In
order to build on the thought I must introduce here a very popular narrative
used for explaining many cultural phenomenon in society. That is one of
the money motive: "they did it for the money". I have seen this used to
explain anything from fascism to drug abuse to terrorism. For example
one explanation that I hear for people joining Isis is that they give
money to recruits. People see this as the source of "evil". You can see
the prevalence of this narrative from phrases like, "money is the root
of evil" or "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle
than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!" I do not discount
the money motive but a much more powerful and obvious motive is there on
the surface. That is motive of power and influence. People want to feel
important, they want to have influence over others. They want to be
better than others and they want to dominate others. This emotion is
visible in the gross form in such actions as violence; for example the
violence of the Nazis against Jews. Or it can be seen in subtle forms in
many people who want to impose their views on others. It is also
evident in quorans who want to feel superior by imparting their
knowledge on lesser folk. For a person who has felt marginalized
throughout their life for reasons like racism, poverty or their own
psychological weakness— for example a poor immigrant—violence is the
easiest way for then to dominate someone else and feel significant and
powerful. But violence is violence and is limted (especially the variety
that you see from your french immigrant) in its potential to acquire
lasting power. For that your means and end need validation. This is
man's mortal weakness; he cannot self validate. He need institutions for
that. A random act of violence makes you a criminal or a psychopath. An
act of violence validated by an institution makes you a terrorist
and/or a martyr. All human cultural institutions serves the added
function of being an instrument of validation; be it a Nobel Academy
validating scientific achievement or an isis validating violence against
unbelievers.
Coming back to the question of
communists—we can take the example of China and Mao—we have to examine
the cultural institutes that are in play. On the one hand we have
traditional institutions of feudalism and casteism that validates the
domination of one set of individuals over others. The institution of
private property and the institution of servitude and the institution of
inheritance no doubt favored few individuals over other. Individuals
who benefited form these institutions are the ones traditionally in
power. And they have the motivation to stay in that preferential
position. One of the many merits of this position is that they have the
means to influence more people with that power. At the time of Mao the
traditional means to power (feudal authority) was crumbling, against the
rising peasant movement. His means to power was gravely threatened . Is
such a scenario, the organism in him would be looking to jump ships
from the failing traditionalist institution to the one that allows him
to maintain power. So it is not surprising that he joined the
revolution. Joining the opposing camp is not not only allows him to gain
power over the lowly peasants but also him former peers: the landlords
and the bourgeoisie. This is most evidenced by the cultural revolution
where Mao had the bourgeoisie shamed publicly and had their institutions
destroyed, thereby tightening his position against a revival of
traditionalist institutions. The organism in Mao took a bold step
against traditional institutions and he emerged at the top of the new
system.
The wheels have turned one circle and
now we have the communists in the role of the oligarchy. Anyone looking
for power in China would have to gain validation from the now
traditionalist communist or go all out and risk by betting on a
competing institution. Only one thing is sure that man carries with him
the instinct for both traditionalism and revolution. That is the main
force behind evolution.
