CARL MARX’S COMMUNISM
IN COMPARISON TO IDEALIZED CAPITALISM
Carl
Marx and Fredrick Engels in 1847 were asked to produce a pamphlet to promote
the idealized virtues of the communistic political philosophy. This work has
since been referred to as The Communist
Manifesto[1].
The book can be viewed as having two parts, specifically 1) a critique of
idealized capitalism, and 2) advocacy for the political introduction of
communistic ideals. In this paper, I will address what the writers found to be
the Achilles heal of capitalism, and what were the general features of the
original Marxian communism. It is also essential to be fully aware of the
history sounding this work, thereby allowing a better grasp the full impact of
the cultural elements influencing these writers. It would be important to note
that this publication was written in England and the impact of the French
revolution would have been to some extent felt.
First,
we must understand why Marx’s primary logic, pertaining to a capitalist
political and social construction would be undermined by its’ own inherent components.
Marx’s line of reason here holds a congruency to the events unfolding in the
French revolution. He argues that the “proletariat” who only have their labor
to sell would eventually lose the argument of “labor wages” with the ruling
class. He makes the point that in a competing market place such as a capitalist
economy provides, the need to produce profit margins that would eventually lead to
pay reductions to the working class. Rather than if this occurred, Marx’s
argument relies on “when this does occur” a “glorious revolution” would happen
on part of the proletarians. These lower classes, who by this point, would be
in the lowest levels of depravity would rise and over through the Bourgeois and
would then install a new government. Thereby, reinstating the financial and political
status quo.
Although Marx’s argument pertaining to the
distribution of wealth and power being an issue with the capitalist philosophy
is a valid concern; this same instability is what drives innovation to the next
level. Also, Marx is arguing again the idealized unregulated free market, this
has never existed in current history. Even more importantly, this instability
allows for social maneuvering on part of the individual to better one’s own
social and economic position within the social hierarchy. There is ample
evidence throughout psychological and historical research that shows how
incredibly important this movement is within societies.[2]
Marx’s theory of communism does not allow for the same freedom of social and
economic movement and therefore leads to a much worse overall society. Although
both arguments hold incredible evidence for then, I hold that a centralist
view on this point ultimately leads to the absolute best outcome. A
capitalistic society that is regulated in so far as the national limits of
trade such as tariffs and other tools can be used to restrict cooperation’s and
businesses to a intermediate size.
In the
second portion of The Communist Manifesto,
we see the writer’s argument and advocacy for the implication of communist
policy into the legal and social culture of societies. The features of this
thinking are explained conclusively in “The 10 steps”[3]. The basic principle at play here is that the
individual hold no power or individuality but rather becomes a subject, a unit,
a part of the universal identity beholden to the concept of the state, whereby
the state is what takes care and provides for all your needs identified by the
state. Such things as “right to property”, “a heavy progressive income tax”,
and “centralization of credit and the formation of a national bank” would all
be removed from the individual and placed into the hands of the state.
In
conclusion, Marx’s theory of communism has been shown to be incompatible with
the real world and problematic on almost every level of implication. This is
not to say that capitalism is without flaws, but is by far the best social and
economic structure humanity has yet to produce. Evidence for this is easily
obtained. Those who use the “That’s not the real application of communism”
argument when faced with societies such as the U.S.S.R and many other countries
are in some fashion correct. However, I find that the theory is based in
outdated and incorrect science which shows that even if the structure and
applications are done correctly, our human biological and psychological
predispositions will come up to the surface and produce societies such as the U.S.S.R
and create the mass suffering such as that once felt by the Russian people.[4]
No comments:
Post a Comment