Student
Paper F992-7
Fall 1999, Section I
Reviewer Comments
The Bloodless War:
In 1989, after decades of isolation and economic recession, communism in the Soviet Union collapsed. The Cold War between the capitalistic United States and communistic Soviet Union had reached a quick, decisive, and unanticipated conclusion. Historians and political analysts viewed the events of the late 1980s and early '90s as the endorsement of democratic capitalism. However, an analysis of the very principles on which the two political and economic ideologies rest, begs the question, is capitalism truly better than communism? When deciphering centuries of evidence and theories, the conclusion may be drawn that neither system can be labeled perfect. On the contrary, each system contains strengths and weaknesses, through which is sought the ultimate goal of the betterment of its society. Despite attacking from opposite ends of the economic sphere, each philosophy experienced success and failure, although present conditions obviously tend to support capitalism and democracy as the reigning champion.
Although popularity for the term "communism" would not
flourish until the mid-19th century, the foundation of its ideology had been
steadily growing for many years. When Karl Marx and Frederick Engels published
their revolutionary pamphlet, The Manifesto of the Communist Party
(1848), socialism in its most undefined state, had been witnessing a lengthy
expansion of support throughout Europe. One of the earliest and certainly most
profound proponents of a socialistic style of government was the French
political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). Rousseau's renowned
essay, The Social Contract (1762), denounced the ineptitude of individualism
and advocated the necessity of man's total submission of personal rights to the
good of the community. He further embraced an ideology centered on personal freedom's
dependence of a healthy society.1 Following the Revolution of 1789,
his native country adopted many of Rousseau's theories in the Declaration of
the Rights of Man.2
No doubt influenced by their predecessor, Marx and Engels similarly
believed in society's ultimate goal being the betterment of itself Surrounded
by Europe's increasingly industrial environment, as well as a growing disparity
in class distinctions, Marx and Engels adopted the name "communism"
to represent a more radical approach to socialism.3 Disenchanted
with the results of industrialism, Marx and Engels proposed the elimination of
private property. Private property, it was argued, was the unnatural and
cancerous goal of capitalistic industrialists, who used its abundant capital
resources to exploit the lower-class worker.4
The attractiveness of the Communist Party realized its summit after
1917, with Russia's Bolshevik Revolution and formation of the United Soviet
Socialist Republic (USSR). The party's abundant popularity, expansion, and eventual
collapse, all within a period of less than 75 years, leaves historians with a
plentiful supply of evidence to debate its strengths and weaknesses.
Undoubtedly, communism achieved an industrial society more rapidly than any
other. Through the cooperation of all citizens, communists initially succeeded
in its efforts to unify and gain economic stability. The end of wage labor
defeated the perceived selfishness of capitalism and began to demolish any
semblance of bourgeois power. The misappropriation of the wage laborer's
efforts, and the resulting economic vitality for the ruling class, was being
eliminated. For arguably the first time in recorded history, a society had
integrated the equality of individuals and their need to improve society as a
whole, to form a productive, economically thriving community. Achieved
alongside communism's rapid growth in industry and economic stability,
improvements in health care and education also left capitalist nations in a
state of envy. Perhaps its greatest public relations strength stemmed from the
Soviet Union's economic stability in the face of worldwide economic depression
during the 1920s and '30s.
Despite its overt popularity, communism did not result in a miraculous
cure-all for society's traditional problems. The dependence of citizens on its
communist government left individuals at the mercy of the party's own ability
to keep up with population growth and individual life necessities. Maintaining
the rapid growth of industrialization grew difficult and providing housing for
a growing population often left families homeless for years at a time. The
housing shortages also facilitated a regression of family values, often forcing
marriages to implement medieval practices of economic utility. Another basic
weakness of communism was inherent within its own doctrine. The elimination of
capital and competition eventually resulted in a stagnant society, motivated by
nothing and unwilling to provide the necessary workforce to continue at a
natural rate of progression. The communist government's control over each
aspect of life took all room for creative individualism out of the citizen's
hands. Suppression of the press and personal opinion created an environment
whose only motivation was fear and survival. Quality and production witnessed
sharp declines throughout the 20th century, while potential
uprisings in communist nations such as Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968),
and Poland (1980) were squelched through violence.
Communism's enemy on the other hand, has itself witnessed highs and
lows throughout recorded history. Capitalist and democratic political
ideologies have dominated societies from their earliest inceptions. Communities
throughout history had been dominated by the individual's freedom to trade and
profit at will. Of course, this is the historical viewpoint to which communists
scoffed at. Their party defined "individual" as the aristocratic
capitalist, abusing the lower classes through their existing financial and
political powers. John Locke (1632-1704) was the political forerunner to
Rousseau, who articulated idealistic capitalism for future revolutionaries.
