Category: Communism

During the war period, there was a need for leaders to organize people and prepare for the war, and as a result, forms of government started to emerge. Initially, the ideologies that people had were communism, where everything was owned communally, and people could contribute according to their needs and liberal democracy, which is a political and ethical way of life based on liberty, approval of the people being governed, and equality of all people before the law. However, during the interwar period, there emerged a new ideology called fascism that was adapted in many European countries, and the leaders that were elected at the time were fascists. Fascism is a type of governance that is a one-party dictatorship and is mainly against democracy. There are many differences between fascism and liberal democracy in as much as they were all ideologies that existed during that period. This essay compares dictatorship and liberal democracy, explaining some of the challenges these ideologies seemed to solve and states the drawbacks that were introduced by these solutions.

Fascism is a form of nationalism that began in 1919, immediately after the World War I, from the combination of radical nationalism. After some time, it was realized and named the most destructive form of patriotism, which was because people were being forced to comply to the dictators’ rules and opposers were punished. People were therefore not happy with this. Also, it was the only entirely new type of socialist movement in the twentieth century. Other revolutionary forces at the time were communism, socialism, anarchism, and nationalism. Fascism began in Italy then spread to other parts of the world, and after 1933, the generic fascism in Europe lead to World War II (Gentile, X). By comparison, the other revolutionary forces were clear guidelines, whereas fascism was novel and challenging to understand as it was new and still developing. The known fascist leaders were Adolf Hitler in Germany, Benito Mussolini in Italy, Francisco Franco in Spain and Juan Perón in Argentina.

There are many differences and similarities between fascism and communism, and they occur because communism had a changed opinion of social and economic organization. First, communism tries to free the state from private ownership, whereas fascism tries to incorporate ownership private property. Communism encouraged that the whole community take part in all activities and owned things together, and thus, private ownership of things was discouraged and replaced with situations where items were owned communally and people’s contributions was according to their ability. On the other hand, fascism was more involved with this private ownership, which seemed to favor the wealthy people who eventually formed the governance system as they were more superior. Second, communist ideas were multicultural and internationalist to ensure that all people in the community are put into consideration. However, that of fascists was chauvinistically nationalists, and it emphasized an allegiance to one’s country, culture, and ethnicity. Therefore, all people were forced to conform to the cultures and rules of the country which they are in. Moreover, there is also a difference in importance and policy; that is to say that when an institution like church poses a threat to the governance of the state, the communist’s first reaction is to eradicate them. This is because they thought that these institutions would bring about and teach individualism which was different from what they believed. In contrast, for the fascists, their instinct is to engage them. The fascists argue that these external institutions are potential allies of the state, as in the case where they encourage subordination within the people and thus works in their favor. Therefore, they encouraged the development of these institutions which in turn favored people in those countries. Therefore, fascism and communism provide conflicting political solutions that clashed and sometimes it was useful in defining the path the continent would take (Mazower, Ch., 4).

In as much as there are some differences between these two groups, there are also some similarities. First, communism also allows private ownership as suppressing; it entirely leads to economic collapse. Therefore, it is permitted to ensure the economy is stable. Also, they have been seen to be chauvinistically nationalists in practice as they are cosmopolitan communists in theory. Fascists sometimes also adapt liberal universalism. The differences, therefore, occur because fascists hold on to the idea of improvement in the industrial process, which is led by managerial technocrats which the communists do not.

Communism therefore seemed to solve many problems. First, property being owned by the state as opposed to being privately owned brought about equality. Equality is important because it ensures that all people are treated the same way. For example, in the case of healthcare and education, the wealthy and those of the high social class would receive the best services. This is however undesirable because everyone despite their social class requires these services. Thus, communism prevents the formation of social classes. Also, communism is concerned with the development of the community as a whole. Therefore, this ensures that people are all progressing together and therefore this has many advantages like; the reduction of crime which would arise due to the existence of a low social class. This also leads to more growth than if it was individualized. However, in as much as communism seems to be important, there are some drawbacks that were introduced by these solutions. Preventing private ownership of land prevents economic growth. Private property ownership helps the economy grow as people are motivated to maximize the value of their property which thus leads to economic growth. Also, resources will not be scarce as they will be controlled through ownership.

In conclusion, after the World War I, European countries took up fascism as their mode of governance and supported this ideology. This was not easy as it led to the rise of anti-fascist. At that time, the common modes of governance were communism and liberal governance. There are differences between communism and fascist the main one being that communism is where all property is owned by the community at large and people contribute according to their ability while fascism is a system of governance that is dictatorial where the opposers are strongly suppressed. Communism seemed to be solving several problems like ensuring there was equality and thus people were able to access all services equally despite of their status. Also, it ensures that people are progressing together as a community and hence solves problems that would arise from existence of social classes. However, there are drawbacks that were brought by these solutions. The economy is mainly disadvantaged by communism as private ownership of property leads to economic growth.

References

1. Gentile, Emilio. ​The Struggle for Modernity: Nationalism, Futurism, and Fascism​. Hardcover – 30 Nov.2003.
2. Mazower, Mark. ​Dark Continent: Europe’s Twentieth Century. Paperback – 24 Jun.1999.

The conflict between different social classes was once so real and that one could think that it will result in a revolution. Nevertheless, today, 171 years after the idea of communism was founded, things seem to be taking the opposite direction. The social gap is widening every day. The working class which was presumed to be the one to revolt against the social inequality and thus causing a revolution are the one working so hard even when they are underpaid to keep the bourgeoisie in control of the economy. The society, which affects the existence, reasoning, and consciousness of man is so diverse and does not give a room for absolute answers. There have been arguments between philosophers over years, about which is the best economic, social and political system. The effectiveness of the system is what determines its success (Kemp, n. d.). Philosophers have written many books about the inevitability of communism, in which different philosophers came up with varying arguments. Karl Marx’s theories, for example, have had a significant impact in various disciplines. His concept (communism) has not been received so well, and chances are incredibly high that it will not be successful anytime soon. Communism is not historically inevitable because for it to happen, the system must be the best replacement for capitalism, and it should happen as a result of a revolution, which is not likely to happen.

Definition and Brief History of Communism

Communism refers to a system of economic and political organization whereby all the members of a community own property jointly. In a nutshell, community members share and enjoy commonwealth without private ownership of property. The concept was founded in the late 19th century by philosophers Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx. This came after the two philosophers met in 1844 and realized that they shared common principles in economic-political philosophy. They thus wrote ‘The Communist Manifesto’. The concept hoped to present a theory that would end the capitalist system. They argued that the availability of the social class system is what resulted in the exploitation of the poor and the working class. A proletarian is considered a worker. He lives solely through providing labor. Moreover, the capitalist system does not recognize him when he is not working (Marx, 2014). According to Marx, Engels and Riazanov (1972), the exploited class of workers would make class consciousness whereby they will be uncomfortable with the system and eventually, there would be a development of class conflict. This conflict would only be resolved through a revolution. In this revolution, the working class (proletariat) will revolt against the bourgeoisie thus, resulting in the establishment of a communist society. They argued that the society will go through a state of socialism and then finally it will settle on pure communism, whereby the states will abolish the private ownership of property. Every member of the society will give according to their capabilities and be given according to their wants. Consequently, the wellbeing of the society will be given priority over the wellbeing and the happiness of individuals in communist society.

Adam Smith’s Take on Communism

Adam Smith is popularly known as the father of capitalism, which is the direct opposite of communism. While Karl Marx believes that the working class is being oppressed, Adam Smith thinks that division of labor is mandatory and that it is what makes the economy grow. Evidently, one can tell that the two philosophers understood economic dynamics and power from two distinct points of view. Adam Smith thinks that it is the value that a person brings to the market what should determine the amount of wealth they get. The capitalists are not capitalists because they are greedy, or they want to oppress people. Conversely, they do so because there is a high competition (Smith, 2009). He held that a system where a person’s effort determines their success would succeed because everyone will be working had to succeed. Also, this system would have limited intervention from the government and the people. So, it is self-run, and it motivates people to work. For communism to be inevitable, capitalism must end, it is, therefore, logical to argue that since the system is self-run and both the workers and the bourgeoisie have no control over it, it cannot end unless it destroys itself, and that is not likely to happen any soon. Other philosophers like Fredrick Hayek, support Smith’s argument capitalism gives people the freedom to put effort and succeed. Also, he believes that people do not have a choice but to follow the social order in which they were born. For example, in his book ‘The Constitution of Liberty: The Definitive Edition’, Hayek argues that when people are entering the society, they have little to do but to follow the social order (Hayek, Bartley and Hamowy, 2011).

