The Communist Manifesto: the Statement of Germany Revolutionary Group Essay
The manifesto brings about an argument of the changes in the society as a representation of the history running from the ancient roman emperor to the current modernized and industrialized world. The communist manifesto defines the statement of Germany revolutionary group with a reflection on the political undertakings of the time.
For the fight of political and economical oppressions, the activist groups set out barricades for existence by setting out a system of private ownership of production referred to as capitalism. In the description on the manifesto, the argument shows the division of the society along the line of bourgeoisie or the capitalists who engage in the production fields such as milling, mining and other industrial productions.
The other category comprises the workers who sell their workforce to the capitalists. The capitalists pay to the workers is very little for the services because the system allows them to dictate and get away with the misdeeds. The communist manifesto is a wakeup call for analysis of the political actions that urges people to unite and find change.
There is use of various theories to motivate people such as that of historical materialism indicating that change occurs because of the political class struggle. The struggles realize various economical goals and the orders or economic concepts replace each other until the fine one is found. The social and political alliances cause the relationship that determines the production.
This means that production depends on the social setting, because different settings have diverse modes of production, dissimilar organization techniques and equally distinct techniques for division of labour. An individual will have personal attitudes, actions and perception on the societal or political loyalties. According to the manifesto, this uniqueness derives from the social setting in relation to production. People either are politically exploiters or exploited and either of the categories merge easily to form alliances with those of the same grouping based on the similarity of the identifiers.
I disagree with the manifesto on the notion that bourgeoisie alters all the aspects of the society and families and destroyed all the cultural or traditional believes and practices through industrialization and urbanization. Arguably, the bourgeoisie’s specifications that collective struggles along economical divide causes the changes in the social setting, political and historical events create good reality. Historically since ancient Rome to the current scenarios, the struggle against federal societies takes a shape along the social, political and economical classes.
The economical interest of a master is quite different from that of the servant. The manifesto indicates that the livelihood of the bourgeoisie emerges to be wealthier because of its ability to sweep away poverty through world exploitation and discoveries referred to as revolution. This makes bourgeoisie a dominant class that shapes the society in a close reference to its personal interests.
The replacement of the class struggle along wealth line causes a huge impact on the social setting by creation of a scenario where every one has to struggle to aim at acquiring a capitalistic style of production, but not to the level of altering the fundamental aspects of the family or social setting. The technological advancement in the production markets translates to change and less manual works and therefore the modernized workers have to upgrade skills to be in terms with such progressions.
The loss on the production duties causes the low production. Expansion on capitalism may be forcing the poor to sell their labour forces to the bourgeoisie, but this is not the basis for compromising the family settings and societal cultural believes and traditions. The cause of the traditional changes is arguably due to the generation differences, poverty levels, formality on education systems and differences in understandings.
Secondly, I disagree with the notion from the manifesto that the bourgeoisie force the working class to be like them through the well-established mode of production. The working class are either emulating the bourgeoisie or drawing away to their side of struggle against the poor in society.
As the communist manifesto indicates, there is likelihood that the struggle over formation of class differences will force a split between the modern industrial workers and bourgeoisie. The political revolution, current advancement in technological matters and education makes the industrial worker to recognize their suffering in the hands of bourgeoisie. This will force a struggle for liberalization once they are in a position to realize their common association besides the struggle and competition for the ever-decreasing wages.
The poverty levels are forcing the workers to form a divide among them but once they realize the existence of a common fate, the workers will gradually form a collective state over demands in the political sphere and force recognition. The growth of huge industries and superior industries owned by bourgeoisie lowers the likelihood of entrepreneurial growth for the middle class. This will possibly force a struggle causing some division between the two sides of growing entrepreneurs and the bourgeoisie. This is the struggle for realizing the economical advancement.
Lastly, I disagree with the aspect of reducing the production to commodity exchange to the specific behaviour regarding the measure of exchange: money, thus avoiding the social representation. The communist manifesto has brought out many logical theories applicable and logical in today’s markets. For instance, the fundamental units of capitalism are commodities. The usefulness over satisfaction of needs or wants of a commodity determines the user-value and exchange value. It helps in determining the worthiness of a commodity in relation to other values of similar commodities.
The common market indicates existence of a measure for all commodities of different sorts to satisfy different needs but is measurable in the same unit known as money. The existence of value in the market means that the commodity has an exchange or monetary value. The manifesto posed the question of how the user-values of commodities are measurable in similar units. Monetary measure of many corresponds to the amount of labour force and time in making a commodity.
In the situation of commodity exchange, the value was measurable in terms of labour time. The labour time theory was an indication that commodities possessed a social relationship concerning the human efforts in their productions. This social aspect fails to reveal itself in the current social markets because the quality of commodities depends on the prices and not the labour in the capitalist social setting.
The argument in the manifesto is that the value of commodity in the modern social setting seems mystical and according to the bourgeois economists’ production and exchange of commodities in monetary terms avoids their social significance or representation. Bourgeoisie avoids the fact that commodities materialize from the fact that there exists an explosive system of wages to compensate labour thus the continuation of a social aspect.
To increase resources, the capitalists rely on the disposal of labour forces from the poor workers who measure the power to work in terms of commodities and sales, which emerge from them. The capitalist accumulates products to sell in the markets as surplus values. Capitalists’ invest majority of their efforts in generation of profits to satisfy their personal needs.
This means that they are the key causes of exploitation, because they want to enjoy the competitive prices by buying as much of the labour forces as they can, at the least price possible. There existed no laws or regulations to curb the exploitation back then, but today the workers are taking stands through their unions to ensure they have powers over their rights.
