The Illusion of Communism

The attraction of communism to the poor masses of the world is understandable. If I have nothing, and this “nothing” also include the worst of all “nothings”, namely no hope for the future, I look with envy at those that have; even those with only a few, let alone those eight wealthy men that own the same assets as half the world’s (poorest) population. If we then share everything available among all, I will have more than now; communism could only improve my plight.

However, the caution of this article is that the concept of communism as an equaliser theory is an illusion. There certainly is a philosophy, a theoretical paradigm, known as communism. However, communism is nothing more than a strategy, a way of achieving a result, and this result is surely not equality, but rather despotic regime change. In essence, communism is at best revolutionary disorder in order to bring about the collapse of democracy and (more importantly) the present social order.

Intrinsic to capitalism is hope; that, with hard work, guts and determination, you will always have the hope of improving your plight; communism destroys hope. If communism was a clinical treatment, it would have had the academic fraternity exited – but failed the clinical trials.

Communists claim to strive towards the eradication of inequality (or then, in the language of communism, ‘the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat’). In essence, the underlying argument of communists is that ordinary workers are oppressed by capitalist that use them (exploitation) to achieve production. In the Communist Manifesto there is a clear argument that the capitalists (the bourgeois) owe their wealth to the exploitation of the proletariat, and mostly consist of those with access to the capital required to construct an unfair advantage in society. They are now using the means resulting from the efforts of the proletariat to retain their privilege position at all cost (and continue exploiting the proletariat).

According to the Communist Manifesto, the immediate aim of communism is formation of the proletarian into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy and conquest of political power by the proletariat. The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property in general, but the abolition of bourgeois property. Modern bourgeois property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonism, on the exploitation of the many by the few. The theory of communism could be summed up in a single sentence, namely the abolition of private property.

The ideal is for the proletariat to use its political supremacy to wrest all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State (that is, of the proletariat organised as the ruling class), and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

The Communist Manifesto generalise the above-mentioned into the following measures:

-- · Abolition of property in land and application of all rents to public proposes.

-- · A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

-- · Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

-- · Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

-- · Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

-- · Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state and agricultural development through a state plan (central planning).

-- · Equal liability of all to work; establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

-- · Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

-- · Free education for all children in public schools.

-- · Abolition of children factory labour in its present form.

-- · Combination of education with industrial production.

Communism aim to take control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of competing individuals (capitalists) and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole, and with the participation of all members of society.

The process to be followed for the implementation of communism is the establishment of a democratic constitution that could be used as a tool for the enforcement of communism. An extremely important and informative quote from the Communist Manifesto is that ‘… [d]emocracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat.

The first price for communist is to achieve the total eradication of private ownership through one strike, but if not possible, a staged process must be followed. Once the first radical strike has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, until all property and all means of production and economic activity are concentrated in the hands of the state. Finally, all forces of production, all meaningful exchanges and distribution of products, will be taken out of the hands of private capitalists and will be managed in accordance with a plan based on the availability of resources and the needs of the whole society.

That, in a nutshell, is the communist philosophy according to its earliest disciples, Marx and Engels. It is a theory that is extremely popular among the poor and distribute people of the world – especially those confronted with excessive wealth of follow countrymen on a daily basis.

However, it is a theory only; it has never been implemented strictly according to the theoretical roots anywhere in the world ever.

The difference between the insights of Marx and Engels in 1848 and 1888 (when the Manifesto of the Communist Party was written and published) and today, is time; since then, the world has experienced multiple flirtations with communism – and all failed, without any exceptions.

The reason for this failure could be traced back to human nature. There is no society that will ever be totally equal – human nature makes it impossible. What communism has done extremely effective, is to provide a tool (a strategy) to mobilise the poor (who is normally also the vast majority of the population) against the current order. The useful tool of communism is the fact that it is ideally suited to created disorder; a state of affairs ideally suited for evolving a new order – that is, ideally suited for regime change.

