Why I Am A Communist

RightsWhenever any moral, ethical, political, or evenby Robert Green Ingersoll.] Adam Smith noted that in
economic question comes up, there is often aChina, the condition of the worker is so degraded,
question of rights involved. "Does the woman havethat families are forced to live in boats, and would
the 'right' to abort her fetus?" or "Does a man havewelcome a stinking, putrid piece of meat as a
the 'right' to kiss women he is not involved with?" orgodsend. He also noted that the wealth is so
"Do corporations have the 'right' to avoid payingconcentrated in the hands of the few, that families
livable wages?" Whatever it comes down to, there ishave to drown their infant children in water, because
always the question of rights. In Capitalism, there isthey cannot feed them. ["Wealth of Nations," by
one distinguishing right: the right to private property.Adam Smith, chapter 8.] Thomas Malthus also noticed
In this system, a person can offer their property forthis, "the custom of exposing children, which, in times
sale at ANY price, can offer ANY price for theof distress, is probably more frequent than is ever
property they want. It doesn't mean that someoneacknowledged to Europeans. Relative to this
will buy it, or that someone will accept their offer.barbarous practice, it is difficult to avoid remarking,
They simply have this one right: to set any price forthat there cannot be a stronger proof of the
the property they are selling, or to offer any pricedistresses that have been felt by mankind for want
for the property they wish to acquire. That is theof food, than the existence of a custom that thus
basic premise of Capitalism.Communism, or Socialism,violates the most natural principle of the human
(at least the type that I am promoting) would curtailheart." ["An Essay on the Principle of Population," by
this economic right. What are the justifications orThomas Malthus, Chapter 4.]Even today, the
reasons for it? Well, there are two that I shall furthercondition of the workers is horrid. Workers are paid
elaborate upon... First, I believe that Communism isbetween 4% and 20% of the wealth they produce,
more capable of elevating a person's status. Second,with an exception in the Lodging industry (being
I believe that Communism grants a right thatcloser to 37%). [U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic
Capitalism does not (that is, the right to the wealthCensus, Comparative Statistics, Core Business
of your own labor). Whether these reasons areStastitics Series, EC97X-C52, issued June 2000.] This
justified, I will try to demonstrate in a concise,translates to this... If a person operates machinery for
powerful manner, in the following paragraphs....Thea Capitalist, and produce enough products to make
Ancestral Roots of Civilization and the Evolution ofhis employer $100,000, the worker -- that is, to say,
RightsWhen looking at society today, at the bigthe person who built the machinery, who operated it,
factories and the various outlet stores, and seeing alland then sold it -- would receive perhaps $15,000.
that has come technologically, it can only fascinateBut, this is given the best case scenario.There are
the human imagination. I admit to looking at thesemany more reasons to believe that this number is
wonders in awe. But, any person interested in societycloser to $6,000 or $4,000. For instance, if a miner
will have certain inquiries. Where did civilization comewas REALLY paid 12% of the wealth they made,
from?The Roman Empire is sometimes regarded asthey would be making $40,820 per year. Now, it
the starting point of Western Civilization, having itsdoesn't take much understanding of economics to
own roots in some Greek culture (borrowing religionsee that factory workers do not make this much per
and philosophy). Here, the word "Proletariat" was firstyear. We must understand that CEOs are paid
used, describing a soldier who went to a far off land,greatly, yet what they are paid by the company is
captured slaves, and then returned home, to findalso counted as pay roll. Robert M. Delvin, for
that he could not find employment, due to theexample, is Chairman, President, and CEO of
abundance of slaves. The word "Proletariat" wouldAmerican General Corporation. He is an employee, but
later be used by Marxists, to describe workers whoin one year, he made over forty five million dollars.