Journey into the Whirlwind: A True Story of an Ordinary Communist Woman Essay
Summary of the Book
The book under consideration Journey into the Whirlwind was written by Eugenia Ginzburg in 1967. The book is a true story of a woman who had to endure a lot of sorrows and horrible tortures during her imprisonment. She was and remained a faithful Communist even though she saw the different side of the Russian Communist society.
In her late twenties, she was ready “to die for the Party – not once but three times” if she had been told to do so (Ginzburg 3). The author expresses her opinion on the most important issues in the book. She tells the story and reveals her viewpoints on such things as life, death, friendship, compassion.
The book is written in first person singular narrative, which makes it very personal. The story starts with a phone call that awakens the woman. She as well as other members of the Party is informed about Kirov’s death. Soon after, many members of the Party are accused of anti-revolutionary activities. The main character, Eugenia, is also accused of being involved in such actions as she was an old friend of Professor Elvov who had been arrested earlier.
Eugenia is sent to prison where she is tortured psychologically as she is not allowed to sleep or she is not given any food. She is sent to another prison where she learns a lot about different people and their stories. Finally, she hears her sentence, which is penal servitude. She accepts the sentence with certain joy, “Penal servitude – what a bliss!” (Ginzburg 175). She is sent to Siberia where she completes different jobs.
She is often at the death’s doors, but she manages to stay alive “to spite them” as she is “consumed by the desire to survive the tragedy” (Ginzburg 175). She even has to fall trees in inhumane conditions, but she does not give up. Eventually, she is assisted and she starts working in a hospital. In 1955, she is released and she expresses her desire to let people of Soviet Union as well as the entire world know about her experiences.
The Will to Survive
The will to survive can be regarded as one of the most important issues revealed in the novel. The author expresses her own opinion on this matter. She claims that she was determined to live through all the tortures just “to spite them” (Ginzburg 175). The main character of the book witnessed ordeals of many people.
She also saw really optimistic inmates. Thus, one of her first fellow victims was the girl called Lyama, who could fall asleep “with a happy smile on her face” (Ginzburg 59). This young woman became a close friend who taught Eugenia to survive, who comforted the wretched woman and guided her.
In my opinion, the will to survive is one of the most important features every human has. This is something related to hope. People live until they can hope. If human beings had not had the will to survive, we would have ceased to exist long time ago.
Eugenia’s story is another example of the power of the desire to live. She manages to pull through and be alive in spite of all odds. This desire helps her reunite with her family. She also has the opportunity to tell her story to millions, which is very important. The desire to live made it possible for people to find out about the different side of the Soviet Union.
The Communist Party
One of central topics of the novel is also loyalty. The woman argues that she has never stopped believing in the rightfulness of the decisions made by the party. In spite of her lasting imprisonment and all ordeals she had to endure, she remains loyal to the party. She says, “I had not the shadow of a doubt of the rightness of the Party line” (Ginzburg 3). She has believed in the ideas perpetuated and never doubted that the country was a great place to live in.
As for me, I would never continue believing in the country where people are put behind the bars without any meaningful reason. I would never believe in the country where people are tortured and made to confess in something they did not do. For me, it is clear that such a country is corrupted and the ideology of this country is erroneous. I am surprised at Eugenia’s being so faithful to the country where all those horrible things happened.
To sum up, the book in question reveals a story of a woman who had to endure a great ordeal for sins she had not committed. This is also a story of the country where thousands and even millions of people had to suffer for no reason. The novel contains memories of the woman who had the strength to survive and let millions know about the wrongdoings of Stalin’s regime.
It is possible to note that there are two major ideas revealed in the book. These are Eugenia’s attitude towards life and her loyalty to the Party. The woman had a strong desire to survive and this will helped her endure all her ordeals. Surprisingly, in spite of all horrible experiences, the woman remained faithful to the party. It is difficult to understand this loyalty but one can’t help admiring the brave woman who never changed her ideals no matter what.
Ginzburg, Eugenia. Journey into the Whirlwind. New York: Mariner Books, 2002. Print.
Communism and Nazism Compare and Contrast Essay
Many historians believe that, Communism and Nazism (Socialism) are ideological doctrines with many similarities and differences. Nevertheless, the process of identifying the real differences and similarities of the two has never been easy. Some nations and societies have at one point tried to apply the two doctrines but failed to co-exist peacefully. In practice, the two doctrines arose at the closing stages of World War I.
The main reason why some extremists introduced these doctrines was to challenge democracy in Europe. Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin came into the center of European administration promising to unite European nations in order to have resembling economic ideologies. In their own views, Hitler and Stalin never believed that civilians could rule themselves and make concrete choices. Instead, they believed in an all-powerful leader who will make all decisions and choices on behalf of civilians.
In Germany, the Nazi Party did bicker in opposition to liberalism and democracy and fought hard for partisan nationalistic interests aimed at Germany superiority. On the other hand, the Soviet Union chose Communism in order to dispel capitalism based on workers’ revolution and instead, deployed a doctrine where communities own property rather than individuals. The two systems almost the same albeit some ideological differences.
Similarities between Nazism and Communism
There were similarities between the two doctrines based on leadership styles though the similarities were few. For example, both Nazism and Communism believed in a superior government, which will control the economy. In Nazism and Communism, workers did not enjoy much, as labor laws seemed so harsh.
Additionally, there were government-controlled unions that controlled workers and discouraged them from strikes. Additionally, the two doctrines Nazism and Communism assert that, it is the economy, which is responsible for all goods and services, and therefore, the public should plan, control and own these goods and services through a central organization called government.
