What is the infatuation with Communism?

Question

One of my weakest areas in world history is the understanding of the infatuation with Communism. I do not understand why any country, and especially its people would want to be in a Communist state. Nowhere have I ever read where the people are glad to be living in this repressed state of life under Communist rule. In all Communist countries the people or not allowed to leave and in some cases walls were even built. I was visiting a Communist web site and even there at their forum there was a man from mainland China trying to inform them of the dangers of Communism and how people die at the hands of Communism but his pleas where going into deaf ears. I got on this tangent after watching the Motorcycle Diaries. So I looked up Che Guevara and in his early years he was disturbed by all the repressed people in South America, however nowhere did I read in his bio where his ideal of Communism really freed anyone. Look at Cuba, did Che and Castro and their revolution really help the people?

Edit update: Thanks to all of you so far as there are some outstanding answers that have kept me reading. I want to address Jack’s response. Interesting you brought up the religion analogy. So many religions (let me stress, not all) want to have complete control of your life just like Communism. I can think of two right now that are mainstream religions but are big into control. Like you said the central figure idea and like Communism, the more powerful they become the more controlling and part of your life they are. After reading your answer I understand the reasons, the theory and the desire better but in my opinion we humans simply are not ready for something like Communism. No matter what there will always be someone who will want to be in control, there will always be the killings of those who do not conform and there goes the utopian idea. I guess it is normal for us humans to hope but Communism, in my humble opinion, is not that light we are looking for.

Answer 1

Hi Shellback,


PER ADDITIONAL COMMENTS...


Thanks for your additional remarks. Please let me add a few things regarding your thoughts...

You're absolutely right. The controlling element is undeniable and inevitable. All political ideology for good or ill will always be fixed by the answer to one over-riding question...

"What is the nature of man?"

If you've ever read the Federalist Papers, Publius' vision of man is fairly bleak. He maintains that people are essentially self-aggrandizing, and that's why government must be both divided and limted. But Marx takes a totally different view. He maintains that people are essentially good and virtuous. For Marx, evil exists because of economic exploitation and represssion. If that is the case, the remedy is obvious: overthrow the established order, recreate the economic and political models along the lines of justice, and then re-educate people as to the new reality. Having removed the artificial barriers, then, people's natural goodness and virtue would gush forth like a geyser, and all crime, and base emotions will vanish -- POOF -- Heaven on earth.

What was it Madison said in Federalist #51...
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary..." This is the basic premise of Communism Phase II (The Whithering Away of the State). After the revolution comes the Dictatorship of the Proletariate, in which the people are re-educated as to communist ideals. Old habits are reformed, wealth redistributed, and through this process, humanity's angelic nature emerges. Thus, as Madison says, no government is necessary; and hence, the whithering away of the state.

But what if Marx's basic premise is incorrect? What if Publius is correct? Or what if we simply have equal capacities for both? Then, Marx has a problem. You see, The communist system can only achieve positive results if everyone behaves according to theoretical expectations. They're not supposed to think of themselves. They're not supposed to think in individual terms at all. They are to think in terms of the collective. They are to be selfless, sacrificing, and driven only by a passion for the proletariate.

But of course, this isn't the way people think at all. And that is why the system must inevitably turn to totalitarian force. As I remarked earlier, the faith of the true believers is such that they always dismissed the totalitarianism of regimes by saying that the people in charge simply messed up -- they didn't get, and the next group would understand. But what they cannot allow themselves to contemplate (for fear of a massive attack of cognitive dissonance) is that the repeated failures were not due to a lack of understanding, but rather to a basic flaw in the theory's design. Because the theory can only work if self seeking human traits are socially, rather than organically, imposed, it doesn't matter who wields the power of the state, the system MUST devolve into tyranny.

Whenever people set out to create heavens on earth, they only managed to produce man made hells; and the reason is obvious, all utopian visions (whatever the source) operate under the assumption that people's negative traits can be educated out of them through proper social engineering and re-education. Because they do not recognize the organic nature of humanity's tendencies, they are flawed from the beginning, and thus doomed to failure.

And lest this answer seem too pessimistic, let me add, I firmly believe that people can rise above their baser natures. People can sacrifice and think of others. They can place the needs of the many over the needs of themselves. But here's the thing. People can only do this as a matter of individual growth.

You as a single human being can live your life, understand its lessons and choose a path that is more enlightened and noble. But the point is -- any change in nature must come from internal motivations -- you must personally WANT it.

Change IS possible; but the only mechanism that has been shown time and again to be effective is the "Individual." And that is why collective sollutions like communism and other cults, must fail. The secret is individual choice, and individual growth. And if that is correct -- then the ordinate social/political/economic system that makes sense for the continuation of these virtues is one that emphasizes Liberty (as opposed to Equality) as its core value. It's all about the individual -- and individuals cannot grow unless they are free.

So in conclusion, everyone agrees in the idea of human growth potential, the critcal (and all defining) question is thus over the methods of that growth.

Can people be made virtuous "en masse" by externally imposed schemes; or,

Will people accept the rigors of virtue only if they are permitted to choose it as individuals?

External imposition? Internal Choice?

Believe it or not, this is the question that drives the whole debate, in politics as well as religion.

Once again -- cheers, mate.


===============================================



Some of your answers here are fair; but I don't think anyone truly captures the essense of the answer. Let me try...

