Why Is Communism Trending Again?

antifa

(photo credit: https://www.pinterest.es/pin/819514463415669030/)

The question of the title is an honest question. It’s utterly baffling. I don’t have an answer. Other than the answer, “Sheer ignorance.” I suppose it must come down to the old adage about those not learning from history ending up repeating it.

That communism is trendy and even mainstream with the younger set is demonstrated by Teen Vogue‘s weakness for the political theory.  “Vogue” refers to what’s in style, what’s considered desirable by the masses, and “teen” refers to… well, you know what “teen” refers to. So if Teen Vogue wanted to stay in vogue with teens, it had to keep abreast of the push toward communism happening amongst adolescents and adult children. And Teen Vogue has kept abreast. Or done its own pushing.

From a 2018 tribute to Karl Marx (one of several applauding articles about communism on the Teen Vogue website), the author describes communism as, “[…] the theory of communism, which advocates for workers’ control over their labor (instead of their bosses).”

Uh, nah, brah! You’re a little off there! That’s the system we have at present. Where I live, under the present system, the worker has control over his or her own labour. News flash: Slavery was abolished some time ago in most countries. Hence, the worker controls his own labour. The boss can try to exert control over the worker’s labour through various incentives, negative or positive, but ultimately, the worker still has control over his or her own choices.

Don’t like the boss and the treatment of the workers? Tell the boss what he can do with the job. (It’s such common knowledge that the worker controls his own labour under the present system that it’s even been turned into a country song.)

Trade unions were established to give the worker even more control over his own labour (until the unions began to think they owned the workers. Mob rule inevitably leads to the death of freedom. But that’s a subject for another day).

Under communism, the worker most emphatically does not own his own labour. Quite the opposite. The most inefficient boss in the history of inefficient bosses — big government — owns the worker’s labour. Communism is, in fact, a return to slavery. The worker’s choices are stripped away. Or narrowed down to a handful. When the government becomes the boss, the worker works the job he’s assigned for the times assigned for the wages assigned. No thanks! How does this state of affairs look appealing to anyone?

How does the author of the Teen Vogue article imagine the worker controls his own labour under communism? Practically, how does the author envision it working? If “all things” are owned by “all,” what does that look like in practice?  And how will the practice be implemented? How will it be enforced? What about the unwilling? What becomes of those who don’t favour communism? We have history to answer those questions for us.  The death toll thanks to communism is estimated around a hundred million. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism)

There’s no other way for “the public” to own all things (including labour) except through a central government running everything. And once the government is involved, the system is no longer voluntary.

We don’t even need history to tell us the results of the experiment. I fail to understand why those who profess their appetite for communism or socialism don’t emigrate to a country where it’s being lived out in real time: China, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea.

Some would call the UK, Canada, or the Scandinavian countries “socialist,” but they’re not. They may have more tax-dollar-funded social programs and higher taxes than the US (though every western nation has taxation and tax-funded social programs), but in true socialism, the government controls the means of production. The government is Big Boss.

In fantasy, the equality of communism/socialism is the solution to poverty. In reality, everyone ends up equally poor (except Big Boss. Naturally). Besides, I’d rather be poor because of my own choices and still be free than be comfortable but controlled.

Communism is the opposite of freedom, so it’s entirely predictable that its latest resurgence is being wedded to anarchy (freedom without any restraint whatsoever) in typical oxymoronic leftist fashion, branded “anarcho communism,” and marketed as freedom. The opposite of fascism. Anti-fascism. I’ve grown so accustomed to turning on its head and believing the reverse of whatever the left tells us (especially the propaganda arm of the left wing: the mainstream media), that it’s completely unsurprising to me by now. “War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.” It’s an apt description for where we are now. Orwell got the year wrong, but otherwise, he was a prophet, turns out! And Isaiah certainly was! (See Isaiah 5:20.)

(On a side note: Last post, I was chuckling fondly over the anarcho communist takeover of a section of Seattle known as CHAZ or CHOP (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone or Capitol Hill Organized Protest) and comparing it to Lord of the Flies. That was before it turned out to follow the Lord of the Flies pattern a little too carefully. Today, I learned here that there’s been a shooting, possibly a fatal shooting, inside this zone. When it was just playacting, I was amused, but while unsurprised, I’m saddened to see the playacting turning to tragedy.)

There’s been one occasion I can think of where a form of communism was successful: in the book of Acts in the Bible. There, the young church shared and shared alike all their possessions (Acts 2:44-45). Two differences that made this form of communism the only form to work (for a time): It wasn’t atheistic (it was, in fact, Christian), and it was entirely voluntary. (Even then, on this fallen planet of fallen beings, it only worked for a time.) Again, freedom makes the difference.

I’m still baffled by the question I titled this post. How have so many become freedom-haters? Or blinded to the obvious opposite of freedom back of the communist ideology?

I don’t know. You tell me.