Failed Utopias, Indeed

When arguing with statists I usually make the point that all forms of government are evil- it’s just that the US government has done a better job of marketing their version, particularly to their own subjects. US state apologists always illustrate their state’s superiority over others, comparing it to regimes that are far more tyrannical. I, of course, point out that it’s just a matter of time before the US also reaches that level of tyranny. It’s been proven through history that the natural inclination of states is to grow, expanding their reach and control over more and more of their subject’s lives.



I recently read a book published in 1988 entitled, “Failed Utopias- Methods of Coercion in Communist Regimes” by Arch Puddington. The book examines the failure of communist regimes and “the less dramatic controls which enable Marxist governments to beat back their political opponents without having to resort to death squads or long-term military rule.”



Let’s look at one passage in the book about education:



“From the Russian Revolution onwards, education has served a special function in communist societies, one radically different from the role of education in the democratic world. While practically every society develops educational policies with an eye towards the inculcation of responsible citizenship and respect for the national culture, communist regimes teach children to become productive and patriotic citizens in ways that vary sharply from the methods that a free society would find acceptable. Communist and democratic educational systems represent two fundamentally opposed philosophies, not simply different techniques for achieving similar goals- a fact that educational authorities in communist societies readily admit.”



“In countries ruled by a single, monolithic communist party, the schools are expected to instill “socialist” values in children, promote unquestioning devotion to the motherland and the system, encourage contempt for non-communist societies, and convince the younger generation that the one correct interpretation of history is that set down by the state. In other words, indoctrination- pure and simple- is perceived as a legitimate job of the schools.”




Now, taking the section in italics, allow me to make a few key word changes (in bold) and see if the passage still makes sense:


“In countries ruled by a single, monolithic democratic war/welfare party, the schools are expected to instill ‘democratic’ values in children, promote unquestioning devotion to the homeland and the system, encourage contempt for non-democratic societies, and convince the younger generation that the one correct interpretation of history is that set down by the state. In other words, indoctrination- pure and simple- is perceived as a legitimate job of the schools.”


The word placements fit perfectly, do they not?


Let’s move on to a passage about imperialism:


“The Soviet goal was nothing short of a massive, and extremely rapid, cultural revolution. Nor should it be assumed that Moscow was entirely cynical in carrying out this project. Like other well-known colonial powers of the past, the Soviets no doubt believed that by smashing the traditional way of life they were bringing civilization to a backward and benighted land. Soviet advisers, or at least some of them, approached their work with a sense of mission, having convinced themselves that though the price might be high, the final outcome would be a better and more enlightened Afghanistan.”


Let’s do a little word replacement once again, shall we?


“The US goal was nothing short of a massive, and extremely rapid, cultural revolution. Nor should it be assumed that Washington was entirely cynical in carrying out this project. Like other well-known colonial powers of the past, the US no doubt believed that by smashing the traditional way of life they were bringing civilization to a backward and benighted land. US advisers, or at least some of them, approached their work with a sense of mission, having convinced themselves that though the price might be high, the final outcome would be a better and more enlightened Afghanistan.”



That was easy. Now, let’s conclude with a big finish. From the book:


To believe that one has the right, even the obligation, to remake an entire civilization, requires a degree of arrogance that is frightening. We can only hope that the Soviet pullout is total and permanent, and that the lesson drawn by Moscow entails the utter wrongness not only of waging imperial war against a neighbor, but also of attempting to impose an alien culture on
another people.”



Just a couple slight adjustments and you have:


“To believe that one has the right, even the obligation, to remake an entire civilization, requires a degree of arrogance that is frightening. We can only hope that the US pullout is total and permanent, and that the lesson drawn by Washington entails the utter wrongness not only of waging imperial war against a neighbor, but also of attempting to impose an alien culture on another people.”


Yes, Afghanistan is not a neighbor to the US, but the reasoning is the same. The US is exposed for even greater arrogance, thinking it can re-build, in its image, a nation with a completely different culture on the other side of the world!


All states promise Utopia, they just have different, preferred avenues to reach it. The result is always the same- lower and lower living standards and greater and greater loss of liberty and individual sovereignty. No matter the system, promises go unfulfilled. More and more power and control is surrendered by individuals in the hope that their sacrifice will be rewarded with nirvana.


Instead of paradise, we all wind up with Hell on earth.


At least until people finally figure this out and decide it’s time for a change.