Why Communism Is Not Historically Inevitable

Communism is faced with many challenges. Communism has been tried in the past and in most cases it failed. For example, the Soviet Union tried to implement the concept of communism but it failed dreadfully (McKee, 2007). To understand why communism has failed in the past and may fail in the future, it is vital that we look into the nature of human reasoning, how human perceive the society, the conditions under which communism can be inevitable and finally, understand whether there is a possibility of absolute (ultimate reality) ending where the working class become socially conscious, since that is the only thing that can result in a revolutionary struggle against capitalism.

Personal Freedoms

Balancing democracy and communism is practically impossible. Innately people love to be in a position where they make decisions on what to have and what to ignore. Although communism may seem like a way of liberating people from the oppression, it is also a way of trapping them in a system where they have so little to say. At first sight, it is easy to think that communism is the best way to live a comfortable life whereby everything is provided. Nevertheless, a close look at the system one can easily tell that it comes with adverse consequences. Hayes (2008) recognizes that economic systems and freedom are intertwined. Also, people love to be able to improve and perhaps gain some heights of power. Actually, humans spend most of their time trying to prove that they are better than others. That is the reason people actually try to substantiate their point by all means necessary. Additionally, human beings innately love to acquire some heights of power and communism denies them that opportunity. However, Marx believed that communism did not trap citizens as capitalism did (Fandel, 2016).

Stagnated Economic Growth

One of the reasons the communism system failed in Russia is the stagnation of the economy and the scarcity of the resources. If people are guaranteed that they will get whatever they need regardless of whether they work hard or not, most of them will choose to be passive as far as providing human labor is concerned. Hence, communism would not just result in a scarcity of resources and passiveness of members but also many people would take advantage and try to acquire more than they give. The reason, communism would result in an economic crisis is that there is nothing to motivate people to work hard.

Communism Would Result in Corruption

Instead of working hard to achieve something, people will be receiving services directly from the government. So, they will find ways to achieve even that which they do not deserve. Also, the leaders will neglect serving the people and starting serving personal interested and the interests of those they love. Since the leaders have nothing to put them in a higher class, they will opt to accept bribes and other favors to give services to some people at the extent of others. It is clear that instead of reducing social inequalities, the system would widen the gap. The idea that communism is inevitable beats logic considering the negative implications that are clearly inevitable in communism systems. While capitalism promotes hard works, communism does just the opposite (Fandel, 2016).

Elimination of Free Market

Free market plays a critical role in the growth of the economy and consumer satisfaction. Instead of planners determining the prices, in a communist system, the central government does. Additionally, it is incredibly hard for the planners to understand what people need and what is in surplus, this results in some things being surplus and others being scarce. This imbalance and the lack of a free market make it hard to trust pure communism. One would reason that although capitalism may not be the best system, it should be replaced with another system but definitely not communism. Therefore, the argument that communism is historically inevitable is not sound, for instance, the situation in China (Marquis and Qiao, 2018).

Strengths of Communism

There have been many arguments to support the claim that communism is historically inevitable and that it is the only system that is worth replacing capitalism. Firstly, the system has a centralized management of resources. The fact that the economy is centrally planned makes it easy to mobilize economic resources. If society suffers an economic crisis, mobilizing the resources and recovering would be easy. Additionally, communist society are able to implement many and big projects and establish a strong economic power. Secondly, communism goes beyond personal interests and this makes it more efficiently. It emphasizes on the general welfare of the member in the society. Capitalism, on the other hand, focuses on the wellness of those who are high in society. No person would hate a society where there are no homeless people, there is no poverty or a society where there are no people who have enough money that they can end poverty if they want but they cannot because they do not want. Thirdly, communist systems can transform the society and everyone in the society to conform and to everything with accordance with the planner’s vision. This makes it easy for a society to achieve bigger economic goals that they could have achieved in a capitalistic system. The best examples include China, Maoist, Castro’s Cuba and Russia. The system enables Russia to build a military strength to overpower the Nazi. Also, the system made it easy for Russia to recover so easily after the World War II (Smith, n.d.). An objective reflection on the concept shows that if the proletariats do not come into the state of social awareness, then a revolution will never happen and thus, Communism is not historically inevitable. Furthermore, the gap has been widening and in the 21st century, there is a high level of social inequality. The working class in the society can easily welcome the idea of having a society where the economic resources are shared by everyone in the society regardless of whether they work or not. They would like a society where every individual is equal to each other. According to Rawls (2005), citizens tend to be reasonable when they perceive each other as equals in the social setup. Nevertheless, the system would and be highly infective such that even though people support it. Subsequently, they will start to doubt that it is the best decision to make. If there is scarcity, capitalism will always be strong. If society could achieve a post-scarcity period, where people do not lack what they need, then capitalism would not make any sense. Unfortunately, that will not happen because actually, scarcity of resources is actually increasing. One can also argue that the grown in technology has resulted in the increased production and thus the scarcity period is attainable. However, the technology relies heavily on human labor, which means that the more things are changing the more things remain the same.

Conclusion

Marx and Engels argued that a revolution which would fuel the transformation of capitalism to socialism and finalism into a pure communism would transpire if and only if the false consciousness is replaced with class consciousness. The fact that there have communist systems that have been tried and failed in the past clearly indicates that it is not the best system to replace the current system. Additionally, the system has many assumptions and loopholes. Although it has its strengths, it also has many disadvantages, which proves it is not any better than capitalism. The most convincing reason that communism is not historically inevitable, however, it that the state where the working class develops social conscious and thus facilitating a revolution is not likely to happen. It can only happen if there is no scarcity of resources, which is becoming more over time.

References

1. Marx, K., Engels, F. and Riazanov, D. (1972). The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Calcutta: Radical Books Club.
2. Hayes, C. (2008). Popper, Hayek and the Open Society. Routledge Frontiers of Political Economy, Volume 112. Taylor & Francis, p.76.
3. Rawls, J. (2005). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
4. Marx, K. (2014). Economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844. [Place of publication not identified]: Digireads.com Publishing.
5. Fandel, J. (2016). Communism. Mankato, MN: Creative Company, p.26.
6. Smith, S. (n.d.). The Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
7. McKee, M. (2007). Cochrane on Communism: The Influence of Ideology on the Search for Evidence. International Journal of Epidemiology, [online] 36(2), pp.269-273. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/36/2/269/721395.
8. Marquis, C. and Qiao, K. (2018). Waking from Mao’s Dream: Communist Ideological Imprinting and the Internationalization of Entrepreneurial Ventures in China. Administrative Science Quarterly, p.000183921879283.
9. Wieviorka, M. (2013). Social Conflict. Current Sociology, 61(5-6), pp.696-713.
10. U’REN, R. (1997). Psychiatry and Capitalism. The Journal of Mind and Behavior. 18, 1-11.
11. Kemp, S. (n.d.). Was Communism Doomed? p.106.
12. Smith, A. (2009). Wealth of Nations. New York: Classic House.
13. Hayek, F., Bartley, W. and Hamowy, R. (2011). The constitution of liberty. Chicago, Ill: Univ. of Chicago Press.
14. Pons, S. and Service, R. (2010). In: A Dictionary of 20th-century Communism. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

A political ideology is necessary in order for a country to function but some political theories are more widespread, while some are less, which is a result of many factors and some, such as capitalism and communism, change beyond recognition from the original. Some are better and some are worse. The idea of communism existed for centuries even before Karl Marx and Christopher Engels popularized it. Before communism became popular the idea had many different names and was imagined in different ways. The modern-day communism was drawn out when Karl Marx and Christopher Engels published the books ‘Das Kapital’ and ‘The Communist Manifesto’. These books unified the ideas of communism, socialism and capitalism and described in what ways a government should behave and in what ways the finances should be managed. The publication of these books led to the first unification of communist ideas and the creation of multiple committees dedicated to the topic. ‘The Communist Manifesto’ was the basis for most of communism and it was used for reference in many places.

