Category: Communism

During 1989-1991, the world witnessed a unique phenomenon rolling through the countries of the Middle and South-eastern Europe, where revolutionary transformations caused a whole empire to collapse. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent transition to capitalist economies marked a new epoch and a new placement of powers in the world.

The Soviet Union, being the first in successfully setting a communist-controlled government, requires a thorough analysis of the stages of communism development, the influence on its satellite states, and accordingly its subsequent collapse. In that regard, this paper traces such development, including subsequent transition to capitalist economy, stating that gradual reforms might have led the Soviet Union to such transition more smoothly.

The Soviet Union

In order to understand the processes which occurred in the Soviet Union and led to its disintegration and collapse, it is necessary to consider the development of the state, form of government, the state regime, the form of the administrative-territorial device, along with some other problems of the Soviet statehood. The constitution of 1918 has fixed and has strengthened the Soviet state as the type of the state which openly proclaimed inequality of social layers, and the use of violence for the realization of its goals, one of which was the world revolution.

According to the form of the government, the Soviet state was proclaimed republic. However it was rather an exotic kind of republic, where its division of the authorities was denied and, on the contrary, the unity of all branches of the power in the Soviets was proclaimed, where deputy corpus of the Soviets passes laws, executes them, and supervises their execution.

The political mode was totalitarian, where the Soviet state interfered with all spheres of life activities of the society, penetrated into all the details, and established government control over almost all public organizations, but at the same time created practice and ideology of a social dependence. According to this ideology many members of the society, by agreeing to the control from the state, depend on the direct help, and the state’s concern in the education sphere, public health services, science, social insurance, personal sphere, labor activity (formal absence of unemployment, employment provision), and in other areas of life of a society.

The Development of Communism

The path of communism in the Soviet Union might be related to two main aspects occurring at the beginning of the twentieth century. The first one is Lenin’s role as a follower of Marxist teachings, where his writings on socialist society and the role of proletariat helped him seize the power right before the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. The second aspect can be seen through the Bolshevik revolution itself, which combined with the conditions of the First World War and the revolt against the czar in 1905, helped setting the ground for the start of a communist government.

Seizing power after the revolution, Lenin during the period of his reign form 1917-1924, using force and terror against his opponents managed to take over the agriculture and the industries and restore the economy from its near collapse conditions by introducing the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921.

NEP was a policy that allowed the cooperation with social layers which were considered mostly as capitalists in post November revolution Russia allowing leasing and the use of their own productive assets. This period could be considered as prosperous in many ways as it can be considered as small-scale capitalism, and it can be argued that the development of the Soviet Union might have gone in different direction if NEP was established for a long-term period.

The Soviet Union was established in 1922, and after the death of Lenin in 1924, the one-party state took the shape of a dictatorship under the rule of Stalin.

Stalin “Socialism in One Country” emphasized heavy industrialization and collectivization in agriculture that brought about significant results in iron, steel, coal, and oil production, and the bringing of electricity to much of the country. The massive command economy created by Stalin was headed by Gosplan, the state planning commission that set quotas for all items produced by Soviet workers (Watson).

Small-scale capitalism was stopped with abolishing NEP during Stalin’s rule, but nevertheless another form of capitalism could be witnessed, where state capitalism was established as the only class structure of industrial enterprises up until 1940 (Resnick and Wolff). It cannot be said the during Stalin’s reign the state form was absolutely negative. It was during Stalin’s years that the country was literally restored from ruins, achieved a huge industrial progress, and based on the scale of national education, science, culture and sport the country reached topped positions in the world.

Nevertheless, ruling with an iron hand the growth in the economy came at great costs of millions of human lives and personal freedom. During the rule of Stalin any opposition t the regime was eliminated, were Stalin even oppressed his previous communist companions. The rule of oppression might have been weakened during World War II, but it was returned after the end of the war. Additionally, it was during Stalin’s era that the first spread of communism outside of the Soviet Union was made thorough the expansion of the Soviet Empire after dividing post war Europe into two camps;

Stalin also presided over the creation of an external Soviet empire in eastern Europe when the Red Army occupied Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania (the countries of the future Warsaw Pact after World War II). These states, which became client regimes dependent on Moscow, were economically drained by the USSR from 1945 to 1950 to help bolster the war-ravaged Soviet economy. In time, however, they were guaranteed certain economic and military subsidies from the USSR – such as guaranteed purchases of their products at artificially high prices, and cheap weapons systems (Watson).

It should be noted that although relying mainly on the ideology of communism, each leader in each epoch had a unique style which was reflected through the changes made in that era. In that regard, it can be state that the period of Khrushchev, who became the head of the Communist party after the death of Stalin, and subsequently the head of the Soviet Union, was the most exemplary of the personal style being reflected through ideology.

Nikita Khrushchev was crude, energetic, impatient, optimistic, bold, innovative, reckless, thoroughly pragmatic, and, yet, imbued with a simple-minded belief in articles of Communist faith and equally capable of benevolence and ruthlessness. Those qualities were reflected in the ideological innovations stimulated by Khrushchev (Evans, p. 57).

The style of governance during Khrushchev reign introduced several reforms which resulted in some gains, and while a part of his policy was criticizing Stalin’s regime, this period did not grant freedom as I was expected by people in the Soviet Union. Additionally, Khrushchev’s period was distinguished by the race for competitive strategic advantage against USA, where his global interest was reflected through internal crises which led to his forced retirement in 1964.

Brezhnev replaced Khrushchev after the latter’s retirement, where even more resources were spent on the foreign policy. Referring to the ideology as a developed and mature communism (Evans), Brezhnev years also “a time of a pronounced growth in the Soviet government bureaucracy” (Watson).

Brezhnev’s death in 1982, was followed by two leader Andropov and Chernenko, who were not notable for any deep changes, rather than being transitional figures until they both died after ruling two and one year respectively. In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev became the head of the country were his program of reforms (perestroika) was believed to prevent the collapse of the Soviet system (Watson). His period demonstrated improved relations with the United States, increased freedom of expression (glasnost) and the rise of the private business sector after removing the ban on business.

After unsuccessful coup Gorbachev resigned as the party’s leader, but was still the head of the government. “Full-fledged independence movements got under way in all three Baltic republics in the fall of 1988, and in the Caucasian republic of Georgia in early 1989” (Watson), by 1991 most of the republic declared their independence announcing the end of Communism and the collapse of the Soviet Empire.

Addressing the causes that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and communism, the absence of democracy and the practice of oppression can be seen as the main cause for the ideology to fail. In that regard, the transition to capitalist economy can be seen as difficult at the first stages after the collapse, specifically considering the fact that in many cases the previous system was still influencing the governance in terms of its centralization. In the case of Russia, this facto were combined with “national minority unrest, relations with neighboring states in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) that contain Russian minority populations, and a struggling capitalist economy that is troubled by corruption.” (Watson 47) In that regard, the transition to market economy, occurred without any preparation, and thus made the transition to cause a default. In contrary, the situation in China, where the communist regime was similar to that of the USSR was different in a way that the reforms took gradual turn in making a transition to the market economy.

In conclusion, it should be stated that different ideologies, i.e. capitalism and communism both have their own flaws, but nevertheless, the importance of democracy and freedom can be seen as the distinguishing factor for both seemingly powerful directions. In that regard, the freedom of expression announced by Gorbachev let the steam go out and speed up what would have naturally occurred much earlier. In that regard, the examples of transition in countries such as, Poland, Hungary, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia, were more successful because the control over them by the Soviet Union was lost earlier allowing for reforms to take place with the disintegration from communist leadership.

Works Cited

1. “A History of Communism in the Ussr”. 2008. Socyberty.
2. Evans, Alfred B. Soviet Marxism-Leninism : The Decline of an Ideology. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1993.
3. Resnick, Stephen A., and Richard D. Wolff. Class Theory and History : Capitalism and Communism in the Ussr. New York ;: London : Routledge, 2002.
4. Watson, William E. The Collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union. Greenwood Press Guides to Historic Events of the Twentieth Century,. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1998.

