Category: Communism

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.

According to Pipes, the economic policies Lenin imposed were not in the best interest of the Russian people, it was a façade in a way to implicitly have control over the people. Pipes states that the Bolsheviks “were revolutionaries not for the sake of improving the condition of the people but for the sake of gaining domination over the people and remaking them in their image”. Lenin tried to introduce state capitalism in 1917. However, Lenin’s period of economic trial and error saw his move from capitalism to socialism to communism. Therefore, we could see how workers’ rights and conditions diminished overtime. Pipes also goes on to say that foreign trade was a minimum. He states “With private commerce outlawed (until 1921 and again after 1928), the Soviet regime controlled all legitimate wholesale and retail trade”. The ideological opposition of the Bolsheviks to outside international trade, their refusal to pay the debts of Russia’s World War I, and the civil war turmoil, limit foreign trade to the bare minimum required for the industrial development of the country. However, Lenin’s NEP loses the monopoly over foreign trade of the commissariat, enabling the creation of other organizations that can trade directly with foreign partners. This meant that foreign trade began to improve. Pipes believes that there wasn’t a strong amount of state control. For example, he says “the rebellion spread to frontline troops, who deserted in droves to share in the spoils; to workers, who took control of industrial enterprises; and to ethnic minorities, who wanted greater self-rule”. This is due to the control given to the workers. Workers ‘ control is imposed in all manufacturing, retail, agricultural industries that employ people to work for them in their shops or that give them work to take home, in the hopes of comprehensive supervision of the national economy. That power applies to the production, processing, procurement, and selling of raw materials and finished products as well as the company’s finances. This meant that state control decreased and ‘greater self-rule’ was given.

However, Hill believes there was not much economic freedom in Russia. He also believes nationalization was essential for the army and the war. However, the grain requisitioning affected the poor Russian people as it led to many deaths of the peasants. He states: “In 1918 the country had been economically exhausted and bankrupt, but there was a spirit of optimism and self-confidence among the workers which was itself able to overcome many difficulties”. In 1918 Lenin introduced war communism. This meant the government had greater intervention and state control of resources. The Bolsheviks had to guarantee supplies for the red army during the civil war. War communism was harsh and triggered a famine in which 5 million died because Lenin ordered the Cheka to seize grain from the farmers to give to the soldiers and the workers in the cities. This shows how the workers’ rights were violated so Lenin could uphold his aim of winning the war. Initially, we see that the amount of state control was very small however increased during the civil war. This is shown as Hill states “Lenin announced… the transfer of land to the peasants; workers’ control over the production and distribution of goods; national control of the banks”. The decree on land in 1917 meant the abolishment of private ownership of land by giving it to the Russian people. However, during the civil war, we saw that peasants were forced to hand over their resources and were murdered while families and workers were also forcibly sent away to work and help with the war effort. Foreign trade was not focused on much. This is shown as he states “In the next few days also passed laws abolishing all inequalities based on class, sex, nationality or religion, and nationalized banks, railways, foreign trade and some of the key big industries”. The outbreak of war with Germany means that the main trading partner of Russia had been destroyed. Therefore, they had to focus on themselves and their self-sufficiency to grow economically before trading internationally again.

However, according to figures the workers’ condition and rights were poorly enforced. There was a low amount of foreign trade and a great amount of state control. For example, he says “Those in the factories spent most of their time making simple goods to barter with the peasants. Skilled technicians, in high demand, roamed from factory to factory in search of better conditions”. After the October Revolution in 1917, Lenin had put pressure on workers and allowed the syndicates to run the works. Nevertheless, they proved unable to do so, and production was broken down (though it had already started before the trade unions had taken control, so it couldn’t be blamed). Workers fled to the Red Army from the factories, and the factories were left small and some did not work. There was a minimum amount of foreign trade as he states: “The capitalist classes in Russia, including the ‘kulaks’, had already been destroyed by the revolution. And as long as it controlled the ‘commanding heights’ of the economy, banking, heavy industry, transport, and foreign trade, then the state could regulate the market and use fiscal pressures to encourage the smallholders towards the collective farms and co-operatives”. This shows how they focused on nationalization and building their domestic trade and economy instead of foreign trade. Furthermore, he goes onto to say Lenin “wanted the economy to be run with military-style discipline and precision. The whole population was to be conscripted into labor regiments and brigades and despatched like soldiers to carry out production orders (couched in terms of ‘battles’ and ‘campaigns’) on the economic front”. We see this large amount of state terror through the 1921 Tambov Rising. This was when the peasants revolted in protest of the grain requisitioning which was shut down by 50000 red army soldiers. The vast number of soldiers needed to contain a mere ‘protest’ shows the extent of the amount of state terror.