What mattered most in Nazism and Communism was the loyalty accorded to the government as state interests always came first. Nazism and Communism characterized with brutality and pseudo-intellectualism in length. While Communism tamped the chest on Marx writings, eerie theoreticians and appalling men formed Nazi pseudo-intellectualism.
It came out that, the Nazi pseudo-intellectualism produced the best scientists like Robert Einstein. Both Communism and Nazism associated themselves with brutality behind the veneer of sham eggheads. By the end of the twentieth century, the two doctrines claimed over 150 million lives.
Differences between Nazism and Communism
On the other hand, the differences between Nazism and Communism appear diverse. This means, the two systems cannot coexist because of varied doctrines. In general, Socialism (Nazism) refers to an economic system, which seeks to administer the economy based on premeditated and combined social control measures.
In contrast, Communism combines political and economic systems aimed at controlling property distribution, and ensuring that, groups own property rather than individuals. In this case, the government has control on the system of allocating property through centralization to provide the desired stateliness and egalitarianism. Ironically, the two doctrines discourage capitalism.
Under socialism (Nazism), the doctrine dictates that, people own property according to the amount of effort they labor in production. This means that, the more a person engages in productive work, the more properties one owns. This is not the same case with Communism. The doctrines in Communism assert all members of the society to be equal. Therefore, distribution of goods and services depend on wholesome individual needs.
Given these two warring scenarios on Communism and Nazism, it is hard for the two doctrines to co-exist peacefully. Nazism creates a sense of hard work paid by individual material possessions. On the other hand, Communism generates into laziness and burglary. Indeed the two doctrines cannot coexist because; there will be communal property and individual property amounting to social conflict.
On capitalism, Communists believe in a communist ideal where, private ownership and capitalism dwell no more, the reason being, to achieve a classless society. They believe that, an egalitarian society provides equal opportunities to all members and that, every member in a society is entitled to access property irrespective of individual efforts.
In practical Communism, the government owns land, pays people to produce and them distributes these goods and services to civilians. On the contrary, Socialists demand capitalism and yearn for a capitalistic society.
They believe that, an ideal and stable society must have rich and poor people. One advantage associated with capitalism in Socialism doctrine is that, at least every member from a society will benefit indirectly or directly from capitalism so long as, the central planning system, government, joystick the avenues of capitalism.
How the two Doctrines Cannot Peacefully Co-exist
In communism, small groups control the economy of a country while in Nazism; the system allows many people to own property hence, control the economy. Thus, the two doctrines though based on economic philosophies, cannot coexist under one social spectrum. The mix of the two in Germany led to privatized and state Capitalism and tension in the Nazi party. In U.S.SR, socialism turned out mixed with Socialism where the government became an oppressive bureaucracy.
It is important to note that, Nazism sired Communism as a sub-ideology. In 19th century, Marx and Engel applied Communism and Nazism interchangeably. However, after getting a loss from their agricultural based industry, they aborted Communism and instead, welcomed Nazism and asserted that, it will turn them back to Communism. This never happened; creating an assumption Communism and Nazism cannot peacefully coexist.
Love and Marriage during the Era of Mao in Communist China Essay
The era of Mao lasted from 1949 to 1976 when Mao Zedong died. It was during this period when China experienced many reforms in most of its institutions especially marriage. Mao led the promulgation of the 1950 Marriage Law on 1st May the same year. The implementation of this law led to many changes in the marriage institution. These changes, according to Mao, brought freedom to women in the Chinese society.
Mao believed that the captivity of women in the Chinese society hindered economic development and by implementing this law; women would be free to participate in economic development. Marriage is a very important institution in any society though prior to the Mao era, the people did not award it much attention and respect. The Mao era brought flexibility in marriage in the Chinese community. The promulgation and the implementation of the 1950 Marriage Law ensured that one man married one wife only.
During the Mao era, if someone wanted to get married s/he was free to look for a mate of his/her own choice. In the pre-communist period, this was an abomination since parents chose the mates for their sons/daughters. It allowed the breaking of barriers that the pre-communist community upheld regarding marriage.
Some of these barriers were social classes in that, people from the wealthy families could not freely interact with leave alone marry, the poor people. However, there were age limits in that the minimum age of the man was seventeen years while that of the woman fifteen to qualify for marriage.
It is important to mention that betrothal was not a prerequisite for marriage and none of the parties would specify compliance to the agreement. Unlike in the pre-communist era, marriage presents were not necessary and if present, the parties gave them as donations. In the Mao era, the law did not allow polygamous marriage in the Chinese community and through such, the sale of young females within the society ended. It also the society to improve the attention awarded o the girl child.
The society did not give much attention to bride price and dowry as before. However, the bridegroom’s family had to pay some amount of money to the bride’s family. According to the Chinese customs, the bride’s family was to return a portion of the money to the bridegroom’s family as dowry as a sign of goodwill.
On the success of the betrothal, the parties proceeded to marriage. An open wedding ceremony marked the union of the two parties in marriage. The wedding ceremony followed the traditional Chinese procedure. The bridegroom picked up the bride from her home where he respectfully greeted her parents. The two then proceeded to the bridegroom’s home for the bride to greet her in-laws. The two parties greeted the parents with a cup of tea and in return, daughter(s) in-law received some money inside a red packet.
Just like any other form of wedding, this ceremony required witnesses as the two were officially getting married. In some parts of China, the parties were not supposed to finish the fish served to them. They were not to touch the head, tail and the whole skeleton of the fish. By doing so, they symbolised a good start and end of their marriage.