had no property and could only sell their labor. The[Source: The Houston Chronicle.] When his payroll is
number of slaves that were in Rome during its riseaveraged in to all the other workers, then the 12%
cannot be known for certain, for no official recordsof all the wealth made by the workers means that
were kept of slaves brought in to the city. But,the median average of each worker is about forty
modern historians seem content with the idea that 1thousand. If Delvin worked for the retail trade
3rd of the population was enslaved -- 300,000 toindustry, then that would mean that for his wage,
350,000 out of 900,000 to 1,000,000 people. Whenthere are 14,900 full time workers that are being paid
the Roman Empire fell, a new political and economic$5.15 per hour. Most workers typically receive the
system took place known as Feudalism.Feudalismminimum wage, meaning they make $10,712 per year.
entailed different rights and privileges. The land wasNow, a miner for the mining industry produces a
divided into fiefs and a vassal was in charge of hisgreat deal of wealth compared to what he is paid. A
parcel of land. Serfs were the peasants who laboredminer makes, on average, makes $400,000 for his
for the wealth of their vassal. A serf was notemployer, but he is paid only $10,000 per year. In this
allowed to leave his land without proper permission tocase, the worker receives 2.5% of the wealth in
do so. Feudalism developed from post-Romanwhich he produces. If a farmer ploughed the field of
estates filled with many slaves. Today, though, most200 crops, the Capitalist would turn around and give
liberal historians will refer to serfs as "just a differnthim 5 of them. How is it that the Capitalist can do
type of slave," and this is quite true.However, thethis? Simple. Because he owns the farm, he owns the
bondage of Feudalism could not last forever. A newtractor, he owns the tools, he owns the land. And by
way of working and producing came into effect. Andwhat right can this be done? By what doctrine? The
it came, as we have today, the industrial society.right to property.Thus, what do we find? We find
Various revolutions of the European nations tooktwo great, incontrovertible facts: (1) The laborers,
place, even as late as the middle 1800's (such as thethe workers, are the producers of wealth. Without
case of Germany). Eventually, Feudalism wasthem, there would be no food, there would be no
eliminated, the serf was liberated, and freedomiron ore, there would be no tools. Without them,
reigned. The crystaline dove of prosperity was onthere would not be the farms to grow the food, the
the land, and there was never again to be a cry ofmines to mine the ore, and the factories to produce
brutality... or, at least, that is the picture painted bythe tools. They are the sole creators of wealth. (2)
many historians.The rights of slaves in the RomanThe condition of those who create all the wealth is in
Empire was simple: they had none. Well, there weresuch a horrid state. They are paid a subsistence
some laws dictating action to be done to slaves,wage, remarkably below what they deserve to be
certain protection measures, but beyond that, theypaid. In "Demands of the Communist Manifesto,"
were as much slaves as Africans were for centuriesMarx wrote that one of the first conditions of a just
in America. The rights of serfs in the Feudal timesgovernment is this: that child labor is immediately
were much evolved from that of slavery. A serferadicated, and that an education is provided for
worked, and a great deal of his produce went to histhem.More simply put... Those who produce
master. A serf was not allowed to leave his landeverything are given almost nothing. This is not
without consent. Finally, we have Capitalism, or Freejustice. Capitalism has nearly reproduced Feudalism, in
Enterprise, the system where a worker can leave hissuch a manner that Feudalism nearly reproduced
land whenever he wants. But, is it real freedom, or isslavery. No humane heart can look at these children,
it just the manifestation of slavery in anothergrowing deformed because they work for their food,
form?The Brutal Nature of CapitalismIn Feudalism,and say, "Ah, liberty! What a great godsend we have
there were various classes, but two distinct ones:before us!" No kind person can see the mass of
nobility and serfdom. The nobles did no manual laborworkers, without hope, without heart, without
yet they lavished in the wealth produced bymeaning, working only that they may feed
peasants. In Capitalism, we see again the rise of twothemselves and pay their rent. And where does their
distinct classes: the Bourgeoise and the Proletariat.money go when they buy food or when they pay
The Bourgoise are the capital-owning class, thosetheir rent? It goes directly back into the pockets of
who own the means of production. They own thethose who exploited them. Perpetual poverty. I
farms, the banks, the factories. The Proletariat,detest Capitalism because of its inherent brutality. I
however, own nothing. They have no farm land.am not alone.In his "The Capitalist System," Bakunin
They have no factories. They do not even havewrote, "Thus the worker's liberty, so much exalted
food for themselves. In essense, slavery is entirelyby the economists, jurists, and bourgeois republicans,
recreated. Because, while a worker can refuse oneis only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for
job or move from his land, he is entirely dependentits possible realization, and consequently it is only a
upon the Bourgeoise class for providing him with hisfictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. The truth is that
subsistence.Peter Kropotkin once wrote of thethe whole life of the worker is simply a continuous
workers, "We are perfectly aware that they oftenand dismaying succession of terms of serfdom
work for even less, but we know also that they do-voluntary from the juridical point of view but
it entirely because, thanks to to our splendid socialcompulsory in the economic sense - broken up by
organization, they would die of hunger without thesemomentarily brief interludes of freedom accompanied
ridiculous wages." ["The Wage System," by Peterby starvation; in other words, it is real slavery."