Introduction

It has almost been 18 years now since both the cold-war and communism came to an end.

As a way of recollecting our thoughts on this, perhaps it would be best if we could for a moment try to evaluate the relationship that both the civilians and the military have enjoyed (or failed to enjoy, for that matter) in the years following the collapse of the communist party rule in Russia between 1989 and 1991. To start with, it is important to point out here that Russia, along with the rest of the countries in eastern and central Europe, was faced with an extremely unique point of transition, from one that revolved around military power, to one that is inclined more towards democracy (Huntington 2008). As such, the issue of defense policy, the armed forces and the military-civil relations becomes paramount.

The armed forces happened to have been constituents of the communist system of government. This system of government greatly hinged upon matters of state relative to those of the party. In Russia for example, the orientation that the military underwent during the reign of communism was such that they could help escalate the tenets of the civilian-led system of government regarding the cold war, thereby resulting in ideological difference with the West (Nelson et al 1998). Not only were the military large in terms of size, they were also heavily backed in monetary terms by the system. For this reason, their spending budget by far exceeded those of the other government departments.

From such a point of view, it is not hard to see why there would result strained relations and a possible resistance on the part of the military, when the post-communist government sought to reorient the mindset of the military so that they could not face the post-cold war policies from a democratic perspective.

What this means is that the Russian government sought to replace the system of party-state with a democratic model that boasted of military-civil relations (Tolstoy et al 1998). Some of the challenges that the post-communism system in Russia was faced with include lowering of its military size, as well as a reduction on the defense budget, attempting to alter the mindset of the military personnel from mission of the cold war, to now embrace post-cold war endeavors. Then throw is the challenge of having to establish a new platform that would aid in the promotion of cordial relationships between on the one hand, the military personnel and on the other hand, the members of the society in Russia.

Understanding post-communist Russian politics

There is a widely held assumption, both within Russia as well as abroad, that the process of democratization that came about due to the crumbling of the communist regime in Russia, may have had an extensive impact on the military (Huntington 2008). So much so that for a long time now, it has even been alleged that the military, on occasion, has come close to executing a coup d’etat. These are rumors that have been circulating ever since the post-communist era started. In august 1991, hard-liners communists tried to institute a coup, an attempt that flopped.

Major General Leonid Kozhender, while being interviewed by a leading newspaper in Russia four months after the military take-over bid had been thwarted, opined that “the Army is tired of suffering humiliation, it is tired of living in near-starvation a long way from home, it is tired of serving a country that no longer exists…We think the time for simply smiling at these problems is over. Measures must be taken. Tough measures “(Cohen 2002). Six days following the interview with the General, Izvestila had already started offering suggestions to the effect that Alexander Rutskoi, the then Vice President, was on the process of “leading anew putsch” against the Russian government, with a view to salvaging the military “from its catastrophic situation “ (Betz 2004).

In July 1992, there were similar rumors about a possible military take-over, rumors that were later to be repeated in March, 1993, and in March of the following year. On the other hand, not a single soldier got engaged in this entire coup attempt. In fact, highly-ranked military personnel had to come out in the open each time to denounce these rumors. Wit such coup threats having glared in the eyes of the Russians, one would not help but hypothesize that to a certain extent, the post-communist leaders in Russia could be seen as being overly alarmists (Tolstoy et al 1998).

On the other hand, there is also a possibility that this may very well not be the case. According to a majority of the indicators on conventional military-civil theory relations, the leaders of the post-communist Russia have accorded the right to become alarmed, concerned even, as regards the possibility that the military may very well be plotting to institute a coup. There are also those who have held the argument that the threat to civilians is the key factor of concern in as far as a military intervention is concerned (Nelson et al 1997). Of course, such a take-over often comes about with a view to enhancing the military’s corporate interests.

From 1989 to 1994, the defense budgetary allocation in Russia was seen to have declined by close to 40 percent, a development that served to stir the legitimate concerns of most of the liberals in Russia. From the perspective of an individual, the standard of living of military personnel also reduced, during the post-communist era. To drive this point home, it is worth of note here that in 1986, the soviet corps happened to have been one amongst the few institutions that received, along with its officers, the highest level of pampering within the soviet society. Six years later, the standard of living of an officer corps had plummeted by about 25 percent (Tolstoy et al 1998).

A shortage of housing facilities appears to have made the situation worse and in the long-run, a majority of the officers in the military were already categorized as living below the poverty line. The financial threat that appears to have faced the corporate interests of the military seems to have been made worse by a “ a glass not-encouraged media campaign’ that sought to harm the shame a former practice by the soviet military that was referred to as dedovshchina (translated, this is a Russian terms that means ‘hazing within the ranks’).

It is alleged that about 15,000 soldiers may have lost their lives between 1985 and 1990, thanks to the “noncombatant causes” in the name of accidents and hazing. At the same time, the Russian media was also laying its spotlight on episodes of grand corruption that were taking place in the military. For example, between 1992 and 1995, it is believed that close to 28 officers within the grade of a general in both the General Staff as well as the Defense ministry, may have either been suspected or convicted for carrying out illegal activities (Strachan & Rothe 2007). In light of these kinds of attacks, as regards the corporate interests of the Russian military, courtesy of “ reformers” in Russia, it was only natural then, that the soldiers would harbor feelings of having been cut-out from the power game of democracy, as well as the nostalgic thoughts that socialism evokes.

Military and democracy

Betz (2004) has noted that the intervention of the military into the domestic politics, along with its associated level of influence and independence, are on the whole, viewed as the principal challenges towards the attainment of cordial relationships between the military and civilians. For this reason, a majority of the academic literature to be found has attempted to assess the pathways leading up to the interventions off the military into politics, along with the associated factors. In addition, there is a lot of emphasis that appears to be directed at an exploration of factors and circumstances which seek to enhance the ability of the military to have a political control over the civilians, not to mention the institution of military-civil relations that are democratic (Bruneau et al 2006).

The development of the communist system in Russia brought with it a unique relationship between on the one hand politics and on the other hand, the military. Back then, the military happened to have been under the control of an undemocratic and strict political class of communist leaders. This leadership was under the control of the civilians. As a result, the military was limited in terms of the political actions that they could execute, as an independent entity. Then again, the military could also be said to have been somewhat politicized (Chitnis 2005). This is because the military happened to have been one amongst the several vehicles that the leadership of the civilian communists used for purposes of spreading their values to the wider society.

For the most part, this role of the military was disheveled with the communist leadership via the creation of an oversight board to take care of the education within the military. Furthermore, the party cells were also used as a tool by the military, following the directions from the civilian leaders, to escalate their values to the masses. Even as the political independence of the military may have been limited then, nevertheless the high command of the military in terms of military strategy, policy on defense, and also the structure of the force, was still regarded in high esteem, and therefore sought after by the ruling leadership of the civilians (Edmunds et al 2006).

With the crumbling of communism throughout the latter part of the 1980s, and its eventual collapse in 1991, the issue of civil-military relations had already led to the raising of questions regarding the role that the military played. It was important to establish the extent to which the military was loyal to the communist system. In addition, it also became necessary that the level to which the military, whether alone or in collaboration with the leadership of the civilian communists, would seek to bear allegiance to this old regime, and thus defend it as and when the need arose. There are those who doubted that the military would always back the civilian leaders, especially after the collapse of the cold war.

Conclusion

The relationship that the military and the civilians in Russia enjoy at the moment following the end of the cold-war and communism, and the embracing of democracy may be said to be somewhat mild. This is as a result of the developments that took place following the collapse of the cold war, along with the system of communism in Russia according to Dawisha (1997). It becomes important at this point to point out that during the era of the communist rule in Russia the military was used by the civilian-led communist system to propagate their communist values to the masses. For this reason, the communist system that was characterized by a lack of democracy enjoyed a lot of financial backing from the communist system.