In conclusion, Lenin introduced war communism for the needs of the army (food, supplies) not provided under the union-run factories of the worker, and for high inflation and food shortages (requesting). War communism’s main components were requisitioning, rationing, labor ‘discipline’, business nationalization, and the prohibition on private trading, but it also introduced Red Terror (to suppress dissent, most prominently the Tsar and his supporters, and to consolidate central control and impose fear). Generally, for most residents, life in the Russian cities was horrible; peasants (food and fuel scarcity, arrests, famine, austere punishments), employees (factory militarization, food, and fuel shortages) and, most of all, the residual capitalist and middle classes. Members of the party lived comparable luxury lives.

The book, Triumph at Kapyong, which was written by documentary and television news reporter, Dan Bjarnason, serves as honor to both the involvement of Canada in the mediations and its actions to response against Communist attacks.

This book was released in 2011 as a dedication to 60th Anniversary of the war. The release date was very significant, but too was the book content. The author was very successful in analysis and bringing to life what really happens in the battle 60 years ago, which most people have been neglecting.

The book focuses on the Battle of Kapyong, a minor group of hills in the northeastern part of Seoul and Bjarnason as well uses most of his story to explain the incidents which resulted to participation of Canada in the battle.

He also mentioned the creation of the combat division required to manage this new war, and the bravery portrayed by their leaders in ensuring that this authority was contribution of the broader United Nation, but fully self-governing from American authority.

The soldiers who were deployed in the war came from second Battalion of the Princess Patricia, who had gained his status at Ortona and Vimy and provided the past success; it was not surprising that they were the first to join the war in Korea.

Bjarnason explains the significance of the power of Brigadier John Rockingham, brigade commander on the PPCLI, who was famous and honored experienced person in the war. Brigadier Rockingham wanted the work to be completed efficiently and effectively by several subordinates who created the resistance of Kapyong achievable.

Another role which was focused in the book is the role of the commanding officer of the PPCLI’s second Battalion, Lieutenant-Colonel Jim Stone, who facilitated the soldiers to the level that they were prepared for their initial attempt through fire in an aggressive land and fighting a well-equipped opponents who usually favored to raid their opponents during the night.

Considering these Chinese techniques and experiencing the mass execution of a United States patrol that had been captured in their sleeping bags and this led Stone to command that the soldiers on patrol should just carry a blanket to cover themselves during the assignment. He stated that the blankets would help them to counterattack their opponents since it will be easy for them to get out of the blankets and defend themselves.

In April 1951, the attack on Kipyong was carried out and the author claims that the attack was part of the Chinese “Fifth Phase” insult.

Many people may not be informed about the participation of Canadians in this way and most probably have learned about the distracted conflict which overcame the British Army’s Gloustershire Regiment which was pushed towards the west, or also the third Battalion Royal Australian Regiment which also moved back after the severe war.

These divisions were ordered to go back to the war and the Patricias maintained their spirits, which made them to succeed in the war. Bjarnason contrasts the defense, and very significantly, the success, to fabled stands. While not as broadly identified as the British section of the warm, the PPCLI stood firm against an attack of around 5000 Chinese soldiers, stopping the attack at a cost of ten troops.

Bjarnason was very successful in providing an engaging and informative reading and he points out that the book was not intended for military scholars of history as such, but for all the interested readers and learners who would acknowledge the efforts of the Canadian troops in the war.

Through Bjarnason’s presentation of the short history of the creation of the division after the World war two, he lets the audience to acknowledge the efforts and states in which the soldiers engaged in the fight and some died. Bjarnason did a commendable task of inserting a personal perspective to the fight through discussing the men and their involvement before, during and after the battle.

The first personal example is the activities of Wayne Mitchell, who was honored with DCM (Distinguished Conduct Medal) for presenting fire assistance using a Bren gun at the time of the battle and he was injured two times rescuing many participants of his squad through offering fire wrappers.

Lieutenant Mike Levy, who was within the dangerous battle at Kapyong, showed the same courage and he was usually recalled in the two weaponry fire. These were from around New Zealand weaponry division, together with significant gunfire from his private group, all claiming attacks in Cantonese at his enemies.

Whereas his commander, Captain Mills, was honored with Military Cross for his activities, he performed effective communication between the squad and the support divisions. Bjarnason put some efforts to solve the past records through pointing out the manner in which bravely Lieutenant Levy acted, and the manner in which true appreciation of his acts was declined derived just from his belief in Judaism.

