Economic Turbulence and the Appeal of Communism
The Great Depression of 1930s serves as a pivotal example of when communism seemed a viable alternative to the apparent failures of capitalism. With economies crumbling and unemployment skyrocketing, the capitalist model was under severe scrutiny. Prominent intellectuals and economists, observing these conditions, started considering communism as a potentially superior economic system.
Theoretical Attractiveness of Communism
For many intellectuals, communism’s theoretical promise of equality, social justice, and elimination of class distinctions held significant appeal. This was especially true in contrast to the stark inequalities and economic instabilities observable in capitalist societies during the early and mid-20th century.
Communism’s Early Achievements
The rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union, and its achievements, such as being the first country to send a satellite and then a man into space, were seen by many as testaments to the effectiveness of the communist model. These achievements lent credibility to the argument that communism could be a superior system for technological and economic advancement.
Shift in Perspectives with Time
Many of these endorsements or considerations of communism were based on the context of the time. As the 20th century progressed, and especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the intellectual support for communism, as it was practiced in the USSR, waned considerably. The practical realities of communist regimes – economic inefficiencies, lack of political freedom, human rights abuses – became impossible to ignore.
Also Read| Communism as a fling: N.R. Narayana Murthy’s ideological journey and lessons for today’s youth
Examples of Non-Marxist Intellectuals and Their Views
Paul Samuelson: A Nobel Laureate in Economics and not a communist, Samuelson included a chart in his textbook “Economics” that depicted the Soviet Union’s GDP growing at a faster rate than that of the United States, suggesting it might overtake the latter. His academic perspective offered an objective analysis that, at the time, seemed to favor the economic trajectory of the
John Kenneth Galbraith: In his 1967 book, “The New Industrial State”, Galbraith, an influential economist, observed that Western multinationals had succeeded through planning mechanisms similar to those used in the Soviet Union. While not an outright endorsement of communism, his analysis acknowledged the effectiveness of certain aspects of Soviet economic planning.
Historians like A.J.P. Taylor and Arnold Toynbee: These prominent historians expressed views that capitalism, particularly in its 1930s form, was failing and could potentially give way to systems resembling Soviet planning. Their historical analysis provided intellectual fodder for the argument against capitalism.
Bertrand Russell: A renowned British philosopher and logician, Russell was not a communist but held socialist views. Initially, Russell was intrigued by the Soviet Union under Lenin. He admired the USSR’s dedication to science and education and its efforts in eradicating illiteracy. His 1920 book, “The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism,” although critical in parts, showed a nuanced understanding of the Soviet experiment.
George Bernard Shaw: A famous playwright and a co-founder of the London School of Economics, Shaw was a Fabian socialist. Shaw expressed admiration for certain aspects of the Soviet system, particularly its planned economy and efforts to eradicate poverty. He was known for his critiques of capitalist systems and believed that socialism (and by extension, some elements of communism) provided a more equitable economic model.
Sidney and Beatrice Webb: Founding members of the Fabian Society and influential in British socialist circles. In their book “Soviet Communism: A New Civilization?”, they provided a detailed and somewhat sympathetic analysis of the Soviet system. While not outright communists, they argued that the Soviet model was an interesting alternative to Western capitalism.
Linus Pauling: An American chemist and Nobel Laureate, Pauling was known for his peace activism and scientific achievements. Pauling’s interest in communism was more aligned with his pacifist beliefs and opposition to nuclear weapons. His advocacy for a world peace treaty and his criticism of American policies during the Cold War period led to suspicions of communist sympathies, though he was not a communist.
Richard Wright: An influential African-American author known for his works about racial themes. Wright was briefly a member of the Communist Party USA, but his relationship with communism was complex. He saw in communism a potential solution to racial inequalities, though he later became disillusioned with the Party’s policies and practices.
Jean-Paul Sartre: A French existentialist philosopher and playwright. Sartre was not a member of the Communist Party, but he expressed support for the Soviet Union during certain periods. He was critical of American imperialism and saw communism as a counterforce. His support was more intellectual than practical and changed over time.
The intellectual support for communism from non-Marxist scholars and intellectuals during the 20th century highlights the complex and often context-dependent nature of economic and political ideologies. While these intellectuals were not communists in the ideological sense, their work and thoughts reflected an openness to consider different economic systems in response to the failures and challenges of their times.
These examples also show that intellectual support for communism often came from a place of critique of the prevailing capitalist systems and a search for alternatives that promised equality and social justice. However, many of these intellectuals were critical of the way communism was implemented, particularly in the Soviet Union, and their support was often conditional or evolved over time. Their interest in communism reflects the intellectual climate of their times, where searching for new economic and social models was a response to the inequalities and instabilities they observed in the world around them.