(Response to a Student of Communism Critique)

Thank you for your comments on The Political Spectrum: Freedom vs. Enslavement. Your views definitely stimulate my thoughts and give me new perspective. 

 It’s interesting to me that when academic individuals review my book, either from the left or the right, their biggest, perhaps unspoken criticism, is that its not complex enough.  I have to confess, it’s as simple as I could possibly make it and still get the basic concept across, which was the point of my writing it. I even took the time to include a glossary for words that a young reader might not know.  

 My response to this complexity issue is always the same, the complexity, as you are indicating is not with the spectrum itself, but with the number of views by which each political system may be seen and used. I comment on this in the book. The solution is not to make the spectrum more complex, but to acknowledge that the workability of any political system is in its application and WHO is implementing it.

Communism in the hands of a constructive group with a common purpose and goal, working together as a team to achieve survival is an exceptional support system, IF it is done with the individual’s agreement, free will and self determinism, and if he is free to leave if he no longer supports the goals or purposes of the group. Perhaps that commonality toward a purpose and group survival is what you see in communism that makes it so appealing.

However, why communism becomes the catalyst to destroy other’s beliefs and systems becomes a question in human nature, not politics. Does a person’s actions result in more constructive activity than destructive activity for the the individual, the family, the group and mankind? To the degree it actively oppresses any one (or more) of these, to that degree it is destructive and oppressive, and thus you have the spectrum.

The Political Spectrum of Freedom vs. Enslavement actually allows for a form of communism that would perhaps be as free and successful as I see a constitutional republic. As I mention in the book, communism has worked successfully for religious groups. But by actual experience, when used for political purposes (even by religious groups politically) has mainly been used as a tool of oppression.

The “political” spectrum as it is laid out in the book, holds very true. You can dissect any political system of any age and position it somewhere on this scale, based on how it is  implemented and its result. This would be an interesting exercise but would not change the understanding of the scale, but it would increase the understanding of any political system.  

Perhaps you may object to the use of “Communism” as a symbol of oppression and enslavement of the individual. But it undeniably has earned the reputation and position by those who have ruled under its banner. Of course Communist China calls itself a Democratic Republic and has a Constitution, so why do they not fall on the right of the Freedom vs Enslavement spectrum? Their name sounds just like the American system. Well, you would have to read their Constitution and see HOW and If it is implemented to determine its location on the spectrum. Just as HOW and IF America’s Constitution is being implemented. And one would find our country is far to the left of what its founders envisioned. 

Thank you for your continued interest and discussion in the book. I look forward to hearing from you again, soon.

David