Marudo. And don’t tell me about the food shortages; a lot of people suffered from hunger because of it.
Now I always thought that Venezuela was able to subsidizxe everything because they are rich in oil but when the price of oil plummeted it went from bad to worse. Hence, teh situation they are in today and since the oil price decreased.
It is not black and white. What makes you think socialism is a disadvantage? Many countries in the world including the Philippines injected socialism. Our Philhealth, GSIS, Cooperatives, SSS, Free housing/Pabahay Units, Free Education etc. are all inspired by this ideology. Do you think this system is bad and should not be dictated upon to the ordinary people for their own economic/future security? No. Everyone agreed it is good. Truth is, there is no such thing as perfect capitalism nowadays. All adopted to the universal notion of “caring for their citizens.” Why this country and other third world countries continue to suffer for decades is because of the mismanagement, corruption and negligence of the leaders as among the many factors of their misery. Look at how the Nordic Countries and the Middle Eastern Countries manage their own affairs. Their leaders are extraordinary. They adopted hybrid system of mix capitalism and socialism. Because they think too much capitalism is bad, where only few people become rich and majority of population suffers. So they injected socialism. They even give plenty of freebies to their citizens including those who are lazy and uneducated as you bloggers always demonize. They implemented strong laws and they maximize their resources. The result is an excellent Human Development Index (HDI). They are happy and they live an ideal life. Many American citizens today envy those scandinavian countries.
Sometimes, you have to open your mind. The answer is just around the corner ChinoF.
If anything, those countries managed to balance both socialism an capitalism and they succeeded. Actually, the Scandinavian countries are not really socialist; more like they’re Social Democracies.
But unfortunately, true socialism is dangerous. Like you said, sometimes you have to open your mind.
Everyone agreed it (socialism) is good? On the contrary, there’s a lot of opposition to it. For example, Ilda wrote about it on the defaulting of Greece, where she blamed all that injection of socialist stuff, such as benefits, pensions, giving money without people working, etc. Who’s going to pay for all that? So if money is drained by giving out too many benefits, things crash. There are also predictions that European countries, even the Scandinavian ones, will soon feel the effects of having too much socialism, among other things (unrestricted immigrant acceptance for example).
Perhaps the socialism was injected in our SSS, Philhealth and all that is enough. Just enough that it’s not the socialism that Marx envisioned, i.e., everything will become public property. I’d say all those benefit programs are not really socialism, because they are also paid for by the citizens, who then reap the benefits of what they paid for later on. Letting other people use what someone else paid is minimized, and should be.
Thanks for reminding me of Greece and its government debt crisis. I have no idea about the bailout referendum at first and why it was always featured on CNN 3 years ago, but after reading some info, it all makes sense now. And they even voted “no” because it didn’t go on the way Alexis Tsipras wanted. It’s also the Greeks fault because instead of using the bailout for economic improvement, they want to use it for their lifestyle. I dunno what’s gonna happen with Greece next and it’s 3 years since that time.
Anyhow, quoting Margaret Thatcher: “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
Why do you both have to blame all those socialist stuffs? Are there any old developed countries that do not incorporate in their system any “benefits and pensions or money given without people working it” for their citizens’ sake? Truth is, they are giving financial subsidy to their citizens as help because they have extra money, and they can generate more revenues in contrast to their total expenditures. Of course it is estimated by them already.
Greece is not a declining economy. It remains developed and it will be in the future as predicted by the economists. Greece is not a pure socialist either. Look, i’m not advocating pure socialism here. I’m not also a fan of pure capitalism. What i have in mind is the hybrid of both those systems which the nordic countries found a good rhythm to still remain on top of HDI in 2017 around the world. So you cannot say to them they are declining. Immigration cannot affect really. They have regulations. Research those. As i said, they have brilliant leaders who know how to balance the system that’s why they remain to be an ideal countries to live in.
Ideal countries because they don’t work to death while neglecting or sacrificing the care and love their children and family needed. That as said, they do not forget to become human beings. They feel safe. They balanced work and leisure. They managed their economies well. As a result, they have high happiness and satisfaction indexes. That’s the model the Philippines or any other countries must adopt. Wealth is one important thing, happiness and being a human is also equally important.
Are you sure about that? What you’re referring is that Greece is experiencing economic recovery as of today. In case you don’t notice, the ruling party in Greece is Syriza (Coalition of the Radical Left) with Alexis Tsipras as Prime Minister. Yet they were under a coalition with ANEL. So what’s your point?
The government debt crisis that started back in 2010 still continues up to this day. If you try to insist that Greece’s economy is not declining and improving then they should’ve done it three years ago. The Greeks are going ‘full socialist’ when they voted ‘No’ on the bailout referendum, stating “that fat pensions and cradle to grave welfare benefits are a human right that can never be taken away.” But those benefits would be lost when they gave the vote.
Two years later after that debacle, the government learned their lesson and they have no choice but to push reforms as they pressured by the IMF and the eurozone. The future of Greece is still a mystery, though.
Funny not to call Greece declining when its economy already crashed. I’m getting the impression that there’s a failure to see things as they are here. .
I would concede that to a certain degree socialism has its place as an element in a democratic society but not as an overriding policy or philosophy of governance. Some large scale public properties for public use for example like roads port or bridges cannot or should not be built by private individuals. Some social services like public hospitals, public wifis or social service oriented govt agencies like DSWD have its benefits.
