Antithesis Vs Communism

Will Rogers once stated, “Communism is like prohibition; it’s a good idea but it won’t work.” Since it’s inception in mid 1800’s, Communism has been an idea that has had its ups and downs. Based on the idea of eliminating class antagonism, Communism is a synthesis of two separate entities. In a class system there exist owners and workers. Owners control the majority of the wealth and means of production. These persons were referred to as the bourgeoisie where as the workers, who only earned a small wage, were known as the proletariat. These two units can be seen as a thesis and antithesis, and by combining these two a synthesis, or in this case Communism, was created. Communism is against the ownership of private property. This alone
is debatable enough for an entire paper. Privacy and private property is a staple of Capitalism and in our society here in the United States, relatively impossible to relinquish. Philosopher Peter Singer believes that if we had marginal utility and everyone was seen as even, our world would be much better off; just as Communism would suggest. However, I provide and whole-heartedly support the opinion of philosopher John Arthur. Arthur believes we have a right to things we earn. American society’s competitiveness is evident in many aspects of everyday life here in the U.S. Professional sports always have a large draw of fans and spectators, not to mention college and high school athletics as well. We as Americans love the thrill of competitions and even “the American dream” is based upon competition. We desire to be the best, to be our own boss, and garner a well-paying job. Often U.S. citizens see those in well-paying positions and the most educated as the most successful. American markets are always competitive on top of it all. In class, several students arguing for the Communist side felt that our society was too competitive and that with Communism it would get rid of this competition.
However, I beg to differ on this fact. I feel it human nature that we are competitive and I believe it has negative consequences to suppress this. If you look at any “lesser” animals on the planet there nearly always tends to be one dominant animal per clan or group. If you look at some of our closest relatives such as gorillas, there is always a Silverback that proceeds over the group. Sometimes other males compete for this title and this is simply seen as normality. I then must argue that Communism itself was created by competition. As I stated earlier, a thesis and antithesis were in conflict and in turn created the synthesis of Communism. How can a conflict be created without competition? Competition created the conflict which bred Communism. Thus, if Communism was in effect and as the other side stated, conflict was “abolished,” how could another ideal such as Communism be created? It is in turn destroying progression and possibilities. I often look back upon the essay written by Arthur, titled “Equality, Entitlements, and the Distribution of Income,” as well as the other by Singer called “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Singer believes in radical change for society and believes we must completely redevelop our morality. He believes in a relatively equal distribution of goods which reminds me quite readily of Communism. However, Arthur disagrees with this point and brings in the fact that we, as animals, feel compelled to keep entitlements and/or
deserts.” The fact is both these philosophers are right in a sense. Yes, currently under our moral system giving to charity is seen as above and beyond the call of duty and yet by not giving you are not judged negatively in any respect. Even some public figures use this as a shift away from other negatives. If some official is involved within something negative he or she often distracts the public by giving monetary funds to the needy and this changes the public’s perceptions of that individuals. If this were to change our society would be much better off as then it would just been seen as a norm to give to charity and then not giving to the needy would be frowned upon, thus this tactic would simply be overlooked and the true problems would be addressed. It would just be a slight shift of the Status Quo in a positive direction for the benefit of all and would very slightly hinder society in terms of having to give more. However, the problem with this is where do we make the cut off on who is “needy,” and who is eligible and required to give? I can not go so far as to say that we must give the majority of our possessions in order to bring those less fortunate to our own level, but it would be extremely beneficial to simply aid them in some minute way. On the other hand, Arthur’s argument that we must have entitlements hits home with me as it does most people. If we were not rewarded for the work we do how would we stay motivated? As shown earlier, our society is extremely competitive and with no end or goal in sight it would be hard to work in a certain direction. The farmer that sits around and does nothing all season and the farmer who works very hard to not only feed his own family but create a surplus are both rewarded with the same thing; the hard-worker must in turn feed the lazy farmer. How can we keep the diligent farmer working when he sees this fellow getting the same thing with less work? It is in human nature to pursue the easiest course of action and laziness and less-productivity would be the outcome in this situation. We must have some type of reward system for our work. With a synthesis of these two ideas we can see a society which is based upon competition as is the case with our American society today, yet with a shifted norm of aide to the less-fortunate. Communism’s idea to destroy competition simply is impossible due to the fact that we are competitive by nature and it is unfeasible to give someone slightly more power than everyone else, with no checks on that person, and expect them not to even slightly abuse their new-found power. Our democratic and capitalist society is of the utmost efficiency; however slight changes in our moral code would incorporate the Communist ideals within our society without all the negative effects. With our morality changed to include giving to the needy as normality rather than above-and-beyond we would be a much more equal and tight-knit society not only in terms of monetary values but also humanistic perspectives. Those less-fortunate should, and ideally would recognize the contributions given in pursuit of their happiness and in turn would give to the less-fortunate than them if they were ever thrust into that position. Overall our society would be much better off with this synthesis. Under our current capitalist society, mediocrity in many aspects is being celebrated when if we simply looked at the “red scare,” and used a few of their ideas we would be much better off in the end as a complete society. It is time we stop fearing it, and recognize our way is more dominant at this point and hopefully incorporate other ideals to make it simply more efficient.