Once married, the wife and the husband would stay in the husband’s home. The statutory scheme provided for a number of arrangements regarding matrimonial property. However, the husband had the right to manage the property and enjoy the fruits of the wife’s contribution to matrimonial property.
Dissolution of marriage could occur through death or divorce. In the pre-communist era, the husband was the only one with the right of initiating a divorce. It was not the case during the Mao’s reign where divorce could only occur through mutual consent of the parties involved.
The legal formality of divorce was a written document signed by two witnesses. The judiciary allowed divorce under several circumstances including bigamy, adultery, ill-treatment of one of the parties by the other, in case one of them suffers a malignant disease or a mental disease, and continual desertion of bad faith.
Divorce could also occur if one party was uncertain of the existence of the other for three years or when the other party served a jail term for more than three years. When divorce occurred, the children remained in the custody of the husband, unless otherwise stated in the agreement.
During the Mao era, the Chinese community experienced many changes as far as marriage is concerned. It was in Mao’s attempts to free women from male captivity to enhance their productivity. Planned marriages ended allowing people free to make their choices when it came to choosing spouses. Women were also empowered to make major decisions in the marriage institution. It brought a sigh of relief to the young females from humble backgrounds whose families hitherto sold them as concubines to rich men in the society.
Chang, Jung, and Halliday, Jon. Mao: The Unknown Story. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005.
- Chang, Jung, and Halliday, Jon. Mao: The Unknown Story. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005. 145.
- Chang and Halliday, 143.
- Chang and Halliday,139
Rhetorical Analysis of the Communist Manifesto Rhetorical Essay
Communism is one of the most influential utopian social theories that have a great influence on the development of many countries. The first document that presents the detailed outline of the main principles and goals of communism is The Communist Manifest written in 1848 by Engels and Marx.
This document is considered to me one of the most influential in the world history. We can put it in the same rank with the Bible and Koran for its influence on the word society. The Manifesto provoked many positive and negative responses, it has a great influence on the literature and rhetoric. A detailed rhetorical analysis of the document reveals the influence of it on the reader, as well as provides a “corrective” understanding of the text.
As it has already been mentioned, the Marxist theory provoked many discourses and was analyzed by many linguists from the point of view of its “rhetorical power” and function of the language as the main rhetorical means.
A famous philologist and linguist Bakhtin described the use of language in its relation to the particular circumstances and he emphasized the process of subject formation: “pre-empts the phenomenological theory of the subject by producing a broader concept of subject-formation at the Level of society. He casts his argument in terms of ideology rather than simply language, making the case that ideological construction is in fact material and does contribution to subject-formation” (Bernard-Donals 15).
The rhetoric of Marxism also influenced the works by Virginia Woolf. One of the examples is the essay Profession for Women. In this essay, she explores her mind and call woman overcome prejudices and obstacles in their life.
The essay is devoted to the role of woman in the society and her struggle with the social prejudices. The idea of communist equality is one of the core ideas of this work. However, Woolf does not put women in opposition with men. She emphasizes that every woman should explore her personality and develop as an individual.
According to Krista Patcliffe’s book, “examination of Wool’s critique of women, language and culture we can outline her feminine rhetorical tradition. The genre concepts of this tradition are: material conditions, language function text, author, style and audience” (33).
Another philosopher and sociologist Michel Foucault was the follower of structuralism. In his work, The Archaeology of Knowledge, in which he discovers different approaches to the history of discourse. He explores the discursive relations between statements. Gloria Anzaldúa’s From Borderlands is another work that explores the problem of social equality, gender equality in particular.
It is an autobiographical work which key concept is the author’s acquisition and development of spiritual awareness, which is represented as a source of empowerment leading to self-transformation” (Slepoy 3). The language of the work is extremely beautiful. In such a beautiful language, the author describes the modern tendencies of society, relations between man and women and the role of women in the society.
The Manifesto begins with the outline of the purposes and of communism in order to attract the public attention. The main intention of the author was to make the document easy to understand by the general public. The Manifesto is written with the purpose to describe communism as the best way of life and prevent fears of people and government for this political movement.
So, the general subject of the Communist manifesto is to explain to a broad public the benefits of the communist theory and to call the workers from all over the world to unite and struggle against class inequality and defeat the bourgeois capitalist society.
The manifesto call to a proletarian revolution and establishing a new society based on social, economic and political equality. This idea runs through the text in different interpretations. It is the main theme of the document and its thesis.
The structure of the document has a big meaning for the influence on the audience. The writing is divided into four parts, each part of the document describes a particular theme. Marx starts with the explanation of the structure of the society in different times and class struggle:
“The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight,” (Marx and Engels 7).
The second section describes a new working class “proletarian”. The authors emphasize that it is the only and perfect social structure and only working class can create new “social paradise”. The third and fourth parts of the document are devoted to the discussion of the forms of socialism and describe a “true socialism”.
The manifesto has a very strong “rhetorical power”. First of all, it is based on opposition: the authors oppose two classes bourgeois and working class. They focus on the exploitation of one class (workers) by another (ruling bourgeois). Furthermore, the text has a great emotional power as it addresses the issues that worried people at that time.
The tone is solemn and contains notes that evoke the desire for struggle. The authors address the reader that makes him/her feel involved and significant. His purpose is to inform, explain persuade and motivate the reader.
In addition, the authors use various stylistic means, such as comparisons, hyperboles and repetitions, “It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere” (Marx and Engels 8), and emotionally colored words, such as adjectives, for example, “In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation” (Marx and Engels 8).
Moreover, the authors use broad explanations and examples in order to support their point of view. Thus, the language of the document contributes to the text and helps in supporting the main idea of the document.
