Communist Man versus Christian Man

As a Social Darwinist and believer in a better future of humanity, I often get accused of being overly idealistic and optimistic. People allege that the Spencerian model of human evolution tends to produce results which end up looking inconspicuously like the famed "new socialist man" who Marx wrote about. Furthermore, people also seem to conflate this "new socialist man" with Christianity's ideal man - Jesus. After all, aren't Spencerian evolved men selfless, as are the communists and the Christians?
All this is brought about by the fact people misunderstand Marxist, Spencerian, and Christian teachings. I once wrote a short post about the difference between statist "do-gooders" and Christians (here) and there I highlighted the differences in modern Christian and Socialist behaviour towards others. When speaking about the future, however, the topic becomes a bit different still. After all, as my critics have said, if the "new socialist man" of tomorrow is a communist voluntarily and no coercion is used, does he not become the perfect Christian? And is Spencer's future man who never does wrong by others and takes pleasure in the pleasure of others (and feels pain at the pain of others) also not similar to this ideal socialist man? The answer is simple - No. There are huge disparities between all three "ideal men".
Marx was an economist and it is easy to see where his man is different from the other two - he is a materialist. The communist man considers most things and people as a function of utility for the commune. I.e. individuals who slack or do not produce as much are considered inferior to others who give their lives to pursue greater gains. For Marx, who subscribed to the faulty labour theory of value, gains are usually material. The final Marxist position was best espoused by the early Fabian socialists in Great Britain who asserted that individuals who do not "pull their own weight" in society and consume more than they produce should be judged by the collective and maybe even eliminated in some kind of final solution. The communist man is therefore cold and calculating despite his outwardly cooperative demeanor. We get here the picture of an uncoerced form of the "Homo Sovieticus".
The Christian perfect man is someone we can actually already know and follow - Jesus. Jesus is certainly not a materialist. If anything, he is the embodiment of separating oneself from the material world through prayer. The Christian ideal lives a humble and quiet life where pleasure is not frowned upon, but is controlled for the sake of helping others. In this way the Christian man is very much an Epicurean - the ideal I aspire to someday reach. The Christian life is also communal, but it is very pacifist and has certain rules which matter above those of utility (in fact utility is not a concern at all for the Christian).
The Spencerian man is someone who is a rational egoist. He is not an altruist like the Christian, but he is not an ant or termite like the communist man seems to be. The Spencerian man has aligned his emotions with reason - he feels compassion for those who deserve it, but he is willing to ostracize and refuse help to those who deserve punishment. In a way he differs from the Christian man in that instead of providing active positive help and assistance to others, he rather minds his own business and never participates in any aggressive acts.

"For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see, saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be." Thus wrote Alfred Lord Tennyson. But what would be more appropriate is that all we know is what could be. We don't know what the man of the future will be like. We don't even know what the man of the present is! Let's worry about what is today and the problems we must face in the present. The discussions about the Übermensch can be left for those times when we all relax in a small smoke room with a glass of whiskey, and fine cigar, and a few philosophically inclined friends.

What are Communist States?

I recently read a short blog post by a good friend and fellow libertarian (can be found here) about Communist States. Now let me just say that any anti-Communist and anti-Socialist rhetoric is greatly appreciated, but I have to do a bit of clearing up here. The term "Communist State" is actually a misnomer and if we, the liberals and libertarians, can clear it up for everyone, I believe we will be much more successful in converting others to our cause. So what is the problem with this phrase? I mean, hasn't everyone been using it for decades? Yes, but they have been using it erroneously. There can never be such a thing as a Communist State by definition, because Communism is a stateless ideology. Now this may sound like I am exonerating Communism - this could not be further from the truth. I consider Communism to be collectivist, deadly, and most importantly of all - unnatural. What we have to start speaking about are SOCIALIST STATES. Marx's point (a very stupid and ridiculous claim on the face of it) was that Communism will come only after the state withers away. This process could take hundreds of years. We had live under the dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e. in a totalitarian collectivist socialist state) until all people who bear the birthmark of capitalism are dead. Communism was only good for the "new socialist man of tomorrow". Modern man could not live under Communism, that much Marx was correct about. So let me say here again for emphasis: States like the Soviet Union or modern Cuba are Socialist States, not Communist States. The concept of Communism in itself is not bad, just Utopian. It is impossible. And trying actively to achieve it can only lead to mass murder and death of billions.
Now why should we argue this way? Most people would actually say that labeling certain states "communist" is a good strategy because communism is still such a hated ideology in the West. But think of it this way: Is it a good idea to call someone a murderer just because you personally don't like them and want others not to like them also? Of course not. This is the kind of emotional rhetoric militant NeoConservatives engage in. It is disturbing and irrational. Also there is another problem with it. If we label communism and communist states as evil, we open the field for socialists of all kinds to proclaim their ideology as good. After all they can say: "Hey, communism was bad back in Russia, but socialism is good, look at Sweden". This is why we must let people know that the Soviet Union was in fact socialist. Socialists of every kind, even social-democrats, are actually in line with the Soviet Leninists. They are Marxist Utopians and must be perceived and treated as such.

