Socialism? Communism? Viable?

My little digression yesterday brought up some interesting questions on the viability of socialist or communist survival, which I hope to address today. It's also forcing me to ponder whether democracy can survive regardless of culture.

I grew up learning that democracy is the best form of government, as it offers liberty and egalitarianism. Of course, this mindset is the product of a public school system in a western society which has successfully practised democracy over the past two hundred years. Yet recent events in the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa have led me to question whether it is the best governance for all cultures. Does freedom transcend cultural boundaries? President Bush thinks so. My heart wants to say yes. But my mind is raising questions. I'm going to have to think about this and get back to it.

But onto Socialism. As I mentioned, I was raised to revere democracy. Our forefathers fought and sacrificed to create and preserve it, and as citizens our duty is to protect and promote it. I witnessed the end of the Cold War as Germans razed the Berlin Wall, Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe and Central Asia demanded independence and the USSR crumbled. I emphasized that I was born in South Korea, not Communist North Korea. I knew that democracy is good, and communism is evil.

The first time I read The Communist Manifesto it sounded like a great opportunity to truly grasp equality. The oppressed of the world was to rebel against the bourgeoisie and create one single state, where, regardless of race or gender, the individual was equal to all others. They shared land, labor and the fruits of labor. This was to be the utopia of utopias.

But analysis brought different conclusions. I thought about the Communist experiments that have taken place. It's worked sometimes in utopian camps. Yet states have failed utterly. The USSR imploded, the PRC is turning capitalist (but NOT free!), and people are literally starving to death in the DPRK. Cuba...well, people seem to be pretty happy, until you see the refugees in Miami. The fact of the matter is, all these Communist experiments have gone terrible awry, because they have all resulted in power-centralized dictatorships. Reminds me of two books I read: 1984 and Animal Farm, both by George Orwell. Animal Farm allegorizes of Stalin's regime, and 1984 strikes me as oddly coincidental to Pyongyang's "Big Brother" network of spies. So much for decentralized power of the people, eh? Proletariat governance has fallen by the wayside.

Yesterday I proposed the evolution of socialism. In order to understand this concept, let's first look at democracy. It's had a long-standing tradition in the west. Greeks and Romans practised it to various degrees in the classical period, and we can trace its key modern beginning to Britain with the 1215 C.E. signing of the Magna Carta, which, though it did not extend power to the populace, did decentralize power from solely the monarchy to include the elite. Britain itself evolved in terms of liberty and personal freedoms, and there was a strong basis for democratic governance by the time we were hosting the Boston Tea Party. Contrast this, however, to France. Though France also had the Classical democratic influences, it was a monarchy based on serfdom until the late 18th century. The First Republic was a short-lived, ruthlessly bloody mob rule that quickly reverted back to a monarchy (or empire?) when Napoleon assumed power. Britain had evolved into a democracy over centuries, while France attempted to convert into one overnight; apparently a society that has accultured and gradually adapted democratic values is more successful in establishing and maintaining a democracy.

Perhaps society has to evolve into socialism as well. I still haven't forgotten an argument a college classmate made in a political theory class. PJ argued that Marx actually killed Communism; he wrote the Manifesto and nations experimented with it before society was ready for it; its failures have convinced the world, at least for the past 20 years, to embrace democracy. Had Marx and Engels never collaborated on the work, society would have evolved towards communism and it would have been successful. As Venezuela under Chavez and other South American countries lean towards it, and as France may soon try it, it appears that the world may have evolved more towards socialism, and that this time, it may work.

Yet I cannot help but reach the same conclusion I reached four years ago. Each of our previous experiments with Communism have resulted in failure. Some may argue that this is only because of power-hungry egomaniacs. But that's just my point. Marx's writings sound good. The only problem is that Marx overlooked one teensy little detail that makes all the difference in the world: human nature. We are selfish beings. I'm not denying it about myself; I'M SELFISH! We are the greedy, power-hungry egomaniacs that disreputed Communism. And even though we as individuals or a society may evolve towards socialism--if we learn to truly love each other as we love ourselves and become truly concerned for others' welfare--we can never be safe from tyranny because Socialism is a perfect vehicle for tyranny. It's difficult to attain power in a democracy because there is always competition; however, when one removes competition and equalizes everything, one step above everybody else can transform a comrade into a dictator in an instant. We cannot evolve into socialism because everybody would have to evolve; it's all or nothing; one greedy person and a bit o'luck is all it takes to condemn a socialist state to be a dictatorship.

I'm going to get back on democracy, its evolution, and where culture plays into all of it. Peace & love to all. Until next time,

Moni