Marxist Communism: A Closer Look

The word communism today is associated with all kinds of negative connotations. Since the adoption of communism back in 1916 by Russia during World War I, nothing even remotely positive has come about through the introduction of an ideology that seemingly revolves around the basis of equality. With the introduction of “communism” in Russia, death and civil wars followed that tore the country apart and left millions dead. Stalin himself, in the name of the communist ideals he sought to impose, committed atrocities that left 20 million people dead at a conservative estimate. With the closure of World War 2 and a victory for the Allies came another, much more complicated war, The Cold War. While never evolving into an actual war, this so-called “conflict” revolved around the two opposite ideologies of capitalism and communism; capitalism, on the one side represented by Western civilization and communism, on the other, represented in the Soviet Union and surrounding countries. What could have been the Proletariat revolution predicted by Marx, instead turned into a “war” for power with many casualties on both sides. With all of this in mind, it would appear as if nothing good has ever come from the idea of communism, but death, destruction and constant conflict, and that communism has been proven to not work. However, this assumption is incorrect simply due to the fact that true communism has never actually been instituted. All traces of the so-called “communism” that have been put in place have never been true to the Marxist idea from which they originated. In fact, none can actually be considered communist at all.

                                                     A funny Monty Python sketch regarding Communism

A true communist society, according to Marx’s and Engel’s Manifesto of the Communist Party, would fit the following criteria:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 
9. 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. 
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

However, in every single country that has arisen with the communist ideals in mind, none of these can even remotely be applicable. While the described revolutions of the proletariat can somewhat be seen, everything else according to Marx is not the case. In most cases of the revolution anyways, it was a simple case of a small group vying for power. Anyways, using Soviet Russia as a prime example, in all of the cases where communism was attempted to be implemented, human nature and greed prevented the transfer of power from ever being completed. In the case of Russia, the transitioning government retained the power and slaughtered millions. All countries that have attempted to install a form of communism lost their momentum in the transition phase, as power was never able to be given up. In most cases, the Proletariat gave up one type of government for another that was in some cases much worse. To add to the fact, Russia, the flagship for the attempted communist spread, instead became more focused on gaining power and taking over the vast majority of surrounding countries. With this apparent “fake communism” becoming the norm around the globe, it’s safe to say that communism has been given a bad rep.

Occupy Movement Protesting the
Disparity in wealth

According to the communism laid forth by Marx and Engel, would communism really be such a bad thing after all? Coming from a comfortable, middle class lifestyle, I have no major qualms with the present situation of things in America, but let me ponder for a minute what living under a communist form of governance would be like. First off, the idea of class warfare is still entirely relevant today, most notably seen in the recent Occupy movements across the country. There is still a huge difference between the modern Bourgeoisie and Proletariat, despite the existence of a middle class in between. There is currently a small group of people who control a vast majority of the wealth in America and the rest of the world. There was definitely a reason for the Occupy protests, and that reason is similar to why Marx was writing. With this in mind, a communist revolution is designed to spread the wealth around and make the living situation more egalitarian for the masses. Now for those who are currently wealthy, there would be a loss, but in the long run things would be more equal for everyone in general. With this in mind, would a communist form of government not be such a bad thing?

The poor walk in the foreground while hints of the
wealthy can be seen in the background

Communism is still entirely relevant today, most especially in countries where there exists a tremendous gap between social classes. North Korea, described as “communist”, is everything that Marx is arguing against. Power remains in the hands of the government and elite few (Bourgeoisie), while the masses (Proletariat) starve to death and work for little to nothing. In this case, the Bourgeoisie of North Korea eat healthily and enjoy a nice lifestyle while the masses remain in a condition of living that is simply appalling. In this case, as Marx would argue, a revolution of the Proletariat is necessary and entirely inevitable as the masses will not be able to nor willing to live under such conditions for much longer. Such would be a true example of Marxist communism if they were able to revolt and install a true communist style of government, but only time will tell.

Literally

With all of this in mind, Communism as described by Marx is still entirely relevant today. In order to get a better sense of what he is arguing for, one must look past the modern examples of so-called “communism” and truly read the manifesto that he has put forth.