Towards the late 1980s however, the financial resources that were being advanced to the military seemed to have dwindled, and a majority of them were regarded as facing abject poverty (Tolstoy et al 1998). In addition, a lot of questions were also being raised on the role of the military, especially in a case whereby the civilian-led system would be faced by a threat. Would the military be ready to defend them? The end of the cold war also meant that the military had to be re-aligned so that they could now help with the development of post-cold war policies. There was also a feeling amongst the military that they were being shut out by the system, and this is perhaps the reason why there were a lot of rumors about a military take-over of the government following the collapse of communism.

References

Betz, D. J. 2004. Civil-Military Relations in Russia and Eastern Europe. New York: Routledge Curzon.

Bruneau, Thomas C. Tollefson, Scott D. Austin. 2006. Who guards the guardians and how: democratic civil-military relations. Texas: University of Texas Press.

Cohen, Eliot. 2002. Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime. New York, NY: Free Press, 200

Chitnis R. A. 2005. Literary Criticism. London: Routledge

Dawisha, K. 1997. The international dimension of [post-communist transitions. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe.

Edmunds, T, Cottey, A. & Forster, A. 2006. Civil-military relations in postcommunist Europe: reviewing the transition. New York: Francis& Taylor.

Huntington, Samuel. 2008. The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of civil-military relations. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Nelson, J. M, Tilly, C. & Walker, L. 1997. Transforming post–Communist political economies. New York: National Academies Press

Strachan, Hew, & Rothe, A. H. 2007. Clausewitz in the twenty-first century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tolstoy, L, Maude, L. S. & Maude, A. 1998. War and peace. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Introduction

Karl Marx played a crucial role in Philosophy by propounding what is expected of communist leadership, thus making the communist manifesto a very popular document in the 20^th Century. The questions that this paper is going to grapple with is whether the issues were only representative of what happened then and not at all the mirror of what was to happen later.

Communist Manifesto and social issues

Though the communist manifesto clearly elaborates what a communist organization intends or should do, the manifesto has proved to go well beyond this. In fact he expose has presented issues that actually show the genesis of the communist and socialist thought.

According to Marx, history is rife with issues of class struggle. He felt that society is full of groups antagonizing each other for either social or perpetuation of their selfish ideals. Thus, there is deep rooted struggle between the haves and the have-nots, the slaves and their masters, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie etc. Actually, one can easily see that what the manifesto set out to obfuscate was the capitalist leadership as far as social relations were concerned.

Also the reason why the manifesto could be said to be based on reaction to events then is the fact that society was faced by exploitation. Marx and Engels did greatly succeed in mirroring the society then. The social matters that border on material have been elevated as ones that will eventually give birth to a revolution.

Competition in society is something that is inherent. For Marx this urge to rule and remain above others is something that has made those with control of the means of production to wish to remain there while riding on the backs of the laborers. It is against this awakening that the manifesto candidly declares, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Wootton 798).

The Manifesto, nonetheless, has made the proponents of revolutions all over to clearly make them aware of their oppression. Thus, it can be said to have assisted in the development of class consciousness, something that members of society grapple with everyday, though silently, most of the time. This could be well orchestrated to enable them to abolish this expression through making sure that that class society is made to disintegrate.

Private property is an issue the manifesto dwells upon. The primary issue of the manifesto is the vagaries in which the bourgeoisie subject and subjugate the proletariat, all in the struggle for private property. Private property is an issue that clearly affects the society even today. But what one wonders is whether the situation lies in the total abolition of it as the manifesto proposes.

The communist manifesto unequivocally declares that for there could be other prudent ways through which owners of means of production could be put into check. What is more, Marx and Engels do concur that it is not the Bourgeoisie alone who sustain this relationship (Wootton 799). They in fact conclude that one group needs the other for the status to be maintained.

The Manifesto goes ahead and declares that property will at last be socialized once the classes get abolished. But this assertion needs careful analysis. For instance if the proletariat succeeds in abolishing the class and hence the very power that has been used to frustrate it will also go and this will in essence mean that the proletariat will have destroyed itself since the proletariat will have, ironically, also have organized itself as a class.

In fact once the proletarian group manages to dethrone the bourgeoisie out of power, the proletariat will definitely ascend to very level to which the bourgeoisie was; hence still furthering the vicious cycle. This is because the proletarian state will grab all the capital from the haves.

So many questions about the above scenario abound. For instance it is crucial to ask ourselves how the proletariat will manage to dethrone the ruling bourgeoisie without having organized itself into a class.

This is because of what could be like moving from one interest group to the other and the new emergent proletarian state would be just as despotic as that of the bourgeois regime, or even worse. This is reminiscent of what transpired during the French Revolution in which the forces dethroned the monarchy and ruled with consolidated power that bordered on the dictatorship.

Was the Communist Manifesto time bound?

The biggest question has been whether the communist manifesto only addressed the issue without an accurate eye on the future. Also one wonders whether it is the class struggle that is the greatest influence of things in the world presently. Since Marx wrote his work it has taken so many years; but history has proved that what he has propounded has never clearly come to be.

Though there have been arguments as to why this particular situation came to be, there has been strong suspicion that perhaps all the assumptions that formed the basis of this communist thought were actually mistaken, or, rather based on the wrong premises. My feeling is that what perhaps Marx did not clearly figure out the specific class that would subsume the rest.

To him the laborers taking over means of production would guarantee the death of the other class. This is not true as it can easily be noted that the proletariat will still assume that very position that the bourgeoisie took, coupled with new desire to still control all those means of control.

Another issue is that Marx did not at all envisage a situation where, due to technological advancement, the means of production would become even cheaper. Technology has managed to bring with it clear efficient means through which high production can be achieved. In most cases technology has meant even at times reduction in human labor, still making the laborers also own means of production.

It can be seen that as technology has advanced, workers have also engaged in entrepreneurial ventures especially in free societies. The computers have made it possible for the majority to get information and means to start small entrepreneurial ventures. This has converted many a worker into owner of means of production.

Unlike long time when there were few corporations monopolizing markets majority of the people can still compete for these markets at micro level. So, Marx’s assertion that the dominance of the bourgeoisie would lead to a revolution that would bring everybody down is not true (Wootton 803).

It is now even common knowledge that many have exploited their talents from humble backgrounds to become multi-millionaires. Perhaps the wrong premise that may have misled Marx was the conflict that he saw in his time. He might have erroneously linked such conflict to capitalism. But far from it, history has shown that society has always been at one time or the other been involved in conflict. What is more, social-economic issues have always led to social conflict over time.

This is unlike Marx’s view that all conflict emanates from economic considerations. I find the consideration that conflict as solely emerging out economic issues rather simplistic (Wootton 801). Another flaw that can be traced to Marx’s communist manifesto was the suggestion that the proletariat will grow in misery as the wealth concentrates in fewer and fewer people. This prediction has also with time been proven inadequate.

Conclusion

Though Marx’s writing of the Communist Manifesto must have been written in the heady days as society was fast industrializing, its predictions have not actually come to be as expected. This reduces us to the conclusion that whatever he talked about was only specific to that time and would not have been used to generalize the future.

It can therefore be suggested that Marx should have been cognizant of human nature’s inherent nature for motivation that accrues out of ownership of property. Just like an engineer tweaks a problem once identified, it is not only against best practice to replace whole system as he wished shall happen to the bourgeoisie. Human society is an complex structure which needs a combination of strategies to remedy not just simplistic replacement of a particular group with the other.

Another issue is that the world is faced with different issues that are influencing events unlike what he must have propounded. All in all, his suggestion that a whole group or class be abolished altogether is not only impractical but one of the best practices.

Works Cited

Wootton, David. Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche. Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing, 1996. Print.

Introduction

The Communist Manifesto is one of the defining works of communist ideology. It outlines the main philosophical positions of communism as a whole and critiques feudalism, capitalism, and reactionary types of socialism. This paper will touch upon various aspects of the manifesto related to production and ideological differences.