This kind of anti-Semitism was well-known in 60 years ago, but in the current standards, it appears insignificant. Author’s explanation of the allied effort from the Unites States pressing to let the Patricias to cooperate and the attempts of Indian health division and new Zealand fighters, demonstrated successfully that this was really UN attempt.

They rejected Stone‘s idea to agree with Americans up to the time they had familiarized themselves to their latest location. It is as well astonishing to point out that Stone supported acclimation, patrols, and training in the units before he was put on the line, which highly aided the Patricias to live on the most horrible stages of the war.

The weak point of the book is pointed out in Bjarnason himself since the book is not an all-inclusive military history, which shows improved tactical maps. He used the maps which were enough to harmonize the story, but enhanced tactical maps could have improved the clearness of Bjarnason’s tale, where it portrays places and progress of both the Canadian supporters and Chinese enemies.

The book offers the people with a model of other records of the war in the bibliography together with a recording of the approved records of Canadian’s duties in the Korean War.

The demonstrations in the book show the real image of the battle and however, it is significant to recall that Bjarnason did not use this book to act as a classic history of the war, relatively, it captures understanding to the first key war of the Canadian troops in Korea, and the manner in which the war was very critical than anybody can picture.

Korean veterans, irrespective of their citizenship, have various grounds to feel affronted by inadequacy of understanding regarding “their war,” and some people recognize or acknowledge the awful situations experienced on the Korean cape.

These awful conditions include the rocky terrain resembling the situations in Italy at the time of World War Two, the issue of inequitable war equipment, and finally, the continuous guarding and motionless condition of the battle which signifies requirements not awfully different just then at Passchendaele.

Bjarnason points out that regardless of human wave insults by the opponents, Chinese, the secure reaction from Lee-Enfield rifle presented to the Patricias, fundamentally untouched since its launch in the British troops in 1895 was extremely sluggish.

Nevertheless, what was very important was the creativity of the man to weld the weapon, but not the weapon itself, which made the diversity. The above instance confines intensely the power of this excellent book and to narrate the participation of these Canadians on a minor hill in Korea, and the significance to recall their efforts and experiences they underwent while providing the protection other Canadians needed.

Bjarnason, in his book, highlights the heroic strengths of platoon commander Levy, who was a very experienced person in World War Two.

He was in charge of his tenth platoon of Dog Company, PPCLI, to success, regardless of the difficulties they faced during the war and superiority of their opponents. Bjarnason illustrates management styles which Levy used during the war as resulted from his personality instead of training.

During the break in the war, Bjarnason describes that Levy witnessed a Chinese commander ordering that his army to start killing the American pigs and Levy reacted by saying that they are Canadians and they have many soldiers.

At last, with signals of communist soldiers just going to overpower his stand, the brave and energetic lieutenant suggested Defensive Fire and SOS (DFSOS). The approach kicked off Chinese offensive and, strangely, made his superior to be credited for their efforts of kicking off the Chinese offensive and his superior was offered with Military Cross.

After Bjarnason set the stage, bringing in the participants and their personal achievements, he followed by creating it until the heroic war at Kapyong and the consequences.

Bjarnason explored the experiences which participants of the Korean War directly underwent and the war itself, and he used Hub Gray, the writer of the book: “Beyond the Danger Close,” to bring to the reader the nature and experiences of the battle. Bjarnason stated that it was the proposal of Levy to call down weaponry on the Patricia stands to stop the attack of the Chinese waves of insults, but it was confident commander, who did not even fully participated in the battle, who was awarded the acknowledgment.

The dilemmas and wherefores of this failure to notice are also explained and unluckily, offer some ethical and moral quandaries and all together, these acts as demonstration those men, even the best leaders of men, are complicated and are never perfect. Also, at times they act and say things to pass specific messages which are never realized and which are fully further than the character.

Bjarnason was successful in presenting the heroic history and he used his excellent abilities in presenting his ideas and what really happens in the past. Bjarnason illustrated that the legacy of Kapyong currently can be one of the countrywide commemorations, instead of a closely disregarded footnote.

Communism is one of the most influential utopian social theories that have a great influence on the development of many countries. The first document that presents the detailed outline of the main principles and goals of communism is The Communist Manifest written in 1848 by Engels and Marx.

This document is considered to me one of the most influential in the world history. We can put it in the same rank with the Bible and Koran for its influence on the word society. The Manifesto provoked many positive and negative responses, it has a great influence on the literature and rhetoric. A detailed rhetorical analysis of the document reveals the influence of it on the reader, as well as provides a “corrective” understanding of the text.

As it has already been mentioned, the Marxist theory provoked many discourses and was analyzed by many linguists from the point of view of its “rhetorical power” and function of the language as the main rhetorical means.