The first major impact of the books was the formation of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (Russia before 1917 was called the Russian Empire). The formation of the party happened on March 1898. The party was the first of its kind in Russia. There were numerous more political groups created in Russia but the two that stood out the most were the Group of Democratic Centralism and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (USSR, in Russian ‘СССР’). The two parties ending up going to ‘war’; in other words, the Bolsheviks murdered out the democratic party and the tzars entire family. Then, the Bolsheviks took control over all of Russia. They modernized the industries and seized the means of production. On December 30th, 1922 the Soviet Union was formed. Lenin then made three-year plans to maximize the efficiency of production. This transformed the problematic Russia that heavily relied on farming into a prosperous industrial nation ready for any obstacle.

The Soviet Union was the first working example of a socialist state. By saying “working”, I mean that they had a stable government, a set ruler and a fed population. The Soviet Union eliminated the influence of wealthy people in the government. They then distributed their money amongst the people. Now that the industry was the property of the government everyone could have a steady job and pay. This is the main reason why the USSR flourished. The idea of having a steady job and pay for everyone eliminated poverty (poverty is earning less than 1 dollar 90 cents per day). This standard is inaccurate because you need to accommodate that the prices of living can be different. In a fictional setting the cost of a ‘comfortable’ life could be 10 cents per day and the average person earns 1 dollar. There can also be an example in which the person earns 10 dollars a day but the cost of living per day is 20 dollars. Many people consider the people living in socialist countries to be poor but that is because of the misleading definition. In many cases they are actually better than people in capitalist countries. An individual in a capitalist country may have the money to buy a 2000 dollar watch and an individual in a socialist state may have the money to buy a 20-dollar watch; the watch could be the same or very similar. A socialist state can also have some disadvantages. The necessary commodities were usually extremely cheap but luxury items that were imported would usually carry with them a very big price tag. This is due to importing being expensive and unnecessary from the survival standpoint. This seems ideal to most people but human nature is to be egocentric so communism doesn’t always work. A human always wants more than the others have.

Communism refers to a system of social organization that encourage for classless and equal community in which all wealth and property is communally owned instead of by individuals or private corporation. In summary, communism is the view that every person in a certain community is treated and receives equal portion of the benefits derived. Communism is structured to enable low-income people to prosper and achieve financial and social status equally to that of the middle-class people. Equality is attained by redistribution of wealth hence the upper-class communities are brought down to the same financial and social level as the middle class. In communism, it is required that all means of production are controlled by governments which means the state acts as a monopoly. Simply say, no individuals able to have his or her own business and production system since the governments control and obtain everything. In communist view, people will do the work that they like and do well. They would gladly contribute those skills for the sake of all. By doing so, the economy would prosper, since people do something that they enjoy and would work harder than before. In addition, the community would take care of minority who are not able to work and share things to anybody who needs them, so those who work should be driven by enlightened self-interest.

Contemporary communist philosophy first emerged during the French Revolution by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels spreading through ‘The Communist Manifesto’ was published back in 1848. The ideology denied the Christian objective of preceding communist philosophies, laying out a materialist and – its proponents claim – scientific analysis of the history and future trajectory of human society. ‘The Communist Manifesto’ marked the French Revolution as a substantial historical turning point. Back then, during capitalist era, the merchant community in the process of strengthening the control over production structure was overthrown and ushered by the feudal opposition. That revolution wiped out the middle-class struggle, which pitted the upper class against the lower class, in simple term, merchant community of capital against working class who provide their labor for wages. In ‘The Communist Manifesto’ and more recent works, Marx, Engels and the followers empowered a global revolution, and the final phase of human development would mark the end of class opposition and therefore in history stated that people would live in social equality, without class distinctions, family structures, religion or property. The community would function from each according to each ability, to each according to his needs.

Theoretically, there are several advantages that can be obtained through a communist society. Communism promotes the spread of global welfare through the development of public health and education, provision of childcare, public social services and welfare benefits. With those improvements in social welfare, theoretically will indirectly boost labor productivity and develop a better society.

Additionally, communism allows for employment opportunities to be given out to everyone. Because government owns all means of production, they can provide jobs for at least a majority of the people therefore it is normal that people are always entitled to jobs. Every citizen in a communist country is given sufficient work opportunities to live and survive. However, everyone must do his or her part for the economy to receive pay and other work benefits. If the citizens prefer not to work, then they have to support the community with some other method. State-controlled communism manages to avoid such matter by forcing every person do a job with threats of dominating governor. As everyone has a same portion and standing in the production process, there are less problem with hierarchy and classism in every industry.

One of the main advantages of communist ideology is the centrally planned economy. Since the state has the full control and acts as monopoly, it can rapidly mobilize resources on a large -scale, perform wide-scale projects, and build industrial power. The system can be executed so efficiently because it rules out personal self-interest and subjugates the welfare of majority of population to realize acute social goals.

In conclusion, despite the apparently conflicting views on communism that have developed over the course of history, and in contrast to all the critics who condemn the significance of this ideology, it can still be argued that it is good. Like any ideology, its correct and reasonable implementation is important.

Chapter one: Introduction

“Human behavior flows from three main sources: desire, emotion, and knowledge.” – Plato

Plato (427–347 B.C.E.) is, by any reckoning, one of the most dazzling writers in the Western literary tradition and one of the most penetrating, wide-ranging, and influential authors in the history of philosophy. An Athenian citizen of high status, he displays in his works his absorption in the political events and intellectual movements of his time, but the questions he raises are so profound and the strategies he uses for tackling them are so richly suggestive and provocative that educated readers of nearly every period have in some way been influenced by him, and in practically every age there have been philosophers who count themselves Platonists in some important respects. He was not the first thinker or writer to whom the word “philosopher” should be applied. But he was so self-conscious about how philosophy should be conceived, and what its scope and ambitions properly are, and he so transformed the intellectual currents with which he grappled, that the subject of philosophy, as it is often conceived—a rigorous and systematic examination of ethical, political, metaphysical, and epistemological issues, armed with a distinctive method—can be called his invention. Few other authors in the history of Western philosophy approximate him in depth and range: perhaps only Aristotle (who studied with him), Aquinas, and Kant would be generally agreed to be of the same rank. There are varying degrees of controversy over which of Plato’s works are authentic, and in what order they were written, due to their antiquity and the manner of their preservation through time. Nonetheless, his earliest works are generally regarded as the most reliable of the ancient sources on Socrates, and the character Socrates that we know through these writings is considered to be one of the greatest of the ancient philosophers. Plato’s middle to later works, including his most famous work, the Republic, are generally regarded as providing Plato’s own philosophy, where the main character in effect speaks for Plato himself. These works blend ethics, political philosophy, moral psychology, epistemology, and metaphysics into an interconnected and systematic philosophy. It is most of all from Plato that we get the theory of Forms, according to which the world we know through the senses is only an imitation of the pure, eternal, and unchanging world of the Forms. Plato’s works also contain the origins of the familiar complaint that the arts work by inflaming the passions, and are mere illusions. Along with The Republic, other famous works include The Statesman and The Laws. Plato suspected that most people did not know what they claimed to know, and hence wondered why rigorous qualifications for rulers did not exist. Challenging the Sophists’ claims that knowledge and truth were relative to the perspective of each individual, Plato developed an epistemology and metaphysics that suggested an absolute truth that could only be gleaned through rigorous self-examination and the development of reason–skills crucial for enlightened political leaders. Plato posits that the human race will have no respite from evils until those who are really philosophers acquire political power or until, through some divine dispensation, those who rule and have political authority in the cities become real philosophers. Plato came to the conclusion that all existing governments were bad and almost beyond redemption thus he theorized for an Ideal State. Though open to many objections, Plato’s Ideal State was an imagination of the man’s best and noblest self and represented the frame within which an individual found his best self.

Research Methodology

The research methodology which was followed while attempting this project draws its strengths mainly from books of political science, dedicated websites such as JSTOR to the topic matter, research papers targeting the specific topics that are discussed, along with articles and PDFs related to the main theme. Search Engines have also been used to recover specific trivia about the ideas proposed and to make the project a more interesting read. The Internet also has been a great help while researching for the topic by providing with many articles on various issues. Not to forget mentioning, discussions with the political science professor have been of considerable help while researching for the said topic. In the project, the researcher in his attempt to narrow the field and widen the understanding of the topic has specifically researched into Plato’s theory of education and communism. The existence of the principles of the ancient theory in modern states such as Nazi Germany is also analyzed.

