Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The very concept goes against the very nature of humans. We can't all be "equal", there are lots of smart and lots of stupid people, and the smart ones naturally will gain more, so why did so many in the 20th century actually think the concept of Communism was ever good or could even work? There's a reason every Communist country has ALWAYS been ruled by the worst dictators ever.
Humans have bought into a lot of stupid ideologies over the millennia, "communism" and its era were no exception, and they continue to fall for them everyday.
The basic problem is the promise of something for nothing.
You're embracing two fallacies here. First, that communism goes against nature. Humans are a communal people. We had to be to survive. Capitalism as we know it didn't fully develop until fairly recently.
Second, you're arguing that the smart people become successful when we have endless evidence that isn't the case. Financial success stems from an ability to manipulate, find opportunity, and ruthlessness, I'd argue. Being smart has little to do with it.
So if your two main premises are flawed you should rethink your conclusion.
This is quite true.
Prior to the Neolithic, when humans were exclusively hunter-gatherers, there were little social differences. They did exist - some had more talents, were more charismatic, etc. - but every able-bodied person worked (hunted, gathered) and everyone was provided for. It was only with the rise of domestication of animals and plants that this began to change. We see the fairly egalitarian pre-Neolithic way of doing things in certain tribes yet today (mainly in the Amazon and New Guinea) and a great deal more of it well documented over the past centuries before such peoples were eradicated.
Even after those changes, there has always been a deep strain of consciousness about the concept that all are to be provided for on some level. Kings and despots have and did justify their positions with public works and the claim (backed up with actions, albeit often unsuccessful) that their leadership would provide for the people. In modern states ruled with the consent of the governed expressed through elections, we still have public works (everything from water and electricity to roads and airports to Social Security and public hospitals, to say nothing of non-essentials such as museums and golf courses and sports stadiums owned and operated by governments). And religions tend to be deeply imbued with the obligation of the able to care for the unable.
The general premise of communal governance had plenty of social roots. However, communism emerged as such a garbled mess of nonsensical theory that must be rigidly obeyed, coupled with 'And kill anyone who doesn't agree!', that it was bound to become the ineffectual horror that it did in fact become.
It's easy - and simplistic and self-congratulatory - to sit around in the 21st century and say "Gee, why were they all so much dumber and less prescient than smart people like me?" but it doesn't seem to present any actual interest in historical dynamics.
Note:
For those incapable of discussing the history of communism because you're triggered if every third sentence doesn't vociferously rail against the evils of communism? Grow up, because there's nothing in my post that endorses communism in any way. One of the reasons these honest discussions of historical malignancies runs off the rails is because the discussions are co-opted whose only interest is spouting ideology and condemning anyone who isn't in lockstep with their agenda.
The very concept goes against the very nature of humans. We can't all be "equal", there are lots of smart and lots of stupid people, and the smart ones naturally will gain more, so why did so many in the 20th century actually think the concept of Communism was ever good or could even work? There's a reason every Communist country has ALWAYS been ruled by the worst dictators ever.
Substitute "Christianity" for "Communism." We still have millions making up stories to explain how this two-thousand year old wreck of mythology and blood-stained history is really a good thing. Two thousand years of historical material to research and study, but I've never read anything that reasonably explains the attraction of its contradictions, etc.
I doubt that anyone is going to do better with the brief historical speck of Communism which is so near us that it is like a bit of dust in the eye in comparison to Christianity.
Substitute "Christianity" for "Communism." We still have millions making up stories to explain how this two-thousand year old wreck of mythology and blood-stained history is really a good thing. Two thousand years of historical material to research and study, but I've never read anything that reasonably explains the attraction of its contradictions, etc.
There were plenty of old wrecks of mythology and blood-stained history MILLENNIA before Christianity and Communism and there will be MILLENNIA afterwards, including the half-cocked ideologies of today.
Ideologies are like farts in the wind, but cycles of creation and destruction are as old as time.
Humans pursue passion for a reason, and they pursue reason with a passion, hysterical passion.
You're embracing two fallacies here. First, that communism goes against nature. Humans are a communal people. We had to be to survive. Capitalism as we know it didn't fully develop until fairly recently.
Second, you're arguing that the smart people become successful when we have endless evidence that isn't the case. Financial success stems from an ability to manipulate, find opportunity, and ruthlessness, I'd argue. Being smart has little to do with it.
