The concentration of wealth is why Western Europe never fully
enveloped Marxism. In the East, Africa, and South America, they had wealth
concentrated in the hands of a very few high classes, whereas in Western
Europe and North America it was somewhat more spread out. In the "poor"
areas, Marxism was seen as a way to take wealth from the elites and spread it
among all the people, and Marxism was in most cases with the overthrow and
execution of the elites. In the areas where wealth was more spread out the elites
and the middle classes largely recognized that Marxism would not benefit them,
and might even harm the poor even more. In the middle East and India they had
strong religious structure that kept them from following the Marxist path.
The religious factor also happened. The West tended to have more of a
Judeo-Christian worldview which called for assistance to the widow, the orphan and the indigent. Marxism tends to be anti-religious would be antithetical to the worldview of these people. Some of the poor and middle class in Western Europe translated their social position to their religion, ie: God put me here and wants me to honor the government over me so violently overthrowing the government equals rejecting God's will for me. With Marxism's rejection of religion there was no such conscience of the people.
Additionally, you have people who view Marxism as a means to control an ignorant and uncooperative society with a virtual dictatorship "for their own benefit". The socialist and representative republics of the West acknowledge that people can be trusted, to a certain extent, to handle freedom responsibly and support the governemnt without force of arms.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document