COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	commun[e86,jmc]	Reforming communism requires getting rid of the communist party
C00012 ENDMK
C⊗;
commun[e86,jmc]	Reforming communism requires getting rid of the communist party

	Soviet style socialism rules many countries now.  Economically it
has done poorly compared to capitalism.  Politically it has been oppressive.
Its economic difficulties are recognized even by the leaderships of
these countries.  If any of them recognize their political deficiencies,
they aren't inclined to admit it.

	Intellectual supporters of capitalism, and there are many more
than there were 50 years ago, consider the experience of Soviet style
socialism a confirmation of the criticism of socialist ideas that were
made even before the Soviet Union was established.  Indeed the arguments
against socialism made today are substantially the same as those of 75
years ago, except that hardly anyone anticipated that socialism would so
often take genocidal forms, or that socialist countries would be so ready
to go to war against each other.

	I want to separate the idea of socialism from the idea of a
state ruled by a communist party.  Even without communist parties,
socialism has certain defects, but to me it isn't certain that these
defects cannot be overcome.  I would not advocate the U.S. or any
present capitalist country adopt any form of socialism.  However,
the idea of socialism had intellectual attraction to many.  It would
be best if the some of the present socialist countries would try to
fix its defects, and then the world could see how well they succeed.

	The Chinese are trying to fix the defects of their system by
injecting a certain amount of capitalism, but they are leaving the
"leading role" (in fact dictatorship) of the communist party intact.
My opinion is that this cannot make China into a good country in
which to live.


What is a communist party?

	Communist parties have the following characteristics:

	1. They are voluntary organizations, but not everyone who
wants to is allowed in.  The criteria for membership is nominally
dedication to the cause, but in fact personal relationships tend
to dominate.

	2. Communist parties interpenetrate all other organizations
in the society and control them.  This includes the economy at all
levels from ministries to departments of plants and offices, cultural,
educational and scientific organizations.  No organization is allowed
to exist and have meetings without the permission and control of the
communist party.  Publication is party controlled also, and there
is a nominally secret censorship organization.

	3. Communist control exists at all levels.  In the Soviet
Union directives from the relevant department of the bureaucracy
nominally under the central committee of the party go to ministries.
The ministers and other high officials are party members, but
the central committee bureaucracy and its departments are a separate
organization.  Lower levels of the party also control lower level
organizations to some extent and this creates a system of dual
authority.

	4. In spite of its ruling position, communist parties are
substantially secret organizations.  In particular, party directives
are secret, and many executive decisions made under party directives
must be justified by the executive as his own.

	5. Associated with the party is a system of privileges.
Because of the distorted price system in a communist country ---
a consequence of most socialist doctrines --- there are shortages
of many goods including especially apartments.  Therefore, these
are allocated politically.

	These intended and admitted aspects of Soviet style
socialism have unintended and unadmitted consequences.  These
include the following:

	1. Top down rule.  Elections are shams, because there is
only one candidate for offices and that the one recommended by
higher authority.  Almost always there is a single man at the top.

	2. There is very little discussion of fundamental aspects
of policy in the party or press.  All major changes take the form
of sudden top-directed shifts.  A very large fraction of them are
at the initiative of the top leader.

	3. All such countries have turned out to be gerontocracies.
The top man stays till he dies, and his cronies stay until they
die or are replaced by the new top man.

	4. The succession isn't necessarily orderly.  Coups of
one kind or another are common.


	All of the above are harmful to the society and its efficiency,
but it seems to me that the biggest reason for inefficiency comes
from the career pattern of the party official.

	1. A party official needs no specific competence, although
certainly energy helps.

	2. Advancement occurs by becoming a follower of a rising
older and higher official.  In this Soviet style socialism resembles
feudalism.  The skills of a courtier decisively important.

	3. It is an advantage to be brutal and selfish.  Power goes
to those who think about power all the time.

	The result is that a communist party ruled country brings
bad people to the top.  Supporting them is a larger drain on the
economic resources of a country than supporting a hereditary nobility.
Indeed there is a certain tendency that may take a few hundred years
to develop fully for communist parties to be converted into hereditary
nobilities.  In the past hereditary monarchies have been more stable
than oligarchies as pro-monarchist theorists used to point out.


It's really different from the West

	Some people may be inclined to minimize these differences
and point out that some of the same tendencies exist in the democracies.
Indeed they do, but their effect is limited by countervailing forces.

	1. Many corporations have feudal structures in which courtiers
get ahead.  However, even very large corporations have competitors
and suffer losses and even bankruptcy if their officials are incompetent
or overly greedy.  Many corporations make determined searches outside
the company for new leaders, and one often reads about the new
corporate president being the result of such a search and someone
previously unknown to the old president or board of directors.

	2. Political success in a democracy depends on personal
dedication to getting ahead politically.