Wow, “The Marxist vision” paragraph reminded me of the Democratic Party. That’s perhaps why some of our own friends and relatives might always just vote democrat, without any thought or reason whatsoever. They just belong to the party, so they don’t need to waste any more time leaning anything else.

It also brought a question to my mind. Do politicians really know the facts, the truths, behind the lies and rhetoric they spew to get elected? Or are they just as blind as the masses of voters that actually believe in their lies and nonsensical rhetoric? Which relates to another question, has Nancy Pelosi based her latest raging rhetoric against the new healthcare bill on any facts, has she even read the bill yet? Her followers will believe it anyway.

These issues, lack of real education, including all the media bias, are the things that are really preventing this country from achieving utopia. It’s really a shame that once people figure it out it’s just too late, they are too old and tired, they die before they can expose and influence enough of our youth to the truth. Maybe that is part of why dictatorships work (for the dictator), it’s just so much simpler.

There is also a veneration of parents that goes into this as well. It is often very difficult for a person to depart from what their parents taught them - be it positive or negative. Thus in many cases a child's behavior is very much a reflection of the teaching they have received from their parents. It is no wonder that the goal of Progressive thinking is to take the parents away from their children as much as possible.

In The Republic, Plato argued for a tiered or caste system regimented based on the intelligence of the participant. It also allowed for no vocation selection: you went where your intelligence dictated: if you were a farmer you would always be a farmer and your children were likely to be farmers, just as the ruling class would remain the ruling class and their children would likely follow them. It allowed for very little diversity and established what amounts to a nobility. Plato's view was that it wasn't as much about brainwashing, but that one's intellect made them naturally gravitate toward that which would maximize the use of that intellect: those who possessed less intellect would do things requiring little intellect such as farming or mercantile while the more intelligent would be the soldiers and the most intelligent the rulers. But Plato's proposal doesn't take into account human differences very well.

Why? Mental illness.

I would apply that to practitioners of "abstract" or "pure" science, also. Of course, no one has thought of implementing the John Galt model for funding basic research. Which is: to offer the results at a price to interested investors and managers, as John Galt did.

The concept of a communal society with equally shared property is probably older than historical records. Plato, who claimed to be documenting the ideas of his mentor, Socrates, described a communal society in The Republic. Even then these brilliant Greek philosophers recognized that the only possibility for such a society to have a chance of succeeding was to grab children at an early age and brainwash them to dedicate themselves selflessly to the state.

What Socrates couldn't see was that the dynamic economic environment of even a modest sized human community was too complex for effective state control. Succeeding adherents to concepts of communal societies haven't been any brighter.

Mark Levin's Ameritopia nicely describes historical concepts of Utopian societies and how they fail. Each human is as unique as their fingerprints, which is the flaw in Utopian thinking, which always relies on a homogeneous population. For some reason, communist thinkers always miss that point.

The closest thing to communism in the animal world is the social insect. The hive structure of bees, ants, and termites reflects a system where the hive is the primary organism and the individual insects are like component cells in that organism. As is the case with communism the hive is more important than the individual. I think it was Lenin that observed "The citizen is like a brick in a wall." This suggests that it is the wall that is important and the citizens are simply interchangeable parts of that wall. So from the perspective of the communist citizens exist to support the government. In a system that prizes personal liberty the opposite is true. Government is justified only to the extent that it supports the citizen. Of, by and for the people is the key concept that separates personal liberty from the collective.

Yep. Couple more from Hoffer that reinforce our thoughts:

The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.

A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business.

This article was originally published yesterday in the FEE daily newsletter. As i I said there:

I suspect the fundamental appeal of socialism is based on the acceptance of the Primacy of Consciousness rather than the Primacy of Existence as a metaphysical belief.

Sunk Cost Fallacy, Tucker's suggestion, yes, but I suspect it is what we see is a typical aspect of Cognitive Dissonance.

The most difficult beliefs for people to examine are those beliefs which have been:
(1) held for a long time,
(2) adopted before age of reason, and
(3) most often repeated.