The Communist theory had a great influence on the social and cultural development in many countries. It was very popular in Europe and its influence can be compared only to the influence of Bible and Koran. The principles of communism are described in the Communist Manifest by Marx and Engels.
This document has a very big “rhetorical power” due to its structure, language and stylistic means used by the authors. A detailed rhetorical analysis of the writing can help explain the influence of it on the reader, as well as provides a “corrective” understanding of the text. This document remains the best example of the art of rhetoric. It became a basis for many scientific works and had a great influence on works of modern and post-modern writers, psychologists and linguists.
Bernard-Donals, Michael F. Mikhail Bakhtin: Between Phenomenology and Marxism (Literature, Culture, Theory). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Web.
Ratcliffe, Krista. Anglo-American Feminist Challenges to the Rhetorical Traditions: Virginia: SIU Press, 1996.
Slepoy, Graciela Susana Moreira. An Exploration of Gloria Anzaldua’s Feminist Thought in Borderlands/LaFrontera: The New Mestiza. Web.
Influence Of Nationalism And Communism On The Non-Western World Essay
Nationalism is defined as the advocating of national interest, independence or national independence. It is understood as the consciousness of nationalism of an individual group. It is the awareness of distinguishing characteristics of individual nations like language, culture, customs and traditions. During the 19th century, all countries of the globe had been brought together by the single world system; this system linked people and regions both economically, socially and politically.
During this period, the world was dominated by the countries of Western Europe and North America. In colonized worlds, nationalist groups began challenging the European control due to the inspirations of the democratic traditions of Western Europe and America or the fascism and communism of east Europe. In India, for example, there was the emergence of the nationalist congress that supported liberation.
Nationalism and Communism in Asia
In countries like Japan, class mantra was the order of the day in the areas that were controlled by communists, the CCP which was the main political party was against agrarian radicalism and hence abandoned the class oriented war and its policy of compulsory acquisition and allocation of property. All this effort was centered on national salvation, and it resulted in land lords lowering their rent rates, and the interest rates though the peasants had to work for them.
These programs of the Mao and the CCP resembled those of the KMT where the landless population was considered the real force behind Red Revolution through the political eminence in the Communist Party. Indeed, there was a clear-cut relationship between Japanese invasion and the expansion of communism since it was motivated by the desire to create nations where none existed or to streamline the already existing states (Duiker and Spielvogel 563).
During the 20th century, countries such as China, India and Vietnam which were old societies were swept by the aspirations of nationalism and convulsions. This was largely motivated by a national feeling since the overriding tactic emphasized by Lenin as instruments of communist’s revolutionary was the desire to forge ahead and devise a united front with nationalistic movements.
With regards to a country like Korea, Russia due to its ability in machinery started training and installing a communist government and placed it under the leadership of Kim 11-Sung, and this led to the division of south Korea into two namely: the Peoples Republic of North Korea and the Republic of South Korea.
Eastern Asia is the region that bore the brunt of pro and anti communism battle. During the period of 1920, nationalism and not communism was the main driving force and there were several nationalist groups in Vietnam, Burma, Indonesia and Malaysia. It was as a result of the nationalisms that the sympathy for communism slowly developed.
The threat of communism was indoctrinated by satellite media stations that were dominated by the USA, and it was concentrated in South-East Asia and particularly Vietnam and Cuba or Western hemisphere as well as Africa. Just like communist revolutions in Europe, nationalism was the powerful political instrument that characterized revolutions in Africa, and it was spearheaded by African Marxists and Kremlin communists.
Various nationalist leaders had rejected egalitarian or a classless society but when they managed to overthrow the imperialists. The communist’s parties turned against their allies in liberations to execute power and to perpetuate socialist revolution.
USSR was considered to be the epitome and an advocate of nationalism. Lenin had the strategy of fanning communism all over the world or beyond the boundaries of Europe, according to him; this was to be realized through his policy of communist international or shortened as Comintern.
Comintern was an organization of communist parties that was oriented towards the advancement of world revolution. The headquarters of Comintern was in Moscow where communist agents were trained on the concept behind communism, and they were sent back to their countries to form or establish Marxist parties that would promote the cause of social revolution.
Communism did not command a lot of influence in the Middle East and only appealed to communist minorities like Armenia and Jews. The main proponents of Marxism in the non-western world were rootless intellectuals who were motivated by patriotism or egalitarian communism reasons to join the movement (Duiker and Spielvogel 564).
In Confucian societies like China and Vietnam, communism had a great impact because the traditional belief systems had failed to counter the westerns challenge. In Buddhist and Muslim societies, communism recorded minimal success due to the existence of traditional cohesive religions.
Communism and Marxism had a strong impact in China as evidenced in the formation of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) by a group of young radical Chinese as consequences of the 1911 failed revolution. By 1920, there existed nationalism-communism alliance that threatened to eliminate any central authority in China.
This period was characterized by the emergence of two competing political forces namely: the nationalist party that sought to solicit international assistance to facilitate its national revolution and the CCP that was aligned towards the strategies of Lenin (Duiker and Spielvogel 524).
Nationalism and Communism in Sub-Saharan Africa
The degree of communism influence on African nationalism is a subject of debate. It can be true to posit that indeed communism influenced African nationalism since nationalists sought for aid from the communists powers to overcome the capitalism that was tied to colonialism.
It is indubitable that agents of communism were critical in nurturing the infant African nationalist movements regardless of the fact that there existed philosophical and ideological incongruence. The communists support for FRELIMO for several years resulted in a Marxist Mozambique. The collapse of Portuguese colonialism which was the weakest of all the European domination in African led to the emergence of communists governments like Angola that joined other socialist elites like Tanzania, Guinea and Congo.
