Socialism and Communism Pretend to be Utopian, but a Deeper Look Reveals What They Really Are

The historical list of socialist and communist countries is a long one: China, the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and North Vietnam, just to name a few.  What they mostly have in common is their outcomes - they either collapsed from within due to famine and other failures, or continued under dictatorships (or “presidents” with never-ending terms) which could squash dissent against those failures.  Yet for some reason, people keep trying to pound these square pegs into round holes.

---

“Black Victim To Black Victor” Book by Adam B. Coleman. Rated 4 1/2 Stars on Amazon!

“Adam B. Coleman puts his arm around the people he has lived amongst his whole life, providing them with honest and incredibly personal insight.”

“Wow. I had no idea when I started to read this book, how important the message is for every single one of us.”

Wrong Speak Publishing’s First Book! Purchase Now from WSP’s Store or Amazon!

---

These systems were mostly formed during times of overwhelming oppression, as opposed to the scapegoating “oppression” complained about in our tremendously free democratic system.  They view humanity through idealistic lenses and see a utopian equality.  

They paint a picture of a perfect future with all of mankind holding hands in a harmonious balance of equal outcomes, rejecting all other systems as being based on bigotry and greed.  The philosophy assumes that everyone will be content with only some, as long as nobody has more or less than anyone else.  Because they espouse equality, they falsely assume all other alternatives therefore embrace inequality.

Being a Democrat does not mean being a Socialist, but the definition is being transmogrified before our eyes as today’s youth, ignorant of history, continue to push it as an ideal.  Modern socialism is portrayed as a softer, more successful version than its predecessors.  Contemporary socialists distance themselves from communism, since that word is so stigmatized, but there are many similarities.  

The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state; under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by the state.  They fail to see the unavoidably easy path where one inevitably devolves into the other, because both have the state making decisions for the people instead of the reverse.  

The problems lie less in their ideas than in their practicality on a large scale, and in their requirements of adherence by all in order for them to function.  Though I tend to lean a bit right of center about fiscal matters, I can see the appeal in this way of thinking - but only on a small scale, and with willing participants.  

If I owned a fair sized property (already a philosophical obstacle to the cause, but let’s ignore that for now), I could imagine inviting a small group of like-minded individuals to voluntarily live together in a commune-type atmosphere and being happy.  Everyone would perform tasks according to their skills, and all contributions would be held in equal regard.  With compatible personalities, combined with equivalent levels of work ethic and responsibility, it could function smoothly, at least for a while.

Of course, the world is not a small group of people, and we do not all have equivalent levels of work ethic and responsibility.  While many could acquiesce to stowing away their egos around a few good friends and family, doing so toward the population of a planet - or even a nation - would never be as acceptable.  

Functionally, this would then require enforcement, which by definition puts some in greater positions of power, toppling the concept at its core.  The most basic premise of the system can’t exist without selectively and hypocritically breaking that same premise, a corruption built directly into the prototype.  But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that 330 million people would play ball in this game.

Besides enforcement, function also requires leadership, another unavoidable, inbred corruption of the ideal - everyone can’t be equal if someone is in control.  Even if its people voluntarily renounce financial ambition, a country needs leaders to deal with everything from emergency management and national defense to international trade and diplomacy, since other countries will continue to exist.  

Again, this places unequal powers upon select individuals, negating the prime directive of the system from the outset.  Since human nature can’t be denied, that power will inevitably corrupt (it has, without fail, every single time), leading to conditions like those in the countries described above.  If we don’t learn from history, we are bound to repeat it.

Modern humans have more needs than a localized barter system of goods and/or services can provide, necessitating outreach to other areas to fulfill life’s requirements.  Even if we equalized the value of all goods and services, those which require travel or shipping would need added compensation for the additional time and effort necessary to provide them.  Since that compensation wouldn’t be allowed, such goods and services would cease, as no one would volunteer to waste unequal time and energy for nothing in return.

Different goods and services also require varied levels of effort to produce.  Some crops are more complicated than others to harvest, and produce smaller yields.  Some jobs are more inherently dangerous than others.  Doctors require an advanced education, whereas anyone can wash dishes.  Without additional compensation, why would anyone sacrifice years going to medical school?  In an equalized system, they will reach the same mediocre heights if they skip school to party with their friends and sweep floors for a living.

This applies to everything, even obvious sources of concern.  Advancements in medicine and technology are often legitimately criticized for their profit motives, but without financial reward, what would be the inspiration to research and develop better things?  The only answer is through force.  

Even some supporters would say this purest form is untenable for these reasons, and would find ways to adjust compensation according to a value system.  That starts to look a lot like… capitalism.  Whoops!  While even conservative capitalists can recognize certain inequities which have emerged and indeed exist, that doesn’t make every supporter of capitalism a merchant of greed.  No system is perfect, but it is the best mankind has produced by a wide margin.

Aside from the contradictory dynamics described above, human individuality must be factored in as well.  In socialist/communist systems, there can be no dissent - the system collapses without complete and absolute participation.  Human beings are wired for accomplishment; we are the only animals genetically predisposed toward advancement, and which find fulfillment in growth.  We seek to push boundaries and thrive on competition.  We celebrate what’s special about each of us, and reward it to inspire its continuation.  

These factors inevitably lead to progress, as each generation seeks to surpass the accomplishments of its predecessors.  All of that is lost if we remove merit as a basis for success.  People who feel this way would be forced into acceptance or would rebel and be removed from society (imprisoned), as has been the case in every such government throughout history - a Pravda mentality of ideological control.

These are all reasons why socialism and communism can’t work on a large scale and never have despite multiple efforts.  Their core tenets must be bastardized from the start to shroud their shortcomings, rendering them lies to their own causes.  Their attacks on individuality and ambition destroy our ability to advance and stifle creative purpose, negating that special something which makes us stand out among all animal species.  What remains is a colony of bipedal ants, existing as “equals” but without the fire and passion to live a life worth living.  Sure sounds like Utopia.

Zephareth Ledbetter is the author of “A White Man’s Perspectives on Race and Racism”, available as an ebook at smashwords.com/books/view/1184004, and can be reached on Facebook and Twitter