Kropotkin.] Mikhail Bakunin once wrote, "Suppose IThomas Paine argued against Capitalism, writing, "It is
am your worker and you are my employer. If I offernot charity but a right, not bounty but justice, that I
my labor at the lowest price, if I consent to haveam pleading for. The present state of civilization is as
you live off my labor, it is certainly not because ofodious as it is unjust. It is absolutely the opposite of
devotion or brotherly love for you. And no bourgeoiswhat it should be, and it is necessary that a
economist would dare to say that it was, howeverrevolution should be made in it. The contrast of
idyllic and naive their reasoning becomes when theyaffluence and wretchedness continually meeting and
begin to speak about reciprocal affections and mutualoffending the eye, is like dead and living bodies
relations which should exist between employers andchained together." ["Agrarian Justice," by Thomas
employees. No, I do it because my family and IPaine.] In the same work, he wrote, "The state of
would starve to death if I did not work for ancivilization that has prevailed throughout Europe, is as
employer. Thus I am forced to sell you my labor atunjust in its principle, as it is horrid in its effects; and
the lowest possible price, and I am forced to do it byit is the consciousness of this, and the apprehension
the threat of hunger." ["The Capitalist System," bythat such a state cannot continue when once
Mikhail Bakunin.] In that same document, he alsoinvestigation begins in any country, that makes the
wrote, "The worker is in the position of a serfpossessors of property dread every idea of a
because this terrible threat of starvation which dailyrevolution." As Henry Salt once wrote, "Our capitalists
hangs over his head and over his family, will force himpersist to the bitter end in the fatuous assertion that
to accept any conditions imposed by the gainfulto live idly on the labour of others is not the same
calculations of the capitalist, the industrialist, thething as to steal." ["Thou Shalt Not Steal," by Henry
employer." Robert Green Ingersoll once wrote, "TheStephens Shakespeare Salt, Justice, March 14,
working people should be protected by law; if they1885.]What is it that we have before us? Great
are not, the capitalists will require just as many hoursinjustice, brutality, cruelty, misery, and vice. I believe
as human nature can bear." ["Eight Hours Mustthat every worker should be paid the wealth they
Come," by Robert Green Ingersoll.]Workers have noproduce. I believe that those who own capital should
property, so they cannot bargain. They cannotbe relinquished of their rights to the means of
demand higher wages, for while they do, theirproduction. Did Harriet Tubman ever leave money
children are shouting for bread that does not exist.behind, to compensate the slave-owner? Certainly
That is the result of Capitalism. A Capitalistnot! The idea of it is an absurdity. So, then, too, the
philosopher may speak of "freedom" or "liberty" all heCapitalist class should have its right to the means of
wants. But when it comes down to it, it's th politicsproduction released. Because, as they own the
of starving. It is perpetual poverty. A person canmeans of production, as they own the farms, they
argue all they want, "If the job is unfair, they canare then granted the economic right of exploitation,
quit and find another one." But as they are thrownwhich is opposed ot all good creeds. That is the first
back into the job market, they will rarely be able tostep to revolution. A law ought to be made... stating
find another boss willing to pay more.What is it thatthat no person may become wealthy from the labor
makes this sickening, revolting, and cruel, to the sightof another. Everyone should have an equal obligation
of every humane person? It is that the workers areto work. Upon this commencement, I believe the idea
