The usual rationale for the assumption that communism is inherently evil is that it calls for the expropriation of private property by force. It is important for Americans to note that for people in other countries, particularly those that have recently been in the grip of feudal or colonial political systems, this logic is less than compelling. Under these systems practically all private property, particularly land, was originally rendered acquired by armed theft in the first place, and the poor generally see communism as the use of the power of the state to retrieve their stolen property, which they will not be able to achieve in any other way.
Different means are appropriate in different circumstances: Americans often assume that because minimalist government is an admirable objective in the US it is equally admirable elsewhere, and use our economic power to bludgeon smaller countries into adopting such policies. Those policies often have unintended results. In the neo-feudal systems that prevail in many third world countries, economic life is under the complete control of a small number of individuals, many of whom are effectively exempt from prosecution and have their own private coercive capability. In these cases the state is the only entity which can control the feudal barons, and the role of the state in the economy must often be upgraded, rather than downgraded; the key challenge in these countries is not getting the government out of the economy, but getting the government out of the hands of the feudal lords and using it as a tool for balancing the power equation. In many countries this cannot happen without a revolution; communism is attractive in these countries because it is the only system to acknowledge that in that place at that time, revolution is a necessary precursor to progress.
If I was rich, and you, X, and Win Smith were poor so you came and stole money from me and got away with it, then I (the few) would be worse off, while you, X and Win (the relative many) would be better off, but that doesn't make it noble or good in any way.
If you had become rich by forcibly expropriating the properties of the individuals concerned, and forcing them to work those properties for your benefit, that would put a somewhat different complexion on the matter, would it not? That analogy would not be appropriate in America, which is why there is no significant Communist movement in America. It would be very appropriate indeed in many other places; not surprisingly, those are generally the places where Communism has its greatest appeal. |
