After the collapse of the largest country in the world, the USSR, covering almost half of the continent, with the regime performing within this country, people tend to analyze the mistakes, which were made by the authorities of the country. Their rejection and disapproval of the socialistic regime led to the ignorance and misunderstanding of two, for the first sight, seemingly equal concepts. The two political philosophies, namely socialism, and communism are more often than not being totally confused by people. But it is necessary to understand that the aspects upon which they rest are quite different. These philosophies seek to achieve different goals, and the tasks, with the help of which they do it, are also different. While socialism is a claimed inevitable stage or step to reach communism, communism is the last instance; the best political regime that might have been on Earth might be on Earth and might be functioning on Earth in the future, considered in the theory of Marx and Engels. It can be compared with nothing, except perhaps with a “political nirvana” – the state, which enables one to get free from all the previous oppressing systems, starting with slavery and finishing with socialism and including it. When communism is set as a functioning regime, there is nothing left to make up, as communism claims to be the Earth Paradise. Thus, it is obvious that socialism and communism are two different matters, which were to perform different functions and to achieve different goals, even though somehow related.
The interrelation of these two political philosophies seems very natural as one result from another. Namely, communism follows capitalism. To better understand the relation of these systems, it is necessary to refer to Hegel’s thesis – anti-thesis – synthesis logic. According to his philosophical views, he followed a new straight logic, including dialectics or, in other words, development. Much of his philosophical studies relate to the history of humanity. Thus, according to his statement, The antiquity is a thesis, while the Middle Ages are anti-thesis, consequently, the New Time is synthesis, where the thesis is a statement, anti-thesis – its denial, and synthesis is an identity. Both Capitalism and Communism are not related either to thesis or anti-thesis. Consequently, they are to represent synthesis, so going by the definition, they should be related. Being guided by their denial of everything related to thesis (Antiquity) or anti-thesis (The Middle Ages), socialism and communism sought some new logic, new values for people. From this point, 98 material values appeared. In this cause, socialism and communism are related and very similar.
It needs a better understanding of why the grounds for the creation and putting socialism into functioning appeared. Of course, no one in the world would put it into functioning without having faith in the further development of this political regime. Socialism, as a regime, was set up as an inevitable step to reach communism. Socialism encompasses several main arguments. First, it is believed that public ownership, as opposed to private ownership, is a more suitable enterprise. Secondly, the concept of egalitarianism has been embraced as it calls for the redistribution of resources from the rich through taxation to the less fortunate members of society (Bealey and Johnson, 1999). Besides, there are other main concepts of socialism, that is, the abolition of religion and the reduction of the role of family within the society. Socialistic authorities believed in evolution in each and every sphere of life.
Socialism is believed to be put into operation only with the help of revolution, which is to overthrow the former regime and to set the dictatorship of the proletariat (the main and basically the only class of people found within the countries with the socialistic regime). Moreover, socialism as a regime is to be set all over the world. The proponents of socialism insist that a revolution against the capitalist system is possible without necessarily compromising the character of the state. For them, capitalism is not a dictatorship vehicle but rather an opportunity for any given social class to abuse power. They insist that instead of wasting resources or trying to create social mechanisms to transform the society, socialism can be instituted by merely embracing democratic forms of capitalist systems. As Einstein put it, socialism can only be attained when the balance between social issues and politics is attained. When power is centralized, bureaucracy receives a life of its own and becomes powerful, so much so that democracy becomes an illusion and human rights are easily abused. First, the socialist distribution principle advocated for social equity and hard work; the more you work, the higher you reward. And its motto goes as follows: from everyone according to his ability, to everyone, according to his deed. (Marx, 7) It aimed at ensuring that all the members of a society would benefit from industrialization. Still, as it is seen from the Manifesto, socialism does not promise the total equality of people, as everyone gets a wage, according to the work he is doing. This is the greatest appeal for socialism because not only is it practical but also very applicable. Socialism saw the emergence of a more productive and happy workforce which was in charge of its own fate because it outnumbered the administrators. Ideally, there is a sense of liberty as everyone was involved in one way or the other in the decision-making processes. As Karl Marx put it, “democracy is the way to socialism.” Socialism discouraged wastage of resources because production was strictly for whoever needs a given good. Hayek (1990) challenges the effectiveness of socialism as a system. He states that socialism is based on scientific findings, which are based on scientific errors. Further, when implemented as an economic system, socialism would fail at running a large economy.
Socialism is an economic and social school of thought that advocates for the public, as opposed to private ownership of property and even natural resources. Socialism for collective and deliberate action as a way of social control and separates communism from capitalism as it advocates for the absolute nationalization of the factors of production in any given society (Bealey, 1999). Though, even the definition of the word “socialism” is so vast that the countries, which chose to follow doctrines of this philosophy were under completely different regimes. Taking into consideration the former USSR and SFRY, the first did not admit the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to follow socialism at all.
