| nemesis |
Posted
on 03-Mar-02 04:46 PM
This part I and part II are inseperable from each other.
On the bold Maoist Revolution in Nepal
The 20th century was so far the most significant for the history of communism . By the end of the century a lot of people in the western world (non-communist) had believed that, with the fall of the Russian communist leadership after Gorbachev and Zemin adapting a more market oriented (although still brutal) approach to leadership, that the rule of communism was over. The proof for this theory is still out. Nepal, by no stretch of imagination is a superpower, or is going to become one any time soon, and certainly not under communist leadership. But let us discuss that later.
In the context of the Maoist Revolution in Nepal I want to show that communism, of whichever coloeur is wrong, is depriving humans of choice, and inherently has to rely on an oppressive, totalitarian, and brutal leadership, which is disregarding the human rights of individuals in the most uttering fashion. If for the disgrace of the beautiful country of Nepal the Maoists actually do gain power, I predict a dark and ugly future for the very people for which Maoists pretend to fight. My thesis will be based on two observations that I will explain in the remainder of this text:
1. Communism is based on the suppression of the most common instinct of any individual, to seek the maximization of fulfillment of wants with limited means
2. Communism is inherently unable to deliver “Security of the Law”, as established as an important ingredient of a working a prosperous society during the Aufklaerung, and thus, without exception, has to result in suppressed economic activity, leading to poverty of the ruled class.
Corollary: Communism will unvaryingly have a ruling and a ruled class, with little transparency between these classes, thus fulfilling every requirement for a totalitarian regime.
This article should not be misunderstood as a legitimatization for an oppressive system. Despite the fact that Nepal today does not typically shows up in Amnesty International reports as a mean violator of human rights, does not mean that the current rulers of Nepal do not constantly endeavor in economic suppression of the poor, and if by no other means than holding out to corrupt leadership.
Greed is not good, but a fact of life:
The motivation of humans, and I would dare say, all species, is based on the expectation of reward for economic achievement. This can be traced down to the most rudimentary needs. Humans, as well as all other species, try to satisfy unlimited wants with limited means. Choice is important to fulfill these needs to the best possible. Those who make the best choices could be (in an ideal world at least) in the best position in the long run, without compromising too much “quality of life” in the short run. While for lower life forms, the long run might be a matter of seconds or minutes, for humans and higher animals the long-run can mean life-long planning. The wolf in the pack will most likely stay within the pack, even if the bitch next to h er might snap more often than she would like it to happen. Staying in the pack remains a good choice.
It is the central theme of communism that defies this exact reason for motivation of human behavior. The thesis that everyone is born equal is certainly a noble (although not reachable) one. The thesis that everyone therefore also has to die equal is ridiculous. There are many factors while some people achieve more or less, and the metrics with which each of us measures this success is actually the main stay of human individuality. This individuality needs choice. For the scientist the main achievement might be a breakthrough in a certain field, with the glory of immediate name recognition. Achievement may actually only partially tied to financial gain (Every post-doc can attest to that, or should rather get out of the field before getting to old…..). For the financial manager, financial gain might be important, the motivation though is not necessary economic gain but the knowledge to be “good at the game”. The priest may join the church to get away from all material good, in exchange for spiritual enlightenment, again his or her choice. And then there are of course also those individuals who want just to get rich at all cost. Ultimately, all this motivation can be reduced to greed. Michael Douglas quotes “Greed is good” in Wall Street. I don’t think he is right, but it is a fact of life. When trying to enforce equality, and communist rule doesn’t stop at trying to enforce economic equality, the rulers will take away choices. The result, as psychologists will attest, on the individual level is depression, or in a good case “coping”. Neither behavior will foster economic activity, one reason for which the economic development of communist countries typically lags behind those of countries acknowledging the main principle of human motivation.
