The Flaws Of Communitarianism: DEBUNKED

(This is a re-post from my blog, The Communitarian Section, which has better formatting and the link is in my profile).

Even though communitarianism is ridiculously niche, it does receive a fair amount of criticism, which is one reason why it's so unheard of.

Even peeping socially conservative views is social suicide, because brain-washed people will consider you to be hateful and ignorant; hypocritically.

On the other hand, any kind of liberal or socialist economics is shot down as immature and naive nonsense, especially in the news media.

In the last few years I have swung from left to right on the political scale like a grandfather's clock.

I've been convinced with logical arguments by both sides, but now I know of their errors and have become familiar with communitarianism itself.

So now I have the competence to scrutinise some of the biggest criticisms of traditional conservatism and socialist views, that relate to communitarianism.

"The Definition of a Community is So Vague".
A community can be formed by a collective who share something in common, by choice or not.

This can be in terms of geographic location, family, workplace, religion, social activity, volunteer group and others. All of these things make a person who they are, the attitudes they have, the experiences they gain and how they interact with the world.

"You Can't Force People Where to Live!"

I had to put the most retarded criticism near the top. This one has been mentioned in one or two journals online, written by scholars. Who apparently believe we want a society reminiscent of the Soviet Union, a place where it was near impossible for a citizen to freely move from one place to another if they wanted to. Only the government determined where, when, why and if it served a purpose to it. I don't know how they pulled this out of their arse.

Communitarianism doesn't advocate imprisoning people in the place that they were born in.

We just understand the importance of a community, and even in the not so good ones, the profound impact it has on people for the rest of their lives. Obviously culture shapes people, but so does the subculture of the region they grew up in, even after migrating to a different one within their country.

A good example is Los Angeles, where Americans from the East Coast, West Coast and the fly-over zone flock to for different reasons.

There are many people who leave their home town for a place that better suits their worldview, but the morals and disposition they were raised with never goes away.

If anything, people migrating to a more suitable home is encouraged. Because it allows them to dedicate themselves to a place they feel more welcome, and will feel more motivated to contribute towards. A place to start a family, contribute to the local economy, volunteer and to just live their lives.

"Why do You Care What Adults do with Their Lives?"

It goes without saying that we live in a very individualistic society. If you believe people should conduct themselves in a certain way, you're called a prude.

The fact is each person's lifestyle effect the lives of who they know and even total strangers, because solipsism isn't true. It seems difficult to understand when our society is so large, impersonal and interconnected, but try and imagine progressivism in a tribe of less than fifty people. The lifestyle choices each member makes, would fracture the tribe and doom their survival.

You, advocating multiculturalism for the sake of 'love' and 'tolerance' and 'diversity'; is why there's an increase of crime in metropolitan areas across Europe and North America.

You, insisting on gay adoption or single-parenthood, is one of the reasons why I'm viewed as a sperm dispenser, and my role as a father would be considered below useless and irrelevant.

You, accepting and promoting girls to whore it up every weekend and riding the cock-carousel, is why 'good, tradcon' girls are called 'unicorns'.

You, divorce raping your husband, is why my wedding would just be an over-priced piss-up.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't blame the world for my problems. I'm fully aware that the actions I make (or don't) every day affects my life, and that I'm responsible for myself

But the actions everyone else makes affects the people around them, which moulds the culture we inhabit.

"Why Should I Pay for Other Peoples' Stuff?"

Why should you part with your hard earned money, just to give away to layabouts and so other people's kids can have schools?

As a society we have declared ourselves as a collective that depends on each other, not loners roaming around in a wasteland. When a citizen falls into tough times, such as unemployment or having a physical injury, it is in your best interest to keep that person afloat with temporary benefits or universal basic income. It's better for them to feed and shelter on themselves, consume and sustain their mental health, while looking for work or recovery. Than for them to become homeless, commit crimes, become addicted to a substance or whatever else.

These are dramatic possibilities, but the most definite consequences are a drop in mental health, not spending money in the economy and not being a tax source. If we sacrifice a small part of our money for the unfortunate, then we will save a lot more in the long run on even more demand for social programs and charities.

In terms of public services, there are a lot of neoliberal and free-marketer cowboys who think they should be privatised industries that are driven by competition.

Getting a decent education, housing, transport and medicine is not a privilege from birth; they are basic human rights. If we all chip in the pot, we will all then take in the benefits.

There's an economic jargon called fiscal multiplication, when governments spend money on public services, then reap in even more; like an investment.

So in relation to how government spending isn't just pissing away money (that conservatives want you to believe), everyone being provided for these basic services even benefits those who pay taxes, but don't use them personally. We all pay taxes for clever people to get their medical doctorate at university, even though most of us haven't made that life choice. But wouldn't you be happy if our doctors were able to get the qualifications they needed, instead of having to settle for an alternative career path because the tuition fees were too high, or the course we defunded?

"Money is the Biggest Motivator in Life!"

Those who make the accumulation of money their life goal, are really after status, attention and material goods. But the wealthy are no happier than those who just about get by, because once basic comfort and security is met (which reduces stress and shame), a big TV and sports car won't make you happy. They're just objects.

All the musicians, painters and writers in the world dedicate their lives to a chosen craft, but most aren't able to support themselves from the earnings (if any) for a single month. Yet they still do it.

Not just artists, people choose a career path that might be less lucrative than another, but still go down that road because it will make them passionate and fulfilled.

Humans are motivated and gain happiness from creation, innovation, creativity, tackling adversity, solving problems and charity. Not just serving our own needs.

Capitalists argue that in a socialist economy, where the means of production are owned collectively by the workers, noone would have the incentive to start a business because they would have to share control and the profits with other people.

But instead of just becoming an entrepreneur for the independence, building something your proud of, and hopefully having a large salary. Wouldn't there be even more fulfilment from making your community a better place, and making your workers' lives more comfortable on top of that?

The founder would still be the manager, and not blend in as one blue-overall among many, who didn't necessarily create the business.

"Socially Conservative & Fiscally Liberal? That's Fascism!"

These simplified similarities cannot be denied. Mussolini's fascism and Hitler's national socialism heavily promoted and encouraged traditional sex roles, while their governments were very involved in the economy.

But the parallel ends there. Fascism is borderline ethno-nationalist, communitarianism accepts pluralism. Fascism had a very 'top-to-bottom' system of economics, while communitarianism wants the reverse, by supporting labour unions and cooperatives. We want a more decentralised state, but fascism is very monolithic.

"Huh."

These are the criticisms that I know of and were able to debunk myself. Any worldview that's so obscure is bound to be shrouded in misconceptions, especially if it's one that contradicts the false reality we have built for ourselves.