A famous philologist and linguist Bakhtin described the use of language in its relation to the particular circumstances and he emphasized the process of subject formation: “pre-empts the phenomenological theory of the subject by producing a broader concept of subject-formation at the Level of society. He casts his argument in terms of ideology rather than simply language, making the case that ideological construction is in fact material and does contribution to subject-formation” (Bernard-Donals 15).

The rhetoric of Marxism also influenced the works by Virginia Woolf. One of the examples is the essay Profession for Women. In this essay, she explores her mind and call woman overcome prejudices and obstacles in their life.

The essay is devoted to the role of woman in the society and her struggle with the social prejudices. The idea of communist equality is one of the core ideas of this work. However, Woolf does not put women in opposition with men. She emphasizes that every woman should explore her personality and develop as an individual.

According to Krista Patcliffe’s book, “examination of Wool’s critique of women, language and culture we can outline her feminine rhetorical tradition. The genre concepts of this tradition are: material conditions, language function text, author, style and audience” (33).

Another philosopher and sociologist Michel Foucault was the follower of structuralism. In his work, The Archaeology of Knowledge, in which he discovers different approaches to the history of discourse. He explores the discursive relations between statements. Gloria Anzaldúa’s From Borderlands is another work that explores the problem of social equality, gender equality in particular.

It is an autobiographical work which key concept is the author’s acquisition and development of spiritual awareness, which is represented as a source of empowerment leading to self-transformation” (Slepoy 3). The language of the work is extremely beautiful. In such a beautiful language, the author describes the modern tendencies of society, relations between man and women and the role of women in the society.

The Manifesto begins with the outline of the purposes and of communism in order to attract the public attention. The main intention of the author was to make the document easy to understand by the general public. The Manifesto is written with the purpose to describe communism as the best way of life and prevent fears of people and government for this political movement.

So, the general subject of the Communist manifesto is to explain to a broad public the benefits of the communist theory and to call the workers from all over the world to unite and struggle against class inequality and defeat the bourgeois capitalist society.

The manifesto call to a proletarian revolution and establishing a new society based on social, economic and political equality. This idea runs through the text in different interpretations. It is the main theme of the document and its thesis.

The structure of the document has a big meaning for the influence on the audience. The writing is divided into four parts, each part of the document describes a particular theme. Marx starts with the explanation of the structure of the society in different times and class struggle:

“The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight,” (Marx and Engels 7).

The second section describes a new working class “proletarian”. The authors emphasize that it is the only and perfect social structure and only working class can create new “social paradise”. The third and fourth parts of the document are devoted to the discussion of the forms of socialism and describe a “true socialism”.

The manifesto has a very strong “rhetorical power”. First of all, it is based on opposition: the authors oppose two classes bourgeois and working class. They focus on the exploitation of one class (workers) by another (ruling bourgeois). Furthermore, the text has a great emotional power as it addresses the issues that worried people at that time.

The tone is solemn and contains notes that evoke the desire for struggle. The authors address the reader that makes him/her feel involved and significant. His purpose is to inform, explain persuade and motivate the reader.

In addition, the authors use various stylistic means, such as comparisons, hyperboles and repetitions, “It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere” (Marx and Engels 8), and emotionally colored words, such as adjectives, for example, “In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation” (Marx and Engels 8).

Moreover, the authors use broad explanations and examples in order to support their point of view. Thus, the language of the document contributes to the text and helps in supporting the main idea of the document.

The Communist theory had a great influence on the social and cultural development in many countries. It was very popular in Europe and its influence can be compared only to the influence of Bible and Koran. The principles of communism are described in the Communist Manifest by Marx and Engels.

This document has a very big “rhetorical power” due to its structure, language and stylistic means used by the authors. A detailed rhetorical analysis of the writing can help explain the influence of it on the reader, as well as provides a “corrective” understanding of the text. This document remains the best example of the art of rhetoric. It became a basis for many scientific works and had a great influence on works of modern and post-modern writers, psychologists and linguists.

Works Cited

Bernard-Donals, Michael F. Mikhail Bakhtin: Between Phenomenology and Marxism (Literature, Culture, Theory). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Web.

Ratcliffe, Krista. Anglo-American Feminist Challenges to the Rhetorical Traditions: Virginia: SIU Press, 1996.

Slepoy, Graciela Susana Moreira. An Exploration of Gloria Anzaldua’s Feminist Thought in Borderlands/LaFrontera: The New Mestiza. Web.

