But That Wasn't A Real "Ism"

The notion that "real" communism or real socialism or even real anarchism has never been tried is a common refrain among certain proponents of these ideologies. It stems from a belief that past attempts at implementing these systems failed not because of inherent flaws in the ideas themselves, but because they were corrupted or misapplied by imperfect leaders or external forces.

This line of reasoning assumes that if the "right" individuals (generally the individual making the very same argument) were to take the helm, the system would function as envisioned.

Such a belief, however, falls into a delusional pattern wherein individuals imagine that they, or those with similar ideals, would be immune to the temptations of power and would avoid the corrupting influences that have historically undermined efforts to create equitable and just societies under socialist or communist frameworks. The idea that a benevolent leader could or would perfectly enact these ideal scenarios is an aspiration that has been repeatedly disproven by historical evidence.

Communism and socialism, both derivatives of the Utopian ideas advanced by Charles Fourier and other social reformers, are based on the premise of classless societies in which wealth and resources are shared equitably. While appealing in theory, attempts to implement these systems at a national or state level have often resulted in authoritarian regimes that betray the egalitarian ideals they purportedly sought to uphold.

How can there truly be a classless society if society by its very nature requires leadership and cohesion?

Proponents of the notion that "real" communism or socialism has never been tried also fail to acknowledge the deep-seated structural challenges and human behavioral patterns that consistently undermine such efforts. (See Albert Camus for example) Power, when centralized, tends to corrupt even the most well-intentioned leaders, as evidenced by the aphorism attributed to Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

This delusion of believing that one could be an exception to this rule ignores the historical reality that authoritarianism is often the inevitable result of attempts to impose societal order through centralized control, as is evident in communist regimes throughout history. These regimes, rather than creating classless societies, often led to the consolidation of power in the hands of a small ruling class, exacerbating the inequalities they sought to eliminate.

The assumption that a future leader or group of leaders would not succumb to the same corruptive forces is idealistic and overlooks the intrinsic risks of placing unchecked power in the hands of any one individual or governing body.

The Fourierist experiments of the nineteenth century serve as a particularly illustrative example. The ideas of Charles Fourier, which inspired numerous communal settlements, sought to create societies based on cooperative living and shared resources. Some of these efforts, particularly in the United States, garnered interest and modest success at the local level, but would inevitably collapse under the weight of practical challenges and internal discord at the national level, and likely even at the level of the State.

Notable figures such as Prince Carl of Solms-Braunfels, who founded New Braunfels, Texas, and Adolf Roloff, a physician and social reformer who led efforts to establish communal settlements like Bettina, attempted to implement these communal ideals. These efforts should also include more than just a passing reference to Ferdinand Roloff, Adolf's brother, who also played a role in the founding of communal settlements in Texas, as well as Christian Luckenbach, who himself may be recognized for creating a home on the range where you could go hang out with Waylon, Willie, and the boys.

While these settlements briefly thrived, they initially failed to scale beyond small communities due to internal conflicts, logistical difficulties, and the reality that human nature and social structures do not easily align with utopian ideals on a larger scale. It was not until the German contingency of Fourierists began restricting their more socialist beliefs to the debate stage and as a means for the pursuit of academic discourse, rather than as a viable means of life, that their respective communities began to thrive.

The French contingency however, unlike the Germans, sent primarily academic and more scholarly Fourierists, intermingled with large numbers of poets, artists, and dreamers. Thus, there is very little remaining of the French settlements, most of which died off as communities, along with grand swathes of their populations, during their first Texas winter.

Such experiments demonstrate that, while communal, socialist, or even anarchic living may work in decentralized, small-scale environments, it has proven unsustainable when applied to larger, more complex societies and the requisite governing bodies.

The historical failures of communism and socialism on the national level are rooted in this very limitation. Plato’s philosophical approach offers insight into the structural challenges inherent in these systems. Plato’s "Republic" advocated for a society in which the virtues of individuals were to be introduced and maintained through the influence (read enforcement) of the State.

Plato argued that the State is responsible for instilling virtue in its citizens, a notion that disregards the complex and subjective nature of human morality and individual freedom. He further argued that the State must educate its people, restricting their growth within their respective societal class. Modern communism and socialism both require a ruling class, and thus, the very idea of a classless State becomes not only an oxymoron, but an utter and complete exercise in futility.

This belief in the State and its inherent authority to shape virtue and to limit the mobility of the polit or the citizenry, inherently supports a top-down, authoritarian approach to governance, leading to authoritarian or even dictatorial governing bodies rather than egalitarian societies.

Such models inevitably create a ruling class that holds disproportionate power, as seen in various historical attempts to implement these ideas.

It is crucial to note that the concept of benevolent dictatorship is deeply flawed, as history demonstrates that those who wield absolute power, no matter their initial intentions, often succumb to the temptations of control and self-interest. The collapse of so many socialist and communist regimes, both in theory and practice, reinforces the reality that power, when concentrated in a small group or individual, results in exploitation rather than equity.

The utopian ideals of communal sharing and collective governance are thus only viable on small, decentralized scales where personal relationships, accountability, and shared goals align more naturally with human behaviors.

It is also important to clarify that the term "Anarchism", which is often conflated with chaos in the modern vernacular, refers to a political philosophy advocating for the abolition of hierarchical systems and centralized government in favor of self-managed, stateless societies. This does not imply a descent into disorder, but rather a highly organized form of decentralized governance based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid.

Although Anarchism shares some theoretical overlap with communism and socialism in terms of opposition to class hierarchies, it too struggles to function on a larger scale, as the necessary conditions for such systems often break down in the face of complex societal needs.

The persistent belief that "real" communism or socialism has never been tried overlooks the fundamental impossibilities inherent in applying these systems on a larger scale.

While communal, cooperative living arrangements may function in smaller, decentralized contexts, such as those attempted by Fourierists in Texas, these systems lack the capacity to sustain themselves when scaled to the level of nation-states.

Ultimately, the pursuit of a benevolent, corruption-free leadership structure is an idealistic endeavor that ignores the lessons of history and the realities of human nature. As both theory and historical practice have demonstrated, these societal structures, if imposed at all, lead not to collective equality but to centralized power, authoritarianism, and dictatorships, without the benefit of any semblance of benevolence.