You (hopefully) will ask then why many non-communist countries are not more prosperous. Shouldn’t one expect then, that fascist countries with oppressive leaderships as in Chile and Peru should prosper. An obvious explanation is that the leadership, through corruption and neputism (as in Nepal) will stifle economic development by simply siphoning too much capital out of the circle to be available for re-investment and economic development. But this is only part of the explanation. Another explanation is a little more subtle.
|
| nemesis |
Posted
on 03-Mar-02 04:48 PM
This is part II of 2 parts
On the bold Maoist Revolution, cont'd
Exploitive (totalitarian) regimes typically lack a judiciary system, which is independent from government rule. Often there is not even a system to record property. A recent estimate is that unrecorded property worldwide is worth more than $40trillion. This is property which can not be used as co-lateral for getting loans to drive economic development. To explain: As long as I don’t have a deed for my house, no bank will give me a low APR equity loan. It might give me a high APR loan, because the bank has to absorb higher risk. With the higher APR the opportunity cost (discount rate) of my planned investment might get too high, so I don’t do it: Economic development is short of this investment. The same regimes typically don’t even give security of the law to the individuals. Who haven’t heard about the many people disappearing in countries like Argentina, Chile, Nigeria, Afghanistan, or South Korea, to name a few without excusing any of those countries where people are routinely disappearing which have not been mentioned here. When looking at European history, current thinking today is that the great depression, which lasted between the 12th and 18th century was largely due to the insecurity in which people lived day-to-day.
It is interesting that the opposite seems to be true, too. As mentioned earlier, the idea of “security of the law” was re-invented in the 17th century in Central Europe (actually the idea has been around several thousand years before, but often abandoned by the ruling parties, and often then followed by the demise of their empires). Taking Europe as an example, one might argue that there was a prolonged depression, from roughly the 11th century until to the end of the 17th century, for which largely the rulers in Europe are to blame themselves. They have abandoned the principle of security of the law. More modern examples might be China and South Korea. Both countries have made strides to improve the security of the law situation (It would be a far shot to say that they have actually arrived). The economic development of these countries does coincide with this development. In an assay I read in the late 70ies another point was made. Apparantly economic success has to come before real political freedom can be achieved. At the time the author (and unfortunately I have forgotten who it was) argued that an average income of $3000 per year is necessary to successfully start a democratic movement. Once the average income reaches about $7000 per year, the movement typically can not be reversed anymore. It appears to me now that therefore the order of events have to be as follows:
First there needs to be economic development, fostered by the security of the law, which is ultimately important for investment and economic stimulus.
Second there can be democratization, i.e., fostering of further participation of all individuals in the political process.
As discussed earlier, both points require the freedom of choice, and, as a motivator for the desire of choice, the acceptance of the first economic principle.
Communist rule, because it can not allow freedom of choice (see above) are bound to lack this security of the law, typically in both dimensions (the material and the personal). I know of no communist regime that grants security of the law. Communist regimes have shown no adherence to due process in no country. Millions of people (approximately 30 million, this is for you NK.) where killed by Stalin. I don’t know the exact number of other people disappearing in the later regimes, they must be in the several 100s of thousands. If ever you needed a taste read “Archipal Gulak” by Alexander Solchinizin. . 10 million where from the military corps, which was the reason why Stalin had to submit to a non-aggression pact with Adolf Hitler. The Chinese government under Maoist rule has killed many million people, most of which who actually where peasants and other main constituencies for which Mao pretended to fight. China still executes people on a regular basis with no due prospect, and little makes me believe that this is going to change any time soon. The secret police of GDR was twice as big as that of the Nazi Germany, although the population it watched (or protected?) was only roughly a third of that. If anyone believes that a Maoist rule in Nepal will spare the main population the atrocities that has been done by communist rule in other countries is a dreamer. Certain, there is no excuse for corruption, absence of due process, absence of the concept of security of the law and absence of respect for human rights in non-communist regimes. However, the suppression of choice forces any communist regime to be just as brutal as those totalitarian regimes it typically tries to replace. The numbers that NK shows in her reply seem well researched. If you would just take the time to compare that to the populations these countries featured at the time of their communist rule, you would see that approximately 10% of the population was eradicated before the rulers where halted in their attempt to make every-one a communist. As tendency, as poorer the country was, as higher the fraction of population eradicated by the communist rulers. Does this mean, by even conservative estimates, we will have to wait until the Maoists are killing another 1,995,000 people. Or more, given the fact that Nepal is so poor?
|