Mode of Production

Marx describes the term “mode of production” as a combination of productive forces (means of production and human labor power) and relations of production (various types of relations including property, work, and ownership relations). According to Marx and Engels, the mode of production is one of the main differentiating factors between eras and ideologies. For example, feudalism utilized an exploitative mode of production based on the possession of the land and human beings who had to work on that land by the ruling class.

Complex agricultural systems were the primary means of production of feudalism as well as the increase in specialization among artisans (Marx & Engels, 2002). During the later feudalism period, the means of production were updated by the use of machineries such as wind-mills and clockwork devices.

The mode of production introduced by capitalism may appear similar to feudalism, but it has some important differences that made it a more modern and more appealing ideology in comparison. The mode of production for capitalism is primarily based on the practice of industrialization. Factories, transportation, and the introduction of private property are some of the elements that encompass the mode of production in capitalism.

The ruling class becomes the bourgeoisie, who own the means of production, and who exploit the working class of the proletariat through wage labor. The main difference between feudalism and capitalism lies in the possibility of the non-aristocratic people to become the bourgeoisie through owning the means of production.

Revolutionary Bourgeoisie

Marx and Engels considered the emergence of the bourgeoisie class revolutionary because it destroyed the previous structure of the world. The power of the aristocracy was negated through the ability to buy and sell the land, and property that was previously unavailable to anyone but the aristocratic classes. Guild masters lost their power due to the introduction of competition where anyone could enter into any type of industry if they had the required capital.

The industrialization that enabled capitalism to take over feudalism has also forced it to become a global phenomenon. The prices of products produced in factories are much lower than those created by individuals, which prevents the feudal way of life from competing with the capitalist one (Marx & Engels, 2002). Therefore, to compete, other countries were forced to industrialize.

Relations and Means of Production in Capitalism

Relations of production are described as social, technological, and economic relationships, and their means are tools that are used to create objects. The contradictions between the relation of production and means of production are considered almost inevitable by the authors due to the constant changes among productive forces in any ideological system. However, in capitalism, these contradictions may be antagonistic, and cannot be resolved.

The improvement of means of production often leads to changes in relations, where some become unnecessary. The creation of a new machine that manufactures products faster and more efficiently without the need for human labor removes people from their previously held jobs. This contradiction often results in massive amounts of poverty due to unemployment. Class conflicts arise due to these contradictions and eventually make the existing mode of production unsustainable. In the case of capitalism, the crisis of surplus results in unemployment due to the low wages not allowing people to purchase the product they create.

The product is then seen as a problem, but instead of being distributed to those who could use it, it is destroyed. This situation leaves both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in a negative situation (Marx & Engels, 2002). For example, the phenomenon of ghost cities and buildings in developed countries (Zheng et al., 2017; Moreno & Blanco, 2014). Thousands of apartments are left empty because nobody can afford them, while homelessness still exists in those countries.

Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat

The bourgeoisie and the proletariat are inherently at odds with each other due to the nature of capitalism. The goal of the bourgeoisie is to create the maximum profit on their means of production. To achieve this goal, the work provided by the proletariat becomes valued lower than the end product. Essentially, the bourgeoisie has to pay less to the workers than they deserve to make money for themselves.

This practice results in the exploitation of the labor force which puts the two classes against each other (Marx & Engels, 2002). For example, in countries without strict labor laws, people may be forced to work for dangerous amounts of time, without proper safety measures utilized at the factory. Due to the global nature of capitalism, the bourgeoisie class outsources work to these places to create more profit (Vora, 2015; Ontiveros, 2017). The proletariat is also dependent on the work provided by the industry, but due to the technological progress, their work can be replaced by more efficient means of production.

Socialism and Capitalism

The socialist mode of production that Marx and Engels propose is different from the capitalist one. Private property in a communist mode of production is abolished, and the product manufactured by the people is then distributed to the people according to their contribution. The proletariat becomes the owner of the means of production through cooperative enterprises, public ownership, or privately owned tools.

The issue of the surplus is then solved through its benefits to the society, instead of becoming its burden. The use-value of products is the priority, rather than the profit that they might generate. Capitalism is an international ideology and to combat it socialism has to be international too. Only when united, the proletariat can cause a revolution (Marx & Engels, 2002). The subsequent history shows that this notion was correct and the united forces of workers have caused revolutions in Russia, China, and other countries (Hill, 2016), often with the help of already established socialist governments.

Other Types of Socialism

The Communist Manifesto contains a section where the authors critique the other types of socialism that were present at the time. Three types of reactionary socialism are criticized. The first is feudal socialism, and the authors state that it would only serve to change the type of exploitation and no socialist additions would make it a viable ideology. The second is petty-bourgeois socialism, which despite its analytical values, also promotes regression into the old ways.

The third is German socialism which the authors blame for the same issues as petty-bourgeois socialism. Then conservative socialism is examined as a belief in capitalist advantages but without the revolutionary elements caused by conflicts. However, the role of the proletariat stays the same in this system. Critical-utopian socialism is also criticized for its fantastical nature that was not substantial (Marx & Engels, 2002). The purpose of this critique is to show the issues in existing ideologies and propose a new solution that does not have the same issues.

Conclusion

Marx and Engels wrote a lot of inspirational literature. The communist manifesto is one of the most important of their works. Although new ideas were created since its publication, it was used to form the majority of the communist nations.

References

Hill, C. (2016). Lenin and the Russian revolution. London, UK: Read Books Ltd.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2002). The communist manifesto. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Moreno, E., & Blanco, Z. (2014). Ghost cities and empty houses: Wasted prosperity. American International Journal of Social Science, 3(2), 207-216.

Ontiveros, M. L. (2017). H-1B visas, outsourcing and body shops: A continuum of exploitation for high tech workers. Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, 38, 1.

Vora, K. (2015). Life support: Biocapital and the new history of outsourced labor. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Zheng, Q., Zeng, Y., Deng, J., Wang, K., Jiang, R., & Ye, Z. (2017). “Ghost cities” identification using multi-source remote sensing datasets: A case study in Yangtze River Delta. Applied Geography, 80, 112–121

.

From the essays written by Timothy Garton Ash in The Magic Lantern, on the decline of Communism in Europe, he narrates a live encounter with the communist regime. He describes how Mikhail Gorbachev then a young leader wanted to include the facts and guiding principles of the soviet economic structures in his leadership. Gorbachev claimed his administration would not inflict the communists’ guiding principles on the communists’ organizations in the eastern and central Europe. This statement led to the termination of political, financial and military ties between these nations and the Soviet Union. This came after the communists organizations re-grouped after the fall of the Berlin wall that saw the merging of the two Germany states (Ash, 1993). A stark pointer of the end of the cold war; the Soviet Union stood isolated as the only communist state. Its leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, was sidelined by the radical groups, which tried to overthrow him but failed in a military coup organised by the Eastern Europe regimes.

The early communist groups changed their course with the hope of spreading the revolution thus becoming more isolated with the defeat of the Greek communists in the 1944-1949 civil wars. Then western parties, through concurrence with the Soviet Union, searched for a more distinguished ‘western’ advancement to communism. This was followed by the Marxist facts in Europe that de-Stalinized the Soviet Union and led to the easing of the cold war in the 1950’s. This impelled a number of nations to adopt a nationwide policy of communism in an effort to acquaint themselves to the conditions prevailing in different European countries. Consequently, many a communist nation lost grip of the pro longed financial boom propagated by the Western Europe entrepreneurs who had established themselves from the 60s (Making of history 1989). Next emerged the euro-communists, they were partially influential in both Italy and Spain and were led by the orthodox communists. They further gravely ruined the soviets.

The incapacitation of the Soviet Union led to the redefining of what communism was. This brought all the rejuvenations of communism to an abrupt stop forcing Europe’s communist stand holders to reflect eclectic legacy. A number of communist nations were subsequently compelled to down play the Marxist-Leninist recommendations and grapple with the broader agendas of nature, gender and anti-globalization movements (Ash, 1993). As a result, all groups which had emerged and linked themselves with communism remained largely unknown in Europe.