However, once the transition of power has been completed, nothing really changes much in terms of have-and-have-nots relationships; except for the faces (the personalities) that have shifted position. The leaders of the communist revolution became the new ‘haves’ and the capitalists (ruling class) of the old order the ‘have-nots.’

During its transition (communist revolution) Russia at some stage abolish ranks in the Army in pursued of the communist model of equality. Disciple collapsed, and the ranks were re-instated. During the Second World War, Stalin abolished the influential Commissars in Red Army (representatives of the Communist Party) because they have become a serious liability to competent military commanders and ultimately Russia’s war effort.

Ironically, we (society) needs a form of inequality to ensure discipline, structure and order. Society is simply not designed for total, unqualified equality; no culture is – even the ‘traditional’ African (human and embracing, collective as it may be) makes provision for clear hierarchies in society; for ‘have’s’ and ‘have-nots’.

Very few communist states actually respect the principles of proletarian governance, once they got hold of power. Ultimately, the final manifestation of democracy and equality (power to and by the collective whole), became the most undemocratic and totalitarian systems in the world. Perhaps the two most noticeable communist states in the world today, Cuba and North Korea, are both governed by family dynasties. In Cuba Fidel Castro hand over the reign to Raúl Castro and in North Korea the Kim-dynasty will rule at infinity, if they are not forced out of power by external forces at some stage.

I know, the core arguments of communist will be China. However, in all fairness, how much of the economic side of the communist principles discussed in this article have remain in modern China? China is a one-party state (the Communist Party), that has a central planning (and delivery) model for mostly the more rural parts of the country, but in its mainstream economy, the production-side thereof is most certainly not communist. In fact, China has never really been a purist communist state, in the Western doctrine understanding thereof (Marx and Engels), but has always contextualised within the confines of Chinese culture.

It is very simple: In a communist dispensation, the ruling class became the beneficiaries (the ‘have’s’). The only difference is that communist states are much, much, much more oppressive and allow much, much less personal freedoms than capitalist states. The worst of it is that there is not even hope of escaping from this morbid state of affairs. Communism therefore creates the real “unhope” of which it often accuses capitalism. All current communist states in the world, and then most noticeably North Korea and Cuba, are examples of this phenomenon.

There is no escape from one single, simple fact about communism: It does not make provision for renewable wealth production. In capitalism, self-interest and the desire for self-enrichment play this role; it drives innovation and creativity. In a system characterised by centralised, oppressive planning, there is no incentive to renew and increase production. Wealth-creation become a bureaucratic process, subject to bureaucratic perceptions about what people need, with very little incentives to improve current services, goods or products.

The USSR started collapsing when the communist system became almost totally incapable of creating renewable wealth and production means. Russia is a unique country that does not understand democracy and capitalism in the Western sense of the word[s]. We (as Westerners) do not understand them. Granted. Nevertheless, the example and fact of the matter remains relevant – and it will always be truth of communism, regardless of cultural idiom.

A communist state survives as long as the fat inherited from the capitalist past lasts – and as long as sheer brutality supress the brewing resentment. Then it collapses. Communism impoverish all; except for the few that are part of the ruling elite – and the network of cronies established to maintain the communist system.

The greatest socialist 'success story' of the 21st century, Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela, collapsed spectacular once the fat has been drowned away, driven by a dramatic drop in oil prices. Brazil’s flirtation with socialism has come to an end. Fact remains: As long as the looting of the assets inherited from the preceding capitalist regime last, the socialist dispensation is normally extremely popular, because it delivers fast and in bulk. However, as soon as the golden pot is empty, the whole dispensation collapses.

Acknowledgement:

The information about communism used in this article has been obtained from The Manifesto of the Communist Party (‘the Communist Manifesto’).

For my dear readers who do not know: The Communist Manifesto define the term ‘proletariat’ as ‘… that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labour and does not draw profit from any kind of capital.’ (In short, the ‘proletariat’ are the ordinary workers).

Image source: 123RF