Abstract

The article presents a brief overview of the meaning of the terms communism and organic solidarity and compares and contrasts them with respect to societal interactions. An in-depth analysis established that communistic ideologies were aimed at replacing the profit-based economy, which characterized the society during the ninetieth century. Communism was a more advanced form of socialism, which was believed to succeed in capitalism.

According to Durkheim, organic solidarity is a form of socialism that laid the basis of the interconnectivity of societal elements. Durkheim was for the idea that social order can only exist where communities appreciate the differences that exist in any diversified society. Such differences may either be economic, cultural, ethnic, or political and can only be tackled through mutual understanding. Durkheim pointed out that although society is the key beneficiary following a social transformation from mechanical to organic solidarity, chaos, and anarchy are some of the anticipated outcomes.

The Concept of Communism

Communism was an economic and political ideology that targeted to replace the profit-based and property-owning economy with communal ownership, an arrangement where all factors of production in society are controlled by a central organ. Communism, in some way, is a highly advanced form of socialism. The development of communism saw a deep rivalry between the socialist world and communist states in the Western world.

According to Marxists, communism is the new society that will come into existence following the overthrowing of capitalism, and it is a socially evolving process that will give yield to a world where a division of labor, as well as remuneration, will be non-existent. The wide-ranging political and theoretical agenda of Karl Max was primarily based on the concept of human history, which essentially differed from those of the social and philosophical thinkers (Marx, Engels & Arthur 21).

The conception of communism came into existence in 1840 following the impulsive thought of two providential German interpreters, Engels and Karl Marx. The conception of communistic ideology by Karl Marx was on the premise of both knowledge and human possibilities that were apparent when the potentials of socialism were assessed. Marx analyzes capitalism by projecting the future of communism through the use of existing trends and patterns.

According to Marx, communism favors the unstable and transforming states, and conditions for such a movement result from currently existing premises. Marx divides communism into two parts: the full communism and the dictatorship of the waged-people, with the latter depicting the transformation period between communistic and capitalistic societies. This certainly corresponds with the period that a state takes to transform into a revolutionary dictatorship (Marx & Engels 25).

According to Communistic Manifesto, Marx primarily planned to wrest capital from the wealthiest in the society by centralizing all factors of production to the state, as well as rapidly increasing the productive forces. He advocated for the abolition of rent applications and land ownership by individual citizens. His idea was that land should be a state’s property, where it will be rented at a much-reduced rate (Engels & Aveling 34).

While a number of sociologists contributed to the study of social interaction and society, Engel, Karl Mark, and Emile Durkheim laid the foundation of the modern-day perspectives. As Marx and Engel were more focused on modern socialism constructs while mile’s vision as far as the society was concerned put emphasis on the interconnectivity of all elements. Society, according to Durkheim’s perspective, was much greater than a summation of its constituent elements.

As opposed to the communist perspectives of Marx and Engel, Durkheim believed in industrial societies where social order was based on the recognition and appreciation of the social, as well as economic, disparities that exist in any society. Unlike Marx and Engel, he believed that the division of labor will be so specialized when every individual is engaged in a distinct economic activity. Organic solidarity advocates coexistence by ensuring the community understands cultural and economic diversities within its people. This absolutely contrasts with other societies where failure to conform with expected norms warrant punishment, and in worst cases banishment.

Durkheim took the time to point out that although the society stood to benefit from the transition from mechanical to organic solidarity, it can be a period of anarchy and chaos. He cited out social anomie, a period of lawlessness, as one of the outcomes of organic solidarity. This period will be characterized by weakened societal norms and alienation, despite people having the free will to achieve complex tasks. Social anomie is most widespread during periods of uncertainty, such as in the epoch conflict and wobbly economy. As the populace with respect to the organic solidarity ladder, they reinforce norms lawlessness.

Durkheim emphasized the differences between Individual and collective behavior are quite significant with the latter involving a number of aspects, such as collective conscience, morals, and attitudes. Durkheim’s quest to understand individual actions, he declared that he will never submit to societal conventions. Using analogies, he portrays society as a system of the human body that is made up of organs, which supports its normal functioning. He considers deviants as important constituents of society, and their punishment must always be in accordance with the societal norms and morals.

Durkheim reaffirmed that the penalty for committing an unlawful offense should illustrate moral awareness. This explains that such punishments should be aimed at reforming and deterring them from committing such offenses in the future. He explained that industrial societies were held by organic solidarity, which is maintained by cultural individual consciousness (Durkheim 132).

Works Cited

Durkheim, Elmile. The division of labor in society. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 19641933. Print.

Engels, Friedrich, and Edward B. Aveling. Socialism, utopian and scientific. New York: International Publishers, 1935. Print.

Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Robert C. Tucker. The Marx-Engels reader. New York: Norton, 1972. Print.

Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and C. J. Arthur. The German ideology. New York: International Publishers, 19721970. Print.

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist manifesto. 2nd ed. New York, N.Y.: W.W. Norton & Co., 2013. Print.

The paper “The Historical Background of the Communist Manifesto,” written by Boyer, uses an economic and historical context to dispute Marx and Engels’ “Communist Manifesto.” According to Boyer (1998, 160),” The Communist Manifesto was only helpful in the 1840s and cannot be applied in the recent years from the 19^th century.”). The central argument of Boyer is that Marx wrote this Manifesto during the “hungry”1840s, years when there was a collapse in the economic sector, and communism was well thought of during the coming up of the ideologies of European politics. Therefore, this article targets to demean the Communist Manifesto by highlighting that this collapse of the economy was the only event in European history.

Boyer attempts to discredit Engels’ observations due to the adverse economic conditions he encountered in his cotton family’s firm located in Manchester. Boyer identifies how Engels explains capitalism by his exposure to the underlying views on the industrial development in England’s urban centers and the adverse living conditions in these cities. Moreover, Boyer uses data that shows the error of Engels’ view that Lancashire was distinctive, which is against the adverse labor division. This article also illustrates the assumptions on the history that recent assessments of the cities located in Edwin Chadwick’s show sanitary conditions of the Great Britain population providing labor (Boyer, 2021). Boyer argued that there is a huge difference comparing the other industrial cities and Manchester as evidence of the rarity of massive utilization of the workers.

Furthermore, claiming that there was no revolutionary resistance in England is incorrect, as there were several strikes by workers in the 1830s and 1840s. Boyer tries to use Manchester and Lancashire as good examples of the inequality experienced in England, which was not the case (Beattie, 2022). This entails a misrepresentation of the people of Manchester despite their prior actions and struggles.

Boyer analyzes the Communist Manifesto using several data sources, including the data on the unemployment rate, where estimates were computed from the record of trade unions. Boyer (1998,161) identifies that “The estimates of the annual unemployment rate from 1855 to 1914 were available but only for several cities at different times, and much of the data is unreliable.” As a result, most historians don’t agree on the degree of unemployment in the 1840s. The nominal wages used were deflated using Williamson’s and Lindert’s cost of living. Cost of living estimates is derived from Lindert and Williamson. The biological indicators of living standards also indicate that economic conditions worsened in the late 1830s and early 1840s. Life expectancy at birth in England increased from 37.9 years in 1814–18 to 40.8 years in 1829–33 (Boyer, 1998). This was a result of the economic changes within England.

When unemployment is factored in, the standard of living of manual workers from 1837 to 1848 appears to be even worse. Following the boom of 1835–36, the British economy suffered a severe slump, leading to a drop in exports to the United States caused by the American economy’s sharp downturn. Several factors contributed to the downturn’s severity, including poor grain harvests in 1838–41 and the resulting high grain prices, increased imports, and balance of payments deficits. According to Lindert and Williamson, non-agricultural unemployment was not unusually high in the 1840s (Whaples, 2018). The two try to explain that the national unemployment rate in 1842–43, the worst years of the depression, was 9.4 percent (Boyer,1998). Even if this estimate is correct, unemployment in the early 1840s was higher than in the 1820s or 1830s. Assuming the salaries of employed manual workers were roughly the same in 1830 and 1840, like Feinstein, Horrell, and Humphries’s estimate. In that case, their annual income must have decreased on average.

Boyer’s thesis is not persuasive since it ignores some aspects of great importance. This includes strike movements on labor, exploitation of work provided by children, young women exploited in textile mills, and other industrial policies prevalent in England. He only considers two cities, Manchester and Lancashire, which does not provide a comprehensive scenario of the exploitation experienced (Boyer,1998). Boyer also uses selective economic data, too narrow and does not bring a more competitive edge than Marx and Engels’ article. Thus, Boyer’s thesis cannot be relied upon for a proper study of the background history of the Communist Manifesto.

Boyer also does not consider the impact of capitalism in the cities of Manchester in a more comprehensive way than Marx does. This limits the extent to which his analysis can be trusted. It, therefore, leaves some biasness unanswered which should not be allowed. In his analysis of the data, small samples of data were collected, which cannot represent the whole ideology under the Communist Manifesto.