Several movements arose, after the fall of the Berlin wall with the reformers taking political power signifying the start of the end of the 40 years governance of the communist dictatorial rule. This reform designated the end of communism in the east and central Europe and it started in Poland. This is because the solidarity, ‘an anti-communist trades union and a communal movement’, compelled the Poland communist’s government to identify them through a wave of mass actions in 1981 which gained global attention. This led to the prohibition of the solidarity movement by the law forcing the association to go underground. They structured their own civil society where the insubordinate Poles removed the communist administration from their community (Communism in Europe). This was followed by a fight by the Czechs and Slovaks who held mass action with demands for reforms in Czechoslovakia. This forced the communist party of the Czech to move the political base to Havel and hand power to the Czech reformers, in a serenely and calmly manner that became widely known as the velvet revolution. In the Eastern Europe countries such as Romania, the communist administration was overthrown by dissents and military wars. Consequently, political power was ceded to the communist parties in Bulgaria and Albania. These revolutions continued until 1989, when the last revolution; the 1989 revolution experienced in the Communist Soviet manifested the end of communism in Europe (Making of history 1989).

Ash illustrates immorality as represented by the communist leadership. This led to a raise in revolutions after the communist leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, promoted spectacular economic reforms that attempted to move the economy away from the communist system to a spread out system prevalent in western democracies. The eastern European nations were consequently prompted to re-examine the interests of the soviets towards a democratic system. As a result, these nations organized their citizens into groups to fight for democracy in the Eastern Europe countries (Ash, 1993).

Thus, Ash tries to explain the fall of communism in Eastern Europe countries as a consequence of a group of socialists in these nations creating a hostile environment around the ruling elite. This is attested to in the Bolshevik Revolution that saw the multi tribal soviets topple autonomist Russia together with its dominion in 1917. The Bolshevik Revolution was followed by a series of protests in several countries of Eastern Europe region, which struggled for independence (Communism in Europe).

The foremost causative instigator of these revolutions was due to the collapse of the communist leadership governance when compared to the democratic industrialist nations of Europe. This was attributed to the failure of the communist leader, Mikhail Gorbachev’s distribution of the soviet economy as done by capitalist countries such as USA. Gorbachev’s programmed reforms opened relationship with other nations. This caused the communists who believed that Mikhail Gorbachev had failed, to plan a coup which failed. He led the Soviet Union in unparalleled way which failed the communist’s foundation paving way to the capitalist revolutionists (Making of history 1989). Most of the accomplishments which Gorbachev is credited with are the revolutions and movements which were organised in different areas of the Eastern European territory leading to several nations breaking-away from the Soviet Union. This led to the rise of capitalistic nations that reigned after the dissolution of communism (Communism in Europe).

The revolutionary movements were distinctive when compared to the 1968 revolts in that their leaders had support from nations that had an already established capitalistic structure. Additionally, they liaised with other communist leaders and leaders of democratic and capitalistic nations such as USA (Communism in Europe). Also the dissident groups were at the same time internationally recognized by international bodies which could sanction their communist nations if they attempted to harm them.

This was manifested in Poland when the Polish socialist government was impelled to recognise the Solidarity movement which had conducted a wave of mass actions in 1981, grabbing global attention. Therefore, the citizenry hoped that the Eastern Europe nations would at last budge from communism and become capitalistic and democratic like their newly friendly nations (Communism in Europe). This made them to perpetuate mass actions as a strategy to fight for their freedom from communism. One of the major challenges they encountered when introducing capitalism was the derivation of constitutions that favoured a new kind of laws. They had to seek open minded leaders who would govern the citizenry.

Works cited

Ash Timothy Garton, 1993, “The magic lantern” the revolution of ’89 witnessed in Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin, and Prague, Vintage Series, p100-150.

“Communism in Europe”, The End of Communism. Web.

“Making of history 1989”, The Fall of Communism in Eastern Europe. Web.

The end of the 20^th century is associated with the significant shift of many countries to following the democratic principles. Thus, the authoritarianism and dictatorship typical for the European communist countries and for the Latin American countries were changed with democracies in order to respond to the global requirements and new tendencies. However, the vision of democracy stated in the mentioned countries differs significantly from the patterns common for the Western societies because it is a long process to transform all the approaches to the political and social life typical for the authoritarian societies to establish the working democratic principles. Although the historical aspects of building democracies in the Latin American and post-communist countries differ, these countries follow the same type of democracy known as the delegative democracy and experience the similar challenges in building the new democratic society.

To compare the historical weaknesses of Latin American democracies and the modern vision of the post-communist democracies, it is necessary to determine the criteria according to which it is possible to assess the level of the democracy’s development in this or that country or region. The traditional vision of democracy is based on the free and fair elections when citizens are equal in their voting right, on the rule of law, on stating the civil liberties, on the presence of the organized and trusted political opposition, and on the independence of judiciary. Moreover, the decentralization of power is important to promote the democratic ideals.

Paying attention to the historical peculiarities of the Latin American countries’ route to their democracy, it is important to concentrate on the effects of dictatorship in controlling the media as the consequence of controlling the opinions opposite to the current government or on the delegative principles in holding the elections which are used by the largest party to continue guiding the situation (Burnell & Ware, 2007). According to the visions of many researchers, the contemporary post-communist countries also suffer from the effects of authoritarianism on building the democratic society (Burnell & Ware, 2007). Moreover, it is possible to speak about new variations of authoritarianism as the popular form of governance in these countries.

The challenges experienced by Latin American and post-communist democracies can be also compared. The elections which are claimed to be free and fair often depend on the money provided by the supporters of this or that party. The corruption is the main barrier to build the fair democracy in these countries. According to Burnell and Ware, “when economic reforms are put in place, there is more danger that the connections between money and politics lead to the trading of influence and, subsequently, the rise of corruption” (Burnell & Ware, 2007, p. 96). The connection between money and politics is significant and influential. Furthermore, the power in many Latin American and post-communist should be decentralized in order to build the real democracy according to the Western patterns.

The basic similarities in Latin American and post-communist democracies are associated with the type of democracy followed which is discussed by many researchers as the delegative democracy. The main differences are connected with the historical aspects and events which led to making the shift from using the authoritarian model to using the democratic model of governance. However, the major implications of the historical processes in these regions are comparable.

Reference

Burnell, P. J., & Ware, A. (2007). Funding democratization. USA: Transaction Publishers.

Introduction

Early in the 1990s, the Soviet communist bloc experienced disintegration, but the Chinese communist regime survived the collapse. From this time, the Chinese authoritarian regime has attracted attention from people from across the world. Nevertheless, China has managed to sustain a rapid economic growth averaging 8% for the last two decades.¹ The Chinese rate of economic expansion poses a significant challenge to the United States especially in the technological advancement. In the recent times, China has experienced increased social protests characterized by university strikes and demonstrations held by the country’s civil society.

Although these protests occur in both rural and urban areas, China continues to hold to the communist regime. The Chinese communist party is one of the world’s most versatile authoritarian regimes. The country’s contentious politics contribute to the stabilization of the authoritarian regime, which has eased political transition to the extent that the country has failed to achieve democratization.

Political structure and authoritarian regime in China

The collapse of the Soviet communism in the 20^th century was a significant milestone in the world politics. Apart from marking the end of civil wars that had rocked most of the countries across the globe, the collapse of the Soviet bloc heralded the democratization process and capitalism for most countries.² However, the case was different for China as the communist regime survived during that period and it continues in the contemporary times. Currently, the regime is facilitated through the China Communist Party that has adopted a market-oriented approach in building the country’s economy.³ Although the party does not subscribe to the traditions of the previous communist regimes, it maintains an authoritarian leadership. Currently, the country experiences widespread contention as characterized by the hostility between the leaders and members of the public, thus leading to political instability.⁴

However, the country has been keen to use some of the structures that arise from political decisions to dispense authority. For example, toward mid-1990s, political leaders reformed the Chinese fiscal and tax-sharing system to gain not only revenues, but also autonomy of the country.⁵

Nevertheless, China practices fragmented authoritarianism that seeks to promote negotiations and consensus amongst the affected bureaucracies. From this argument, it is evident that for the authoritarian regime to survive, political leaders have to apply lengthy bureaucracies in managing the country’s central and provincial relations. Further, research highlights the differences in the national government’s way of controlling different provinces. However, differences in the way the national government controls provinces originate from the provinces’ bargaining advantage as characterized by the regions’ ambitions and the leaders’ intelligence, wealth, and connections with the central government.⁶

Therefore, through the decentralized authoritarianism, the central government has managed to convince the people that they are in control of their provinces. However, these provinces cannot make vital decisions without getting dictated authority from the central government. From this analysis, it suffices to conclude that the decentralized authoritarianism is a crucial reason for the Chinese prolonged successful authoritarian regime.

