My sense is that communism lost its appeal because history has quite convincingly shown dreamy idealists to be no match for the brutal power dynamics that govern a state with such a degree of centralized control.

Today there are no more communist states that promote themselves abroad in the way the Soviet Union did. With history speaking for itself, I doubt many young people see the appeal of communism.

The people it appeals to are the people who, probably somewhere during the '70s, were swayed by the utopian imagery, and who still are unwilling to acknowledge its failures. Why would they? The modern communist seems to live in places where there is no actual threat of a communist takeover.

It's a nice ideal that in reality unfortunately clears the way for Orwellian nightmares.

With the above said, I want to ask, to whom would communism appeal towards, nowadays? Why or how has communism lost its appeal, if it really has? — Shawn

I think elements of it are more appealing today given the possibility of humanity hitting the singularity increasing. It is within reason that if such an extraordinary event was to happen then practically everyone would have access to what would be limitless resources. Therefore, within Communist ideologies there could be some useful applications for such a transition.

Sadly, the lack of a roadmap, and the 'inevitability' of such a project (as claimed by Marx), leaves us kind of empty in terms of how to deal with such a situation and how it may arise.

In every ideological position there is values of some kind.

I great many people have pointed out the problems of the current situation but very few (none?) have offered up a workable solution that can be put into action. Then again, maybe they are already in action and we will see if they work or not soon enough.

Personally I believe the heart of the problem lies in the perpetual disconnection among differing groups. There is a lack of 'whole-sightedness' and I am unsure how this can be even partially remedied.

With history speaking for itself, I doubt many young people see the appeal of communism. — Tzeentch

I think this analysis is a little naïve because young people are naïve ;)

Why or how has communism lost its appeal, if it really has? — Shawn

The first ones to discover that maximizing the ruling elite's power does not require turning every business into a state department, were the Nazis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung

The Nazi term Gleichschaltung (German pronunciation: [ˈɡlaɪçʃaltʊŋ] ⓘ) or "coordination" was the process of Nazification by which Adolf Hitler — leader of the Nazi Party in Germany — successively established a system of totalitarian control and coordination over all aspects of German society "from the economy and trade associations to the media, culture and education".[1]

It has been variously translated as "coordination",[4][5][6] "Nazification of state and society",[7] "synchronization",[3] and "bringing into line".[7]

The ruling mafia of a modern democracy will also use Nazi-style Gleichschaltung instead of direct control. The same holds true for the modern Chinese and Vietnamese communist regimes. They no longer use direct state control. They also use Nazi-style Gleichschaltung instead.

Using Gleichschaltung instead of direct control is a matter of efficiency and not of ideology. Gleichschaltung is simply much better at maximizing the power of the ruling mafia than direct control.

Communism using Gleichschaltung instead of direct control is equivalent to modern democracy.

Sometimes problems occur, however.

For example, modern social media are not yet fully absorbed by Nazi-style Gleichschaltung.

That is why it is necessary for the ruling mafia to arrest and imprison people like Telegram's owner Pavel Durov. He may have successfully escaped Gleichschaltung by the Russian Federation in the past, but Durov is currently being "synchronized" by the French authorities instead. Elon Musk and his Twitter platform (nowadays called "X") will sooner or later also find themselves more thoroughly "synchronized".

Hey, Seven of Nine, resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

That is why it is necessary for the ruling mafia to arrest and imprison people like Telegram's owner Pavel Durov. He may have successfully escaped Gleichschaltung by the Russian Federation in the past, but Durov is currently being "synchronized" by the French authorities instead. Elon Musk and his Twitter platform (nowadays called "X") will sooner or later also find themselves more thoroughly "synchronized". — Tarskian

Prophecy? Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Zhang Yiming, ... are still "at large" in the open.

The French judicial wanted Pavel Durov for ignoring authorities looking into some possible crimes on Telegram. Do you think those laws (are meant to) implement Gleichschaltung?

Prophecy? Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Zhang Yiming, ... are still "at large" in the open. — jorndoe

They are still at large and in the open ... for now.

It will work until it doesn't anymore.