Furthermore, claiming that there was no revolutionary resistance in England is incorrect, as there were several strikes by workers in the 1830s and 1840s. Boyer tries to use Manchester and Lancashire as good examples of the inequality experienced in England, which was not the case (Beattie, 2022). Boyer’s thesis highlights vital factors that counter the weaknesses experienced by Mark and Engels’ perspective concerning the Communist Manifesto. However, it has its drawbacks that need to be considered before relying on the article for a proper judgment. Boyer’s thesis, therefore, has its own weaknesses. As a result of this, more comprehensive research on the Communist Manifesto needs to be carried out factoring out all the appropriate information for proper decision making.

References

Beattie, Ian. 2022. “Taming modernity: The rise of the modern state in early industrial Manchester.”

Boyer, George R. 1998. “The historical background of the Communist Manifesto.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 12, no. 4: 151-174.

Boyer, Marcel. 2021. “Beyond ESG: Reforming Capitalism and Social-Democracy.” Available at SSRN 3786967.

Giurge, Laura M., Ashley V. Whillans, and Colin West. 2020. “Why time poverty matters for individuals, organisations and nations.” Nature Human Behaviour 4, no. 10: 993-1003.

Hill, Dave, and Alpesh Maisuria. 2022. “Social Class: Education, Social Class, and Marxist Theory.” In Encyclopaedia of Marxism and Education, pp. 624-643. Brill.

Kalita, Bhrigu, and Nalbari Namati. 2021. “MARX’S CONCEPT OF CLASS STRUGGLE: A STUDY.”

Marx, Karn, and Friedrich Engels. 2021. The Communist Manifesto by Karn Marx and Friedrich Engels. BEYOND BOOKS HUB.

Neilson, David. 2018. “In-itself for-itself: Towards second-generation neo-Marxist class theory.” Capital & Class 42, no. 2: 273-295.

Rikowski, Glenn. 2006. “Ten points on Marx, class and education.” In Renewing Dialogues Seminar IX, University of London, Institute of Education, pp. 1-13.

Trkulja, Jovica D. 2018. “Manifesto of the Communist Party: Reception and criticism.” Sociološki pregled 52, no. 2: 628-652.

Whaples, Robert. 2018. “Unequal Gains: American Growth and Inequality Since 1700 by Peter H. Lindert and Jeffrey G. Williamson.” Journal of Southern History 84, no. 1 (2018): 144-145.

Even since its conception, the idea of communism has always been appealing, although its practical implementation might not have done the theory justice. It is often presented as a more humane alternative to capitalism and the ultimate solution to most problems caused by the system. Technological advancements have made it possible to consider communism from the perspective of using technologies to spread socioeconomic equality. Aaron Bastani presents the image of such a society in his manifesto, although its viability is questionable.

The name of the suggested type of communism implies an association with technologies, although it is not evident at first. Thus, society might reach such a high level of technological advancement that it will ensure universal prosperity, allowing people to travel and try something they could not before (Bastani 189). Moreover, Bastani indicates that everyone may be as rich as billionaires, essentially eliminating the issue the countries which adopted the ideology in the past had – equally low payment (189). However, it appears that the system plans to abolish wages, creating an entirely new formation (Bastani 189). Thus, fully automated luxury communism is supposed to replace capitalism and resolve the glaring issues associated with it.

Unfortunately, I do not share Bastani’s optimism and consider his ideas utopic. He puts too much emphasis on technologies but forgets that the most advanced ones necessary to implement the system belong to the top corporations, and they are unlikely to go against their interests. It is also doubtful that the new state of affairs will halt ecological problems; if anything, those will become more severe. Another point is the fate of the current billionaires, who will probably be unwilling to part with their wealth. While I sympathize with having a new system and discarding capitalistic vices, as it stands now, such a development seems improbable.

Work Cited

Bastani, Aaron. Fully Automated Luxury Communism: A Manifesto. London, Verso, 2019.

Introduction

The manifesto brings about an argument of the changes in the society as a representation of the history running from the ancient roman emperor to the current modernized and industrialized world. The communist manifesto defines the statement of Germany revolutionary group with a reflection on the political undertakings of the time.

For the fight of political and economical oppressions, the activist groups set out barricades for existence by setting out a system of private ownership of production referred to as capitalism. In the description on the manifesto, the argument shows the division of the society along the line of bourgeoisie or the capitalists who engage in the production fields such as milling, mining and other industrial productions.

The other category comprises the workers who sell their workforce to the capitalists. The capitalists pay to the workers is very little for the services because the system allows them to dictate and get away with the misdeeds. The communist manifesto is a wakeup call for analysis of the political actions that urges people to unite and find change.

There is use of various theories to motivate people such as that of historical materialism indicating that change occurs because of the political class struggle. The struggles realize various economical goals and the orders or economic concepts replace each other until the fine one is found. The social and political alliances cause the relationship that determines the production.

