Communism

[Frederic Vial]

It was suggested that communism and its utopian promises never had the opportunity to flourish because it was isolated within a capitalistic world. I find this suggestion historically inaccurate, one that is often justified via a revisionist historians' construct. The Cold War, which was referenced during lecture, existed during a time of geopolitical bipolairty, whereby two clearcut super powers - the United States and the Soviet Union - controlled the global ideological landscape.  

The suggestion that communist states were isolated because of the world's capitalistic inclinations is simply unfounded. The fact the Soviet Union, China, the Eastern Block and other communist states did not allow its citizens to travel freely throughout the world is a clear example of communism's self-imposed isolationist policies, requirements and/or tendencies. During the Cold War, a clear line in the sand was drawn. Communist countries existed within their own self-imposed ideological and isolationist confines. Within these confines, communist ideoleogy was allowed to flourish where trade and support between communist states readily occurred. Despite the lack of justification for the Vietnam War, the reasons for entering the war were to stop the "domino-effect" occurring, whereby communist countries were, essentially, taking over their neighbors and forcing their ideological systems on their populace, welcomed or not. Communism wasn't some fringe ideology, isolated to one country or area of the world. It was an ideology that occupied a significant part of every hemisphere at the time of the Cold War.  

Therefore, I find this rhetoric troubling for a mulitude of reasons, notwithstanding the fact that a growing majority of young millenials find "socialism" as a plausible alternative to capitalism. Since socialism is often,  or can be, a precursor for communism, it's important to note certain historical facts surrounding its ideology and history.

The reason communism has routinely failed is because it is socially, politically and economically flawed since it does not account for mankind's ingrained biological need to survive on a variety of levels.  

Socially, it attempts to collectivize the individual in the name of a unified and fair - everyone gets a piece of the pie - society. In the 1930s prior to WWII, Stalin attempted to collectivize Ukranian farmers. When they refused, he murdered 10 million farmers. George Orwell's Animal Farm, written in 1947 right after WWII and when the Soviet Union was still considered an ally, is a genious, crystal ball-like example of communism, foreshadowing its social ills. The idea of collectivizing society by redistributing its "wealth" in the name of hope and unity is something relative to our current political climate. The calcuated destruction of the individual - his/her thought, speech, creativity - in the name of "unity" by silencing that individual's opinion and/or influence is how it begins. If one does not toe the party line, one is labeled and, then, his/her beliefs nullified, silenced, erased. And so, from a social perspective, for communism to survive it must contradict ideas such as freedom of speech, thought, and even the press (which is ironic since the same media that promotes it, does not know it's cutting off its own nose to spite its face). It promises what it has no intention of delivering, since to deliver it would contradict every human impulse and biological need of which familial honor, trust, love, spirituality and survival is an integral part of the species since the beginning of time. This violates natural law, whether one chooses to define such law from the scientific or religious point of view. Furthermore, it explains why communism seeks to eradicate the family and all forms of organized religion and/or spirituality unless it is directed exclusively towards or controlled by "the party."  

From the political standpoint, it wreaks of hypocrisy. The idea that "self-interest" will not exist contradicts every natural human impulse embedded in our very biology - the survival of the fittest. It claims to collectivize, unify society by ridding itself of the greedy individual - the evil chief operational agent of capitalism - by replacing him/her with other greedy individuals. It does not admit to simply shifting the capital/power to a different group, a group that then centralizes power in such a way to create a greater rich and poor divide. Lastly, communism does not admit to more mass murder than any other signal ideology within the last 100 years. After a recent visit to the Museum of Tolerance, I was shocked to discover there was not a single section on communism and its violation of human rights.  

From the economic standpoint, it saps all innovation, ambition and incentive. It is unrealistic in its claims. Try working extra hard for the "good of the state" when your comrade keeps calling in sick or puts half the effort you've been routinely putting forth in your work day in and day out. China's current economic model is essentially state run capitalism. Hong Kong, arguably the world's most capitalistic city has been the model for China's economy since taking it over from the British for years. China, from the political standpoint, has traditionally regarded capitalism as an evil entity because of its socially progressive attributes. It's kept its hardline communist tradition, from the political standpoint, while quietly reeping the economic benefits of capitalism. It refuses to allow for the free exchange of ideas, freedom of the press, concepts largely associated with capitalistic countries, yet uses capitalism's economic prosperity to grow its sphere of influence in the world arena.

I am not suggesting capitalism does not have its own set of social ills and issues. In fact, we have socialism in the United States more extensively than people think. FDR's slew of programs which gave us Social Security are all clear-cut examples of socialism. However, no single ideology throughout history has lifted people out of poverty more than capitalism. Despite the "evils" promoted in the free press, it remains the only ideology that allows for a free exchange of ideas, thought, press, speech - the promotion of the inalienable rights we hold dear. It is an evolving system that requires more progress in the social arena, no doubt.  And, because of the freedoms it affords, offers a brighter future than other ideologies claiming to give more could ever conjure.