Decentralization forms a significant element of achieving democracy within a government. With the decentralization of authority, the country facilitates political accountability in addition to encouraging equity that arises from devolved governance of public affairs.⁷ Although the Chinese central government has the final word, especially in alleviating fiscal problems in the provinces, decentralized governance poses a significant threat to the country’s authoritarian regime. In such a situation, decentralization accounts for the country’s abandonment of strict authoritarianism that was applied by the Soviet communist bloc prior to its collapse in the late 20^th Century.⁸

Furthermore, decentralization contributes to economic growth that tends to undermine authoritarianism. From this analysis, it is evident that these outcomes of decentralization are present in China and they account for the recent unrests amongst the public. However, in trying to maintain its authoritarian regime, China maintains political structures shaped in a way that makes it difficult for citizens to express their needs and interests. Such an argument is characterized by the country’s political bureaucracies that contribute to the illegalization of demonstrations for whatever reason.⁹ However, with the successful application of decentralization within an authoritative government, it is evident that this process is not the ultimate solution to achieving democracy. True democracy can only be realized if the citizens have the right of expression without the fear of intimidation by the government’s machineries.

The Chinese system of governance revolves around regional administration. Furthermore, this form of governance is further complicated as characterized by the policy initiatives at the county, city, and township levels among others, thus creating the perception of an administration at the grassroots. However, this system of governance is advantageous to the central government as it exploits the nested structures to control the provinces’ economic benefits at different levels depending on a region’s economic strength. Although the central government has a clause that provides for equality, it uses decentralization to make it impossible, thus compounding the problem of imbalanced development.¹⁰ With such a form of government, which encourages regional development, wealthy provinces focus on maintaining their status rather than offering support to the poor provinces.

Apart from the political tactics applied by the China’s Communist Party in leading the central government, the party’s personnel management plays a crucial role in strengthening the Chinese authoritarianism. The party’s leaders ensure that economic decentralization is accompanied by political reforms that force provincial administrators to adopt a socialist market economy. Through such a structure, local leaders work toward pursuing the national government’s targets, thus depicting a form of monopoly. Compliance with the country’s central directives can attract either incentives or punishment to the provincial administration.¹¹ Such a move pushes leaders at the provincial levels to use local resources to benefit the central government rather than the local people.

Contentious politics and authoritarian regime

Currently, contentious politics in China are characterized by the prevalence of riots, ethnic clashes, and land disputes. Contentious politics are responsible for the widespread protests in China. However, the protests occur due to the over-exploitation by the private corporations and local administration with the aim of meeting political targets of the central government.¹²

Researchers attribute the country’s contentious politics to the rapid socioeconomic reforms that triggered political crises toward the end of the1980s. At this time, the government failed to meet some of the workers’ demands especially in the Northeast. The economic grievances attracted radical reaction from the aggrieved workers, thus pushing the provincial administration to reform state-owned organizations. However, reforms further aggravated the workers’ needs, thus forcing members of the public to protest against taxation and land disputes arising due to the reforms initiated by the local government. Nevertheless, contentious politics in China have expanded in the recent times to include class, gender, and ethnic divisions in addition to the regional differences.¹³

Apart from the labor antagonisms arising from the contentious politics and reforms, China moved further to implement social reforms in a bid to curb the country’s expanding populations. However, the one-child policy elicited violent elements as the people in the rural areas were determined to challenge the national government against this policy. Moreover, contentious politics account for the land disputes with the local administrators denying citizens their ownership rights.¹⁴ With reference to the environmental degradation, people use the neglected country’s environmental laws to garner support of some leaders, and this aspect facilitates successful demonstrations against neglected environment.¹⁵

Currently, both peasants and entrepreneurial bureaucrats contribute to the Chinese economy. The economic differences between these two categories have pushed some of the people to questioning their economic rights as granted by the central government as most leaders fail to fulfill their commitments. Similar to most countries, it is rightful for the people to demand equality, especially when the central government advocates equality, but it does not make efforts to ensure the elimination of economic gaps in the country.¹⁶

As the Chinese become aware of their political, social, and economic rights, the national government focuses on political changes that aim at strengthening the authoritarian regime. Under these circumstances, the government cites the need to protect the local administration against the challenges that accompany changes advocated by the people. Furthermore, the Chinese government attributes changes demanded by the people to the western influence. Therefore, in a bid to avoid the proliferation of western culture into the country, the administration is working tirelessly to prove the worth of communism. Although Chinese protests focus on attacking the country’s flimsy political structures, they lack a specific target, and thus they are less threatening to the country’s political administration.¹⁷

The lack of political focus is further demonstrated by the protestors’ strategy that entails self-infliction of pain for them to gain attention of the political leaders. Some of the strategies such as displaying military medals, chanting revolutionary songs, and kneeling can attract public sympathy, thus failing to exact significant amount of pressure on the political leaders and the government.¹⁸

In the recent times, China entered the global scope via its technological advancements. However, protestors use the Internet and mobile phones among other modern modes of communication for mobilization, as opposed to sending their documented needs to both the provincial and national governments. With the widespread protests, the country has focused on silencing protestors by imprisoning them and other activists.¹⁹ Although researchers predict a revolution of the Chinese communist government in the future, such an occurrence can only happen in the presence of organized large-scale social unrests accompanied by violence.

Political resilience and adaptability

Local contentious politics lack direction and targets toward the country’s political structures. With reference to this argument, the central government has implemented various strategies to widen the gap between the central administration and the contentious politics. For example, the central government implemented an evaluation system based on adherence to responsibilities. Through this system, the government promotes or dismisses local leaders based on whether they adhere to the professional political life that is in line with the doctrines applied by the central government. Such a system motivates local political leaders to commit to the central governments and betray the interests of the people that they are supposed to represent.²⁰

Furthermore, China applies a mixed scapegoat strategy that leaves the citizens confused as they fail to understand the central government’s political stand. For example, in cases of demonstrations that attract the attention of the international community, the government sides with the citizens and forces the local leaders to assume responsibility. However, if the protests originate from the weak provinces, the government ignores their needs.²¹

Furthermore, the China Communist Party bases its political authority on social stability, hence the need to do anything within its powers to resist political and social unrests²². In most cases, contentious politics in China target lower political institutions at the county and town levels, thus making it possible for the provincial and national governments to distance themselves from such politics. From this research, it is evident that contentious politics in China focus on small regions, thus lacking national support that is crucial in dismantling the existing authoritarian structures.²³

Conclusion

Contentious politics account for the China’s authoritarian regime that has impeded the democratization process. Although local governments have some degree of autonomy, the central government has gained crucial control of all forms of administration and resources coupled with retaining the appointment of crucial personnel within the provinces. Through the China Communist Party, the country has been in a position to control provincial budgetary powers, thus seizing a significant proportion of the revenues collected by the provinces. Apart from the tactics that the central government applies to strengthen its authoritative regime through the CCP, contentious politics lack national support as they target small political units. Such a move makes it possible for the central government to distance itself from the social unrests or apply punitive measures to contain the situation.

Bibliography

Perry, Elizabeth. “Chinese conception of rights: From Mencius to Mao and now.” Perspective on Politics 6 no. 1 (2008): 37-50. Web.