Chapter two: Education and theory of communism under Plato’s ideal state

In his most celebrated book The Republic, Plato gives the theory of an ideal state. As far as a state is concerned, Plato gives ideas about how to build an Ideal commonwealth, who should be the rulers of the Ideal state, and how to achieve justice in the Ideal state. Plato finds the state as a more suitable place to discuss about morality than an individual because everything is easier to see in the large than in the small. A state, says Plato, is a man ‘writ’ large against the sky. The elements that make up a city correspond to the elements that constitute the individual human soul. Plato’s political Philosophy is a blend of rigorous social nihilism and political affirmation. The nihilism springs from his desire to cleanse the political State of all the influences he saw as destructive of political unity. The mission of the Political community is the means whereby all the native powers and excellences of the individual are brought to fruition. Although large parts of the Republic are devoted to the description of an ideal state ruled by philosophers and its subsequent decline, the chief theme of the dialogue is justice. It is fairly clear that Plato does not introduce his fantastical political innovation, which Socrates describes as a city in speech, a model in heaven, for the purpose of practical implementation. The vision of the ideal state is used rather to illustrate the main thesis of the dialogue that justice, understood traditionally as virtue and related to goodness, is the foundation of good political order, and as such is in everyone’s interest. Justice, if rightly understood, Plato argues, is not to the exclusive advantage of any of the city’s factions, but is concerned with the common good of the whole political community, and is to the advantage of everyone. It provides the city with a sense of unity, and thus, is a basic condition for its health. “Injustice causes civil war, hatred, and fighting, while justice brings friendship and a sense of common purpose.” Plato was influenced of the Pythagorean theory of human nature. Pythagoras classifies human nature in three sections that are reason, courage, and appetite. Plato says that a state is a living body and a state represents the same features at a large level, that an individual represents at a small level. Individuals are the organs of the state. As an organ cannot survive without a body, similarly, an individual is nothing out of the state. The state is composed of classes and these classes are its parts. He based his ideal state on the three major classes. The ruling class, highly educated in philosophy, is to administer the state. A military class, having the courage and physical strength, is to defend the state while a professional class is needed to be ruled and to deal with the ordinary or common daily affairs of the state. So, he bases his ideal state on the three major classes, which are the ruling class, the military class, and the professional class. These classes are also known as the guiding class, auxiliary class, and professional class.

Plato provided for a state-regulated education system i.e. an education system run by the state. His three classes of the state are the output of his educational scheme. Plato holds that body is in need of food and the soul is in need of education. He wanted a welfare and model state having its foundation on his education system. In the age range 1-6 years, children are told stories to enable them to differentiate in good and bad. In the age range, 6-18 years are given physical and mental education and physically they are trained in athletics, gymnastics, and music while mentally special courses of logic, astronomy, mathematics, and philosophy are given. In the age ranging from 18-20 years, and the citizens are philosophically educated. The described limit is enough for the professional class. In secondary education, the physically strong are given physical education for ten years and it produces military class while the mentally strong are given mental education to produce the administrators like teachers, collectors, magistrates, etc. Those who are very intelligent in secondary mental education are specially educated in detailed philosophy for up to 50 years and then they become the rulers.

Rousseau made an observation about The Republic, which though not precise, contains much truth. He said: ‘The Republic is the finest treatise on education ever written. The Republic is not a treatise on education; nevertheless, education occupies much importance in it. It is a treatise on life as a whole. It sketches an ideal life with its varied aspects. Education as a means to attain that end, hence, predominates the book.

In Plato’s system, Education occupied a far more important place. Plato wanted to provide the positive and negative conditions for good citizenship. The communism of property and women eliminates the special hindrance to good citizenship; through the device of the eugenic system, he gets the best talents and trains them to bring the best out of them. In the whole plan of the Ideal State he places his main reliance on education He devotes quite a large part of his book to it and studies the problem in detail. He himself called it ‘one great thing”. Plato having concluded with the basic character of the guardians goes on to talk about the kind of education suitable to them. He thought it of paramount importance. His concern was to train the character as the mind. He makes the matter of education the concern of the state. He subdivided education into reading and writing, physical education, and what we may call secondary or literary education. He holds that they are to be educated when young since the minds of the young are very impressionable. They are to be taught the five mathematical disciplines of arithmetic, plane and solid geometry, astronomy, harmonics, and pure philosophy or dialectic which will all train the mind and character. Also, the curriculum must be controlled and defined by the state. He, therefore, proposed a rigid control that applies to school textbooks, arts, and literature. His reason was that most of the literature works told falsehoods, especially about gods, of their heinous crimes, weaknesses, and so on and if the guardians are exposed to this, they might feel that if such gods and heroes could do such things, then they are not too perfect not to fall to mistake.

But, we come across to a paradox in Plato’s argument. A cursory glance over the plan of education will make it clear that it has been designed to discover the philosopher-king. At the same time, Plato argues that it is the philosopher king who shall translate the scheme into practice. An educational system cannot be implemented unless we have the philosopher-king and he cannot be discovered without having himself come through an educational system. Hence, Plato was confronted with an irresoluble vicious circle. He tried to realize his Ideal state in the Syracusan adventure but could not find the philosopher-king in the person of Dionysius, because he was not completely educated.

Plato’s theory of communism was certainly a corollary of his conception of justice. He believed that without communism there would be a clash of ideas and interests between reason and appetite. Plato’s communism is based on the premise that property, family instincts, and private interests would distract man’s attention from his obligations to the community. He strongly opined that family and property are always impediments not only to a philosopher king but also to a commoner in his discharge of duties. As property and family relationships seemed to be the main source of dissension in society, Plato stated that neither of them must be given any recognition in an ideal state. Therefore, a sort of communism of family and property was essential to offset the consequences of Plato’s design of the ideal state. The example of Sparta, wherein the citizens were denied the use of money and the privilege of engaging in trade, undoubtedly influenced Plato in reaching this conclusion. The main reason for Plato to emphasize on the communism of property was to bring about a greater degree of unity in the state. The improvement of the race demands a more controlled and more selective type of union. Finally, the abolition of marriage was probably an implied criticism of the position of women in Athens, where her activities were summed up in keeping the house and rearing children. To this, Plato denied that the state serves half of its potential guardians. Plato’s communism of property is in no way related to modern communism or socialism because there was no mention of socialization of the means of production. Plato’s approach was mainly concerned with one factor of production, that is, property that has to be socialized. Plato’s scheme of communism deprived the guardian class not only of property but also a private life or a family because family introduced an element of thine and mine. Thus, Plato’s communism of wives provided social, political, and psychological bases for the ideal state. Plato believed that such communism of family would remove the conflict between personal interests and the objectives of the state.

Chapter three: Reflection of platonic communism in Hitler’s Germany and other modern states

Over the course of the most famous work of political science ever written, The Republic, Plato (through the eyes of Socrates) outlines what he envisions to be the “ideal city” or “kallipolis,” a population aligned by a strict caste system, production dominated by specialization, and a ruling class of thinkers with one great Philosopher-King (or Queen) at the top of the social pyramid.

Two important points of Plato’s system include the equality of women in the workplace and the rigid censorship controlling the poetry, music, and art of the people. In the years since Plato wrote this defining text, aspects of his hypothetical regime can be seen in almost every political system that has emerged, including Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Fidel Castro’s Communist Cuba, and the present-day United States of America.

Just as members of Plato’s society were to specialize in the one thing that they did best, so too were the women of Hitler’s society raised with the sole purpose of producing as many healthy, happy children as possible over the course of their marriage. While both Plato and Hitler would agree that specialization is the key to success, they had very different ideas of a woman’s role in society: Plato tried to maximize efficiency by allowing women to specialize in anything as long as it was their calling in life, whereas Hitler essentially cut his workforce and talent pool in half by keeping women out of work and politics and instead focusing on rearing children for the Reich. When taken in the context of Plato’s equality, it seems almost humorous that Hitler would declare men and women equal because “both sexes have their rights, their tasks, and these tasks were in the case of each equal in dignity and value, and therefore man and woman were on equality”. According to Plato, however, manipulative statements are characteristic of the tyrant, so this really shouldn’t come as a surprise. What is surprising, however, is a holiday that the Nazis celebrated, August 12th, which had been Hitler’s mother’s birthday. On this day, the prestigious Motherhood Cross was awarded to women based on how many children they had birthed: eight children earned a gold cross, six a silver cross, and four a bronze cross. This metal system seems to be taken straight out of The Republic and modified for the demands of the Reich. While Hitler was on the right track with specialization, his definition of equality certainly needed some refining in order to comply with Plato’s ideals.