responsible for producing the wealth! Adam Smithof Welfare ought to also be abolished, or at least
wrote, "It was not by gold or by silver, but byextremely minimalized. Once workers are being paid
labour, that all the wealth of the world was originallywhat they produce, no person will ever need a
purchased." ["Wealth of Nations", by Adam Smith,handout. Imagine, for instance, if instead of 2.5%, a
Book 1, Chapter 5.] Ingersoll wrote, "The great bodyperson was paid closer to 90% or 95%. Imagine
of the people make all the money; do all the work.every wage multiplied by forty. What you have,
They plow the land, cut down the forests; theythen, is that corporate profits, instead of going to
produce everything that is produced. Then who shallthe idle, go to the industrious. That is justice. Since
say what shall be done with what is produced exceptworking one hour will be able to get someone
the producer?" ["Centennial Oration," by Ingersoll.] Inenough subsistence for days, I imagine criminal
another work, he wrote, "All my sympathies are onactivity will be greatly reduced. Why would a robber
the side of those who toil -- of those who produceever decide to steal a TeeVee from someone's
the real wealth of the world -- of those who carryhome, when working one hour would be enough to
the burdens of mankind." ["Eight Hours Must Come,"produce one or two television sets? Instead of
by Ingersoll.] Friedrich Engels wrote, "Labour is thehaving our Capitalists decide for us what industries
source of all wealth, the political economists assert.are best, people would Democratically decide for
And it really is the source..." ["Part Played by Labour inthemselves what they want. By voting together,
Transition From Ape to Man," by Engels, 1876.]Theevery person will have a say in the matter of
fact that Capitalism incurs brutality is not at all atdecision-making. So, then, a new business will be
question. Robert Owen, an Industrialist and Utopianerected, or an old one destroyed, by the vote of
Socialist of the early 1800's, wrote that in onethe people. The industries of food, of housing, of
particular incident, a factory owner had employedluxuries, will all be determined by the people. In this
children ages 6, 7, and 8. They worked for thirteenregard, we will not have the egregious abuse of the
hours a day. Their work was so grueling and difficultconsumer that we have today under Capitalism. A
for such tender bodies, a great deal of them becameperson will never go into a tourist shop, and find a
permanently deformed. ["A New View of Society,"molded piece of pottery on sale for $40 (though it
by Robert Owen, essay 2.] Thomas Malthus alsocost $2 to make), upon which any rational person
noted the same, "Boys that you would guess to bewould respond, "We made this, while we have
fourteen or fifteen are, upon inquiry, frequentlystarving people in the corners of the globe?"That is
found to be eighteen or nineteen." ["An Essay on theCommunism, and that is what I believe in. Life,
Principle of Population," by Thomas Malthus.] The factPunkerslutPunkerslut (or Andy Carloff) has been
that Capitalists have been forcing workers to workwriting essays and poetry on social issues which have
under harsh conditions is not in question by anyonecaught his attention for several years. His website
known to the facts. To quote Robert Greenprovides a complete list of all of these writings. His
Ingersoll, "We have seen here in America street-carlife experience includes homelessness, squating in
drivers working sixteen and seventeen hours a day.New Orleans and LA, dropping out of high school,
It was necessary to have a strike in order to get togetting expelled from college for "subversive
fourteen, another strike to get to twelve, andactivities," and a myriad of other revolutionary
nobody could blame them for keeping on striking tillactions.
they get to eight hours." ["Eight Hours Must Come,"