"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall?"
That iconic line form the Ronald Regan, Berlin Wall speech, 1987.
So what does that mean? Well, at face value it means give those people their rightful freedom.
OK. So far, so good. Now let's flesh that out a bit. You have a leader from a democratic country imploring another leader to free the people trapped by his government's political ideology.
What can one deduce from that other than US, the good guys, Russia the bad. In other words: communism bad, capitalism good. And break that down further: the only alternative to communism is capitalism. And even further: capitalism equals democracy, communism equals authoritarianism/totalitarianism.
But is this really the case?
Not in such a black and white sense. While abuse is certainly associated with Soviet treatment of the people trapped behind the Iron Curtain, as well as other so-called communist regimes, we know, that despite singing their own praises of the land of the free and the bastion of democracy, the US is far from being the good guys, and that goes for all Western countries.
Let's take a look at some examples of government violence against its own people, east and west. The Tiananmen Square protest and massacre in China. Protestors wounded and murdered in Soviet countries. Stalin's Great Purge. The Kent State Massacre of student antiwar protesters in Ohio, USA, the brutal execution of Americans Ethel and Julius Rosenberg accused of espionage, the forcing of Japanese Americans into concentration camps during WWII. *
Now let's look at examples of government violence against other people. The colonization of America, of Africa, of India, the invasion and sinicization of Tibet, the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. *
And government tactics: encourage people to snitch on each other. Make sure there are constant culture wars. Stoke fear, surveil.
So. No good guys to be seen. Ultimately, just two sides of the same coin, especially in the case of the US and Russia.
And what about the so-called Western democracies. Is that really the case when the elected officials don't reflect the will of the people or consistently have their well-being in mind?
Now, let's ask the question: must a communist ideology always go hand in hand with an authoritarian government?
The answer is yes and no.
Yes, if you have to trick the people into it by sweet talking them with populism, wowing them with charisma, deceiving, confusing, and eliciting their worst impulses with propaganda, and/or coercing them with fear and brutality. (Much of the same can be said for western tactics). People don't like to be forced into things. They will always resist and inevitably rebel. So control is needed.
Yes, if there is still hierarchy present within the system.
As with all societal change, people must come to the conclusion on their own that there is a way beyond capitalism. For many it will follow a crisis of utter disillusionment, an awareness that opens their eyes and minds to the egregious and unavoidable inequality inherent within the capitalist system: the perpetuated divide between the classes, the races. The culture wars. The confusion, mis- and disinformation.
The key to a avoiding authoritarianism is to have, absolutely, no hierarchy in the new setup. Of course, natural leaders will emerge, but they are not better or special. Not deserving of more than others. And they must be monitored. Individual power can and usually does lead to negative outcomes. Collective power when heart centered (not mob violence) can lead to positive outcomes. But then the leaders must be kept in check or the oppressed become the oppressors, e.g. the French Revolution, Israel.
Even parents are meant to be facilitators. They don't own their children. And while they are responsible for them and have a certain level of control over them, the relationship should be based on respect, not overreach.
Individual power is too much to handle and leads to corruption and, ultimately, a type of insanity. Hence the expression: Drunk on power. The energy of power must be dispersed equally throughout a community. Ultimate people power! Yet, it doesn't stop there. That community must then keep itself in check, lest they feel the urgency to force their way of life onto others. We could think of it like one person harnessing all the sun's energy. Everything else would suffer, and the individual would burn up. Which brings to mind the story of Icarus.
Nuclear weapons are a literal image of power gone crazy.
Despite, the propaganda laden image of equality within communism fed to those trapped behind the iron curtain, the Soviet and East German governments were firmly and comfortably at the top. Corrupt and power tripping they exemplified the "Animal Farm" line of, All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. (As does, and always has, the US government and elites).
Another very important question is: why does Western democracy always go hand in hand with capitalism?
Is it the freedom to be greedy? The freedom to exploit? The freedom to be manipulated by cooperate advertising and lobbying? The freedom to consume and consume and always be wanting? Is capitalism not, in some ways, an illusion of freedom? The better your financial situation, the more freedom you have.
It is true that, generally, East Berliners lived their lives maintaining a low profile. No one wanted to stand out to the Stasi or Wall guards. But I'd imagine, that's what many African Americans also do. Trying to avoid police harassment, being suspected of shoplifting, scaring the white women on the same side of the street.
So, in a capitalist country, economic inequality is a wall, race is a wall. And yet some white people still insist that there is no white privilege. Of course, the higher you are on the financial ladder the more privilege you have. But when it comes to poor people in the western system, especially in the US, African Americans will always be on the lowest rung. Low socioeconomic status. A very thick wall indeed. That's not taking into account native tribal peoples who, tragically, really are in their own ignored marginalized category.
Some might argue that the Church is the authority we should be following and submitting to. In Soviet Poland and the GDR, as well as Ireland in a different context and time, the Church was a haven for the oppressed. Yet the Church, as most, if not all religions, is built on patriarchal hierarchy and cultivates bigotry and division.
Can we not move beyond all this to a true egalitarian society, a true democracy that incorporates the perfect balance of individualism and collectivism? Not self-centered American style individualism, or dreary cold war collectivism, but a society that accepts and cherishes self-expression in all its many forms, and encourages looking out for each other. A world like this would require work, it would be an ongoing process, but I believe that people have it in them. We need to cultivate our inherent compassion and community spirit.
oscail do chroí
*There are many more examples!
