Wednesday, February 07, 2007

anarchy, communist style

During a recent lesson in History, I was taught, in brief, about the workings of the communist state. Prior to this lesson I had little but the most vague ideas of what communism is, and so what I found out came a somewhat of a shock. Bear with me on this rant as I have not got all the facts, and so the argument may be somewhat distorted.

The most shocking idea that I came across was that there was a hope that the leadership needed to bring about the system was expected to fade into nothingness and the people would organise themselves unelected out good will for the society. When I heard this idea I could not help but laugh. The idea while very idealistic and hopeful has no possible practical use in this world. If you look at the wonderful examples that history has provided us with, there has never, anywhere, been a leaderless society. From chieftains to kings, from presidents to dictators, even the church with both a spiritual ruler, the pope, and an all-powerful ruler, God. To imagine a system without a head is essentially picturing a reformed version of anarchy (no rule). If you picture the behaviour of nearly every person in history the chief goal, directly or abstractly, has been to obtain power, and hold it. No leader anywhere has given up without a fight (unless threatened with death, which even then doesn’t always work). People strive to succeed in order to better their personal situation, or their family’s situation, not in order to better a large community of people completely unknown to them who aren’t necessarily doing their part.

To further back up my point let’s look at the actual attempts at communism (or Marxism) that have been made. Firstly in Russia Communism was set in place chiefly through the work of Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky. Lenin was the original ruler but he died early and was succeeded by Stalin. Stalin the proceeded to lead the country under an iron fist till his death a few decades later. He was followed by successive leaders, but never the absence of a leader, never the ideal equal society. Following in Russia’s example China became a communist country. Under the leadership of Chairman Mao communism rose and remained in place for a very long time. Once again we can see that there is a leader, not a state of ideal equality.

I could extend my argument much further but it would end up getting repetitive and tiresome, so I’ll leave you with this. Communism, while perhaps being the ideal system, cannot work with the people of this earth, nor, probably, with any that shall follow us.


Post a Comment

<< Home