Research involving several thousand studies over the last sixty years universally concludes people respond to dissonant beliefs by using one or more of three key strategies.

First, they might ignore the dissonant belief. In essence saying, I don’t want to believe it, therefore it isn’t true. Or explain it away by saying the leaders corrupted “true” socialism. This, as the psychologists would say, is a form of repression.

Second, people experiencing cognitive dissonance might reduce the importance of the conflicting belief. This is evident by phrases such as “I’ll think about it tomorrow,” meaning I have more important things to consider. This, as the psychologists would say, is a form of evasion.

Third, they make the newer conflicting belief consistent with the older belief by twisting the evidence, then claiming the beliefs are not really in conflict. This, as the psychologists would say, is rationalization.

Finally, for most people there are some beliefs are not amendable to change. In fact, it seems the older the person the less likely they are to change beliefs.

Trouble is, such equality is always ruled by Animal Farm more than equal elite betters.
One can also argue the inequalities here have the same sort of elite rulers, but at least they don't throw you into reeducation/concentration camps or stand you before a firing squad of anti-aircraft guns.
Well, not yet anyway.

Kinda goes with what I posited...they want equality because they know they are not equal to those of us that have a brain AND a mind, are conscious and have a conscience and can create values like no tomorrow.
They were the pilgrims, when communism was first tried, that did squat in the gardens, binged on the bootie and allowed those that tended the work to die.

Or a conscious mind. Their brand of "equality" we can do without.

Oh my, oh golly, pshaw! How can you say Communism failed? Given its main goal is to make everyone equal and given the only place on earth all humankind is "truly equal" is in the graveyard and arguably Communism has made millions and millions of people prematurely "truly equal", then it has to be declared a huge success!

Oh wait... most living people with a brain would rather do without that kind of success!

It's a question of "internal" versus "external validation." Eric Hoffer: "There is a fundamental difference between the appeal of a mass movement and the appeal of a practical organization. The practical organization offers opportunities for self-advancement, and its appeal is mainly to self-interest. On the other hand, a mass movement, particularly in its active, revivalist phase, appeals not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation."

Maybe my sarcasm answered your question too well.
Who is John Galt?

You brought tears to my eyes, tears of fear and profound disappointment in the hopes that mankind would survive and thrive as creators of value for the sake of themselves and as a result, others, as well as existence itself.

Nor if they Never grew up for what ever reason. As a kid, I understood creating value but lacked the ability. As I grew I created some amazing things from junk I found...for me on that front, resources were abundant and I enjoyed the process just as I do today.
But a lot of this was my up bringing and my choice of any and all degrees of personal sovereignty. These days, kids chose not or perhaps that decision doesn't exist for them and they are not as determined like I and many of us here were,

The reason Communism has failed in foreign countries is because they lacked the pep, gusto and the never give it up optimistic stamina of good ole' Yankee Ingenuity.
Long live the progressive dream! May it achieve full fruition across the safe spaces of the fruited plains!
A capitalist racist moneybags may have forestalled the slippery slope prepped by O the Great and Powerful but do not give up your hope for change.
The Evil Hag may have been bumped out of her entitled place in line but many other more than equal elites await to serve the will of those needful to be ruled.
Yes, comrades, we the most exceptional of all snowflakes can make anything work in the USA. Just ask Bolshevik Bernie!

I think a main reason is they have not learned an alternative. As children, we are not born understanding that there are goods and services that come from means of production plus some human labor and that all of those are finite. We certainly not born understanding factors of production come mostly from human effort and ingenuity. We're not born understanding the concept of "making money", a phrase Rand loved, how someone can buy junk that was in my way, fix it up, sell the fixed-up stuff that had been junk, use the profit to create a new business that helps even more people, and as a result have way more wealth for all involved in the trades. Maybe it's obvious to us, but it's not obvious to a kid. And it's not obvious to some adults if no one taught then.