Communism: Democracy's True Counterpart

In a world where human achievement has seemingly reached its apex, society still functions using a primitive system in which greed is king and the working man is exploited for the benefit of the bourgeois. For years, war has been waged upon communism by the western world, fought, however, not against communism itself, but against the power which is bestowed upon its beholder. And why? Because not even the West can find a true fault in communist ideology. Capitalism has been glorified through the 20th century as the carrier of civilization, but could a system which dehumanizes the worker as a mere commodity and disregards equality, instead pursuing wealth, really be the future? Communism, instead of disregarding equality, implements it into every aspect of society (Wesson 212). Man is elevated not according to his social status but according to his skills and ambition. Communism, if implemented correctly, can result in increased production, high morale among the population, and economic self sufficiency. Thus, a communist state is not vulnerable to global market depressions that would destroy the economies of capitalist states.1

Before embarking upon a comparison of these dramatically dissimilar systems, however, first they must be understood as separate entities, each with its own advantages and shortcomings. Profit is the cornerstone of capitalism. Every aspect of capitalism has as its sole objective the accumulation of as much wealth as possible. Due to this, all aspects of industry are engineered to yield the highest possible revenue. This revenue is then invested into the economy through spending and development of new technologies, which in turn continues the cycle. However, this system has a fundamental flaw. Industrial profit has as its cornerstone surplus value (Heilbroner 107). Surplus value, which is the difference between the value of labor power and what it is “sold” for, in conjunction with the value of the product of that labor power, undermines the financial and social equality of the working class (Heilbroner 107). If, in fact, the worker gained from the fruits of his labor instead of being subordinated to them, this fairness might be regained. Alas, the upper echelons of society house those who are interested only in their own destinies, viewing the workforce that creates those destinies through alienated labor as a mere commodity. While company owners earn astronomical profits, the factory workers that create these profits receive minimum wage, barely enough to scrape a living (Heilbroner 72). “The division of wealth and power among social classes, in all societies above the very simplest, displays extreme and systematic inequalities, a fact as true of contemporary advanced capitalist societies as it was true of feudal or despotic lineage” (Heilbroner 75). It is true that one doesn’t have to be in this working class, as modern democracy allows for a proverbial “land of opportunity” in which success can be reached by anyone. But when one reaches this success, does it at all change the plight of those not as fortunate? Due to the inequalities that capitalism creates, it seems that it is contradictory to even combine it with democracy, which is supposed to promote “liberty and justice for all.” This concept, however, becomes increasingly nonexistent as disparities between social classes increase, and generation after generation the upper class rules the working class, thus neutralizing democracy and creating a veritable oligarchy.2

After seeing firsthand the exploitation of workers in Britain during the Industrial Revolution, Karl Marx predicted that eventually the working class would overthrow their oppressive masters and create a society where all were truly equal. He also wrote that if this happened, the only way to prevent capitalism from reemerging was to have all economic aspects of a country controlled by the government (Engels n. pag.).Thus emerged the communist ideology. Communism is the concept of a society of free and voluntary labor which brings equality to all, especially those misused and exploited by the capitalist system (Marx n. pag.). In communism, the concept of surplus value is completely eliminated. All workers are paid exactly what their jobs are worth, and no one has fewer opportunities than anyone else as all attend the same primary school system (Engels n. pag.). Everyone receives a food ration, which eliminates the hunger that is so often seen among the homeless in a capitalist society. But food rationing is not what the western world perceives it as. There it is thought of as a minimum food allowance that is reminiscent of slave rations. As a matter of fact, it is completely the opposite. If more than is distributed is desired, all are able to receive it. The ration is merely a minimum that ensures that all are sufficiently fed, but by no means is it a limitation on sustenance. Also in communism, unemployment is nonexistent (Marx n. pag.). After primary school, all are given employment according to their skills (Marx n. pag.). In this way, no one is reduced to something that they do not desire. Through the implementation of communism into society, dehumanization in work disappears, and mankind overcomes the rule of an oppressive minority (Heilbroner 74). Also disappear private enterprises such as farms and factories. Farms are reconstructed to be the ownership of the state, and the laborers who work upon them are paid exactly what the products of their labor are worth (Acton 119). These products later are distributed as food rations in which all compart. If implemented correctly, the communist system can even result in money becoming superfluous since the state can provide for everyone’s needs (Engels n. pag.). With such societal changes, democracy itself could be taken to a higher, purer level, allowing citizens not only to elect representatives but actually influence government affairs directly.3