The French judicial wanted Pavel Durov for ignoring authorities looking into some possible crimes on Telegram. Do you think those laws (are meant to) implement Gleichschaltung? — jorndoe

They could have arrested him for some other vague crime such as "money laundering". That is another favorite one of the modern ruling mafia.

Wasn't his girlfriend sitting in the plane? That's obviously "human trafficking" !!!

From there on, they can demand whatever they want from him, legal or illegal. Anything really. Either he toes the party line or else he will be made to toe the party line. The choice is his.

He apparently refused to build in a backdoor into his platform.

In the USA, they solve that by issuing a secret FISA court order (United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) along with a gag order. So, he builds in the backdoor as instructed and then shuts up about it, or else !!!

, for what it's worth ...

Why Russian milbloggers and propagandists are freaking out about Telegram's CEO arrest (— Chris York · Kyiv Independent · Aug 31, 2024)

Why or how has communism lost its appeal, if it really has? — Shawn

It lost its appealing support for workers' rights, for instance, because many workers have become consumers, stock owners, home owners etc. It seems to me that today's communists don't mind being capitalists themselves. They have found other means for acquiring political power, e.g. by supporting minorities, implementing identity politics etc.

Why Russian milbloggers and propagandists are freaking out about Telegram's CEO arrest (— Chris York · Kyiv Independent · Aug 31, 2024) — jorndoe

Forget about Pavel Durov. Elon Musk is next. That is who they really want to bring into line:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/30/elon-musk-wealth-power

Elon Musk is out of control.
Here is how to rein him in.
Robert Reich

Here are six ways to rein in Musk:

1. Boycott Tesla.
2. Advertisers should boycott X.
3. Regulators around the world should threaten Musk with arrest if he doesn’t stop disseminating lies and hate on X.
4. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission should demand that Musk take down lies that are likely to endanger individuals – and if he does not, sue him under Section Five of the FTC Act.
5. The US government – and we taxpayers – have additional power over Musk, if we’re willing to use it. The US should terminate its contracts with him, starting with Musk’s SpaceX.
6. Make sure Musk’s favorite candidate for president is not elected.

Elon Musk's Gleichschaltung is firmly under way. Elon Musk will find himself mercilessly "synchronized".

The modern communists do not need to turn Tesla, X, and SpaceX into government departments under direct state control. Nazi-style Gleichschaltung works a lot better.

With the above said, I want to ask, to whom would communism appeal towards, nowadays? Why or how has communism lost its appeal, if it really has? — Shawn

Oh, there's even on PF members to whom communism and the ideas of Marx appeal. If we talk about Marxism-Leninism, the official ideology of the Soviet Union, there's few if any that support that.

Political ideologies, both on the right and the left, always re-emerge with vigor once a new generation finds the old ideas again when the generation "tried-that-didn't-work" has gone away. And now when even the CCP looks more like fascist than communist and time has past from the days of the Soviet Union, things seem even more nostalgic.

Because capitalism adapted to serve people. 40 hour work weeks, paid time off, Osha, and fantastic government regulation make life pretty good and generally healthy for its citizens. Communism was a product of tremendous income inequality and the rise of corporate power. People wanted government to fix that, and communism seemed a good way to do so. If you have its pretty good in society, or at least aren't miserable, why bother changing the system?

I think elements of it are more appealing today given the possibility of humanity hitting the singularity increasing. It is within reason that if such an extraordinary event was to happen then practically everyone would have access to what would be limitless resources. Therefore, within Communist ideologies there could be some useful applications for such a transition. — I like sushi

All the people who take seriously the possibility of "humanity hitting the singularity" could probably fit on one city square, whereas the people who sincerely subscribe to some kind of Communist ideology are a substantial fraction of the world's population (no, I don't have the numbers to back this up, but this is the premise of the OP, which I am willing to grant). So, explaining the latter in terms of the former is inapt.

And now when even the CCP looks more like fascist than communist and time has past from the days of the Soviet Union, things seem even more nostalgic. — ssu

Was there ever a time when Fascism and Communism did not have a lot in common? Both are totalitarian ideologies right out of the box, and in their practical implementations they always gravitated towards each other.