This means that production depends on the social setting, because different settings have diverse modes of production, dissimilar organization techniques and equally distinct techniques for division of labour. An individual will have personal attitudes, actions and perception on the societal or political loyalties. According to the manifesto, this uniqueness derives from the social setting in relation to production. People either are politically exploiters or exploited and either of the categories merge easily to form alliances with those of the same grouping based on the similarity of the identifiers.

I disagree with the manifesto on the notion that bourgeoisie alters all the aspects of the society and families and destroyed all the cultural or traditional believes and practices through industrialization and urbanization. Arguably, the bourgeoisie’s specifications that collective struggles along economical divide causes the changes in the social setting, political and historical events create good reality. Historically since ancient Rome to the current scenarios, the struggle against federal societies takes a shape along the social, political and economical classes.

The economical interest of a master is quite different from that of the servant. The manifesto indicates that the livelihood of the bourgeoisie emerges to be wealthier because of its ability to sweep away poverty through world exploitation and discoveries referred to as revolution. This makes bourgeoisie a dominant class that shapes the society in a close reference to its personal interests.

The replacement of the class struggle along wealth line causes a huge impact on the social setting by creation of a scenario where every one has to struggle to aim at acquiring a capitalistic style of production, but not to the level of altering the fundamental aspects of the family or social setting. The technological advancement in the production markets translates to change and less manual works and therefore the modernized workers have to upgrade skills to be in terms with such progressions.

The loss on the production duties causes the low production. Expansion on capitalism may be forcing the poor to sell their labour forces to the bourgeoisie, but this is not the basis for compromising the family settings and societal cultural believes and traditions. The cause of the traditional changes is arguably due to the generation differences, poverty levels, formality on education systems and differences in understandings.

Secondly, I disagree with the notion from the manifesto that the bourgeoisie force the working class to be like them through the well-established mode of production. The working class are either emulating the bourgeoisie or drawing away to their side of struggle against the poor in society.

As the communist manifesto indicates, there is likelihood that the struggle over formation of class differences will force a split between the modern industrial workers and bourgeoisie. The political revolution, current advancement in technological matters and education makes the industrial worker to recognize their suffering in the hands of bourgeoisie. This will force a struggle for liberalization once they are in a position to realize their common association besides the struggle and competition for the ever-decreasing wages.

The poverty levels are forcing the workers to form a divide among them but once they realize the existence of a common fate, the workers will gradually form a collective state over demands in the political sphere and force recognition. The growth of huge industries and superior industries owned by bourgeoisie lowers the likelihood of entrepreneurial growth for the middle class. This will possibly force a struggle causing some division between the two sides of growing entrepreneurs and the bourgeoisie. This is the struggle for realizing the economical advancement.

Lastly, I disagree with the aspect of reducing the production to commodity exchange to the specific behaviour regarding the measure of exchange: money, thus avoiding the social representation. The communist manifesto has brought out many logical theories applicable and logical in today’s markets. For instance, the fundamental units of capitalism are commodities. The usefulness over satisfaction of needs or wants of a commodity determines the user-value and exchange value. It helps in determining the worthiness of a commodity in relation to other values of similar commodities.

The common market indicates existence of a measure for all commodities of different sorts to satisfy different needs but is measurable in the same unit known as money. The existence of value in the market means that the commodity has an exchange or monetary value. The manifesto posed the question of how the user-values of commodities are measurable in similar units. Monetary measure of many corresponds to the amount of labour force and time in making a commodity.

In the situation of commodity exchange, the value was measurable in terms of labour time. The labour time theory was an indication that commodities possessed a social relationship concerning the human efforts in their productions. This social aspect fails to reveal itself in the current social markets because the quality of commodities depends on the prices and not the labour in the capitalist social setting.

The argument in the manifesto is that the value of commodity in the modern social setting seems mystical and according to the bourgeois economists’ production and exchange of commodities in monetary terms avoids their social significance or representation. Bourgeoisie avoids the fact that commodities materialize from the fact that there exists an explosive system of wages to compensate labour thus the continuation of a social aspect.

Conclusion

To increase resources, the capitalists rely on the disposal of labour forces from the poor workers who measure the power to work in terms of commodities and sales, which emerge from them. The capitalist accumulates products to sell in the markets as surplus values. Capitalists’ invest majority of their efforts in generation of profits to satisfy their personal needs.

This means that they are the key causes of exploitation, because they want to enjoy the competitive prices by buying as much of the labour forces as they can, at the least price possible. There existed no laws or regulations to curb the exploitation back then, but today the workers are taking stands through their unions to ensure they have powers over their rights.