Basic HTML Version
12
ruined every utopian dream clown
through history.
Later utopías did recognize the need
to change human nature - yet they too
failed. Human nature refused to be
molded to fit a pattern. People want
frecdom to do as they please; thcy resist
change. They want to
be
good but not
do
good. They want the "good life"
without doing the action which pro·
duces this life. Wbere this effect is not
accounted for, and overcome, no utopía
or good life on earth can
be
achieved.
Witness another example of drcams of
a new life which crumbled.
Sir Thomas More lived in England
during the reign of Henry VIII, at the
beginning of the 16th century. More
saw many evils of society. He detested
the social wrongs of his country, the
corruption of the clergy, the sufferings
of the poor, the destruction of wars and
the luxurious living of the elite.
His "utopía" (a word
he
coined, and
the title of a book he wrote
propounding his ideals) was both an
indictment of the society
he
lived in,
and a proposal of a new society which
would usher in
"the
good life" for all .
More's utopia was founded on an
agricultura! base, where it was assumed
that a high perfection of the art would
be achieved. His utopía was located on
a crescent shaped
island,
made of farm
lands and 54 cities!
It
assumed the ulti·
mate cooperation of men with men. No
trades were esteemed above others (to
the dismay of modero labor unions !) .
When farmers needed more hands, they
merely called the city magistrates, who
supplied them.
Just
hou•,
More did not
fully elaborate.
More thought that "fear of lack
causes covetousoess and greed; in man
also pride, which counts it a glorious
thing to surpass and excel others in the
superfluous and vain ostentation of
things. But this kind of vice among the
Utopians
can have no place" (Utopia,
by Sir Thomas More,
D.
Van Nostrand
Co., Inc.,
1947,
pp. 92·93).
In other words, basic problems of
human nature were to be overcome
before one entered More's utopía. Great
thinking, yet highly unlikely by human
standards.
His proposals were never tried in
their entirety, mute testimony to the
The
PLAIN TRUTH
ineffectiveness of idealistic thinking.
More had no power to remake society as
he saw fit. Therefore, his ideas were
little more than theoretical paper
dreams.
No matter how great the ideals, how
sincere the motives, how lofty the
principies, we must recognize the basic
truth that neither More nor any other
hmwm beinf!.
has the power to remold,
reshape and rebuild society after a set
partero.
Men
can think up utopian ideals
ad
in[init11m,
but until human beings them·
selves think and act differently, utopía
will remain a theory.
At this point, consider another system
which is widely extant in the world
today - Communism.
Communism is merely another philo·
sophical system attempting to bring
the good life to its citizens. Jt bopes
even to change human nature.
Wbat Founders of Communism
Took for Granted
Notice what Communists themselves
have to say about the "good life" - in
an official publication
Lenin on State
and Democracy,
by
A.
Spirkin.
It
is
published by the Novosti Press Agency.
The Introduction says:
"People have long dreamed of a
free and happy life. Their dreams were
like a fairy tale in which fantastic
pictures of universal prosperity blended
with a vivid portrayal of a Utopian
society where good and justice reigned
supreme in relations between al! its
members.
"Humanity traversed a long and ar–
duous path in the struggle for a society
which liberated man from humiliatiog
exploitation and ensured him the possi·
bility of living a worthy life and dis–
playing freely all his gifts ..."
Notice two important points. First,
Communists know people would like to
be happy. Second, they eguate happiness
with a state of fantastic universal
prosperity.
Haven't
yo11
often thought that if
only you could have more money to buy
more things you would be happy? Of
course you have!
And so, too, have Communists.
Prosperity, a bctter income, more
physical conveniences can
add
to happi ·
July 1971
ness. But these things alone do not ere·
ate happiness.
The founders of Communism -
Marx and Engels - took for granted
that physical things were the source of
happiness. Communist theorists, begin·
ning with Karl Marx, believed that
human nature could be reconstructed so
that people would learn to be unselfish
and considerate of others.
Basic Error of Communism
The founders of Communism- likc
the founders of any governmental or
"utopian" system - were faced with
thc questions and problem of human
nature. Why is there, for example, the
tendency in human nature to resent
authority - to resent someone telling
us what to
do?
Why the grecd, the
selfishness, the lusts of
the
fiesh? Why
envy, status seeking, vanity of mind and
laziness? Why lying, adultery, hatred?
The founders of Communism rea–
soned that these characteristics of
human nature are the result of one's en–
vironment. Change the environment,
they announced, and you will
CHANGE
HUMAN NATURE.
Take away prívate
property, they reasoned, and you will
banish greed, envy, status seeking, etc.
Teach people the dignity of work, they
declared, and laziness will disappear.
Replacing the sweat and toil and
privation and suffering of the present,
there will be - so the Communist
Party hopefully announced - a world
of happiness and joy, a world filled
with all the physical and educational
necessities of life.
"Under commuoism men will work
to the best of their abilities simply
be·
cause men will delight in creative en·
deavor," said the Communist Party, in
one of its books,
Man's Dreams Are
Coming
Tme.
Human Nature the Culprit
But something is wrong: Human na·
ture has
refNsed to be changed!
The So·
viet citizen, like his counterpart in the
democracies, is still as he was. And cer·
tainly one would have difficulty believ·
ing the Soviet Union is utopia on
earth!
Communism, like all other utopian
ideas, has dealt with only the
effect,
not
the
came .
All the evils expressed by