Why or how has communism lost its appeal, if it really has?

@Shawn
Communism used to have a huge appeal in history, and also today, many people believe in the idea of communism. I found this idea appealing, and I am also a communist, but when you study communism, you will find that it has many errors and properly following communism is almost impossible. But I would like to talk about the idea of a welfare state and the monopoly of dollars
If we look at history after WW2 we will see the formation of welfare states with a capitalist market. It played a huge role in the decline of the idea of communism. Here are some key factors:
Improved Living Standards: The capitalist welfare state offered citizens a higher standard of living compared to communist societies. Welfare programs such as healthcare, education, and social security provided a safety net for individuals, reducing economic insecurity. This contrast in living standards made communism less appealing to many people.
1. Improved Living Standards: The capitalist welfare state offered citizens a higher standard of living compared to communist societies. Welfare programs such as healthcare, education, and social security provided a safety net for individuals, reducing economic insecurity. This contrast in living standards made communism less appealing to many people.
2. Economic Efficiency: Capitalist economies, even with welfare programs, generally outperformed communist economies in terms of economic efficiency and growth. Market-based economies tend to be more innovative and adaptable, leading to greater economic prosperity. This demonstrated the superiority of the capitalist system and eroded the appeal of communism.
3. Political Freedoms: Capitalist welfare states often have more robust political freedoms than communist regimes. These freedoms include freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to vote. These freedoms allowed citizens to express their dissatisfaction with communism and advocate for alternative systems.
4. Soft Power: The success of capitalist welfare states also influenced global perceptions of capitalism. The Western democracies, which often embraced this model, were seen as more prosperous, stable, and desirable. This soft power helped to undermine the ideological appeal of communism.
5. Internal Contradictions in Communism: The capitalist welfare state highlighted the internal contradictions within communism. While communism aimed to create a classless society, the reality was often a system where party elites enjoyed privileges and wealth. The contrast between the ideals of communism and the reality of the Soviet Union and other communist states made it difficult to maintain popular support.
Welfare states give you both political freedom and a free market while enjoying the social welfare scheme, hence reducing economic inequality, which was the real goal of communism. It made people realise that they need not give up their freedom for economic equality, they can enjoy both in a welfare state

With the above said, I want to ask, to whom would communism appeal towards, nowadays? — Shawn

Are there no oppressed masses yearning to be free? No exploited-to-exhaustion workers? No lumpen proles? Where's the alienation, the anomie, the despair?

the United States is more cosmopolitan than ever. — Shawn

Communism is an obscene perversity wherever Capitalism is the dominant ideology and economic system.

Our cosmopolitan power elite have done (and do) a pretty good job of managing the public's perception of reality. (It's not a conspiracy, it's a modus operandi.) Nothing new in that. It isn't that 'the people' have not heard of the gross disparities in wealth between the 1% and the 99%; it isn't that a lot of our work is boring and unsatisfying; it isn't that everyone has enough food, clothing, shelter, and financial security (many do, many don't). It isn't that nobody has noticed the life as we know it sucks.

What is the case is that 'the people', the 99%, have little access to the levers of power by which significant changes can be made in government and the economy. Yes, I know that The People can vote, and I know that everyone can exercise economic choices to maximize their wellbeing. Except that voting in a rigged system is futile, and exercising economic choice over scraps from the master's table doesn't amount to much.

The typical American has a standard of living that is quite similar to his and her neighbors. That's important, because people are much more disturbed by small inequalities in their close social group than they are with gross inequalities among people that are socially distant.

Given that a large share of the population believe that they live in a free society with abundant opportunity to become wealthy and financially secure, they are pretty happy.

And I am reasonably happy too, at this point in my life. I'm not in the workforce, and I haven't forgotten how wretched work can be. I still think socialism is better than capitalism, but I understand that it is not within reach. I still think that an egalitarian society is better than a hierarchy run by oligarchs, but the oligarchs have a tight grip on power. I still think that the way we live--our civil society such as it is, our economy, our way of being in the world as a technological society--is unsustainable and that we will crash and burn--hopefully only figuratively and not literally. Not just the US, but the whole world.