Nationalism originated from the west, and the nationalism in the non-western world is a pirated version of the western type of nationalism. The industrialization that took place in the west is what determined nationalism since it began spreading to other parts of the world. In sub-Saharan Africa, the strategies and the tactics of the Soviet Union worked.
African nationalists derived their ideologies from the theses that were titled: the socialist revolution and the right of nations to self-determination as well as a form the second congress of the communist international.
Communist side did not place a lot of interest on Africa not until the Second World War, but they target India and China but world war tow placed USSR in a better position to influence affairs outside Europe. The victory of Mao was considered as a victory for communism. Countries like Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria also upped their efforts to introduce communism in Africa and their interest appeared to parallel those of the USSR only that they lacked an elaborate strategy.
The commercial ventures and their political activities in the sub-Saharan Africa fell under the elaborate network of the Soviet policy. The one party state structure and the absence of official opposition that dominated the African politics is a characteristic of communism.
In countries lime Indonesia, the influence of Marxist and communism was aimed at maintaining neutrality towards Islam, in this regard the nationalist opponents emphasized the atheism of communism, but this was not enough to deter community coup in Indonesia.
Countries of Latin America experienced hard economic problems due to their heavy reliance on export and there was also increased hostility between the Latin America countries and the USA, and they began modeling their governments along the fascist regimes of Germany and Italy (Duiker and Spielvogel 532).
Nationalism and Communism in Middle East
The Arab nationalism which was a nationalist ideology was motivated by the desire to end western and European domination in the Arab world and the overthrow of those governments that heavily dependent on the western world. The nationalist individuals considered themselves as the descendant of Ottoman Empire and Damascus was chosen to be the coordinating centre of the nationalism. This happened following the establishment of France and British mandate.
Various parts of Asia and Africa experienced some rise in movements that championed for national independence, and it was spearheaded by native leaders who had obtained education in western and European countries. The civil disobedience of Mahatma Gandhi was instrumental in freeing India of British rule. There was also the emergence of communist movements in parts of Asia, and it was considered an alternative way of overthrowing western powers and eliminating imperialism (Duiker and Spielvogel 532).
Duiker, William and Spielvogel, Jackson. World History: Volume Two: Since 1500 (5th ed). New York, NY: Cengage Learning, 2006. Print.
Marx’s and Engels’s Communist Manifesto Explicatory Essay
To understand the full meaning of the given passage, one must comprehend the historical and intellectual context in which it appears.
Basically, Marx’s and Engels’s Communist Manifesto has depicted human history as a continuous manifestation of class struggles between an oppressor minority and the oppressed majority.
Before the advent of the industrial age, all oppressive power was vested in the hands of a feudal class – the aristocracy. The chain of events starting with the overthrow of the monarchy in the French revolution eroded the traditional power base of Europe, leading to the rise of a new class of oppressors among the serfs – the bourgeoisie.
This class of men only spoke the language of money and had little use for traditional values such as workmanship, chivalry, religion, family relationships and other forms of sentimentality. The proletariat – the labor class, then crowded to fill the ranks of the new oppressed majority, allowing their hard work to be exploited by the bourgeois capitalists for a bare minimum existence.
Marx and Engels believed that through this exploitative association with the proletariat, the bourgeoisie was able to rise to the top of the social class pyramid, fostering the development of present day property relations which sit at the heart of a wealth-driven society. According to this theory, the onset of the 19th century saw the dawn of a new civilization in which all productive forces of society were being systematically channelized to secure the existence of bourgeois property.
Consequently, the proletarians had little choice but to understand their place in the new hierarchy which thrived on their usefulness as workmen, but cared little for their welfare as human beings. Marx and Engels argued that such an exploitative arrangement could not last forever and in due course, discontent would rise to the surface, which would ultimately, force the labor class to rise in armed rebellion against an uncaring, bourgeois ruling class.
The study passage serves to illustrate such an outcome.
The first section states that:
The productive forces of society no longer tend to further the development of bourgeois civilization and the condition of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. (Marxists Internet Archive, 2011).
Since, discontent was growing heavily, Marx and Engles have tried to predict it would be only a matter of time before the bourgeoisie realized that their financial stranglehold on the proletariat was not strong enough to permanently secure their wealth due to the uneven nature of exploitation. Sooner or later, the ambitions of the proletariat would break the glass ceiling that until now, kept them down.
To further assess the proletariat’s vulnerabilities, the passage looks into how the bourgeoisie desires to tackle this problem:
And how does the bourgeoisie get over this crises? On the one hand, by the enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other hand, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented. (Marxists Internet Archive, 2011).
In association with other sections of the passage, we may gather that the authors, here, are referring to immoral tactics that have been employed by capitalists to demoralize the labor class; these include keeping the wages low i.e. enforcing destruction of a means to production, and looking for ingenious ways to exploit old markets while discovering new ones. Marx and Engles theorize that Capitalism thrives on the back of labor exploitation, which will set the events that would eventually lead to the downfall of such a system.
The last section of the passage suggests that Capitalism’s seeds of destruction lie in its own methods of oppression:
The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself. But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons – the modern workers – the proletarians. (Marxists Internet Archive, 2011).
Marx and Engels are here trying to imply that not unlike Frankenstein, the bourgeoisie has created a monster among the proletariats, who would one day untie the restraints that are keeping them tethered in submission. When such a thing happens in future, it would undermine the very foundations of the bourgeois power structure.
The significance of the passage, can be seen in the context of the overall Communist Manifesto theory.