On the other hand, communism is an economic and political philosophy that is also known as “Marxism” or the “Revolutionary Proletarian Socialism” or “higher socialism.” Higher Socialism means the best political regime. Due to the social and political problems associated with capitalist systems, it was intended that a classless and free society would emerge if the bourgeoisie were dethroned. Communism calls for the disbandment of the state. Communists believe that capitalism assisted the society in moving away from feudalistic ways because it resulted in such a fierce and cutthroat environment where a man-eat man was rampant. It is for this reason that communists advocate for the centralization of resources so that a stateless and classless society is created (Bealey, 1999). While socialism is a transitional period to a dream, communism is a dream to be achieved.
The proponents of communism rest the power to transform the society on the working class. They believe that once the working class overturns capitalist power, they must as a social class usher in a classless society. They also believe that appropriate machinery must be laid down so that there is a guarantee that the capitalist is completely powerless to counter revolt. Communist Manifesto document was first published in February of 1848 by Karl Marx, and it aimed to highlight the disparity between social classes, and it was hoped that once the targeted audiences had had access to it, there would be mass riots (All about Philosophy, 2008). Furthermore, this document attempted to lure the masses with the hope of a model government, one that would do away with the upper class and eventually grant the lower classes from the iron fist of upper-class tyrants (All about Philosophy, 2008). There were ten critical communism points discussed in the Communist Manifesto concerned issues of heavy progressive income tax, corporate farms and regional planning, the abolition of private property, and the creation of the central bank. It also addressed government issues such as labor control, communication, transport, and factories ownership, and finally, the governmental control of education.
Edouard Bernstein (1850-1932) has been one of the most vocal critics of the Communist Manifesto because of the estimation of the time it would take for a classless and politically correct society to evolve. Even Friedrich Engels, who was co-author in the Manifesto with Karl Marx, has criticized this timeline theory. Beinstrien further states that with the increase of wealth, the capitalist population increased while the middle class remained unchanged in their actions. In the Marx-Engels reader of 1978, Marx and Engel illustrate that the struggle against the oppressive bourgeoisie rule put the middle class at danger of extinction.
Communism creates a society that all are offered the same access to resources, and it is unlikely that one will lack because resources are allocated according to needs. Unfortunately, the allocation of resources according to the need level breeds a society that is dependant and highly dysfunctional. In fact, communism can only make sense in a society that has self-actualized as these individuals are better placed to assist those genuinely needy cases. Once communism is embraced within a given society, it so often happens that the system becomes totalitarian. It is known that a totalitarian society is an oppressed society. Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences recipient of 1974, Friedrich Hayek agrees with this notion in his book, “The road to Seldom.” He states that when resource allocation within an economy is reduced to a group and is centralized, the result is oppression and tyranny. This is illustrated in countries that have practiced communism in the past, such as Russia and Nazi Germany. Oppressed people are a dangerous and volatile group who, at the first opportunity, will revolt and try to overthrow the reigning leadership. Due to the conservative nature of communism, the decision-making process on the working of the economy is confined to delegated individuals. This means that the subjects within a communist regime are likely subjects of atrocity.
Inferring, it needs to be mentioned that both socialism and communism emerged as systems aimed at eliminating oppressive capitalist regimes. They are similar in terms of the production systems, which call for centralized planning for the factors of production. Moreover, these two political theories are similar in terms of their synthetic character. Thus, being artificially created, they could not function as working political regimes. After the collapse of the country, the largest in the world, the authorities of which tried to live these two political theories out, people tend to sharply criticize these two notions and even confuse them. However, these matters are quite different in their nature. Consequently, they rest on different aspects and seek to perform different functions. While socialism is an inevitable step to go forth to communism from capitalism, it has a need in a revolution which is to overthrow the existing government and is to lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat; communism is a final step in the political development, a claimed final instance in the sense of politics, which enables political theorists to stop inventing further regimes as it is a believed Paradise, materialized on Earth. Communism rests on a strong foundation of socialism and thus does not seek any revolutionary movements; it means that socialism prepares the society to communism through humiliating the class of rich, arrogant, and fortunate (Hayek, 1999), reduces the influence of the family as an institution (diminishes the ties between spouses, children and parents), abolishes religion for a good cause (the theory of evolution is the focal point in the theory of socialism as the society, living under socialism is to evolve with the regime, performed in the country). And communism does not need these radical changes as the grounds for it are implied to have been prepared during socialism. While socialism is a direct result of capitalism, communism is so-called socialism at a higher level. These political philosophies, though directly related to each other in terms of the strict succession, they are to be executed, are still to function at a different time, are to perform completely different goals. Thus, it is clear that these two notions rest on principally different aspects.
Works Cited
All about Philosophy. “Communism”. (2008). Web.
Bealey Frank. “The Blackwell Dictionary of Political Science: A User’s Guide to its terms”. London: Blackwell Publishing, 1999.
Einstein Albert. “Why Socialism?” (1949). 2008. Web.
Hayek Friedrich. “Road to Serfdom”. London: Routeledge, 1944.
Hayek Friedrich. “The Fatal Conceit: The errors of Socialism”. London; Routeledge, 1990.
History Guide. “Karl Marx, 1818-1883”. (2008). Web.
Marx Karl and Engels Friedrich. “The Communist Manifesto”. London: Penguin Classics, 2002.
Marx Karl and Engels Friedrich. “The Marx-Engels Reader”. New York: W. W. Norton, 1978.
Strauss Leo and Cropsey. “History of Political Philosophy”. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963.