Anti-Communism Disarms our Movement

By Sandy Perry

As the movement for economic survival grows stronger, it will inevitably be branded “communist” again and again, just as has every other effective American social change movement. This is because the target of anti-communism is not just the communists, or even mainly the communists, but the entire movement. Anti-communism is a weapon of choice for those who seek to discredit anyone who challenges the privilege of the ruling elites.
Anti-communists tend to call everyone who advocates change a communist, regardless of who they really are, what they think, or what their actual affiliation or ideology. They target not only self-proclaimed communists, but also liberals, Democrats, socialists, Christians, Martin Luther King, anarchists, Social Democrats, priests, nuns, unionists, civil rights advocates, service providers, peace activists, Michael Moore, and others. Many even call the President of the United States a communist.

So is our movement really communist? The answer is yes and no, because it depends on what you mean by communism.

The literal dictionary definition of communism is a cooperative economic system based on common ownership, where wealth is distributed on the basis of human need rather than private profit. Most early Western concepts of communism were based on the accounts of how the original Christians lived, and on sixteenth and seventeenth century observations of the lives of Native Americans.

The movements of the dispossessed today are spontaneous, practical movements for the basic necessities of life: food, clothing, health care, and a place to sleep. People are impelled to join these movements because America’s economy is broken and no longer offers them any other means to survive.

Over the last three decades, automation and globalization have demolished many cities and eliminated entire industries, leaving for most people only massive unemployment and a smattering of low-wage service jobs. As the financial meltdown, bailouts, and stimulus plans have proven, the economy can no longer function without government intervention. The question is, whom will that government intervention benefit? Will it continue to enrich the wealthiest people in America (as it has so far)? Or will it help meet the needs of ordinary Americans, whose standard of living has been steadily declining in recent years?

The dispossessed today cannot survive without fighting for government to stop bailing out corporations and start bailing out people in need. In this sense we are all communists, because we seek the political power to redistribute society’s wealth on the basis of human needs instead of private ownership. We do this when we fight for jobs, wages, health care, education, and affordable housing.

When anti-communists claim that “communism does not work”, the communism they  usually refer to is the twentieth century, Soviet-style Marxist communism. The Soviet communist movement never achieved a real communist economy, however, because its industrial-era means of production did not create enough of an abundance to make it possible. Today our electronic means of production are much more advanced.

The twentieth century, Marxist left has splintered and declined, and an ideologically diverse practical movement has arisen in its place. This movement is not communist in the ideological sense, since it comprises people of all different ways of thinking. But it is being called communist because it objectively confronts the system.

When the anti-communists are done, we are left in the same situation we were already in before: broke, homeless, disorganized, unemployed, with no prospect of work, no health care, not knowing which way to turn, and not even having a safe and legal place to sleep. Clearly anti-communism does not improve our situation and does not answer any of our problems.

  Americans should not fear to criticize the failure of capitalism. It is already clear that it can no longer meet the needs of our people. The question is what new system for distributing our wealth will emerge, and will it provide for our basic necessities so we can survive? The important thing is to not let political and ideological differences get in the way of building a practical movement to win the power we need to shape our future.