If Plato was correct in asserting that men are generally more able than women, then the self-correcting, self-adjusting capitalist system of America would pay women less because they are worth less. A more reasonable explanation based on Plato is that

Perhaps, the natural difference in abilities between men and women allows men to occupy higher-paid positions in today’s society; departing from this idea, women could and probably will be equal to men in the United States workplace, in a few years.

On the topic of women and mothers, it is important to note an absurd aspect of Plato’s city which is absent not only from these three communities but also from any regime ever, the idea of the communal family experience, whereby children are produced in mating festivals, the parents of each individual are unknown, and the children are raised together in a unit. No matter what society is examined, the women would riot at the implementation of this policy. Suggestions such as this certainly cast doubt on the possibility of Plato’s ideal city ever working as described; as seen with female equality in a different society, parts of Plato’s city are certainly feasible, but other suggestions are impossible.

Plato considered himself to be a philosopher, literally a “lover of wisdom,” but he believed that freedom of expression was a dangerous thing in the hands of the masses.[footnoteRef:18] The Nazis seemed to agree with Plato’s idea of banning anything that hurt the cause of the city, although again, Hitler and Socrates had different definitions of “harmful” in mind. The Nazi party labeled any modern art which failed to support the Nazi ideals “degenerate art” and would display it publicly for mockery. As museums were stripped of their avant-garde garbage, it was replaced by Heroic Art, a type of propaganda that was meant to exemplify the German race through “racially pure, the corruption-free expression”. Literature and general speech also suffered heavily under Nazi occupation. The Hitler Jugend, the network of carefully controlled, fanatical youth groups, was infamous for raiding libraries and burning any books written by racially inferior authors or containing dangerous or “incorrect” ideas. When the Nazi army invaded a new territory, radios, newspapers, and publishers were immediately shut down or replaced by the unstoppable propaganda machine, responsible for promoting the atrocious actions of the Nazi party. This caused the illegal press to flourish, however, as papers and newsletters were published underground by groups of activists struggling to retain their basic human rights of expression and information.

However, in both Germany and Cuba, strong underground resistance formed almost immediately after the freedom of speech was taken away; how does Plato contend with the inevitable human thirst for taboo topics? He doesn’t have to; as far as the masses are concerned, it doesn’t exist. One of the beauties of Plato’s system is that everyone is controlled, essentially brainwashed from a young age to read, watch, and listen to only what the philosophers prescribe. Everything else ceased to exist, as far as Plato’s masses are concerned. In reality, however, it would be nearly impossible to create this system; Plato absurdly suggests that everyone except for the 10-year-olds and the philosophers leave the city, another instance of an impossible necessity of his kallipolis. Without anyone capable of producing goods for necessary consumption or protecting the city, this city would instantly crumble, either to an enemy or on itself. Exactly like the case of women’s equality, some aspects of Plato’s city have been utilized over the course of history, whereas others are undoubtedly impossible.

By examining only two of the many topics discussed by Socrates and friends in The Republic, a “crack” emerges in each argument—the ideas of communal family units and the city’s inauguration of ten-year-olds and elders. Because of these slight cracks, which are prevalent throughout the text, It is believed that Plato wrote The Republic less as a blueprint for utopia and more as a city of speech, a warning to future political leaders and citizens about the dangers of trying to reach perfection: these cracks seem to mirror the cracks in human nature that would prevent a city like the ideal city from ever seeing the light of day. The real magic of the text, however, lies in the careful blend of these cracks and the plethora of legitimately genius ideas and observations Socrates makes about human nature. For this reason, The Republic is a timeless text that, while not the answer to the question of utopia, will remain immortal in the hearts and minds of men forever.

Chapter four: Critical analysis

Western thought, one might say, has been either Platonic or anti-Platonic, but hardly ever non-Platonic. – Popper.

Plato was the first systematic political theorist and a study of the Western philosophical traditions begins with his masterpiece, the Republic, He was the first to create a body of writing that spanned many areas- art, epistemology, ethics, language, love, mathematics, political theory, religion, and science. He was credited for establishing philosophy as a unified and complex discipline, proposing radical solutions to the political community and human life. Utopian thought in the West also begins with Plato. While the Republic would always remain a timeless classic, Plato influenced successive generations of followers with his the Statesman and the Laws, for Aristotle made the latter two the starting point of his inquiry.

Plato emphasized that a good political community was one that promoted the general well-being of all its citizens. Plato’s society was highly structured, ordered, hierarchical, regimented, and meritocratic, where everyone was expected to perform the duties that were allotted. He ruled out wealth, gender, and birth as criteria for distributing privileges and favors. The fact that Plato recommended state-controlled compulsory education implied that he rejected its privatization and commercialization. Interestingly, since Plato, this idea has remained a cornerstone of Western societies. Plato was the first to allow women to become rulers and legislators. He advocated sexual equality with the purpose of utilizing women’s resources for the benefit and development of the community as a whole.

Plato’s Ideal State has been both an inspiration and a warning for subsequent efforts in utopian projects. Plato’s attempt cautions us against utopianism, for utopianism has led to totalitarianism. At the heart of a utopian project is the chimerical idea of finality, which is inherently incompatible in a world that is essentially pluralistic, and unamenable to complete solutions. Any effort to depict a perfect blueprint is not only methodologically unsound but also politically dangerous. It is not possible to foresee everything and plan accordingly. Even assuming if it was, then a question arises as to who will plan the planners. In order to attain perfection, society has seen its planners going rogue with the prime example of Hitler’s devilish principles of Nazism.

Bibliography/references

Books:

1. N. Jayapalan, Comprehensive History of Political Thought, Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, 2001.
2. G. H. Sabine and T. L. Thorson, A History Of Political Theory, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi, 1973.
3. S. Mukherjee and S. Ramaswamy, A History Of Political Thought – Plato To Marx, Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi, 2006.

Articles:

1. C. Bradford Welles, “The Background of Plato’s Communism”, available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2113567.
2. R.S. Bluck, “Plato’s ‘Ideal’ State”, available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/637646.
3. Patrick A. Sullivan, “Plato and Modern Education”, available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/4342183.
4. Susan Moller Okin, “Philosopher Queens and Private Wives: Plato on Women and the Family”, available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2264947.
5. Amelie Oksenberg Rorty, “Plato’s Counsel on Education”, available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3752074.
6. Z. M. Quraishi, “Plato’s Theory of Education”, available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/42743379.
7. Hamilton Ackerman, “The Republic in the World”, available at http://www.bu.edu/av/core/journal/xv/vol15-Ackerman-The%20Republic%20in%20the%20World.pdf.
8. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato
9. www.jstor.org

The loss of legitimacy, the arms race with the West and the Economic problems are the main precursor to eventual collapse of communism. While the Soviet government failed to create the correct policies to tackle their social and economic woes, their political actions in the 1980s also proved to be pivotal in the downfall of the Soviet Union and the eventual downfall of communism throughout Eastern Europe. The arms race exhausted the productive capacity of the Soviet Union and other inefficient communist regimes. This point is echoed by William Wohlforth who argues that, “Gorbachev may have had numerous reasons for seeking to withdraw from the rivalry with the United States, but a necessary precondition was the perception of reduced capability to compete”. This is a view that is supported by Dowlah and Elliot who say that “The escalation in military spending began the process of the dismantling of the Soviet nuclear war machine” and that it was “an unusually taxing game for the Soviet Union as it was necessary to devote roughly twice the proportion of soviet resources to military provisioning as the United States in order to achieve and retain parity”. This supposed withdrawal and lack of military presence also sent a message to the rest of the world that communism was not as strong as they had been in the past.

While cultural forces contributed to the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, the disintegration of economies played the key role in driving its decline and collapsed because of the ruling elite’s inability to address the economic concerns of the people. Gorbachev’s attempts at reform in the Soviet Union were complemented by insurgent movements in Eastern Europe which saw the communist bloc collapse in a domino effect. The deteriorating economic circumstances began to contribute to dissatisfaction especially among the younger generation who were more educated, more aware and inclined to be more dissatisfied with their economic circumstances.

Another reason that can be presented regarding the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe is one of ‘loss of legitimacy’. The crisis of legitimacy started with Stalin’s death in 1953. In his chaotic manner, Khrushchev sought to preserve Stalin’s power and to banish his legacy. Neither force nor reform could foster legitimacy; in fact, the use of force damaged the validity of communist rule in the Eastern Bloc, and the enactment of reform exposed a lack of legitimacy in the Soviet Union itself.