In the pursuit of such a democracy, along with the destruction of feudalism, in 1880, after centuries of oppression by the Tsarist government, the Russian proletariat revolted. Vladimir Lenin, a young, ambitious Marxist, annexed the peasants into the proletariat, and took the oppressive bourgeois government by storm. In 1917, Lenin’s party overthrew the autocracy and took control (Wesson 100). During his rule, Lenin completely transformed Russia, stressing the universalism of Marxism. But as time went on, Marxist ideals, which were meant for revolution, became inapplicable as no revolution remained. After him, Stalin converted universalism to nationalism. His paranoia caused the suppression of free thought, and this suppression turned the Soviet government into an oppressive minority not unlike the one Lenin set out to destroy. (Wesson 14). Thus, it can be argued that a true communist government never existed, since the Soviet Union ultimately became an authoritarian regime (Wesson 207). The leaders which were supposed to be bestowed with inequality of power instead of inequality of wealth were in the end bestowed with the latter (Wesson 24). By the time Brezhnev took power, public morale had deteriorated extensively. In order to preserve the state, his government was forced to undertake massive propaganda campaigns. Needless to say, these propaganda campaigns ultimately failed, and their failure directly resulted in the downfall of the Soviet Union. But if power had not perverted Stalin’s views, communism would still be in mass existence today, as popular as it was in 1917. Therefore, pointing out the failure of the Soviet Union and its satellite states does not constitute a viable argument against communism itself.4

Even though many capitalists agree that the failure of the Soviet states is not enough to condemn communism, they still maintain that it is enough to prove that communism’s implementation into society is impossible. Such reasoning, however, is completely unfounded. The reason why the Soviet Union ultimately became authoritarian was its allowance of individual power. If a system of checks and balances similar to that of the U.S. was applied to the government of the Soviet Union, mankind’s interminable lust for power would be, for once, put into good use, as ambitious individuals, in their pursuit of authority, would prevent each other from its seizure. Another common western misconception about communism is that it destroys individuality and free thought. Once again, this is far from the truth. Individuality, instead of being destroyed, is promoted, as people who were once held back from expressing their opinions due to the restraints put upon them by a higher social class have more say in government affairs. Unlike capitalism, which allows only the bourgeois to make economic decisions, communism involves all of its citizens in such decisions. Free thought, however, is more restricted in communism than it is in capitalism, but without its partial restriction, communist systems would inevitably fail. If dissent was allowed regarding the method of government, communism, due to the influence of a discordant bourgeois, would inexorably revert to a capitalist system, thus negating all its advances in the areas of equality and freedom. 5

Even when such capitalist myths are disproved, communism’s detractors continue to bash government ownership and regulation, promoting a laissez-faire approach to economics. But is a laissez-faire approach working in America? Do rising insurance costs, worsened services, and the exploitation of insurance policies by physicians seem as successes? A laissez-faire promoting capitalist state is prone to depression, inflation, the uneven distribution of income, and the imbalance between public and private provisions (Heilbroner 132). Conversely, a communist state eradicates all such imperfections by putting capital in the hands of all (Marx n. pag.). Capitalists argue that this bars the common person from appropriating wealth and contradicts the democratic aspirations of communism. But as Karl Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto, “Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others through such appropriations” (Marx n. pag.). It is, in fact, such subjugation that compromises democracy, and not common capital.6

In such a modern world, it seems irrational that social inequalities still persist as visibly as they did in feudal times. “In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, (capitalism) has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation” (Marx n. pag.). Instead of a world which promotes egalitarianism and democracy, we have one that treats labor power as a commodity through the injustices of surplus value, and disregards socioeconomic equality for the benefit of the bourgeois. When the world has at its disposal a system which can bring unity where unity seems impossible through equality and true democracy, it still chooses to function using a primitive system which raises wealth above morality (Wesson 217). People living in capitalist states from an early age are taught that government regulation is detrimental to personal freedom. And yet without it, the bourgeois is free to exploit the proletariat for economic gain. Are the effects of government regulation, such as lowered unemployment, better healthcare, and the elimination of differences among social classes, really that adverse? In the midst of a world economic crisis and growing poverty rates, it seems that the time has come for communism to be once again implemented into society. This time, however, the world has the failure of the Soviet Union as an anti-paradigm for preventing communism from turning into authoritarianism. "When all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain" (Marx n. pag.). Maybe then will all of mankind, for the first time in history, be truly equal. 7

Works Cited8

Acton, H.B. What Marx Really Said. New York: Schocken Books Inc; 1967. 9

Engels, Frederick. "The Principles of Communism." 22 Jan 2009. .10

Heilbroner, Robert L.. Marxism: For and Against. New York: W.W. Norton and Company; 1980. 11

Marx, Karl. "The Communist Manifesto." 22 Jan 2009. .12

Wesson, Robert G.. Communism and Communist Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc; 1978.13