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith once said that the old Marxists phrase, "from each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs," was responsible for making more converts to Marxism than all the volumes on the subject ever written... I think he was right. The everlasting draw of the Communist vision is the claim that all forms of human suffering are brought about by the unjust distribution of wealth in society; and that if we rectify this through communism, there will be no more war, no more crime, no more poverty, ignorance or despair. It is a vision so powerful that many committ their lives to it -- regardless of its workability.

To understand the allure of Communism, you cannot look on it as an economic/political system that can be objectively assessed like any other system of economic management. In order to understand the impact of Marxism you must look at it for exactly what it is -- a religion.

Yes, that's right -- a religion. It was born during the industrial and scientific revolutions, at a time when Nietzsche announced that "God is dead," and people were looking for a substitute. The similarities between the Christian and Communist paradigms is quite staggering.

Both have a central figure. For Christianity it is God/Christ, and for Communism it is History.

Under Christianity, all things have a purpose, whether we see it or not. Likewise, in Marxism, all things are merely the inevitable forces of history working toward their ultimate completion.

Each has a final showdow. For Christianity, it is the Battle of Armegeddon, and for Marxists, the Proletarian Revolution.

Each has its own eschatology. For Christianity, it is eternity in heaven, and for Marxism it is Communism Phase II (the whithering away of the state) and the end of history.

Each has a method for achieving the perfect end through conformity to THE WORD. For Christianity, it is the Gospel, and for Marxism, it is the writings of Marx.

The body of Marxist writing is elaborate and complicated. But what very few people know is that Marx didn't write for intellectuals, he honestly believed that what he was writing was simply what every worker needed to know to bring him from ignorance into the light.

You write about the manifest failures of Marxism; and you're right to do so. But you need to understand that these failures have no relevance because like any other religion, Marxism is predicated on "Faith."

When Communism took root in Russia, people cheered that heaven was finally being achieved on earth. When it failed, people didn't question the validity of the doctrine, they simply said that the Russians had perverted it. And then the Chinese took it, and the believers cheered once again. And when China went totalitarian, they said that the Chinese had perverted the message. And then Cuba... And then Nicaragua.. and then... and then... and then.

Unfortunately, faith often manifests itself as a willful suspension of disbelief. The modern world has shaken many people's ability to believe in the reality of an all-powerful supernatural being; but the desire for it remains nevertheless. Communism supplied the perfect replacement. All of the blessings and hopes of religion, but without all of the supernatural mumbo-jumbo. Here, at last, was an alternative that people could sink their teeth into. A vision of eternal hope that was completely within their power to effect.

"We are the makers of our own heaven," becomes the communist creed. And for true believers in that hope of heaven on earth, no argument, no evidence, no objective analysis will shake them from their conviction that this beautiful dream to which they've given themselves is false.

Hope this answer helps. Cheers, mate.

Answer 2

There are two different kind of people that want communism.

The first is the misled hollywood types that think that they would be treated special by the new regime and wouldn't feel the oppression. They have plenty of money now but what they don't relize is that when the commies take over all private property and thay will be in the same place as the lowest white trailer trash.

The second is the lazy group that would love to let the gov't take care of their probelms, their care and their lives. But what they don't see is that in a communist society every body must work for very little money and all the laying around they do now will come to an end.

Answer 3

Communism - at first - offered so much. It offered the poor a way out of their helpless plight which no other political system could. When it is a fight to get even a crust of bread, the promise of the same as the fat leaders is very tempting.

The problem with communism is that is assumes perfection. And when it does not happen it has to impose ridiculously oppressive rules to maintain it.

Capitalism is a better system because it does not assume perfection and thus has the need for individuals to input through a Democratic process.

Raw capitalism, without the support for the poor is worse that Communism tho - look at the street children of Brazil and other oppressed groups.

In other words Capitalism without Liberal infusing is the most destructive of all ideologies.

Answer 4

They way I understand a "true" communistic society; all the people within it benefit. Herein lies the problem, in order for a communist society to work no one can be above or below anyone else. In other words, to quote the great John Nash, "The best result will come when everyone in the group does what best for himself, ....and the group". That is the way it is supposed to work. Commune, Community, Communist these are all common terms. In a "true" communist state no one loses and everybody benefits, however the only way that i see this to be possible is if money did not exist in such a society. Remove the acquisition of wealth as the driving force in your culture and replace it with the advancement of your culture. In all areas you win. The problem is, in every current and past communist culture the ruling power is in total control, and that ruling power decides/d that the military is the single most important area and that it's people are sub-standard. Just my humble opinion, (like a backside, everyone has one)

Answer 5

People often agree with the idea of Communism, everybody being equal, working as a community, the problem has always been in the delivery of this concept that it isn't really possible for everybody to be equal there is always room for corruption and oppression in a Communist state as in any other regime.

Answer 6

Theoretically, communism was supposed to establish social and economic equality. Communism was supposed to create a utopian society. For the lowest, the poorest, and the suffering, this is a very attractive prospect... the idea that they are worth as much as anyone else in their society.
But, as in most things, the corrupt destroy the good of a theory and use it to line their own pockets.

Answer 7

The only people who wouldn't mind communism are poor people who already are living repressed lives and wouldn't mind all the other people around them living their lives with them. At least that's what i think.

Answer 8

beacuse obama is doing socialist agendas. time table 21, UN Small hands treaty, obamacare, UN treaty of indinginous rights, the UN invoice that dictates how a little one is raised. hates the wealthy short of prime taxes, hates personal estate so he united statesthe EPA laws