Thus, there are multiple external factors that played a supporting role in expediting the prolonging fall of communism in Eastern Europe. The domino effect that resulted in the fall of communist governments in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Bulgaria can all be put down to the loss of legitimacy, the arms race and the economic downfall that was witnessed throughout the 20th century. This caused a reduction of mass support present, which showed the limits of the totalitarian model and without this backing, the respective communist governments throughout Eastern Europe had little chance of surviving.

Imagine if you lived in a place where you had no freedom and was ruled by a terrible man named Joseph Stalin. That is what it was like in many countries until America’s policy of containment. The United States made a policy of containment because they didn’t like the idea of communism. Communism is where you have no freedoms and you were under the rule of a dictator. There are three main reasons for how did the US contain communism: the Berlin Airlift, the Korean War, and finally the Cuban Missile Crisis.

One example of containment is the Berlin Airlift. Communists wanted to take over West Berlin since they weren’t communists, but the US didn’t want to give it up so they resisted. Then on June 27, 1948, Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union decide to blockade any shipments coming into West Berlin. They did a blockade on West Berlin so they could weaken them, so the US, Britain, and France responded with an airlift with supplies so they can defend it and resist a takeover. This is an example of containment because it kept communism from taking over in West Berlin.

The next topic is the Korean War. On June 25, 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea. Communist North Korea wants to reunify with South Korea. The United States pledged to help them because they didn’t want communism to spread. General Douglas MacArthur staged a risky yet successful counter-attack at the port of Inchon. North Korean forces are routed and pushed back all the way to the Yalu River, the border of North Korea and China communist. Communist China than enters the war and in November of 1950. The war lasts many years and at the end of the war, there were more than 2 million deaths. This is an example of containment because Soviet power and communism were kept from spreading.

The third topic is the Cuban Missile Crisis. In January of 1959, Cuba becomes communist under Fidel Castro. United States spy planes find evidence of medium-range nuclear missiles being rapidly installed in Cuba. October 23 US announces a quarantine against ships carrying offensive weapons to Cuba. The Soviets begin to remove missiles, and the crisis is avoided. Finally on April of 1963 US had a quiet agreement with the Soviets, and they removed missiles. This also let communism not spread.

In conclusion, all of the above confirms why communism should not be spread. Containment was not only a good thing it kept the US from going into another war.

European history from the beginning of French Revolution to the end of the Second World War can be explored as a series of struggles between competing or conflicting ideologies. The events with the ideologies presented brought about the modernisation of Europe as it is in present day through significantly important documents, a rise of public perception and knowledge towards a certain unfair rule or class discrimination, mass participation, the development of science and technology, amongst many others. This essay will be focusing on the French Revolution, were it saw the idea of the general public including women who came together to overthrow their ruling monarch as well as putting an end on absolutism for a another form societal rule with more free will in liaison with the slogan liberty, equality and fraternity, the Industrial Revolution that brought about liberalism and socialism in fighting for better workers’ rights and developing machineries for a more efficient productivity and the Russian Revolution, where the communist Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) attempted a democratic, federative state with its provisional government after the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II before Lenin came to power in 1917.

Communism can be described as a political theory that believes that the state should control the methods of production and that there should be no separate social classes and men should be treated equally. While democracy is the belief in freedom and equality between people or the system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representative or directly by the people (Cambridge University Press, 2008). The Russian Revolution in 1917 took the state out of World War I and built a communist state based on Karl Marx’s ideas. The communist ideology in Russia was anticapitalistic and atheistic and it desired to spread the idea elsewhere in the world. Russia in the 1900 was politically and economically behind the European powers. The government remained a rigorous and unrestrained autocracy, with the Tsar still as the head of state and church. No local government was established until the 1860s and no national representative institution existed until 1905, even which their power was severely limited.

The government restricted political parties and kept any form of resistance in order through a system of censorship, a secret police force and an internal passport system that restricted people’s movements in the country. Up till the 1900s, peasants made up almost 90% of Russia’s population and illiterates made up two thirds of the population. Hence, there were not much urban working class and did not fulfil the term Karl Marx thought was essential for a revolution. The Marxist-Communist ideology called for a number of reasons to appeal for change in the Russian Empire. Some of which included the frustration of Russian radicals on their attempt to radicalize the peasantry and they preferred the Marxist focus on the proletariats, the antireligious nature of Marxism appealed to Russian intellectuals and generally appealed to the public because many thought of its potential to modernize Russia.

Marxist theory was also assisted in understanding Russia’s backwardness as part of its development in history. Russian radicals living outside Russia formed the Marxist Social Democratic Labour Party in 1898. There were split along two strands, the Bolsheviks led by Vladimir Lenin that pushed for an immediate revolution and Mensheviks led by Julius Martov that argued for a more gradual approach (Cavendish, 2003). By the start of 1917, the over 14 million peasants’ soldiers in the military were undersupplied, which led to the shortages of food. In March that year, riots and demonstration for bread begun and Tsar Nicholas II, ruler at the time was forced to abdicate. A mock government that was set up by the Duma sworn to form a constitutional government and hold free elections. On the other hand, soldiers and workers had came up with their own governing bodies called the soviets which are also known as councils. Each council are responsible to their electors and are bound by their instructions and the elected candidates are only responsible to their conscience.

Moreover, the elected candidates can be dismissed at any time which reflected the idea of democracy. The Bolshevik took over some function in the city’s administration and subsequently challenged the mock government through the Petrograd Soviet. When Lenin return from exile in April the same year, he rallied the Bolshevik and confronted the mock government. Lenin quickly consolidated to power and occupied the Winter Palace with the dismissal of the mock government with no bloodshed. In 1918, Tsar Nicholas II and his family were executed by the Bolsheviks in fear of the tsar serving as a rally point during the civil war. (Lindemann 2013; Mason 2015)

In conclusion, the competing ideologies successfully led to the modernisation of Europe, through demonstration, strikes with some form of bloodshed involved. Nonetheless, it impacted the history of Europe with a series of economic and political instability and more crucially, some form of adjustments in the governing of the state. These ideologies through history had brought people together such as the bourgeoisie and the proletariats to stand up for a certain agenda. The French Revolution, Industrial Revolution and Russian Revolution all have their own significance and have lasting impact on the constitutions of the state in the present day by laying its foundations and spreading of the ideology across the globe many years ago.

Karl Heinrich Marx the father of the most effective economic system we know of was born on May 5th, 1818 in Trier, Germany. Marx was the oldest boy that survived of nine children which I would call fate. Marx was born into a Jewish background which exposed him to prejudice and discrimination that may have been a factor in his questioning of the role of religion in society and contributed to his desire for social change (McLellan, 2019). In the month of June 1847, a secret society by the name of the League of Just met in London in hopes to create a political program, they sent a representative to our now older and wiser Karl Marx; Marx overcame his doubts and with the help of his comrade Friedrich Engels. With the powerhouse of Marx and Engels the name of the League of Just wasn’t capable of describing the righteousness of the ideas to come, thus the Communist League was born… they immediately enacted a democratic constitution. Marx and Engels were tasked with composing their program, they worked from December 1847 till the end of January 1848. After impatient threats from the London Communists, they promptly accepted Marx’s work as their manifesto (McLellan, 2019). A few riots and an overthrown government later communism was founded in the Soviet Union by Vladimir Lenin in January of 1912. Marx believed that democracy creates destruction over time as a result of the ‘owners’ would eventually stop the ‘non-owners’ from having access to required resources. Lower socioeconomic teams would wage ‘war’ with the elites in society over financial gain, property, and wealth. Communism eliminated those factors, basing it on the thought that everybody ought to have identical possibilities to make a life for themselves. Although there are exceptions to classism in communism (namely oligarchs and high-level government officials), you don’t get a start in life as a result of your family, you’re employed to what you’re smart at doing and what others need (Amadeo, 2019).

