Communism and Absolutism
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Two separate Entities Commonly misinterpreted.

The discussion herein touches on two completely separate (but commonly considered integrated) ideas. These are communism and absolutism. First off it would be prudent to supply a straightforward definition of both communism and absolutism. Communism is a system of economy where everyone receives the same share of return, independent of form of labor. This has no correlation with the amount of labor, or way in which you spend your gain. Absolutism is a type of government where the leader of the nation has absolute power. This is to say that the ruler could make you lick dried gum off of his shoes if he wanted to. Absolutism is commonly a product of the population's strong, but unwanted dependence on the government, and/or the leader's control of the military.

This being said, we may continue. Communism and absolutism are commonly interpreted as synonymous in modern society, but this is because many recent historical events have taken place to force a prejudice into people's minds. Absolutism has again and again been used to force people to adhere to strict and specific beliefs. Absolutism is also used to the express gain of the ruler. Anyone else who receives something out of absolutism only does because the dictator is dependent on him or her for something.

Absolutism is the government system commonly used to instill communism because the simple fact is that if you want to put a people who have experienced capitalism directly into a communist rein, then more people will be angry than will be happy. This is because of two factors. The first is that the American working class is now smaller than the professional class, due to mechanization of industry. We are currently experiencing a recession because of this. The second reason is that communism is often believed to be a system where you do all the work and someone else gets the money. This is incorrect, however, and through the course of this article, you may just come to realize that capitalism is actually the system which puts a blindfold over your eyes and hits you with a bat.

So you say -- "Whoa, there is no way that I am doing hard work developing jet engines so some janitor can sap my money away!". However, this is another preposterous social misconception. Capitalism has developed your perceptions of reality to make you believe that the man who thinks harder should get more money. I contest this idea. Take into account an accounting business, and a garbage service. If the accounting business were to take 30 days off, who would suffer? You might say that customers would suffer, but that isn't true. There are a millions of services out there to play with your money, and if you are truly desperate you can manage to do the math yourself. However, what if the garbage service took 30 days off? There would be filth everywhere, and do you know why? Because their Job is HARD!

Now who should get paid more -- the man who does the accounting, or the man who cleans up the accountant's defecation? Physical labor is equally important to mental labor, and not everyone has the willpower to do it. I guarantee that you have to be a strong person mentally to go to work every day cleaning up someone else's mess. Just as it may take a special type of person to write up blueprints for a mall, it takes a special type of person to go to work every day and do the same monotonous and disgusting job. However, the people who control money frequently take advantage of the 'physical labor' people. The case today is that the people in lower jobs are GENERALLY less intelligent than the people who take the executive jobs (i.e. manager) in large companies (Don't flame me for this, this is an example and doesn't take EVERY one of your miserable little variables into account). The problem rests in three things; the power structure of companies today; what is 'taboo' in capitalism; and the social structure which has existed based on 'money over morals' ever since Sargon the Great seized the first empire of city-states in Mesopotamia.

Communism is a system of government where everyone puts in their two cents of work, and receives their share of the net income. However, a democratic or republic system can still be used to enforce the laws. See basic rights for a rundown on what these laws must generally encompass to work properly. A democratic system would actually be more useful in a communist situation than in a capitalist one! What do you think would be the legislative outcome of everyone receiving the same share of gross national profit? Not only would the people be able to spend more time arguing real issues, but there would be no more petty laws passed as a direct result of oppression of a specific social class. This would be an unprecedented step forward, albeit an expected one, because there would be no social segregation.

A democratic communism could feasibly take advantage of both the "separation of power" and "system of checks and balances" used in the United States government today. NONE of these systems would have to be drastically altered to allow for representative communism. However, bribery is a very important issue to address in these circumstances. Resistance to bribery is the reason that vital members of both the Executive and Judicial branch get paid a whole lot of money. However, a government has a sure bet that these men cannot be bribed if they have more possessions than they can use. The beauty of a Communist Democracy is that these men have been elected to this office because of the love of their job. If people no longer receive more money for doing a different job, then they will naturally gravitate to the thing that they love most. People will not do a shoddy job if they wake up every morning and focus on enjoying their passion, rather than stressing out about their bills.

In closing, Democratic Communism is possible, if only more people would give it a moment of thought. Breaking down a stereotype is a great thing no matter how you look at it. This dissertation gives some very vital knowledge about common disadvantages of capitalism and absolutism, as well as focusing on its main topic, which is, of course, why communism is NOT absolutism.

In the terminology of Marx and Engels the words communism and socialism are synonymous. They are alternately applied without any distinction between them. In 1875, in his Criticism of the Gotha Programme of the German Social Democratic Party, Marx distinguished between a lower (earlier) and a higher (later) phase of the future communist society. But he did not reserve the name of communism to the higher phase, and did not call the lower phase socialism as differentiated from communism. The political parties of Marxism which considered the Communist Manifesto as the unalterable gospel of their doctrine called themselves socialist parties.

One of the fundamental dogmas of Marx is that socialism is bound to come "with the inexorability of a law of nature." It is impossible for men to accelerate it, to delay it or to hinder it. This doctrine is irreconcilable with Marx's own political activities and with the teachings he advanced for the justification of these activities. Marx tried to organize a political party which by means of revolution and civil war should accomplish the transition from capitalism to socialism. The characteristic feature of their parties was, in the eyes of Marx and all Marxian doctrinaires, that they were revolutionary parties invariably committed to the idea of violent action.

However, the tactics applied by the Marxian parties in various European countries were irreconcilably opposed to each of these two contradictory varieties of the teachings of Karl Marx. They did not place confidence in the inevitability of the coming of socialism. Neither did they trust in the success of a revolutionary upheaval. They adopted the methods of parliamentary action. They solicited votes in election campaigns and sent their delegates into the parliaments. They "degenerated" into democratic parties.

