what's the deal with this phrase?

Ever since I read C. S. Lewis's "Abolition of Man," I've been more interested in the myths of public education. Here's one I hear a lot:

"Communism is a great idea in theory, but it never works."

I have heard this statement, or some slight variation on it, from at least a fistful of high school students. Granted, my sample is probably entirely connected with the Blue Valley School District... perhaps the statement coudld be tied back to some highly influential teacher at Blue Valley Northwest. But upon reflection, it seems like a rather strange thing for a high school history teacher to say. I would expect them to have a pretty strong objection to it -- I also have one of my own, as you'll see.

The main thing that surprises me about this statement is the standard by which communism is being judged. Presumably the main point of a high school history education is to help students function in their own society and get some sense of its values. Before Santi tells me that this doesn't happen anymore, I actually think there's still a pretty strong sense of it in civics classes in the like. For instance, I distinctly remember being tested on something like this statement: "Americans value equality of opportunity, not equality in fact."

Furthermore, since high schools can teach very little actual history, it would seem like this sort of statement wouldn't fit with their program. I would expect students to be saying things like "Communism is bad because it gives the state too much power" or "Communism is bad because it doesn't reward individual enterprise." So I wonder why so many students seem to have come to the unexpected conclusion that communism is a good idea on a theoretical level *and* feel that they have accumulated the evidence that it doesn't work.

The only answer I can think of is that high school education has (rather quickly) absorbed the "End of History" school of thought. That's why the "is" statements of the previous paragraph seem antiquated. The truth of market liberalism seems so self-evident at this point that educators see no reason to even consider (and reject) the theoretical basis of other kinds of government. In this scheme, communism (or, rather, anything that isn't market liberalism) seem more like alchemy than outdated political philosophies. "A great idea in theory, but it never works."

Tho I generally support market liberalism, this concerns me. I think we need a thriving political imagination, not just to adapt to future changes in circumstance, but even to keep our present system healthy. We have to know what it is in order to maintain it. The corrolary of the "communism" statement is that market liberalism might not be the greatest system, but it's the one that works. But if you look at history, that's just not true. Freedoms and markets had to be imagined and built. They were positive ideals, not the natural state, and we must work to maintain the benefits they provide and extend them to more people. The idea that markets are "just the way things are" will inevitably lead to corruption and cronyism. And I'm afraid that's where "The End of History" may have brought us.