I told someone today that Communism derives from an atavistic urge for imperialism and monarchy.
Pondering this, I think this is the reality and certainly as a filter in brings out latent patterns I have long described.
We have all experienced the impulse to take things we want. Why work, when you steal? Stealing has been most of history. If you look at most remaining royal houses and take them back far enough, they stole somebody’s shit and kept it. And then as now since everyone was guilty the thieves looked out for themselves and crafted a narrative within which they were the heros.
To that minute extent, Gramscian critiques are valid. But obviously he took them vastly too far, as angry, weak people often do.
Nothing changed fundamentally with respect to human nature in the Enlightenment. Our IDEAS changed, but human greed, laziness, vanity all remained.
In PRINCIPLE, however, and in our public rhetoric and associated morality, white people changed. The idea of universal human rights emerged, and the rejection of slavery. Imperialism was conducted not just because it could be, but under the rationalization of “improving” either the natives, or the world by granting superior people rhe stuff that had belonged to “ inferior” people.
All this was bullshit of course, or largely (Western imperialism in many nations did tend to raise at least the physical standard of living).
But Communism is not and never was an OPPOSING narrative. It was a parallel narrative, one origjnating in Europe and serving the same purpose: justifying theft and explotation, classist societies, and inherited prerogatives.
What did they do? Rather than use and abuse the rhetorics of Christianity and “civilization” they used and abused Enlightenment notions of universal rights, equality, and fairness.
Ask yourself, for example, what the USE of “equality” is, if everyone is poor. The use, clearly, is rationalizing an unequal system administered by those whose job it is to “prevent”inequality, even while prscticing and deepening it. They are the nobility, who wamt to be praised for their generosity and sense of noblesse oblige.
I say again: human nature is what we need to change to build a better world. We need a world filled with empoweted, mature, emotionally intelligent people, building everywhere in creative ways; and the main “building” that interests me is cultural. It makes little difference if we live in grass huts if our emotional and spiritual needs are met; and conversely, OBVIOUSLY, great material wealth does not in itself make anyone happy.
But we need to dispense with the lie that it is “Utopianism” being discussed. The Christian City on the Hill is mich realizable than an Earthly paradise built on greed, theft, brutality and lies.