To understand the true good in communism we must take a journey into the hellscape of the twisted mind of Adam Smith where a wicked system of a ‘free market’; the evil idea of capitalism emerged from the deepest pits of hell to hurt society in a free for all style of economy. Private ownership of capital enables heretics to gain a monopoly power in product and labor markets. People with this monopoly power can exploit their position to charge higher prices. This is just not right and despicable. These people with monopoly power can pay lower wages to workers. In capitalist societies, there is often great inequality between the owners of capital and those who work for them (Comparing Economic Systems, n.d.). This parasite prays on a majority of the society it is involved with, the rich get richer and the poor stay poor and oppressed. Capitalism relies on non-public possession of the means of production and on individual economic freedom. Most of the means that of production, like factories and businesses, are in the hands of non-public people and not by the government (Comparing Economic Systems, n.d.). Non-public owners create selections regarding what, when, and how to supply and the way abundant merchandise ought to value. Alternative characteristics of laissez-faire economy embrace the following: free competition, supply and demand. Free competition is the essential rule of this devil of an economy is that individuals ought to compete freely while not interference from government or the other foreign source (Amadeo, 2019). The parasitic capitalist economy assumes that the foremost meriting person can sometimes win. In theory, costs are to be kept as low as can be as a result of customers can obtain the top products for a lower quantity of currency. In an exceedingly toxic capitalist system, costs are determined by what percentage of merchandise there is and the way many folks have a need for them. Once the amount of merchandise increases, costs tend to drop. If costs drop, demand sometimes will increase till the supply runs out. Then costs can rise all over again, however this all depends on the demand being high. These laws of supply and demand form a vicious evil cycle to regulate costs and keep them from raising too high or dipping too low (Amadeo, 2019). A system that is not entirely equal to the people is unjust and has no reason to be in practice, if everyone is entirely equal it would eliminate greed and jealousy that destroys nations and separates us as a species more and more.

Cons of Communism

Unfortunately, nothing in this world is perfect and even a system as good as communism can have some flaws. In theory, communism is an almost perfect system it is when it’s put into practice that leaders let the power go straight to their head and become corrupt just as in any other political system. This poses the question of are the wrong people being put into power in order to properly run these systems, and how do we find the right leader? If a communist system is to be put in place, precautions and restrictions must be in place to keep the leader from being corrupt (Chief, n.d.).

The design of communism feels Orwellian once enforced. The only party in power will manage the message that the people receive inside their territory of power. There’s seldom any contact with the world outside of their country that has not been screened by the government before contact. Which means the population will assume they’re completely knowledgeable on current events, however in reality, they’re kept in the dark for the advantage of the community (Chief, n.d.).

The most vital disadvantage of communism stems from its termination of the free market. The ideals of supply and demand don’t set costs. The government takes care of that. Planners lose the integral feedback these costs give, concerning what the people desire. They can’t get up-to-date data involving the consumers’ wants/needs, and as a result, there’s usually a surplus of one product with shortages of others. To compensate, the people produce a black market to trade the items the government doesn’t give, this eradicates the trust in Marx’s pure communism. individuals do not feel the government will offer ‘to each according to his needs’ (Chief, n.d.).

Under communism, you’re primarily operating to earn a paycheck that you’ll most likely never get to see. You get enough to supply for yourself, however the rest of your wages and productivity is given to the community for the greater good. Many folks living inside this kind of state aren’t following their dreams as a result of the lack of decision they have and don’t have the ultimate say for his or her own career. In several instances, folks simply surrender attempting to figure and let the government give the fundamentals for them. The pros and cons of communism can be viewed as utopian ideals, however the outcomes tend to example dystopian societies instead. It’s a system of state that appears smart on paper as a result of it focusing on equality and building everybody up at the same rate (Chief, 2019). It’s conjointly a system that struggles in application as a result of the stress that the party, state, or government places on its individual followers.

Pros of Communism

Communism incorporates a centrally planned economy; it would swiftly mobilize economic resources on an outsized scale, execute huge projects, and make industrial power. Communist command economies will completely remodel societies to adapt to the leader’s vision. Some examples would be Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and Castro’s Cuba. Russia’s command economy engineered up the capability to defeat the Nazis, as well as quickly remodeled the economy after World War II (Chief, 2019). Everyone who needs employment beneath communist superintendence gets a job. Some individuals are compelled to figure as a result of their skills are necessary for the larger sensible. You don’t get to stop operating as a result of you would like to live in an alternate way (Chief, 2019). You are doing what the government tells you to do and nothing less, that is typically what you’re best at doing. There aren’t any roles thought-about superior over others during this governments format. You’re either giving the directions, setting the policy, or implementing what you’re told to try and do (Chief, 2019). Some would possibly argue that this idea, taking from socialism, offers a lot of equality than what a free-market system dictates.

Some say communism’s benefits mean it’s the most logical next step for any capitalistic society. They see financial gain difference as a symbol currently stage free enterprise and believe that capitalism’s flaws mean it’s evolved past its quality to society. They don’t notice the evils that capitalism’s flaws are detrimental to the system, despite the part it’s in. America’s founding fathers enclosed promotion of the final welfare within the constitution to balance these flaws. It educated the government to safeguard the rights of all to pursue their plan of happiness, as made public within the aspiration. It’s the government’s role to form a fair chance and equal opportunities for all people.

The most detrimental principle of communism is that no private possession of property ought to be allowed. Marx believed that non-public possession inspired greed and impelled individuals to knock out the competition, despite what the results may be. Property must be shared, and therefore the individuals ought to ultimately management the economy. The government needs to exercise the management within the name of the individuals, the minimum in the transition between capitalist economy and communism. The goals are to eliminate the gap between the wealthy and poor and convey concerning economic equality.

The top priority for a communist government once it involves power is to supply instructional opportunities to every individual in the public. Once the Communists took over the government in China 1949, their initial task was to show people that were illiterate the way to browse and write. They brought business skills to urban and rural communities, showing individuals the way to be productive in producing, agricultural, and industrial positions. This method gave the individuals in the country sensible skills that can be accustomed improve their overall quality of life – although granted, that improvement came at the discretion of the government (Comparing Economic Systems, n.d.).

In the capitalist West, industrialization was a by-product of rising agricultural productivity. As output per farmer increased, fewer farmers were needed to feed the population. Those no longer needed in agriculture moved to cities and became industrial workers. Modernization and rising food production went hand in hand. Under communism, in contrast, industrialization accompanied falling agricultural productivity (Caplan, n.d.). The government used the food it wrenched from the peasants to feed industrial workers and pay for imports. The new industrial workers were unfortunately former peasants who had fled the wicked conditions of the collective farms. One of the most basic concepts in economics is the production possibilities frontier (PPF), which shows feasible combinations of, for example, wheat and steel. If the frontier remains fixed, more steel means less wheat (Caplan, n.d.). In the non-communist world, industrialization was a continuous outward shift of the PPF driven by technological change. In the communist world, industrialization was a painful movement along the PPF, or to be more precise, it moved along the PPF. The other distinctive feature of Soviet industrialization was that few manufactured products ever reached consumers. The emphasis was on ‘heavy industry’ such as steel and coal (Caplan, n.d.). This is puzzling until one realizes that the term ‘industrialization’ is a misnomer. What happened in the Soviet Union during the 1930s was not industrialization, but militarization, an arms build-up greater than that by any other nation in the world, including Nazi German (Caplan, n.d.). Another instance of communism being more beneficial than most types of governments is the fact that between the years of 1940 to 1973 the Soviet Union’s the percent of economic growth went from 14% to about 17% establishing it as one of the world’s most dominating superpowers. By the year 1987 other economic superpowers began to struggle and had their growth percentages drop while the Soviet Union remained steady and strong as any communist economy would.

Results

It is very clear that communism in practice has not functioned to its full potential, however that does not mean that it is an idea that should be scrapped. I fully believe that the pros outweigh the cons and that some adjustments can and should be made to ensure that communism could succeed and thrive. For example, financial gain, complete equity for the people, and education for the future generations that will be the next to care to our planet and species are all human necessities. The complete transparency of the government and its people would ensure that it succeeds and is not that hard to achieve. The lack of meaningful jobs could easily be countered by allowing people who are good and knowledgeable as well as enjoy a certain job have the freedom to do so, but the problem with that is that some people would want to not put in as much work as their comrades… which only has one solution, the Gulag. That’s a joke, obviously that would be cruel and evil the real solution would be to educate people and make education free and easily available so people are more inclined to learn and find interest in certain subjects to find a job that fits them.

