Communist sympathizers and supporters in western society who have lived a life of relative comfort under a non-Communist system have little to no knowledge of how regimes led by Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and countless others come about, constantly coming up with rationalizations for their support of an ideology that never worked and will never work, an ideology that always leads to mass murder, famines and despotism.
“It wasn’t real Communism” that time. Or, “the intentions were good, the execution was bad”.
In this week’s series of articles, we’ll start logically addressing their common emotional positions and arguments by pointing out the logical fallacies that hold them up.
Communism appeals to many of the young and brainwashed because it is socialism on steroids — the idea we live in a giant community, share a space, have the same humanistic goals, and thus must help each other as we would in smaller communities.
Touches the heart.
So why do Communist nations not work like smaller communities do? Game theory provides a simple, logical explanation.
In smaller communities, touted generally by free market capitalism and not socialism, there is no faceless, centralized redistributing entity. In a free market, as much of governance as possible is moved towards the individual. For truly communal needs, governance is moved to the community. For needs that can’t be handled by the individual or community, then state or federal governance is needed. Whatever the issue is, it is always handled at the lowest, decentralized level possible in a free market.
The community becomes responsible for the welfare of its constituents, and because everyone in a small community generally will know each other through church, family meetings, recreational events and so on, the individuals share a sense of responsibility for each other that yields visible results. The human connection is present when communities work together, and it is in everyone’s best interest (game theory optimum) to support each other to bring up the community’s aggregate standing in a free market system.
Communism, on the other hand, picks and chooses the “sharing” aspect of a community and ignores the rest out of necessity. Centralized government needs lethal power to enforce the “sharing” due to the size of a nation, since there will inevitably be a substantial portion of the population that don’t agree with the direction and ideology of the giant-sized “community”. An individual within a small community can negotiate a disagreement or move to a different community in a free society, but an individual within a Communist society doesn’t have the luxury of either of those choices.
The faceless system of Communism enables the peasantry maximum anonymity, replacing individualism with collectivism, coining the phrase: “they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work”. The game theoretical optimum is different for its constituents. No longer is it wise for the doctors to put in maximum hours, unless they are forced to do so at gun point, and it is wise to do the absolute minimum work, below the average, in order to receive the average redistributed income. Generally that average income, after a few cycles of the majority following a game theory optimal strategy resulting in a non-productive society and hyperinflation, is barely sustenance.
But the peasants under Communist rule will not care. Any extra work they put in, they will never see the results visibly at an individual or local community level. Their extra productivity is siphoned away by the big government never to be seen again, mainly because it is consumed by autocrats and their cronies.
The Communist sympathizer will say, “well if everyone worked together as they should be doing then that Communist country would be happy and rich!”
It is the prisoner’s dilemma scaled to the size of a nation, with the added twist of a very corrupt prison warden.
How exactly does one plan to move the Communist game theory optimum to one of maximum work yielding infinitesimal individual gain, from one that rewards laziness? It should be easy to see how “lethal force” always becomes that first and last resort of Communist regimes when they start diving off the economic cliff. The gun is the game changer, so to speak, against dissenters. If we can learn anything from history, it turns out that shooting people in the back of the head doesn’t exactly boost morale and productivity. How many prosperous nations do we know employ the firing squad on a routine basis?
* * *
Follow more on this series of articles by subscribing to the RSS feed. Be sure to leave a comment and share.