The underlying theme of Communism tries to project the proletariat as the owner of all means of production in a distant, utopian future – a future where men are stripped of their right to exploit the labor of other men for their individual, selfish benefits. From the point of view of early 19th century history, this was a radical statement to make. To be first among his peers, Marx came with a theory where it was possible for the oppressed majority people to wrest the reins of power from an oppressive minority.
The passage, here, serves as a clarion call to the proletariat to fight against the fetters of injustice, in order to rise against a global, tyrannical system that has been exploiting it for its own good. If one reads between the lines, the passage serves to incite readers of that period to raise their voice against the injustices of the prevailing system
It is significant to note that within years and decades of the publishing of Communist Manifesto, the world saw major Communist rebellions in South America. The impact of this passage is indeed profound, considering its indirect role in shaping human history.
Marxists Internet Archive. (2011, Oct 10). Manifesto of the Communist Party [Online document]. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm
How does Revolutionary Communism compare with Democratic Socialism? Research Paper
The last two centuries have been characterized by the emergence of ideologies which have brought about potent political movements advocating for change and transformation of the government systems of the world. While some of these ideologies have been largely ignored and practiced by an inconsequential proportion of the population, there are those which have been widely embraced and used by states all over the world.
These varied political ideologies have differed in terms of their philosophies, policies and agendas. Arguably the most prevalent political ideology is democratic capitalism which is championed by the western world and is currently the most popular system in the world.
Revolutionary communism and democratic socialism are two other potent political ideologies. While communism remains to be a former shell of what it was in the past, democratic socialism still has a significant following though out the world. Both these political systems differ profoundly from the capitalist ideology which hugely favors the capital contributors in the society.
This paper will undertake a concise yet informative comparison between revolutionary communism and democratic socialism so as to arrive at a conclusion as to which of these systems is better off. The political questions on which these two movements agree as well as those which they disagree on will be articulated. A discussion on which of these systems offers a better government will also be presented.
Brief overview of Communism and Democratic Socialism
Communism by definition is a system or form of common life in which “the right to private or family property is abolished by law, mutual consent, or vow” (Woolsey 1). This definition parallels the ideals of socialism which are centered on giving power to the workers who not only form the majority but responsible for the creation of wealth.
Socialism therefore calls for them having an equal share to the profits that they help generate. Socialism and communism share some major characteristics with the major difference being that while socialism is only an economic system, communism is a political system.
Communists advocate for the socialist system which is characterized by centralized planning agencies and the single legal party. Notable Communist regimes are the collapsed Soviet Union and China. In these regimes, the single party is authorized to set goals and organize activities of the workers collectively as well as devise plans that balance the need to reward skilled workers against the need to prevent high income inequalities that characterized capitalist societies (Kornblum 479).
Socialism is regarded as the primitive stage of communism in which public ownership maintains a dominant position in the economy especially in key economic sectors. However, this system does not hold some of the radical views as expressed by the communism ideal.
As such, democratic socialism can be seen to be and evolved or precursor to the communism system which advocated for an absolutely socialist nation. Democratic Socialists believe that “both the economy and society should be run democratically to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few” (DSA). As such, the government structures that are set up under the capitalistic ideology out to be transformed so that the ordinary citizen has a greater say in decision making.
Arguably the most apparent similarity between social democracy and revolutionary communism is that both see capitalism as a grossly exploitative system that results in numerous social injustices (Schwartz and Schulman 4). Both of these political systems argue that capitalism inevitably gives rise to vast disparities of wealth as the working class’s efforts are used to make the wealth industry owners even wealthier.
Both systems blame industrial capitalism for destroying important human values such as compassion, religious believes and altruism among others and replacing them with naked exploitation as everything is based on money (Wren). The two systems also see capitalism as hugely undermining the individual’s sense of personal value since the working class who are responsible for creation of wealth are never paid or valued enough and instead, the wealth goes to the capital owners.
Both social democracies and revolutionary communism praise the efforts of the laborer who turns the raw materials into something of greater value and as such believe that he should play a bigger role in decision making. The very symbols of communism which are a hammer and a chisel reinforce the importance with which the working force is held in revolutionary communism.
Kornblum notes that Karl Marx, the acclaimed “Father of Communism” taught that the socialist state which communism sought to create would be controlled by the working class led by their own trade unions and political parties (479). Social democracies on the other hand advocate for an increase in the power that the worker has as well as an increase in the share that they receive from the profits since they are deemed to be the most important piece in the economy.
Social democrats and communists alike view capitalism as being socially unjust and somewhat undemocratic. While capitalism purports to be democratic in nature, Schweickart questions this proposition by highlighting the enormous role that money plays in contemporary elections and the fact that major media outlets which influx public opinion are owned by and controlled by the wealthy (8).
As such, capitalism results in the elite being in power as a result of their enormous wealth and vested interests in media. Schwartz and Schulman note that while capitalism proposes an economic and political relationship that is free and private to all; this is not feasible since such a contract is not made among economic equals and as such, only the well off benefit (1).
A significant similarity between communist parties and social democratic parties is their relationships with trade unions. The BBC suggests that communist trade unions played a significant role in government and were used as the “communist party’s transmission belts” which increased the power of the communist regime.
Democratic socialists on the other hand back up trade unions and propose for the incorporation of democracy in industry which results in a situation whereby the workers are not only “drones” but play an active role in establishing their destiny. Democratic socialists continue to enjoy a close relationship with trade unions since they view building of strong trade unions and community organizations as the only means through which the imbalances that capitalism has created can be redressed (Schwartz and Schulman 4).
