Humanist Sparta and Greed-Based Societies

Capitalism is, quite simply, a system based on greed. Self-interest. Selfishness. Whatever you want to call it. Capitalism favors those who can think of the most legitimate sounding ways to immorally pursue their own interests. Human nature is flawed, but is the purpose of government not to reduce the capacity for human failure? To create an entity that is greater than the sum of it's parts, great enough to limit the ways in which corruption can occur? Capitalism not only allows corruption but rewards it, capitalism not only leaves room for greed but requires it to function. That's not to say capitalism is ineffective. It is effective, in fact it is ruthlessly effective simply because it has such a strong driving force—self-interest.

But in considering government, one must consider not only effectiveness but morality. Is it trulyright to essentially glorify avarice in the way that capitalism likes to do? Not to mention the homeless and destitute and oppressed generated by a capitalist society. Communism goes to the opposite extreme, attempting to eliminate greed by instituting a system in which everything is freely distributed. The problem is that the system works only under the assumption that whoever is doing the distributing is not subject to the failings of human nature. Power corrupts, history has shown us this time and time again. Communist Russia became very authoritarian and because of this and the United States' interference, Communist Russia was unsuccessful.

Humanism (not affiliated with other movements of the same name) advocates something of a crossover between the two. If one attempts to learn from history's mistakes it will be clear that wealth, whether in a capitalist or Communist society, will generate corruption. The only society in history to actually abolish wealth was ancient Sparta, an incredibly powerful military force and cultural center. All necessities were distributed equally, free of charge. The one problem with such a system is that it eliminates individuality. Art and literature were all but nonexistent. No means for self-expression, no individualized property, was available.

Humanism does not wish to take this route exactly but rather a modified version of it. All monetary wealth—and with it greed—would be abolished, all necessities provided by the government. But more than necessities. Things like paintings, posters, clothing, music, all would be distributed free of charge. Likewise the materials for creating art or literature would be government-provided. Thus individual expression is preserved but free of any sort of avarice. Art and literature would be created for self-expression only, not profit.

Of course the vast majority of the world today is very adverse to such “strict” government control, but this is no government like the American government, or the French government, or the Italian government, or any other form of social order flourishing today. This is a government that is genuinely of by and for the people, based off the consent of the governed and reflecting the will of the people as determined by majority. Saying the government distributes all commodities would be synonymous to saying the people distribute all commodities.

This sounds radical in the extreme, and profoundly Communist-leaning. Haven't we all been programmed with a deadly fear of anything so extreme, of anything remotely anti-capitalist? Of course. “Better dead than red,” America says. But America supports freedom of expression, doesn't it? Isn't that in the American constitution? The very first Amendment? Doesn't the US constitution say that all political factions have equal rights? So of course America would never say such a thing. Would it?