March, 18, 2004
by Brian Goodman

I have a confession to make. I once looked at communism and its required level of government control as a system that had some degree of merit.

Of course, there are problems with the system. The use of force that is required to uphold the principles of communism is unacceptable. And the idea that everybody should receive the same share of resources, regardless of their contribution to society, has been proven to discourage individual achievement and therefore is not an acceptable way to run a society.

But imagine a world (forget for a second, the economic disaster that would result) where we are not in competition with everybody else on the planet for its limited resources. Somebody on your street, in your city, in your country, and now even on your planet. Imagine that your success did not rely on their failure, as it does now; as we compete for the same resources. How can there not be some psychological impact on a human being when he lives in a system in which he has to fight over every litre of oil, over every tree, over every acre of farmland, and over every drop of water? So we start to look for an alternative.

The former Soviet Union? Millions massacred. How about Mao Zedong's China? Same problem. Heck, even the brutal use of force couldn't bring these economies to success at all comparable to the free markets of the Western world. No solution here.

But let's look at these free markets of the West. A huge gap between rich and poor. Environmental consequences of allowing corporations free reign over our resources. Government that can no longer represent the people. That must use corporate funding to promote itself among voters and then repay the debts it owes to these corporations through government contracts, whether they deserve them or not. We are in competition with our brothers and sisters in order to survive. And the psychological effect of this system? How about massive sales of anti-depressants in the developed countries; the consumer of a hugely disproportionate amount of our resources? It's curious that we need Prozac now to enjoy our Big Mac's and SUV's

However, communist idealism is dead and rightfully so. Marx's dream of a world where the proletariat made the rules proved to be a nightmare. When this nightmare started to spread to Eastern Europe, to Vietnam, to Africa , to Mexico, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, Chile (the list goes on), the U.S. was there to intervene, to save the people of those countries from the disasters like those that happened when tyrants like Josef Stalin took over the USSR.

But maybe Salvador Allende in Chile, or Patricio Lumumba in the Congo, or Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam were going to do things differently. Maybe. Maybe not. The end result is that there was too great a risk that it would have been the same story. Communist idealists that come to power only to be corrupted by that power. (Never mind that in many cases, these leaders were elected using the democratic process. The democratic process that the Western world is so quick to defend.)

OK, so the West (at least in the Northern Hemisphere) is determined to save these countries (and, in fact, our own through huge propaganda campaigns in the middle of this century) from ideology and, in effect, from themselves. We send money, lend planes, give training, do everything possible so that these communist governments are overthrown, preferably by their own people who are allowed an opportunity to improve their own lot by fighting on our side. The fact that these people are willing to sell out their own country for their own gain is the very reason that capitalism has been so successful. So be it. We have to accept how we are. But we also have to evaluate the society that we impose on these countries and on ourselves.

It has been decided that capitalism is the way to go. Aside from a few anomalies in North Korea and Cuba, we live in a world that is one giant free market. Countries are developing, people are getting rich, we are progressing at an alarming rate. What's the problem? The problem is that some people aren't, even as their resources are being consumed. The problem is that by allowing almost unlimited access to our resources, with so little planning for the future, our children are going to be the ones that suffer. The problem is that there is very little incentive to protect the environment, which is ultimately the only thing that we have. Short-term profit is more important than the well-being of our planet. Besides the relatively minor point that the system pits people against people.

But, according to economist Adam Smith, this is what is required if we are to continue to grow and prosper. Can this be called anything other than idealism? Certainly no less than the Communists' idea of an egalitarian society. What has to be found is a balance between the two systems.

On the one hand, we can not and should not try to believe that every man, woman, and child deserves the same share of the wealth that is created by the collective efforts of society. People have different needs. People have different levels of motivation. Some people need to know that their 50 hour work week is noticed and appreciated and that they are given some level of respect by those that spend most of their time in front of the television, contributing little. This is only natural and only fair.

On the other hand, we have to realize that we do have something in common. We all live on and share this planet and everything that we do affects every other person. If we consume too much, it either means less for our neighbour now or less for our grandkids later. If we pay no attention to levels of remaining resources or to our environment, there will soon be nothing left. President Bush has big plans but it may be a while before we can live on Mars, seeing as how we've only so far sent robots there. In any case, maybe we should protect the planet we've adapted our bodies to and let the Martians adapt to theirs' when they begin their evolutionary process. We have to stop relying on science and put some faith in humanity.

The point of all this is that the capitalist's crippling phobia of a system in which we watch each other's back is not justified. And the socialist's burning hatred of any action that may allow a man to get a step or two ahead is not reasonable. Somewhere in the gray area is where we have to live.

Brian Goodman is a graduate of the University of Manitoba with an advanced diploma in International Business from Red River College in Winnipeg.