The Lack of Warmth of Collectivism

Years ago, when John and I were rabid Libertarians, the photographer on the paper we both worked for was a young man who had fled Vietnam. When we heard that he hated Communism, we figured he probably hated "the bad guys who hurt my people.”

We could not have been more wrong.

When we asked him about Communism, he said, “The lazy man who does nothing gets paid the same as those who work hard.”

The problem with this is that, after a while, no one works hard. Then, with little work done, no one eats.

Communism and Socialism are popular in America today. A few people who support this seem to think it will help others, but many seem to think that they will have more luxuries, laze around and do what they want, while the rich care for them.

Some think they will live like people on welfare, doing basically nothing but lounging around.

They clearly haven’t thought this through.

If no one is working, how will the rich stay rich?

If no one is rich, where will the money come from to pay for their food, much less their luxuries?

People on welfare live as they do because the government is skimming off the top of the rich and even the middle class.

No rich…and, after a time, no middle class…nothing to skim.

If a rich man is rich because he has developed good judgment in relation to the market and his field, how will the bureaucrat now in charge of his resources make better decisions?

Do they really want government officials, whom they already complain about, to be deciding who gets to work; who gets to go to college; what you study in college, and who gets to eat?

Think that sounds unrealistic?

When we adopted our daughter, the tour guide who helped us had grown up with dreams of what he wanted to do with his life, but when he made it into the university…something that, at least back then, only 4.9% of Chinese did, the government told him what to study.

When he got married, they told him when he was allowed to have a child.

At other times, he had to either not have sex with his wife or risk a forced abortion if their birth control failed.

If you are in a collectivist situation, everything is owned by the government. This includes any object in your house. They are not yours. They can be taken at any time.

This means:

You can never work harder to get ahead. No matter how much you might want an extra thing for yourself or to make a loved one happy or because they would be more comfortable with it, no amount of additional hard work will earn you a single penny more.

You don’t get to keep the fruit of your own labor. Want a playstation? Take a second job to get it? No good. You don’t get anything extra for your extra work. The extra goes to someone else, and you never get that thing you wanted.

You can never give anyone a gift. Anything you want to give as a gift doesn’t belong to you.

People say, “Real communism has not been tried.” But it has been tried, and under the best possible circumstances, and it failed.

When people describe the ideal communist community, they describe a family: A group of people who all act as if they have one common interest and who put their own needs aside for those of others.

But the problem is: this only works at the family level.

Families have a common interest tying them together. They can sacrifice and feel as if they are benefiting. But this does not work if you are being asked to work for strangers.

What if the community were so close-knit that it was like a family?

Even that has a very low chance of success. The Pilgrims who came over on the Mayflower tried their hands at communism, as Plato had described it. They were a close-knit society who all had each other’s interests at heart, which is not true in a huge place like America. And yet, they still found that they failed miserably at their attempt. Governor William Bradford explains:

"Whille no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expecte any. So they begane to thinke how they might raise as much torne (corn) as they could, and obtaine a beter crope then they had done, that they might not still thus languish in miserie. At length, after much debate of things, the Govr (with the advise of the cheefest amongest them) gave way that they should set corve every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to them selves; in all other things to goe on in the generall way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcell of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no devission for inheritance), and ranged all boys and youth under some familie. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious … The women now wente willingly into the feild, and tooke their litle-ons with them to set torne, which before would aledg weaknes, and inabilitie; whom to have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie and oppression.

"The experience that was had in this commone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos and other ancients, applauded by some of later times; -that the taking away of propertie, and bringing in communitie into a comone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser then God. … For the yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour and servise did repine that they should spend their time and streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, with out any recompence. ... The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalised in labours, and victails, cloaths, etc., with the meaner and yonger sorte, thought it some indignite and disrespect unto them. And for mens wives to be commanded to doe servise for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, etc., they deemd it a kind of slaverie, neither could many husbands well brooke it. .. Let pone objecte this is mens corruption, and nothing to the course it selfe. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in his wisdome saw another course fiter for them."

If communities like this, all one religion with one purpose—survive—cannot prosper, how could a country prosper under such terms?

People sometimes point to a place in Acts where the very earliest Christians combined their wealth, but even they did not stay this way for long. In his letter to Timothy, St. Paul tells us:

“Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.” (1 Timothy 5:17-18.)