Perry, Elizabeth. Grassroots Political Reform in Contemporary China. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2007. Web.

Sahohua, Lei, and Tong Yanqi. Social Protests in Contemporary China: Transitional Pains and Legitimacy. London: Routledge, 2013. Web.

Sanders, Elizabeth. Historical Institutionalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Web.

Shirk, Susan. China: Fragile Superpower. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Web.

Tong, Yanqi. “Environmental movements in transitional societies: A comparative study of Taiwan and China.” Comparative Politics 37, no. 2 (2005): 167-188. Web.

Tsai, Lily. Accountability without Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Web.

Wang, Zhengxu. “Before the emergence of critical citizens: Economic development and political trust in China.” International Review of Sociology 15, no. 1 (2005): 155-171. Web.

Zheng, Yongnian. The Chinese Communist Party as Organizational Emperor. London: Routledge Press, 2010. Web.

Footnotes

1 Zhengxu Wang, “Before the emergence of critical citizens: Economic development and political trust in China,” International Review of Sociology 15, no. 1 (2005): 155.

2 Lei Sahohua and Yanqi Tong, Social Protests in Contemporary China: Transitional Pains and Legitimacy (London: Routledge, 2013), 57.

3 Yongnian Zheng, The Chinese Communist Party as Organizational Emperor (London: Routledge Press, 2010), 21.

4 Sanders, 126.

5 Lily Tsai, Accountability without Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 58.

6 Susan Shirk, China: Fragile Superpower (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 84.

7 Elizabeth Perry, Grassroots Political Reform in Contemporary China (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2007), 47.

8 Shirk, 74.

9 Perry, 68.

10 Sahohua and Tong, 43.

11 Zheng, 38.

12 Sahohua and Tong, 51.

13 Tsai, 64.

14 Perry, 103.

15 Yanqi Tong, “Environmental movements in transitional societies: A comparative study of Taiwan and China,” Comparative Politics 37, no. 2 (2005): 167-168.

16 Wang, 167.

17 Sahohua and Tong, 75.

18 Ibid, 78.

19 Ibid, 89.

20 Shirk, 104.

21 Sahohua and Tong, 95.

22 Elizabeth Perry, “Chinese conception of rights: From Mencius to Mao and now,” Perspective on Politics 6, no. 1 (2008): 39.

23 Sahohua and Tong, 110.

The abstract under analysis was taken from the manuscript written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1848 and called “The Manifesto of the Communist Party”. This work in known as one of the most significant political writings as it explores the issue of class differences and struggle in the society that was especially meaningful during the 1840s-50s when the revolutions and uprisings started to take over the European countries. The authors of this manuscript provided their own explanation of the nature of the society, the gap between classes as its ever-present historical characteristic, and the predicted development and failure of the capitalist way of life.

“The Manifesto of the Communist Party” was written by two German philosophers driven by their materialist approach to the concepts of society and politics. The work was created during quite an unstable time of the Western European history. This period is characterized by a series of revolutionary movements that occurred in several European countries within just several years. The causes of the public dissatisfaction were multiple.

First of all, the rapid development of industrialization all over Europe created a larger community of laborers whose income was quite low and unmatched to the contribution they made to the prosperity of their nations. At the same time, a wave of hunger, low harvest, and food scarcity struck a number of countries and brought starvation, poverty, and desperation among the peasants and laborers. Feudal order that dominated Europe became seriously endangered when the hungry peasants attacked the ruling class.¹

The prices for food and growing taxes served as the main triggers for the uprisings in Berlin, Krakow, Milan, Sicily, Vienna, and Paris. The composition of the rebelling crowds all around Europe was the same – students, peasants, landless citizens, factory workers. All of them fought for the establishment of democracy and civil rights, the abolition of serfdom.² In other words, capitalist built of the society was attacked by the hungry laborers tired of the growing gap between the rich and the poor social classes.

The manifesto begins with the preamble and then is divided into four chapters: “Bourgeois and Proletarians”, “Proletarians and Communists”, “Socialist and Communist Literature”, and “Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties”. The passage discussed in this essay is located at the end of the first chapter. Chapter one begins with the claim that “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”³.

This statement outlines the main subject the authors are concerned with throughout the writing. Marx and Engels begin their manifesto familiarizing the reader with various examples of class inequalities and struggle from the earlier human history to support their initial claim. Further, they compare the society of their time with all the previous illustrations and conclude that it is still filled with class antagonisms. The authors evaluate the rule of the bourgeoisie as the major push towards the advancement of economies, international relations, markets, and technologies, but, at the same time, they point out that it resulted in total exploitation of the people.⁴

Next, Marx and Engels emphasize that the bourgeoisie has facilitated its own decay creating the proletarian class turning the proletarians against the rulers.⁵ The selected passage draws a conclusion to the discussion leading up to it and says that the bourgeoisie is unfit for the modern world. The passage right below it is the last to the first chapter, and it states that the downfall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletarians are inevitable.

The passage is important to the work because it summarizes the points the authors used to persuade the reader and support their initial claim. After all the arguments concerning the development and decay of the bourgeoisie and the uprising of the proletarians are laid out, the authors sum them up in this passage making a conclusion regarding the present and the nearest future of both classes. That way, the previous passages comprise the thesis statement, background, and the explanation, whereas the passage under analysis serves as the dénouement and the conclusion.

The value of the manifesto by Marx and Engels is immense. Within the period when it was written, the work provided a clear and detailed explanation of the crises the Europe was dealing with, its causes, and even the future outcomes. The authors delivered a professional analysis of the historical, social, economic, and political events of the time. Besides, the work is written in a very comprehensible matter and is logically built. It begins with a claim, moves on to the background and arguments that support it, and ends with a clear conclusion that includes recommendations and implications of the events.

Marx and Engels leave no room for arguments regarding their point of view and analysis. Their arguments include multiple characteristics of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Besides, even though the authors speak against the bourgeoisie, they avoid bias and describe this class mentioning its advantages and achievements as well as its failures. Overall, “The Manifesto of the Communist Party” is a scholarly view on the events in Europe of the 1840s rather than a subjective promotion of communism.

Bibliography

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels, “The Manifesto of the Communist Party.” Marxists. 2015. Web.

Smitha, Frank E. “Revolutions in 1848.” Macrohistory. Web.

Footnotes

1. Frank E. Smitha, “Revolutions in 1848,” Macrohistory. Web.
2. Ibid.
3. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “The Manifesto of the Communist Party,” Marxists. 2015. Web.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.

The Senator defined the communist nations as follows in his famous speech. According to McCarthy, by its essence and nature, communism was a “red threat,” and the followers of the ideology were “traitors,” “criminals,” and “enemies from within” (Tye, 2020). At least Joseph imagined that supporters of the Soviet Union could undermine traditional ideas about American society (Markwell, 2018). Furthermore, based on his knowledge and assumptions, communism was a danger even to the existence of the United States. Thus, the “red half” victory meant “harm to humanity” compared to any possible economic or political system. Consequently, there was a period of “McCarthyism,” and its apogee was the act “On Control of Communists,” adopted in 1954. It declared the Communist Party illegal and prohibited its members from leaving the United States.

Senator Joseph McCarthy Charges

It should be noted that the Senator’s accusations were unjustified and subjective, as well as any personal beliefs. It is no secret that Joseph’s speech caused nationwide hysteria and apprehension to some extent. However, despite the inability to present adequate and intelligible evidence, McCarthy’s accusations have found a broad response among American citizens (History.com Editors, 2021). It is known for sure that the Senator will become one of the most influential figures in the next few years, and about three thousand people will somehow suffer from McCarthyism. Nevertheless, the Senator’s weapon was going to work against him one day. McCarthy’s opponents noted that his course brought confusion to the country’s political life.