It’s no secret that the United States doesn’t have the simplest relationship with communism; ‘dirty commie’ is the associated insult towards communism. A lot of this is caused by the Red Scare of the 40’s and 50’s, that fueled the torturous Cold War as well as influencing the conflict in the wars in peninsula and Vietnam, and that had a long-lasting impact on however individuals within the United States view this form of government (Comparing Economic Systems, n.d.). Since then, the American government has interfered in multiple countries — supporting coups, assassinating leaders, and anti-communist propaganda — in order to remove communism resided or was even thought to appear. In any case, in recent months, communist ideology has started to catch the eye of more and more American people. The Communist Party of USA — a communist organization on a national scale with seven thousand members registered at the time of this essay – has reported an enormous spike in interest. With that in mind, our western society is in the clutches of the deathly parasite, that’s name sends shivers down my spine, capitalism and we should eradicate our free market economy in favor of communism as well as implicating the necessary precautions in place so our leading government would not let absolute power corrupt absolutely. These precautions must be determined before any real steps are taken towards conversion to communism, as of this moment the best idea would be to find a leader who would be okay with making personal sacrifices for the greater good for example, being treated with the same standards and expectations as the people that he/she leads, as well as being completely transparent with the people of their country.

References

1. McLellan, D. T., & Feuer, L. S. (2019, October 31). Brussels Period. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Karl-Marx/Brussels-period
2. Comparing Economic Systems. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/gov/13b.asp
3. Amadeo, K. (2019, October 30). 5 Differences Between Communism and Capitalism. Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/communism-characteristics-pros-cons-examples-3305589
4. Chief, E. in. (n.d.). 12 Pros and Cons of Communism. Retrieved from https://vittana.org/12-pros-and-cons-of-communism
5. Ball, T., & Dagger, R. (2019, November 13). Non-Marxian Communism. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism/Non-Marxian-communism#ref276335
6. Benjamin, R. W. (1968, March 1). Communism and Economic Development. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1953329?seq=6#metadata_info_tab_contents
7. Caplan, B., Nye, J. V. C., Heilbroner, R., Smiley, G., & Bordo, M. D. (n.d.). Communism. Retrieved from https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Communism.html
8. Chief, E. in. (2019, January 4). 15 Major Advantages and Disadvantages of Communism. Retrieved from https://connectusfund.org/15-major-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-communism
9. Williams, L., & Learning, L. (n.d.). International Business. Retrieved from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-internationalbusiness/chapter/reading-thedisadvantages-of-communism/

Wars, disagreements, and different kinds of economic and political revolutions started the quick and rapid spread of communism in the late 20th century. It spread everywhere and it enforced traditional roles upon women and men. With men who got higher authority and power, and with women on the lower scale with men who had little to no opportunities. Women tried and were successful for a while standing up for their rights and gaining equality. This was shown through reform and by doing movements and revolutions of their own. However, in the 20th century, in places like Russia, Central Asia, Vietnam, Cuba, and Romania, communist movements greatly affected women by negatively shutting down and reducing the process that was made of the already struggle for women’s rights.

In Russia, before the communist movements, but during the first revolution, women were trying to uplift the idea of change and reform for them. Soon, movements for middle-class women became stronger and it shed light on many people in their society. However, this quickly stopped as the government and people with power were strongly against any change and liberation for women in Russia. Alexandra Kollontai, a Russian Communist revolutionary and a member of the Bolshevik government in Russia, with a piece from their autobiography, Soviet Union, 1926 (D1). Before the first revolution in Russia, Kollontai described the sadness and anger in the autobiography with the members of the party in the Bolshevik government. The common opinion and agreement in the “fate of women of the working class and how meager was its interest in women’s liberation.” was the opinion that many in the government believed. Even with a “strong bourgeois (middle class) women’s movement,” in Russia, no support on this matter was given. These movements were shut down and communist movements began, Kollontai knew that through her analysis, women in the middle class would have to be a part of these movements to gain “a new social order and a different economic system” and to gain equality and liberation.

Women were delayed in their tracks to gain this from their reforms, before and after the movements. Even though it got better, women were still not able to earn their freedom all the way. As time went on women were slowly getting movements back up and going. A study published by the National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1961 (D4). This showed the percentage of women in research and professional positions in the Soviet Union. In the table, you can see the percentage of women in the categories, “professors,” “associate professors,” and “Junior research associates.” These all went up just by a little bit, the rest had little change or no change. This table does show that there was change as the years went on, even if it was a slow start. However, that does not go unnoticed by women who were still struggling to earn these jobs after the communist movements. Life wasn’t as easy as it seems in these charts. It was a slow process for women to earn rights, let alone a higher-paying job. The percentage showed a great deal, but women were still going through hardships and movements were still going to get their freedom and rights.

In the early years of communism, women in Central Asia were able to bring new changes and reform to their society. Communism was new to different places and it allowed women to express their movements and ideas. Mariia Fedorovna Muratova, a Soviet official in the Women’s Department of the Bolshevik Central Committee, working in the Soviet Uzbekistan in Asia, 1930 (D2). In the Muslim culture in Central Asia, women were commonly veiled covering their heads and faces. This was to symbolize respect and to be identified as a woman. Men would wear anything that covered their waist and knees, this was to show respect and identity for men. This tradition in their culture gave women their own way to practice their culture and present themselves. To women, this was a right to them. However, when communist and communist movements began, Russia was in control of Central Asia. Authorities there were against the Muslim practice of a veil for women. “Here is no place for you in the party and Komsomol,” this was towards anyone who wanted to continue to wear a veil. Authorities wanted to end this as it was a way for women to show themselves. By taking that away, the one thing they had to start a movement, was gone and no reform would start for women in Central Asia.

In Vietnam, however, change and reform for women was accepted. Having equal pay, and being treated the same was great for working women, but what about women who didn’t work? In Document Three, an article from the Communist North Vietnamese Constitution of 1960 describes the great deals for women who worked. Women who worked would, “enjoy equal rights with men in all spheres of political, economic, cultural, social, and domestic life.” This was great, as it showed that the reforms and movements women had really paid off for them. However, this was all for working women. “Women enjoy equal pay with men,” and would get paid leave for pregnancies and healthcare. Women who didn’t work, however, were still fighting for their rights for being unemployed. Even though this was a great step for women back then in Vietnam, women still had to keep trying and creating movements for themselves who couldn’t work.

In Cuba, communist movements have started. Women are trying to get their points valid and out there, but with no help from the government and the communist movements, their reforms have to wait. Fidel Castro, the president of Cuba, with a speech to Federation go Cuban Women, 1974 (D6). “In Cuba, there remains a certain discrimination against women,” he proceeds. “It is very real, [and it] exists.” Cuba has acknowledged that women are struggling, however, their way of showing their “help” was by “trying,” to fight for them. This shows women that they still need to keep fighting for themselves even after the movements and revolutions they helped with. Even though the president seemed genuine, not all governments can be trusted. Women were still struggling while the government “tried” while women were still being brought to “higher revolutionary qualifications than men do.”

In Romania, Women were still being treated badly, but also had jobs. This seems like a great thing as women have wanted to have that freedom to work, however, they were treated more harshly. An open letter by an anonymous women’s group in Romania, addressed to the wife of the Romanian Communist dictator, Elena Ceaușescu, in 1981 (D7) describes the difficulty they are going through. “After so many exhausting hours of labor in factories… We are still expected to rush about like mad, hours on end, in search of food to give our husbands, children, and grandchildren something to eat.” This was just one example from the letter to the wife of the dictator that was received. Women fought for their rights to freedom, not to be given freedom for jobs and to do everything else. They grew tired and would most likely feel lonely. Instead of fighting for their rights every day which was their daily struggle back then, now their daily struggle was to be a producer and a supporter for their families. Women never asked for this, they asked for rights, liberation, and the chance to be equal. Not be equal work to a man and come home to cook and clean for a man. “Sometimes we would even feel like dying, not being able to face the suffering.” Women wanted change, however, they didn’t want it like this. With this new communist movement, it prevented women from being able to live a life. It felt like a routine every day and a chore to be alive. This did shut down the process for women to fight, as they were tired from the day’s work. However, they did not let this stop them from being actually equal. Their protest and movements started back up again, even after the long days and the endless hours.

With the wars and revolutions communism and the communist movements spread rapidly. Men and Women were treated very differently during these times. However, women tried to prove their points and succeeded until the communist movements in the 20th century shut down these views. As you can see, women struggling to earn their rights were greatly affected by these revolutions and movements in places like Russia, Central Asia, Vietnam, Cuba, and Romina.