The problem of socialists and communists was never their sincerity or their morality, rather it was their religious ignorance of the world around them. They continued plowing through the masses with their ideology, killing millions, without regard for how life works. I have written multiple times that I myself am a Utopian to some extent - every Spencerian Social Darwinist is. But there are many kinds of Utopianism, one that sees a world as it is, and another (the leftist) which does not see the world at all. As Vladimir Ulyanov (Comrade Lenin) himself wrote: "man’s consciousness not only reflects the objective world, but creates it". Such men as him are not born monsters, it is the cruel and twisted logic of socialism that makes them into mass murdering beasts...

Communists are the Biggest "Investors" and "Developers"!

What has the world come to! Yesterday I ran into an incredibly crazy article in the Polish media written by some guy named Bartosz Turek. Now I realize that all too often I refer to people's ideas as crazy, so let me just offer a brief summary of what things this "housing market expert" wrote. I have to offer an explanation anyway since it involves some recent Polish history.
In the year 1970 a man named Edward Gierek became the First Secretary of the Polish Workers' Party (i.e. the Communist dictators). He stayed in power for 10 years until 1980. In 1981 he was subsequently jailed by the new Communist Military Dictator Wojciech Jaruzelski because the economy of Poland during his reign had nearly collapsed (Comrade Gierek was later released). Gierek was a well known Francophile educated in France (where he was member of the French Communist Party until his deportation to Poland). He was also briefly a member of the Communist Party of Belgium. As we can see, he was a real internationalist and revolutionary (he spent most of his time in France and Belgium organizing strikes for which he was later deported).
So what was the gist of this article I read yesterday? Well, the author praised Mr. Gierek for being the greatest investor and developer of Polish housing industry ever! I assume he was comparing Gierek's policies with what he currently says is failure (because of course it is the responsibility of the government to house everyone, no?). So here are some things he really liked about Gierek's development plan:
1. Gierek's government built 270 thousand apartments per year (it is highlighted that this is more than twice the "poor" 2010 results).
2. The "block" style architecture may not be aesthetically pleasing, but it is durable and efficient. It used latest Communist technology - those nasty concrete panels that everyone associated the former Eastern Block with.
3. Gierek did all this while incurring only $70 billion in debts.
4. The size of the apartments built in "blocks" constructed under Gierek seem to conform with the currently most marketable size of apartment everyone wants in Poland.
Now let me just say, this guy was serious when he wrote this article. Let me now analyze his points one by once with the necessary objections which just jump out at any non-Communist person out there:
1. It is not the government's job to steal money collectively from everyone and then house the entire nation! Whoever thought this could even be achieved is a total imbecile!
2. In response I will just post this picture of the great architecture.

I believe the technical term for this type of structure is "concrete shit".
3. Ahhh, those uninflated dollar numbers pop up not just in the US but everywhere! The author of the article should have known that $70 billion in the 1970's is some serious money right now. By the way, Poland is still paying this debt off! As of 2010 we still owe $118million to Japan (to be payed off by 2014) and $350million to the London Club (to be payed off by 2024). Does 50 years of debt seem like a fair price to pay for the deeds of one man?
4. So Mr. Gierek 40 years ago predicted 2010 market trends better than builders in 2009? Wow, maybe I don't give him enough credit...

Now I will not lie, I am thankful for the work of Comrade Gierek (pictured above on the right while "advancing Polish national interest"). After all Gierek is the one responsible for the utter bankruptcy of the Polish Communist state! He is the reason why in the 1980's martial law had to be instated (to prevent food riots) and price controls had to be put in place to keep the people from starving to death. On the whole I'm very thankful for him destroying the Commies from within. He was, of course, an evil dictator, but at least a very self-destructive one. What I cannot understand and never will, is why now, in 2011, people have started to look upon this guy with nostalgia and continually praise his work. Even the supposedly "conservative" candidate in the last Presidential elections, Jarosław Kaczyński, called him a Polish patriot...

Democracy forms Communism, or is It a form of Communism?

"Democracy is the road to socialism" - Karl Marx

"Communism needs Democracy like the body needs Oxygen." - Lev Davidovich Bronstein (also known as Comrade Trotsky)

Most of the greatest theorists of Communism agree that Democracy will bring about socialization of any country and, as they said, socialism is just one step away from Communism. Here is how the process works:
1. The majority of people are stupid (or at least easily swayed by superfluous arguments which seem to favour them).
2. In Democracy the majority rules over the minority (i.e. mob rule).
3. The policies that sound simplest and easiest to implement are almost always socialistic. For example, it's easy to understand how welfare or public education might help people. It is more difficult to understand that in actual fact they do great harm.
Now we can all see that this is true not only in theory, but in practice. All countries which initially started out as liberal democracies are now (after a period of prolonged democratic rule) socialist republics. The best examples I can give are the United States and the United Kingdom. Could any one of the founding fathers (even the raging centralizer Hamilton) conceive of an American government overwhelmed largely by entitlements and welfare spending? I doubt any of them would agree (Jefferson was against the existence of public debt at all! - as should be!) this should be the case.
The best book on Democracy (by far!) that I have read is Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Democracy: The God that Failed. Read it - to say it's enlightening is an understatement.

To quote Hoppe on the relationship between communism and democracy: "Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else."