Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00438)

Dallas TenBroeck wrote:
> In regard to "Communism":
> The DICTIONARY says: "A system of social organization in which goods
> are held in common;" Any system of social organization involving
> common ownership of the agents of production, and some approach to
> equal distribution of the products of industry."
You got a lousy dictionary there. While a number of philosophers have 
discussed the ideas called Communism, the basis of Communism is still 
"from each according to his own ability and to each according to his own 
need." It was never about equality, at most, it was about equivalency. 
You do acknowledge that to some extent...

> Theosophically what does it mean: "Holding things in common and making
> them available as needed."
However, you also say (and I did take this out of order):

> I find in dealing with this "communism" word-idea, that many have been
> "brain-washed" politically and mentally, into believing it is a "bad
> name," and consequently, they wont, or are afraid of, discussing it.
> Even its misplaced and malacted idealism is rejected.
One problem is that Communist philosophers rely on entirely fictional 
history to back up their ideas. They believe that Communism is the 
natural system of humanity, discussing Communist Paradises that existed 
in the past, and a few evil people created cultures out of whole cloth 
which brainwashed the people, creating evil and greed which did not 
exist before (you find this particularly in Engels, and it is prominent 
in the modern Communists of the Frankfurt School.

> Regardless of these, brotherhood can still be applied, and those who
> have "wealth" can advance money (or goods and services) to be used to
> "help" all those who are needy, outcastes, poor, etc.. It is to
> establish forms of equity and treatment that "governments" are
> devised. Inherent in this concept of popularly regulated "government'
> is the concept of the Law of Karma that rules all, even when not well
> grasped, as a fact in Nature. It is a recognition of the fact that
> each individual has a right to justice and mercy, and ought to
> regulate their own lives, and choices for action and speaking, by
> using those features of the human psyche in dealing with all others.
The major problem with Communism is that it assumes that, under a 
Communist system, greed and evil will naturally disappear. Communist 
systems can and do work, but only up to the point where someone points 
to someone else and says, "That guy isn't working as hard as he can", or 
"that person is getting more than they need." This creates a new job; 
those who determine how hard people can work, and how much they need. 
And, unless these are good, incorruptible people, corruption will set 
in. And those who will work the hardest to get these jobs will generally 
be the most corruptible.

> Were does the idea of "communism" arise? Perhaps the oldest
> suggestions of this nature in the "West" can be attributed to Plato
> and are to be found in his dialog: THE REPUBLIC. This is an
> important book and all students of Theosophical philosophy ought to be
> acquainted with it.
The Republic was based on benevolent dictatorship, with the common 
people having few, if any rights. The people lose the ability to work 
out their own karma.

The basic flaw of Communism is the assumption that anarchy leads 
inevitably to Communism, while history has proven, time and time again, 
that anarchy leads to FEUDALISM. Even Adam Smith's dream of economic 
anarchy ended up leading to economic feudalism; paradoxically, the 
economy must be regulated in order to maximize its freedom.

H.P. Blavatsky stated that a Communist could not be a Theosophist.
Consider why.

Bart Lidofsky