Emma Goldman, the famous early 20th Century anarchist allegedly said, "If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution," As is often the case for famous quotes, there is no record of Goldman ever having said that. However, on one occasion she had been dancing with great enthusiasm when this brat (a cousin of Alexander Berkman) told her it was unbecoming for her to be dancing.

I did not believe that a Cause which stood for a beautiful ideal,
for anarchism, for release and freedom from conventions and prejudice,
should demand the denial of life and joy.

My questions to you:

How many people see 'communism' as a beautiful ideal?
How many think that 'communism' will bring release and freedom from conventions and prejudice?
(How many even approve of abandonment of convention and prejudice?)
How many people look to 'communism' as an affirmation of life and joy?

STATING one's ideals is not the same as acting on them, and is not the same as having one's stated ideals become reality. The realization of one's often stated ideals could be the worst possible outcome.

Among the socialists and communists I have known (not a very large number), a minority seemed to find joy in their missionary labor. I was closer to being a drive-by communist than an ardent activist. I was supportive, but the idea of militant activity in support of communism wasn't (isn't) very attractive.

Because capitalism adapted to serve people. 40 hour work weeks, paid time off, Osha, and fantastic government regulation make life pretty good and generally healthy for its citizens. Communism was a product of tremendous income inequality and the rise of corporate power. People wanted government to fix that, and communism seemed a good way to do so. — Philosophim

Yes, I agree. I think the issues which the revolutionaries discussed as their rationale for communism to-be implemented, have all but abated. Their reasons for the adoption of a communist state have all but abated.

My questions to you:

How many people see 'communism' as a beautiful ideal? — BC

Only those living under such a socioeconomical system, no? Sure, the guise of communism's appeal towards the proletariat might be something intriguing; but, I don't believe it is applicable towards the current state of affairs of many developed and developing countries.

How many think that 'communism' will bring release and freedom from conventions and prejudice?
(How many even approve of abandonment of convention and prejudice?)
How many people look to 'communism' as an affirmation of life and joy? — BC

I'll also respond to this. Such ideals (multiculturalism) are better represented in the world of cosmopolitan countries, like the US. I know Soviet Russia was extremely multicultural on paper; but, was it really a fun country or political system to live in? Answering my own question, it seems that Perestroika would prove otherwise, at least from the economic end of the question...

I don't believe it is applicable towards the current state of affairs of many developed and developing countries. — Shawn

Why the hell not? Isn't one of the consequences of capitalism that the proletariat (working class) become increasingly proficient in the complex workplaces produced by advancing capitalism? As time goes on, the proletariat acquires more and more skills and knowledge until they are able to operate capitalist enterprises. We are there, comrade.

Take any of the major tech giants: they run on code. Who produces the code? Their workers. Really? Yes! Workers have been learning how to code in college and other levels of education, and also acquiring the mathematics, statistics, marketing knowledge, and so forth they need to produce reliable effective code for all sorts of operations. The (now 'ancient') COBOL programs that are still running some critical systems were not written by God on Mount Sinai. They were written by working mortals who learned how to write Cobol back in the 1960s. ***

True enough, workers are kept out of the executive suites on the upper floors of the skyscraper where the execs make the big decisions -- like selling Twitter to Elon Musk. Though, workers can get in the way of such decisions, as happened in the case of the AI company a few years ago.

Across all industries, workers carry out a vast array of complex operations resulting in the robust profitability of the companies in which they work.

The proletariat--workers--could, were they properly organized by communist organizers (another group of highly skilled workers) take over the firms in which they work. Would the stockholders take that sitting down? Certainly not! They would be on their well-shod feet shaking their feeble fists in the air. Stockholders hate it when communists take over, because they end up having to become workers like everybody else -- their wealth having disappeared. Such a comedown. No more penthouses. No more mansions in France. No more chauffeured travel around town. No more $1000 meals. It's just tragic.

