#1 A Spectre is Haunting Europe... A Spectre of Communism!

“The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.”-Leon Trotsky

“Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners.” -Vladimir Lenin

“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” -Karl Marx

The Feared One

 

"World map. Communist states are marked in red, ex-Communist states are marked in orange." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Communism.svg)

WHEN THE TERM "communist" is invoked, a surge of negative and unguided associations spring forth. From the association of dictatorship up to bloody, violent revolutions, communism has been under fire ever since the original revolution was born. People who adhere to this doctrine are often regarded as anachronistic, ideological freaks and psychos who wish to unleash a destructive power of subjugation. Without even attempting to understand the whole concept of it, people dispel communism as an evil force that has the capacity to devour the earth with its army of deranged working class peoples. As a communist ideologue myself, I feel the posing need to again, bring the issue back into the heart of the matter, from where it all started.

This topic was mentioned in class during the discussions on "Crises of Capitalism". I chose this as my first blog entry because it is one of the closest issues to my heart. I've been a Marxist-Lenninist communist for so long now that I unconsciously live up to its ideals in most of my everyday dealings. The false connotation thrown at the believers of communism is so intense that the battle often abandons the level of ideology and often spill over on the realm of the physical, the personal. This entry was not written to assimilate but rather, to elicit open-mindedness and mutual respect - amidst the many possibilities and avenues by which we could actually change the world, pragmatically speaking.

This entry discusses the most fundamental nature and tenets of communism as well as Marxism. In addition, it will look into the timelessness of one of its basic substantive part, which is the bourgeois-proletariat divide on class struggles. Further, by analyzing its applicability to modern times, I will attempt to dispel some common notions that communism is obselete and is a thing of the past but rather it is evolving alongside with the changing human conditions that beset the changing times.

Communism 101

In its most fundamental sense, communism refers to "a principle of common ownership of property." (Heywood, 2007) It calls for a revolutionary socialist movement that would in turn create a "classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order." (Engels, 1487) Often interchanged with the concept of socialism, meaning the transitions stage from capitalism to full communism, communism per se refers is the final historical development stage, if we refer to the Marxist perspective.

Further, in a Marxist perspective, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the immediate stage after capitalism and before communism, wherein the government is actually in transition into destroying private property towards the creation of a more collective one. But to clear the point well, up until this day, there are various definitions of communism which often times refer the communist ideology strain from which the definition is coming from. Because again, there are various types of communism that exist - there is Marxism, Maoism, Trostkyism, Stalinism, Leninism, Marxist-Leninism and many more.

Communism, especially from my strain's point-of-view which is heavily Marxist, almost all forces (be it economic, political or social) exist in [Hegelian] dialectics. There is a thesis (creates a reaction) and anti-thesis (a new reaction) which will then result into a synthesis (resolution), though Hegel often call this scheme as the  Abstract-Negative-Concrete.  When people say that communism is actually suspended at the level of ideas, that's where the most blatant error of understanding enters the whole debate. Being guided by the Communist Manifest (by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels), Marx and Engels are not actually fan predominantly ideal structures but rather, they both created their idea of communism atop a very pragmatic foundation. This is where the twin of dialectic comes into the scenario, materialism. Combined, dialectical materialism, (term coined by Joseph Dietzgen, 1887) we are actually tapping on one of the most pragmatic aspects of Marxism, the economic. Basically in economics, dialectical materialism is (theoretically) at play whenever an economic order reaches its maximum capacity up until to the point of creating internal contradictions leading to the destabilization of its own order (the synthesis).

There is so much to be discussed about communism. However, for the sake of this short discussion, I shall be focusing more on Marxism as well as on the basic tenets of the Communist Manifesto.

The Communist Manifesto

Often hailed to be one of the most famous pamphlets to have ever been written, the Communist Manifesto (German: Das Kommunistische Manifest or originally, Manifesto of the Communist Party) was written in 1848 by its patriarchs, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It was originally written to serve the purpose of the Communist League (1847-1852) and its platforms. However, one of the most important contributions of this world-renowned pamphlet is its analytical approach into looking at class struggles (between the Bourgeois and Proletarians) and also, the problems of capitalism. And the former, class struggles, will be the at the forefront of my discussions/retrospection.
 

Class Struggle in Retrosopect

www. e-journal.org

The bourgeoisie are also known as the owners of production. The proletariats on the other hand are the workers. Both placed at a common ground, they create a socio-economic environment where one dominates and exploits the other. This is one of the often-remembered struggles of Marxism or communism, the struggle for material equality that has long been deprived to the world  by the dominant few.

In retrospect, in our long human history of existence, we can always see patterns of subjugation and exploitation. Sometimes, I even ask myself as to whether it is innately human nature to dominate their fellow. There are lots of theories into that effect, we have the Social Contract (Jean-Jacques Rousseau,  John Lock, Thomas Hobbes) and we also have a statement from antiquity - “Man is a political animal”(Aristotle, 384–322 B.C.). But to what extent have we actually enslaved our fellow in order to suffice our own selfish interests?

From a political science student perspective, there are various angles by which we could actually analyze this. We have various theories. Contrary to the dominant student-in-university notion that theory is more-or-less useless in the outside world, I believe that is where injury is inflicted. Not only those people misunderstand, they also pretend understand even if they do not. Theory is very much applicable to real life. If only we are all equipped with the knowledge and technical know-how on how we could precisely bridging the distance between scholarship and real life problems, bridging the gap is very much possible. But given the nature this part (of my blog entry), I won't be focusing on one specific theory but rather just retrospect on the whole reality of class conflict.

Class conflict (or class struggle, class warfare) is defined as the "tension or antagonism which exists in society due to competing socioeconomic interests and desires between people of different classes." By classes, we mean socio-economic classes. Others define it simply as the rich and the poor, others turn to taxonomization - class A, B, C etc. Others call on the upper, middle and lower class in all its mix-ins.

I believe, given the gaping divide between the "haves" and "have-nots" in almost all of the societies that are in existence, this is unavoidable. Seeing how the "blessed" burn money in living luxurious lifestyles while the deprived scour on what is left within their means, this is indeed unavoidable. Sometimes I ask myself as to how we reach this point, this divide. Is this human nature? That in pursuit of self-security by running after so many "wants", we have actually deprived others of their opportunity to live their lives?

This is one of the avenues by which communism appeals to the deprived. Because the sense of communism actually gives them a glimpse of that utopian ideal where everyone will be rewarded based on one's capability and contribution and not by connections and so on - an equal and classless society. Some say this is impossible. Some facets of its tenets, I believe ye. But definitely not all. This is impossible and unacceptable in the eyes of those who are well-endowed with worldly riches. But for those who have none, they have nothing much to lose if they wager in favor of this ideal.

I have various reasons for being a communist. And this is but one of my many motivations. However, I'm also a realist that's why I constantly search for communism's pragmatic niches. For nothing's impossible if we put our heart into it.✻