One Russian group maintained that lasting success could be expected only if the support of a sufficient number of the people, though not necessarily of the majority, could be won. Another group did not favour such a time-consuming procedure. They suggested a bold stroke. A small group of fanatics should be organized as the vanguard of the revolution. Strict discipline and unconditional obedience to the chief should make these professional revolutionists fit for a sudden attack. They should supplant the Czarist government and then rule the country according to the traditional methods of the Czar's police. The terms used to signify these two groups--Bolshevists (majority) for the latter and Mensheviks (minority) for the former--refer to a vote taken in 1903 at a meeting held for the discussion of these tactical issues. The only difference dividing the two groups from one another was this matter of tactical methods. They both agreed with regard to the ultimate end: socialism.

The rule of Nicholas II was not ended by a real revolutionary upheaval. It collapsed on the battlefields. Anarchy resulted which Kerensky could not master. A skirmish in the streets of Saint Petersburg removed Kerensky. Lenin dispelled by force of arms the Constituent Assembly. Lenin did not content himself with the conquest of Russia. He was fully convinced that he was destined to bring the bliss of socialism to all nations, not only to Russia. The official name which he chose for his government--Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics--does not contain any reference to Russia. It was designed as the nucleus of a world government. It was implied that all foreign comrades by rights owed allegiance to this government and that all foreign bourgeois who dared to resist were guilty of high treason and deserved capital punishment. Lenin did not doubt in the least that all Western countries were on the eve of the great final revolution. He daily expected its outbreak.

There was in the opinion of Lenin only one group in Europe that might--although without any prospect of success--try to prevent the revolutionary upheaval: the depraved members of the intelligentsia who had usurped the leadership of the socialist parties. Lenin had long hated these men for their addiction to parliamentary procedure and their reluctance to endorse his dictatorial aspirations. Already in his Swiss exile, which ended in 1917, Lenin began to split the European socialist parties. Now he set up a new, a Third International which he controlled in the same dictatorial manner in which he directed the Russian Bolshevists. For this new party Lenin chose the name Communist Party. Lenin did not differentiate between socialism and communism as social systems. The goal which he aimed at was not called communism as opposed to socialism. The official name of the Soviet government is Union of the Socialist (not of the Communist) Soviet Republics. In this regard he did not want to alter the traditional terminology which considered the terms as synonymous. He merely called his partisans, the only sincere and consistent supporters of the revolutionary principles of orthodox Marxism, communists and their tactical methods communism because he wanted to distinguish them from the "treacherous hirelings of the capitalist exploiters," the wicked Social Democratic leaders like Kautsky and Albert Thomas.

Thus the distinction between communists and socialists came into being. Those Marxians who did not surrender to the dictator in Moscow called themselves social democrats or, in short, socialists. What characterized them was the belief that the most appropriate method for the realization of their plans to establish socialism, the final goal common to them as well as to the communists, was to win the support of the majority of their fellow-citizens.

The communists, on the other hand, were in the early years of the Third International firmly committed to the principle of revolution and civil war. They were loyal only to their Russian chief. Their principle was: Right or wrong, my Russia. When Russia was an ally of Hitler, the French communists sabotaged their own country's war effort and the American communists passionately opposed President Roosevelt's plans to aid England and France in their struggle against the Nazis. The communists all over the world branded all those who defended themselves against the German invaders as "imperialist warmongers." But as soon as Hitler attacked Russia, the imperialist war of the capitalists changed over-night into a just war of defence. Whenever Stalin conquered one more country, the communists justified this aggression as an act of self-defence against "Fascists."

However, the distinction in the use of the terms communists and socialists did not affect the meaning of the terms communism and socialism as applied to the final goal of the policies common to them both. It was only in 1928 that the programme of the Communist International, adopted by the sixth congress in Moscow, began to differentiate between communism and socialism (and not merely between communists and socialists).

According to this new doctrine there is, in the economic evolution of mankind, between the historical stage of capitalism and that of communism, a third stage, namely that of socialism. Socialism is a social system based on public control of the means of production and full management of all processes of production and distribution by a planning central authority. In this regard it is equal to communism. But it differs from communism in so far as there is no equality of the portions allotted to each individual for his own consumption. There are still wages paid to the comrades and these wage rates are graduated according to economic expediency as far as the central authority deems it necessary for securing the greatest possible output of products. What Stalin calls socialism corresponds by and large to Marx's concept of the "early phase" of communism. Stalin reserves the term communism exclusively for what Marx called the "higher phase" of communism.

The apologetical character of this new terminological practice is obvious. Stalin finds it necessary to explain to the vast majority of his subjects why their standard of living is extremely low, much lower than that of the masses in the capitalist countries and even lower than that of the Russian proletarians in the days of Czarist rule. He wants to justify the fact that salaries and wages are unequal, that a small group of Soviet officials enjoys all the luxuries modern technique can provide, that a second group, more numerous than the first one, but less numerous than the middle class in imperial Russia, lives in "bourgeois" style, while the masses, ragged and barefooted, subsist in congested slums and are poorly fed. He can no longer blame capitalism for this state of affairs. Thus he was compelled to resort to a new ideological makeshift.


This is a 1400-word summary of Ludwig von Mises' 4000-word chapter "Socialism and Communism" in his masterpiece Socialism. Aside from some very minor changes and restructuring, this is the work of Ludwig von Mises. The full text is available online. http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msSApp.html#Epilogue

Com"mu*nism (?), n. [F. communisme, fr. commun common.]

A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.

At different times, and in different countries, various schemes pertaining to socialism in government and the conditions of domestic life, as well as in the distribution of wealth, have been called communism.

 

© Webster 1913.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.