So if your two main premises are flawed you should rethink your conclusion.
I suppose at least on paper Communism would seem an attractive form of governance to oppressed people. It entails a violent overthrow of the ruling class and justice and equality for the common folk. But in the end it degenerates into just another authoritarian form of government with power and wealth in the hands of an elite who rule through purges and show trials of dissenters.
None of the "-ism"s scale well. The theories and rationales look good on paper, but most demand a certain "standard" human as a base unit. Inclusions, exclusions, and competitive alternate systems fracture high-sounding rhetoric. On a small scale, religious orders practice a type of communism quite successfully. Churches are at the core socialist in nature. Flea markets are successful implementations of free market capitalism. The key in each case is a group that freely agrees to the rules and limitations of the structure, and has an easy out if and when they don't.
End-game communism and end-game capitalism BOTH fail towards oligarchy and king-making. Kings then fail because of infighting in the court or lack of proper leadership skills. Kings who don't fail become legendary until historians dig up the dirt.
Why kings and queens? A properly balanced and trained single vision has more available energy than a fractious group with varied goals. At some point, those have to elevate a "decider" who stops the words and gets things done. That person or entity then continually gains power.
People like to play power games. People like to amass wealth. Some people have ZERO ethics, some are high functioning sociopaths that can game ANY "-ism" with ease. Neat little rhetorical boxes can't cope with such onslaughts. The idea of a perfect society is a fantasy, often rooted in the repression of those outside of its borders.
Marx's and Lenin's communism was primarily reactionary to capitalism and an ossified royalty that enforced a stifling classism. The flailing of a reaction out of frustration and fear loses energy fast. Unless a structure and plan can quickly be implemented, the players may change, but the familiar re-asserts. In this case, peasants remained peasants, power players who survived successfully remained power players, those who didn't fit or weren't seen as useful were eliminated, many by the needs for the cannon fodder of war and forced labor.
Societies fall for a number of reasons, some faster than others. Rather than focusing on "-ism"s, time spent on learning about societies that have great longevity and resistance to dissolution can be more informative of what works as a stable foundation for civilizations (if that is desirable).
I suppose at least on paper Communism would seem an attractive form of governance to oppressed people. It entails a violent overthrow of the ruling class and justice and equality for the common folk. But in the end it degenerates into just another authoritarian form of government with power and wealth in the hands of an elite who rule through purges and show trials of dissenters.
It doesn't have to be a violent overthrow of the ruling class. The ruling class could be voted out of office in 2020 and replaced with democratic socialists. They could vote to amend the Constitution to weaken property rights. It doesn't need to be authoritarian. Just a flavor of democratic socialism where the state controls a substantial part of the means of production. If your high wage job just moved to China or Mexico, I doubt you'd object to nationalizing your former employer to reverse the job flow.
The very concept goes against the very nature of humans. We can't all be "equal", there are lots of smart and lots of stupid people, and the smart ones naturally will gain more, so why did so many in the 20th century actually think the concept of Communism was ever good or could even work? There's a reason every Communist country has ALWAYS been ruled by the worst dictators ever.
It was a necessary choice. Workers were being enslaved by their capitalist overlords, beaten or murdered if they tried to organize, and massacred by private militias if they went on strike. The Russian Revolution scared the crap out of the capitalists, and when the communists got organized in the US, conditions actually started to improve for workers.
Then capitalism collapsed completely, never to recover. Avoiding a second Russian Revolution required massive communist projects, like rural electrification, vast hydro projects, and the creation of socialist programs like Social Security. In subsequent decades, the US created a vast military establishment and additional social programs.
Ostensibly, mega-corps like Lockheed are privately owned, but top level decisions are made by the military, not stockholders. In the US, as in other communist societies, an aristocracy of power and wealth arose that created its own social and economic instabilities. The system is still evolving, and only survived the 2008 crash when the US government assumed control of the banking system and some major corporations.
The very concept goes against the very nature of humans. We can't all be "equal", there are lots of smart and lots of stupid people, and the smart ones naturally will gain more, so why did so many in the 20th century actually think the concept of Communism was ever good or could even work? There's a reason every Communist country has ALWAYS been ruled by the worst dictators ever.
When people are oppressed they turn to radical ideologies. Communism promised liberation from oppression most people aren't going to just be quiet and take getting stepped on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
