Comparing opposition to self voting to communism is very imaginative, I'll give you that!
However consider this.
Every day new Steem is printed by the blockchain. This is literally created by witnesses every time they create a block. When they create a block they also keep some of this new Steem for themselves because they are performing valuable work. The rest is automatically distributed by the system based on votes with the understanding that they will be distributed to those who do the most valuable "work".
You are not saying anything by self voting except that you deserve some of this newly printed Steem by virtue of your stake. You can think of it like a dividend on your investment, or interest on a loan. However influence was never about the ability to guarantee your reward, it was about influencing the take of others.
We always had curation rewards to incentivize (or pay if you want) people to vote for others. You could get more by collaborating on voting for others than you could by self voting, as the reward was not guaranteed.
Now however you can get more from self voting. Tell me how should this not be changed? Simply because we are all rational actors? That is false, we do not always with our long term interests at heart. See smoking, drinking, fast food, and all risky behaviors.
It's not whether or not those with more SP should have more influence, no one is disputing that, it's about how much and what that influence can do.
I didn't compare opposition to self upvoting to communism. I compared the lust for egalitarian fairness to communism.
By self-voting you are doing far more than just staking out some portion of the reward pool. The biggest impact from self-voting isn't in the few dollars that your own self vote awards you but rather in the additional exposure that such self-voting achieves. Someone with sufficient SP can help ensure that their post is seen by more poeple (via the "hot" and "trending" sections, for instance). In fact, this is the primary advantage of SP in my estimation. It's why everyone will eventually want to own SP someday, including even corporate advertisers.
You don't deny (becasue you can't) that depriving SP holders of self-voting makes SP less valuable. Again, ponder the scenario where two flavors of SP are offered to the public on the Steem blockchain, one that allows only voting for others and one that allows voting for others AND/OR yourself. Which will have more value? The answer is undeniable.
Consequently, depriving SP holders of the right to self-vote undermines the price of Steem, period. There's no denying that. Undermining the price of Steem is not rational or helpful, especially when the existing system already has a built-in means of reigning in abusive self voting.
This is only true for posts (not comments), and only while the option is available. If it were to be taken away, or even cost more, the advantage of high SP holders to promote their posts would diminish. Now this divides people into two camps, but you'll find a lot of support here for the camp which thinks that good posts are not necessarily written by the rich and famous. If you want to promote posts a rich person you can always put your SBD down and hit the Promote button.
I don't know about your two flavors of Steem argument. You may be right, in that now we have opened the pandoras box of effective self voting (do not forget it was not worth it before several weeks ago) we cannot close the lid on it now that everyone, especially high SP holders, have had a taste of super charged self vote rewards.
The utility of SP on the platform would certainly be worth diminished by any blockchain change which either removed self voting or disincentivized it. However ostensibly that is exactly what HF 19 intended to do - allow minnows greater power, and when balanced diminished the voting power of whales. It was seen as good because it was seen as good for the platform as a whole.
The value of SP is really the value of Steem which I don't agree is as simply put as you claim and I agree with Luke Stokes in his comment here, with many variables and moving parts beyond self voting. But I don't think it's given that removing a large advantage over minnows will drive adoption and investment.