Anti-Communist Sentiments

The Cold War era would be correct to characterize from the point of view of the evolution of the anti-communist sentiments. Hence, 1917 was the starting point and impetus for the development of communism and movements against the “Reds,” when the number of strikes in the United States increased against the background of the Russian Revolution (History.com Editors, 2022). However, by the end of the 1950s, the atmosphere of fear and repression began to fade.

Moreover, it was reasonable to assume that these views were justified, correct, and legitimate. Therefore, the people’s fears turned into active aggression and violent measures directed against the government and law enforcement agencies (History.com Editors, 2022). The situation in the country began to get out of control, and America turned into a place where chaos and anarchy reigned. Indeed, the US government had quite strong reasons not to trust radicals and trade union leaders. The desire of the ruling elite to tighten the screws in the state was most often associated with overdue changes, whether it concerned painful internal reforms or such expensive and dangerous external enterprises as the Cold War. In addition, the government of the USSR, for a long time, conducted espionage inside America through ordinary citizens, as well as collected data, analyzed, and made specific actions and decisions. If one follows McCarthy’s logic, then America of the 50s, in fact, was besieged by the Communists and their henchmen. They waged an underground war against the United States in the interests of the Soviet Union.

Examples of Events Similar to the Red Scare

Undoubtedly, there are many historical examples when events resembling the Red Scare took place. For instance, one of the most famous is the Salem Witch Trials in the 17th century. The Holocaust in Germany, when the extermination of Jews took place, also suitable perfectly into this category. One should also recall the Cultural Revolution in China, which traumatized and embittered all nations against a particular category of people. Therefore, the phenomena from the point of view of these moments have instilled fear, confusion, anxiety, and hatred in the minds and hearts of people. A common, “secret” enemy stood out to a brighter and clearer degree, with which it was necessary to fight together. Additionally, both these events entailed only suffering and human losses. There was a complex of measures aimed at restructuring society, the state, and the eradication of existing “social and public imperfections.”

Elements of the revolution are also reflected in modern society. For example, China poses an existential threat to America; skepticism and distrust of the East are actively developing (Swanson, 2019). In particular, the negative attitude was due to the policy of Donald Trump. Thus, the “Red Threat” has not gone away; its aspects are also revealed against the background of current events related to the war between Russia and Ukraine when each country seeks to find a culprit in what happened. In brief, there are almost no Communists left overseas, but in the fight against the “objectionable,” the United States still uses sanctions. However, not only against individuals but also against entire countries.

Adverse Events During the Cold War

According to historical facts, people were waiting for an unfavorable outcome in the case of an appeal to the 5th Amendment or, for example, a likely violation of laws. If individuals referred to their rights and opportunities, this did not give them a guarantee in terms of honest, fair treatment, equality, and freedom. On the contrary, there were suspicions and doubts about innocence in some circumstances. As a rule, these citizens were accused of disrespect for the country and Congress and subsequently arrested. According to experts, such tactics are equivalent to what happened during the witch hunt (History.com Editors, 2019). Thus, people lost their jobs and even the possibility of any earnings.

References

History.com Editors. (2019). HUAC. HISTORY. Web.

History.com Editors. (2021). Senator McCarthy says communists are in State Department. HISTORY. Web.

History.com Editors. (2022). Red scare. HISTORY. Web.

Markwell, A. (2018). Not fake news: The New York Times and Senator Joseph McCarthy. The Alexandrian, 7(1), pp. 1-9. Web.

Swanson, A. (2019). A new red scare is reshaping Washington.The New York Times. Web.

Tye, L. (2020). Demagogue: The life and long shadow of Senator Joe McCarthy. Houghton Mifflin.

Introduction

Many historians believe that, Communism and Nazism (Socialism) are ideological doctrines with many similarities and differences. Nevertheless, the process of identifying the real differences and similarities of the two has never been easy. Some nations and societies have at one point tried to apply the two doctrines but failed to co-exist peacefully. In practice, the two doctrines arose at the closing stages of World War I.

The main reason why some extremists introduced these doctrines was to challenge democracy in Europe. Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin came into the center of European administration promising to unite European nations in order to have resembling economic ideologies. In their own views, Hitler and Stalin never believed that civilians could rule themselves and make concrete choices. Instead, they believed in an all-powerful leader who will make all decisions and choices on behalf of civilians.

In Germany, the Nazi Party did bicker in opposition to liberalism and democracy and fought hard for partisan nationalistic interests aimed at Germany superiority. On the other hand, the Soviet Union chose Communism in order to dispel capitalism based on workers’ revolution and instead, deployed a doctrine where communities own property rather than individuals. The two systems almost the same albeit some ideological differences.

Similarities between Nazism and Communism

There were similarities between the two doctrines based on leadership styles though the similarities were few. For example, both Nazism and Communism believed in a superior government, which will control the economy. In Nazism and Communism, workers did not enjoy much, as labor laws seemed so harsh.

Additionally, there were government-controlled unions that controlled workers and discouraged them from strikes. Additionally, the two doctrines Nazism and Communism assert that, it is the economy, which is responsible for all goods and services, and therefore, the public should plan, control and own these goods and services through a central organization called government.

What mattered most in Nazism and Communism was the loyalty accorded to the government as state interests always came first. Nazism and Communism characterized with brutality and pseudo-intellectualism in length. While Communism tamped the chest on Marx writings, eerie theoreticians and appalling men formed Nazi pseudo-intellectualism.

It came out that, the Nazi pseudo-intellectualism produced the best scientists like Robert Einstein. Both Communism and Nazism associated themselves with brutality behind the veneer of sham eggheads. By the end of the twentieth century, the two doctrines claimed over 150 million lives.

Differences between Nazism and Communism

On the other hand, the differences between Nazism and Communism appear diverse. This means, the two systems cannot coexist because of varied doctrines. In general, Socialism (Nazism) refers to an economic system, which seeks to administer the economy based on premeditated and combined social control measures.

In contrast, Communism combines political and economic systems aimed at controlling property distribution, and ensuring that, groups own property rather than individuals. In this case, the government has control on the system of allocating property through centralization to provide the desired stateliness and egalitarianism. Ironically, the two doctrines discourage capitalism.

Under socialism (Nazism), the doctrine dictates that, people own property according to the amount of effort they labor in production. This means that, the more a person engages in productive work, the more properties one owns. This is not the same case with Communism. The doctrines in Communism assert all members of the society to be equal. Therefore, distribution of goods and services depend on wholesome individual needs.

Given these two warring scenarios on Communism and Nazism, it is hard for the two doctrines to co-exist peacefully. Nazism creates a sense of hard work paid by individual material possessions. On the other hand, Communism generates into laziness and burglary. Indeed the two doctrines cannot coexist because; there will be communal property and individual property amounting to social conflict.

On capitalism, Communists believe in a communist ideal where, private ownership and capitalism dwell no more, the reason being, to achieve a classless society. They believe that, an egalitarian society provides equal opportunities to all members and that, every member in a society is entitled to access property irrespective of individual efforts.

In practical Communism, the government owns land, pays people to produce and them distributes these goods and services to civilians. On the contrary, Socialists demand capitalism and yearn for a capitalistic society.

They believe that, an ideal and stable society must have rich and poor people. One advantage associated with capitalism in Socialism doctrine is that, at least every member from a society will benefit indirectly or directly from capitalism so long as, the central planning system, government, joystick the avenues of capitalism.

How the two Doctrines Cannot Peacefully Co-exist

In communism, small groups control the economy of a country while in Nazism; the system allows many people to own property hence, control the economy. Thus, the two doctrines though based on economic philosophies, cannot coexist under one social spectrum. The mix of the two in Germany led to privatized and state Capitalism and tension in the Nazi party. In U.S.SR, socialism turned out mixed with Socialism where the government became an oppressive bureaucracy.

It is important to note that, Nazism sired Communism as a sub-ideology. In 19^th century, Marx and Engel applied Communism and Nazism interchangeably. However, after getting a loss from their agricultural based industry, they aborted Communism and instead, welcomed Nazism and asserted that, it will turn them back to Communism. This never happened; creating an assumption Communism and Nazism cannot peacefully coexist.