***

By the way, COBOL was invented by Grace Brewster Hopper in 1959. Among other things she had a PhD in Mathematics from Yale. A guided-missile destroyer, USS Hopper, was named for her, as was the Cray XE6 "Hopper" supercomputer at NERSC, as was the Nvidia Superchip "Grace Hopper". During her lifetime, Hopper was awarded 40 honorary degrees from universities across the world. A college at Yale University was renamed in her honor.

The world wa very grateful for COBOL.

Why the hell not? — BC

Well, try and organize the motivation to overthrow the current economic system in most countries. Simply won't happen because workers are nowadays more satisfied than ever in comparison with the advent of Marxist thought. I think someone else alluded to workers now being shareholders of companies they work in, along with much more concern over their economic interests than in the past.

Usually these sorts of discussions begin on the wrong foot by conflating communism with state capitalism under a ruling party, that is a situation resembling modern day corporate America in many respects, which is ironically reinforced by "communist" hating conservatives refusing to support progressive taxation.

I'm no Marx expert, but understand that he viewed communism descriptively as an inevitable outcome of capitalism, as much as he did as a moral imperative. With modern society's inevitable transition to universal income in the coming years, the appeal of communism seems besides the point.

I think the appeal to communism is unemployment and early retirement, the dream that one might never need to work again. It’s as simple as that. Work limits one’s sphere of activity to work. Even Marx hints at it in his own picture of communism: society will regulate the general production so that he himself can pursue other interests when and how he chooses.

Just an aside, but the Chinese Communist Party celebrated its centenary just a couple years ago. That’s crazy to me, but not surprising. Maybe in another hundred they’ll reach their goal.

Simply won't happen — Shawn

Hey, Shawn; I don't think it's going to happen either--not because the population is so satisfied, but because the capitalists are so entrenched and well fortified.

But it remains the case that in advanced capitalist economies, workers--as a group--have the knowledge to operate businesses without capitalists being in charge. Claiming that they are knowledgable enough to take over the economy isn't the same as claiming they will take over, or that they would do a splendid job of running society--we primates being the flawed species we are.

Advanced capitalist economies account for a minority of the world's population--think the G8: France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Japan, the United States, Canada, and Russia. China and India? Not quite there yet. So, most people are either in developing or undeveloped capitalist economies, where work is not so technically advanced.

Do those workers in less advanced economies, those societies, find communism appealing? I don't know.

Usually these sorts of discussions begin on the wrong foot by conflating communism with state capitalism under a ruling party. — sime

Exactly to the point.

Was there ever a time when Fascism and Communism did not have a lot in common? Both are totalitarian ideologies right out of the box, and in their practical implementations they always gravitated towards each other. — SophistiCat

National socialism surely was quite leftist, and hence the overwhelming vitriol against communism. Especially on the political left, competing ideologies are extreme enemies of each other.

With here with the "fascism" of the Chinese is the close relationship and even state ownership of huge part of the economy with private billionaires having no political power. I remember Xi Jinping describing the system as Marxism that isn't chained to ideology (or something like that). Yet the CCP officially and firmly believes that the Chinese system is Marxism that works.

A lot of leftist members even here would laugh at the idea.

Of course the issue what isn't at all talked about is the leftist ideology that has indeed prevailed in the Western World and that is social democracy. Dismissed by the "true leftists" and ignored by the right wing as they just feast with the horrors of communism, this really important ideology is sidelined. In the US it's basically been even more invisible as basically we are talking about the left wing of the Democratic party, which itself is a centrist party. But some could call modern social democracy centrist. And as they have been in power, there isn't that interest in them: they are just part of the problem.

Yet it actually appeals to many people: that even if Capitalism works, however the excesses of capitalism must be restrained. And the social democrat, just like any sane person, can list those excesses what typically happens when the "free market" system is based on a global oligopoly on basically every sector in the World. But that seems as a whimpy surrender for many ardent leftist, who think the only way is to believe in the utopias.

Yes, I know, the thread is Communism. But if there's a lure for the academic student to learn about Marx and that all the attempts in history around the World were "just done wrong", we shouldn't forget the ideology that is the real elephant in the room.