In my teens, I was enamoured by communism . The egalitarian outlook of the philosophy seemed perfect to make this planet a better place to live. Besides, the thrashing the ever-corrupt Congress government got from the communist in Kerala and West Bengal gave the party a larger than life image. Kerala was going through a revolutionary change during my father's growing years. The communist party was brought in equality and spread the concept of one's rights to every corner of state. The communist ideology made the party a cauldron of many young thinking minds. My father talked about those days and I was fascinated by the party's heroes and their heroic actions. I would have given anything to see the play "Ningel enne communist akki". All these years have not subsided that desire.
The first seeds of doubt were sown by Ayn Rand. Her essay "For the New Intellectual" attacked communism and Socialism mercilessly. Though I am not fond of her writing, this essay changed a part of my thought process. In that sense, she has had a powerful impact on my life. The tone of the essay can be understood from the following section of the essay.
The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in “society as a whole,” i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.
Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia—or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same.
The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure—terrifying, that is, if one’s motive is men’s welfare.
Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly.
I really understood the issue with communism when I read the following part of the essay
the demand of one group for an unearned share of another group’s income is not socialism—that the destruction of property rights will not affect any other rights—that man’s mind, intelligence, creative ability are a “national resource” (like mines, forests, waterfalls, buffalo reserves and national parks) to be taken over, subsidized and disposed of by the government—that businessmen are selfish autocrats because they are struggling to preserve freedom, while the “liberals” are the true champions of liberty because they are fighting for more government controls
The idea of people working to support themselves and a set of lazy bums seemed shocking. Looking at my own brought up, I did not think I will end up being a lazy bum and so the ideology did not seem appealing. The sad aspect of communism and socialism is that it does not attempt to equalize the society by uplifting people. No! That would be too tough. It takes the easier route of burdening the ambitious and responsible few. It is not about "you cannot be lower than average" but "how dare you be better than average". I don't think Marx and Engels per se suggested this perverted view. The implementers of the ideology molded it to their convenience. The result is the extremely corrupt and violent forms of governance.
At most place communism has failed. People have thrown this form of governance away. But a few around the world hold on to it. This "holding on" is not a problem by itself. But arrogance of the communists and their fans annoy me to the edge of the world. They believe they are the epitome of human evolution. They act as though they are light years ahead of their times - socially, philosophically and intellectually. Their belief that this fading ideology would save the world is laughable yet one can't laugh.
Most communist governments are violent. They have absolute disdain for human life. I would not be surprised to hear that they have killed more people than even Hitler. Yet Hitler is a villain and many of the communist leaders are heroes. The ideology being strong does not mean it should be kept in a shrine. It should be placed at a safe distance away from the world at large. Let the lovers of communism discuss and debate their profound thoughts behind closed doors. We don't need another Stalin. We don't need another Mao. We definitely don't need another Pol Pot.
I came across an interesting article on three people (from the west) who went missing during the Khmer Rouge government in Cambodia. The article brought out the brutality and the paranoia of the communist government. The comrade and cadres went about killing indiscriminately. Their only excuse was that they were following orders. The article is disturbing and poignant.
At most place communism has failed. People have thrown this form of governance away. But a few around the world hold on to it. This "holding on" is not a problem by itself. But arrogance of the communists and their fans annoy me to the edge of the world. They believe they are the epitome of human evolution. They act as though they are light years ahead of their times - socially, philosophically and intellectually. Their belief that this fading ideology would save the world is laughable yet one can't laugh.
Most communist governments are violent. They have absolute disdain for human life. I would not be surprised to hear that they have killed more people than even Hitler. Yet Hitler is a villain and many of the communist leaders are heroes. The ideology being strong does not mean it should be kept in a shrine. It should be placed at a safe distance away from the world at large. Let the lovers of communism discuss and debate their profound thoughts behind closed doors. We don't need another Stalin. We don't need another Mao. We definitely don't need another Pol Pot.
I came across an interesting article on three people (from the west) who went missing during the Khmer Rouge government in Cambodia. The article brought out the brutality and the paranoia of the communist government. The comrade and cadres went about killing indiscriminately. Their only excuse was that they were following orders. The article is disturbing and poignant.
At one point, the author talks about human nature and that we should not blame it all on one ideology or other.
The man who ran S-21 under Khmer Rouge ordered the murder of thousands Comrade Duch subsequently lived in the jungle who. He was remembered as a journalist as a man who “knew how to swim with the sharks, knew how to manipulate… He was a classic survivor. The survivors [of these sorts of regimes] are the thieves, crooks, the murderers… I’ve met many people like this and they’re quite ordinary. We don’t like to admit that we all have that potential within us. We are all violent.”
Humans seem to be violent by nature. We don't really require the impetus of communism. Whenever and wherever communism has bloomed it has left that period and place bloodied. All the intellectualism are limited to the talks of a few peripheral maniacs. So, I believe we should have buried this diseased ideology many year ago. Many innocents have shed their blood to redden the red of the communist flag. Its time the red feeds on itself and disappears from this planet.
