A Comparison Between Zoar and Communism

Communism is a political theory where all property is not privately owned and everyone is paid according to his or her needs. How does a community like Zoar compare to these communistic principles? How does a theoretical utopia compare? It is important to understand the goals of communism and the goals of a utopia. A utopia’s goal is to sustain a “perfect” community, everyone is equal and everyone is happy. In communism the goal is to sustain a society, everyone has a job and no one has true freedom. Not everyone is equal in a communistic society because there is a “nobility” class that controls the wealth and power throughout the state.

Both communistic societies and utopian societies have failed over time. In Zoar village there were assigned jobs and everyone got their fair ration of food and materials. Out of the three visited communities (Amish, Zoar, and Shakers) Zoar was most similar to a communistic society. One major difference between Zoar and Communist Russia, for example, was their downfalls. Communistic societies, like Communist Russia, fail, in part, due to people being unhappy and not supporting the ideas of the country. Zoar failed because, through their creation of the canal and exportation of goods they communicated with the outside world. This brought other ideas that had strong influences on the community and eventually helped initiate their downfall.

The goals of both communistic societies and utopian societies are different overall, but their methods are very similar. Although a utopia fights for equal rights and happiness communism strives to maintain a strong state. In conclusion, a utopia should not be considered a parallel to communism because the intentions of each were different. Zoar’s overall goal was to be closer to God and maintaining a community. Communism has different ethics and motivation; communism should not be considered similar to utopia and utopia should not be considered communism.