Sorry to bring this up, but I only recently understood why Americans were/are so against communism.
It’s because communism denied the existence of God.
Sure it’s more complicated, and there are other reasons, but that’s the biggest isn’t it?
I never saw this as part of American arguments against Communism on this board. Maybe I didn’t look close enough, but it was always argued that it simply doesn’t work, and that it doesn’t reward success like capitalism does. So I never looked at the religious issue. Now it’s obvious to me.
And so it becomes clearer that loss of religion (if it happens eventually) won’t necesarily lead to the complete moral breakdown of society, but rather to communism, or the need for it. The time for it.
That’s only one element of it, and probably not the most important. Americans also have an instinctive mistrust of government. They’re descended from people who left the Old World precisely to get away from the control of oppressive regimes. No more kings and princes. They headed out into the relative wilderness of the New World, where self-reliance was the watchword.
Communism, with its emphasis on planned economies and group action, runs counter to that libertarian, free-spirited, go-it-alone streak, even though the conditions that produced it are gone, for the most part. Communism may not give you kings and princes, but it does give you commisars. Just as bad.
A trip to Alaska, however, plants you right back into an otherwise bygone era. It’s still the frontier, where people want to be left alone to make their own choices.
I am not arguing that it was/can be a success. I am just saying I understand now why Americans through history were so against it. I recognise there are other reasons. But I am asking if communism being atheistic was a big factor.
Also, Are you saying that most Atheists are against communism? (the theory of it at least)
(You could be right. I am just asking if this is what you are implying)
I think most americans and others don’t know about communism being “atheist”. Do you remember any former US president talking about commies being godless people ? Its not well known and was never used.
I think the authoritarian aspect and the fact that it conflicted with free trade capitalism was much more serious to americans. Before WWII started in earnest many americans saw Hitler as a shield against Stalin.
Well that “mistrust” has been left aside lately it seems…
I’d say yes, and for the same reason they’re atheists. They recognize that flawed assumptions underly both religion and Communism, and therefore reject both (not the same assumptions in each case, of course).
Communism itself isn’t necessarily the problem (as the United States viewed it). Note our sometimes chilly but usually not enemy-like relations with the PRC.
What set up the intense hatred for communism in the United States was more the expansionist version of communism as practised in the USSR. If there was faith that the USSR was going to stay inside it’s borders, not attempt to take over other nations (including the USA, if possible), and just develop itself as a socialist state I don’t think the cold war would have been so intense.
But set up that rivalry, a challenge to American international influence, and a perpetual military standoff? Pow!
I heard an American president say it on a TV show called “God Bless America” about Religion in American govornment. I think it might have been JFK, but I don’t remember.
But I am quickly learning that my theory is a bad one.
A factor? Sure, among the fundamentalist types. But plenty of left/liberal Christians have argued that the early Christian church was Communist in that they shared their property.
Most atheists tend to be rationalists, and I’d assume for them the practical fact that Communism generally hasn’t worked would weigh a lot.
I would argue that, if anything, Communism was created and fueled by the loss of faith. A faith in Communism gives all the sociological benefits of a religion (sense of purpose, place in the historical narrative, moral imperatives, sacred texts, etc.) along with a psuedoscientific veneer. It was the Scientology of the 20th century, in other words.
In a Post-Christian Europe in which more and more people were ceasing to believe in the transendant narrative of Christianity, it seemed a good replacemnt. In the third world it replaced both indigenous religions (which were also percieved to be inadequate to the task of explaining the modern world) and the Christianity of the oppressor.
Sorry, but this is dead wrong. The stock phrase for years was, “Godless Communists.”
Indeed, which is why the Republican party, once the home turf of the anti-Commie crowd, is showing some signs of pulling apart. The more libertarian elements of the party are not very happy with the Bush administration. They don’t like Kerry any better, since he represents more of the “government is useful and can make life better for all of us” philosophy. They’re left without a candidate, short of nutcases like Badnarik.
Those of us who tend to be more left of center don’t necessarily object to government getting involved in the economy, the environment, social welfare, etc. What we object to is the Bush adminstration’s use of government power to make life worse for most people, instead of better.
