The Glaring Fallacy Behind Communism?

I decided a long time ago that there was no possiblility of a communist state ever being anything other than a police state. I think that this idea is born out by both reason and experience. Here I will assume that the experiential evidence speaks for itself for anyone who wishes to look at how communism has worked in the real world. I will therefore concentrate on the logic of why the communist state must always end up in being a police state.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". These are magic words; just words; inspirational words. And there must surely be a race of aliens somewhere in the Universe that could apply those words successfuly. But the individuals that believed that these words could be made to work for man were drunk on their own idealism and blind to the reality of the nature of man. Today this attitude of arrogant ultrahumanism still reigns in academic circles and among the sanctimonious pseudo intellectuals who call themselves liberals, leftists, and socialists. In their zeal to accomplish this they feel certain that any means will be justified by such a nobel end. All the failed attempts to bring about this high ideal in the past have only been due to misunderstanding, corruption and the failings of man, they believe. If man could be properly educated and if the right implementation is followed, then the communist utopia is still possible. In fact, not only is it possible, but it is the only acceptable destiny for mankind.

The transparent and even obvious failings of Marx's ideal never crosses the dogmatically rigid mind of the communists and their little brothers on the left. The full impact of the term "From each" is never inspected to see what it can possibly mean in the real world.

In the early years of any communist revolution the "From each" is not according to his abilities, but rather "From each" according to his wealth. The state appropriates the property of the wealthy and distributes it to the poor. The result is a boon for the poor, but a very shorted sighted and short lived one. Wealth is not a static entity and the wealth that is distributed to the poor will not raise their living standard except for a breif period of time. After the wealth is consumed, whether it be in a year or in twenty years, they will return to being poor. The process of appropriating the property of the wealthy cannot be repeated because the wealthy were made poor by the initial appropriation and they have absolutely no motivation to reaquire wealth. Not only do they have no motiviation, but the communist system will not allow it to happen. So the revolution results in a one time windfall for the poor that can never be repeated. In any case, the appropriation of personal wealth is always the first action of the police state, setting the groundwork for the police state that must always remain there after the appropriation phase.

After the property of the wealthy has been distributed, the "From each" takes on a new meaning. Now the property of every individual must be continously appropriated so that the state can redistribute it according to what it determines to everyone's needs. Man being man, he does not volunteer his property. In fact he will make every effort to hide as much of it from the state as possible. So now the "From each" requires a huge and repressive police state to insure that those two little words are accomplished. A network of spies must exist in all communities to insure that no one can refuse to give up the fruits of their labor. Since the entire fabric of the political system depends on the state being able to take everyones property, the punishment for having the gall to try to keep your property must be high. Why, then, is it not obvious to the most casual observer of human beings that "From each" of neccessity requires the establishment of a pervasive and intimidating police state. Why is it not obvious that the individual must be forced to give up the product of his labor and therefore must even be forced to do that labor.

Man from birth seems to have a feeling of personal property that is never taught, but is simply innate to the animal. When my 2 year old plays with other 2 year olds she shows jealous ownership of her own toys when playing at her own home. And the other children show jealous ownership of their property when she is playing at their homes. I have never made any effort to teach her this characteristic. Since this feature of mankind is anithetical to the communist ideal, the individual in the communist state must be subjected to a life long regimen of propaganda in order to get him to belive and act in opposition to his natural characteristics. As far as I have been able to determine the propaganda effort is never more than partially convincing. As the Soviet Union has shown, the transition from decades of communist propaganda to a new believe in capitalism took absolutely no propaganda at all.

The natural result of the communist philosophy is that the "From each" requires a repressive police state that is able to extract only a paltry amount of wealth from it's unwilling participants. And that paltry amount will then become a "to each" that gives all a share of a small appropriation and leaves the entire state in a condition of poverty. The state is capable of making everyone equally poor. But it is not capable of making everyone rich, or even of making everyone middle class.

Judges and Religion - The Young / Bainbridge Debate

I think that the problem that Stephen Bainbridge has with Cathy Young's article is that he accepted the way in which she framed the debate; and then he was stuck in a virtually unwinnable position. He did, however, make a good run at it. Let's take another look at Cathy's argument.
The focus of her article is whether or not religious bigotry is involved in the selection of judicial nominees. She then centers her dismissal of such a claim by concentrating on the connection between being anti abortion and being religious."A pro-abortion-rights litmus test for federal judges may be wrong, but it's preposterous to claim, as some conservatives have, that it amounts to a religious test that disqualifies ''serious" Catholics and evangelical Protestants from public office."She then assumes that if she can show that a pro-abortion-rights test is not in fact a religious test, she has then shown that there is no religious bigotry. Unfortunately, proving the one, has nothing to do with proving the other.
A pro-abortion-rights test, along with any other number of test, may or may not indicate religious bigotry, depending on how the opposition to the anti-abortion judical nominee is seen. In Chuck Shumer's, as well as other senators case, the bigotry is fairly clear. When they are refering to Pryor being influenced by his "very deeply held believes", what in the world are they talking about but his religion. The "very deeply held" portion tells you that they are talking about religion without wanting to mention the word religion. This is in effect code that all of the people over at Daily KOS, as well as many of the left's other supporters, will immediately understand. Deeply held believes equals religion and religion equals extreme and irrational ideas.If I had a deeply held believe in saving the environment you would not hear the left using that terminology to describe me.
I think that Cathy fails to make the point that it isn't religion that is the problem, but rather the ideas that come from that religion. She points out that democrats are pro abortion and pro gay rights and that their objection is to the opposing views from people of religion, not to religion itself. If that is the case, then the democrats would make the logical argument for why those views associated with religion are wrong, or even out of the mainstream. But instead they take the shortcut by taring them as "deeply held believes". Having done that they need no further arguments of logic because they have already pressed the magic bigotry buttons among their followers. Their followers nod their heads together - sharing a common knowledge - that religion equals superstition and backwards thinking.
Let's consider, what is it that makes these judical nominees extremists if not their religion. Is being anti-abortion extremist? Certainly not in the minds of most Americans. Can the Democrats make the case that being anti-abortion is somehow irrational or superstitious. It seems to me that taking a position that some magic happens to a fetus such that 5 seconds before birth is is non human while 5 seconds after birth it has become imbued with some transcendent quality called humanity is much more of an irrational position.While I can't personally buy into the father figure in the sky concept, I also cannot accept that everything else is false or backwards or foolish simply because it is religious. And I also cannot accept that all things secular are progressive and intellectual.
So the question remains, what about these judges is extreme if not their deeply held believes. Doesn't Chuck Shumer have deeply held believes about his own liberal principles. Of course he does, but he doesn't refer to them that way because such references are clearly meant of be a shorthand dismissal of people of religion.