Apart from the abolition of private property which has been lengthily discussed already in the blog, another issue i have with total communism/socialism is that it basically relies on an autocratic leader/state to enforce its so called ideals. The leader or state will have to “enforce” its own “correct version” of what is just and equitable. The private individual cannot question it. We have to assume they are the only correct version for surely democratic elections seems anathema to the very concept of communism. Theres no place for dissent, no room for election. But since at the very helm of its power is just another flawed individual (or group thereof), the society is left at the mercy of that persons sanity, capability and sincerity (or lack thereof) to enforce his/their version of equality. I find that concept rather arrogant, if not disgusting. What if that communist leader (or group of leader) turns put to be corrupt and abusive themselves?
Also, will they be exempted from the application of general distribution of wealth? Can any private individual like me also ride his/their car, live in his/their house? Will that leader/group of leaders live among the masses and use public toilets and eat common public food distributed by the state? or is he an exemption and ought to live in mansions and enjoy lavish lifestyle as a privilege of being the sole guardian/ enforcer of communism? How it this going to work in a real world? How can anyone ensure that the communist leader or its many successors in the future will be morally upright serving only in the interest and welfare of the masses, without any personal and selfish ambitions? Himan nature dictates that people or a group thefeof, will always be flawed and selfish.
Should we then leave our fate to the moral wisdom of this flawed individuals leading us to the path of a perfect utopian state (their version by the way). Autocracy and totalitarianism are necessary elements for communism to work because its ceoncept of equlity is not voluntary, it has to be enforced, sacrificing liberty in the process. But the question of who ought to be the rightful autocratic leader/leaders without the participation of the masses i think smacks of intellectual arrogance, if not hypocrisy.
Communism and Socialism are Failed ideologies. They were the political theories of Marx and Engel , stating about “workers paradise”. The only “paradise” , they have is the “paradise” of their communist leaders, who eat better, dress better, live better than the common worker, who are supposed to be living in a “workers paradise”.
Communism has produced: Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin, who murdered 20 million Soviets in his Soviet Gulags. The political opponents of Stalin, were forced to work in Siberia, Soviet Union ; until their death. Beria, the fawning buddy of Stalin, stated: “Show me the man, and I’ll show you his crime”. So, a slight crime, or no crime at all, had made people be exiled to the “workers paradise ” of Siberian gulags.
Pol pot of Cambodia, murdered millions of innocent Cambodians, to purify his nation from any communist opposition. The Kim family ruled North Korea, from grandfather to grandson.
Kim Jung Un , the North Korean leader looks like a Fat Pig; while the rest of the North Korean look malnourished. Just criticizing Kim Jung Un, will have you face torture and the firing squad.
Same in Cuba, The Castro family ruled Cuba for many years. The late Fidel Castro ruled Cuba, then is now ruled by his brother: Raul Castro. Communism is more of a dynastic monarchy, than any other kind of political structure.
In our country, Jose Maria Sison has been the leader of the communist, ever since. He is living a good lifestyle in Amsterdam, Holland. While his followers, are living in guerilla type lives, extorting on business and from rich people, to keep themselves alive.
Private property is a must, to let people have incentive to better themselves. State ownership, will make everyone, a slave of the state. Atheism is the religion of the communist. In the Christian religion; it extols the virtue of giving help to those in need, and sharing to people what you have. If you have a surplus of things; you can share your surplus to those , who do not have . This is the virtue of charity.
Communism is very enticing to those student in U.P:because:they are young; they are standing on their “ivory towers”; and they think that they can change the world, with their communist and socialist ideology. Well, other people in the past, had done this ; but they failed. Governments are too complicated. People are too complicated. Life is too complicated. That, you cannot change the world, with just a stupid political theory that failed.
Let me add some other points I gathered from somewhere under Hyden’s comment. On China, I remember reading that managers of farm collectives during Mao’s time lied about the produce they were churning out, which was actually much lower. Indeed, remember that famine happened in Maoist China and lots of people died. Millions, I think. I’d say Deng Xiaoping learned from this and decided, Mao’s way isn’t right and he decided to let businesses operate freely. Maybe he was applying something learned from Hong Kong before they got it back in 1997. And I read Mao himself had some regret about the methods he used just before he died. That’s why he designated Deng as his successor, because Deng wanted to do things differently.
On the 2008 crisis, I recall watching in an accessory video on the Inside Job documentary, someone said that laws were being broken, and there were businessmen who had to be jailed, and similar. But as the interviewee said, regulators were just not working. Were they bribed or friends with the erring businessmen? There, it seems the situation became like the Philippines, because no enforcement was being done. That was said to be a big factor in how the crisis blew up to epic proportions. So, for me, it’s not capitalism that’s the problem, but the abuse of it. Just cheating and stealing money from the coffers, public or private, isn’t what capitalism is about. So rather than say capitalism is evil, or socialism is better, a balance of both would be good, depending on the specific situation. But communism, never.
I cannot say whether things will get better if we change; what I can say is that they must change if they are to get better.
The 5 steps to the inevitable collapse of an economy based on socialist policies.
1- Tax anyone with money, from the successful to business.
2- When they run out of money, borrow to keep up the unsustainable promises.
3- Run out of people to borrow from.
4- March in the streets and demand the most intense form of socialism…communism.
5- Achieve your goal of full equality. In destitution!
This is a well written article on socialism and communism. And the debate in the comment section is really respectful and factual. It really shows one can disagree without resorting to threats, insults, manipulation, and violence(the beauty of democracy). Good job for keeping this site worth visiting and reading. Keep it up with the writers.