Considering the Pledge of Allegiance was altered to include “God” with an explicit mention that this would set aside Americans from “Godless Communists”, I’d say you’re wrong. I’d say it’s a common epithet.
Actually, political rants against “godless commonism” by Southern demagogues were frequent enough that they have become cliche, even the stuff of satire. I don’t know that it made much time at the higher levels, though (e.g., White House, Senate, etc.).
I think the atheism of the Marxist moement probably has played a role in the general American antipathy to that movement. I doubt that it is the leading reason, but it certainly plays a large role. I would think that the bigger reasons would be the ability of the press (generally owned by the wealthy) to demonize socialism, in general, and to portray the excesses of some communist actions as typical of the whole. Similarly, it was the ability of the U.S. during the early years of the 20th century to follow the Progressives (both Republ;ican and Democrat) in limiting absolute Capitalism that allowed more people to join the middle class, where socialist and communist promises looked more like threats.
During the Depression, the Communist Party in the U.S. gained several hundred thousand members. They lost almost 90% of their membership when Stalin signed the non-agression pact with Hitler. There was no religious backstory to that shift of feeling. Hitler was the Great Satan of communists and the membership simply saw the pact as a betrayal by the strongest communist leader, destroying their faith in the movement.
However, the overthrow of the largest “Christian” country in Europe, with many images and stories of the destruction or secularization of churches and schools, left a lasting impression on the American psyche. Tales of rabid bible preachers who were shot for interfering with Mao’s troops were twisted to a tale of martyrdom in order to create the John Birch Society. The Knights of Columbus were a very large part of the movement to jam “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance so as to thumb our noses at the “godless communists” (who could not have cared less). (There is a subtext, there, as well. The overwhelming majority of the last immigrant groups allowed into the country before we slammed the door in the 1920s were Catholic. Catholicism was, obviously, opposed to “godless communism.” However, Catholics were often considered “not real” Americans and the efforts of the K of C were one of many undertaken to show that U.S. Catholics could actually be “good Americans.”)
Not necessarily. The bible describes the early church as a communal body. Jesus made some rather pointed remarks about the rich. Many orders of monks are communal. Communism is not by nature atheistic, in fact it can be quite theocratic.
I remember from a documentary about the '60s – it was either Making Sense of the Sixties or Berkeley in the Sixties – there was an interview with three ladies about the Vietnam War, and one of them said it was necessary to fight Communism because it was a “dynamic philosophy” and an “atheistic philosophy.” I think that attitude was more widespread than we acknowledge today, when the “Christian consensus” in American society has long since broken down.
I think the basic question in my OP has been answered, so, I have a new one…
Could it be argued that Communism has a better chance of working in, say, 100 years time (if we last that long)
A few have mentioned that Atheists are generally against communism for similar reasons to being against theism. I accept this, but I am for what communism stands for - more even distribution of wealth. (even though I recognise that it is probably unworkable) because the few people that have all the money don’t need it, and the many people that don’t have it really need it.
Plus the reason mentioned by furt that it is a convenient replacement for religion. (Can theoretically give society all the benefits of religion, which I, as an atheist, accept)
Well, it’s a whole 'nother subject, but I’ve always thought that Communism has failed because one of its fundamental premises is wrong. The premise is that humans are capable of considering the greater good first, and putting personal interest in a very, very distant second place. To me, this flies in the face of evolution. Survival of the fittest requires a fairly healthy dose of self-interest, followed by concern for the welfare of one’s blood relatives. The good of the larger group is important, but it doesn’t occupy first place, or even second place.
Capitalism has largely succeeded because it recognizes that, for the most part, “every man for himself” comes naturally to humans. We have discovered, however, that we need government to act as a referee (enforcing contracts, preventing various unfair trade practices, outlawing child labor, etc.), because laissez-faire capitalism produces some results that are very unpleasant for most people to live with. And we need some unselfish societal norms to fend off some of the less savory aspects of a purely ego-driven culture.