Locke was a proponent of representative democracy, through which he believed
the good of the people would be accomplished. He defined government, not as the
controlling institution many capitalists would later define communism as, but
as the mere representation of citizens in a centralized location. Locke's
theories provided the foundation on which American Revolutionaries such as
Thomas Jefferson would later devise constitutional reform. Economically,
capitalism received one of its most notorious endorsements through Adam Smith's
publication of The Wealth of Nations (1776). Contained within Smith's
essay were the basic economic principles of a free-market economy and its
subsequent effect on the individual's financial freedom. Defining terms such as
"market price," "natural price," and "actual
price," Smith advocated a laissez-faire involvement by the government. In
other words, an economy attains its best quality and productivity when
self-regulated.5
The idea of a market economy is argued by most proponents of capitalism
as the economic philosophy's primary strength. Competition demands quality.
Quality, it was argued, when viewed as a marketable distinction between
products, results in creativity and technological improvements. These
technological and cultural improvements, evident in Europe society during the 19th
century, had benefited from a society open for public debate and intellectual
individualism. Scientists and philosophers such as Charles Darwin, Sigmund
Freud, and Frederick Nietzsche stood as evidence that a society based on
openness and freedom of speech was quite capable of evolving thought.6 Capitalism
also furthered the idea that those who work the hardest should be rewarded the
most. A citizen's first responsibility is to his or her family. The
proliferation of healthy families would systematically lead to healthier
societies. Democracy it was argued facilitated society's ability to improve and
discover beyond its communist enemy's capacity. During the 20th century, developments in space
exploration and nuclear energy refused to side with democratic governments
completely. Economically however, the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989,
under the weight of financial futility, gave the seemingly victorious
proponents of capitalism its loftiest banner.
While capitalism can easily be treated as the correct way to govern
following the collapse of communism in Soviet Russia, it is not without its own
faults. In fact, history's continuous account of discrimination and class
separations provided the main argument for the communist revolutions.
Communities based on capitalism had long suffered from instability among the
classes, specifically the worsening conditions of lower class farmers and
workers. The exploitation of the masses by the wealthy few is not only a
historical fact, but also the common motivation on which almost all political
advancements and revolutions have been founded upon. A much less accepted
historical fact is democracy and capitalism's failure to create unity and
nationalism within a society. Communists argued that racial, economic, and
gender separations created divided societies. Under Rousseau's ideology,
society can only advance when unified for the common good. This was seen by
many as the ultimate and innate failure of capitalism.
Through the application of free market economies and representative
governments, countries such as the United States currently stand atop the
mountain of political leadership. Nations long dependent upon communism and
government regulations are fighting to conform to the growing power of the
global economy and capitalistic markets. While communism in its ideal state
provided a haven for the working class to finally achieve equality, it was the
ultimate level of equal poverty that demanded the collapse of communism in
Russia. However, incomparable victory will more than likely never be completely
realized as history has yet to reveal how the rapidly changing face of
technology and international trade will affect the economic and political
stability of individual nations.
1 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. "The Social
Contract, 1762." http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/rousseaucontract2.html
(September 29, 1999).
2 "The Avalon Project: The Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789." http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/rightsof.htm (October 7, 1999).
3 Kagan, Donald, Steven Ozment, and Frank M. Turner, The Western Heritage, Volume II Since 1648. Prentice Hall, 1993, 773-730.
4 Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels;
"Manifesto of the Communist Party: Proletarians and Communists."
1848. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1840/com-man/ch02.htm
(November 17, 1999).
5 Adam Smith; "The Wealth of Nations, 1776."
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/adamsmithsummary.html (December 1,
1999).
6 Kagan 877-907
Bibliography
"The Avalon Project: The Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789." http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/rightsof.htm (October 7, 1999).
Kagan, Donald, Steven Ozment, and Frank M. Turner, The
Western Heritage, Volume II Since 1648. Prentice Hall, 1998.
Locke, John. "Second Treatise on
Government." http://campus.northpark.edu/histor..ses/Sources/Locke2ndTreaties.html
(October 6, 1999).
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. "The Social Contract, 1762." http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/rousseaucontract2.html (September 29, 1999).
Smith, Adam;
"The Wealth of Nations, 1776." http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/adamsmithsummary.html (December 1,
1999).