A significant difference between communism and democratic socialism is with regard to property ownership. In communism, the private ownership of property is abolished in favor of public property which is run by the state for the good of all the people.
As such, changes to communist regimes are characterized by the widespread repossession of land and property from the rich and a management of the same by the state. On the other hand, social democracy does not call for the abolishment of private property but rather believes that the public should have some measure of control on the use of property.
This is in line with the democratic socialism belief that private property may exist at the same time that large corporations are owned by the state and run for the benefit of all citizens (Kornblum 478). Social democracies advocate for the promotion of majority social ownership in which there exists a property-owning working class. Guo notes that social democracies propose a system whereby stock ownership by individual workers is the main form of public ownership in the society (124).
Another difference between democratic socialism and communisms is in their idea of how the change into their political ideals can be made. Revolutionary communism holds it that the capitalism would never let go of their hold on community and political power and as such, only a violent revolution can result in the changes that communism calls for.
The 1917 Bolshevik revolution that threw off the Czar in Russia and led to the establishment of a communism state were marred with violent uprisings. This revolt was led by the workers and the peasants just as the communism mandate proposes that such revolutions would occur. The socialist revolution that occurred in china also had a violent history with little sympathy being shown to the “bourgeois democracy” that had once ruled the nation.
Social democracy on the other hand believes that the changes they propose for the society can occur through an evolutionary process that follows the democratic means that are a part of our modern society. The prevalence for following of democracy by social democrats is evident with most European countries having parties which identify themselves as social democrats.
Social democracy and communism also show huge differences in the economic model that they follow. Communism follows the non-market, centrally-planned economy. Schweickart notes that modern day social democracies have distanced themselves from this economic model and rather follow a post capitalistic economy that “retains market completion, but socializes the means of production and in some instances extends democracy to the workplace” (9).
This difference in their economic outlook can be best articulated in the difference between the socialist principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work” to the communist principle of “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs” (Bornstein and Fusfeld 117).
While both revolutionary communism and democratic socialism continue to play second fiddle to capitalism, both are influential ideologies. The demise of the Soviet Union was without a doubt a major blow to communism and Ziblatt notes that the collapse of communism presented a significant challenge to the ruling communist parties of East Central European as they lacked the central leadership, Moscow (123).
As such, most of these parties reinvented themselves as social democratic parties. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many parties which were once socialist began to distance themselves from the socialism as it was traditionally understood and reinvented themselves as social democratic parties
Guo notes that while the European social democrats have been criticized by most of the capitalism oriented parties, this has changed with time and in the recent years, these former critics are gradually endorsing the ideas of the social democrats (127).
Firm believers of democratic socialism such as Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez hold it that only this political system can solve the world problems and bring about social justice and prosperity for all. This is a sentiment that has sound theoretic backing since social democracy combines the best from the major political ideologies of the world namely; capitalism and communism.
While most people deride communism and social democracies as being undemocratic, the New York Times notes that capitalism as well comes in various forms and in the same manner that a communism or socialist state might fail to be democratic, capitalism is not necessarily democratic as was the case with Hitler’s Germany or Mussolini’s Italy.
As such, each ideology should be taken on merit and the making of generalizations should be avoided at all costs. The communism ideal has long lost popularity and communist parties remain unpopular in post-communist democracies. However, their significance in certain organizations such as trade unions remains strong and as such; their influence can still be felt.
Inequality has been universally acknowledged as a major roadblock in the way for economic and social prosperity. Political ideologies propose to solve this by coming up with systems that income inequality is diminished or ideally done away with therefore leading to a utopian society. This paper set out to perform a critical comparison of two political ideologies; Communism and Democratic Socialism, both of which propose to do away mitigate social ills therefore leading to a harmonious society.
From this paper, it has been seen that both this systems have a lot of similarities and that communism is in fact a more evolved form of democratic socialism.
From the arguments presented in this paper, it can be seen that at the present time, democratic socialism is not only more feasible but presents the best system of governance. This is because the absolute equality and communal ownership that communism advances may never be achieved in the world but the ideals that Democratic socialists’ advances are achievable in the present time.
DSA. Democratic Socialists of America. 2007. Web.
Guo, Baogang. “Old Paradigms, New Paradigms, and Democratic Changes in China.” Journal of Chinese political science, 2008.
Kornblum, William. Sociology in a Changing World. Cengage Learning, 2007.
New York Times. East Berlin Diary. Web.
Sackur, Stephen. President Chavez’s socialist world vision. 14 June 2010. Web.
Schwartz, Joseph and Schulman, Jason. Towards Freedom: Democratic Socialist Theory and Practice.
Schweickart, David. Democratic Socialism Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice Sage Reference Project. Sage, 2006.
Woolsey, Dwight. Communism and Socialism in Their History and Theory: A Sketch. BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009.
Wren, Christopher. Communists Meet in South Africa. 06 Dec 1991. Web.
Ziblatt, Daniel. “The Adaptation of Ex-Communist Parties to Post-Communist East Central Europe: a Comparative Study of the East German and Hungarian Ex-Communist Parties.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 119–137, 1998.
Global Culture: Communism Ideologies Relative to Arjun Appadurai’s Argument Research Paper
Global culture is changing rapidly due to the influence of political, economic, social, religious, and technological factors. Humanity is struggling to build a better society by ensuring that these factors function optimally and collectively towards achieving the millennial development goals and overall growth of nations.
In the 19 century, Karl Max and Frederick Engels drafted communism manifesto with the intention of transformation global culture after realizing that capitalism fashioned society into class struggles. Kuhn argues that “…in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour…small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands” (2011, Para.12).
Communism as an economic system represents a powerful and opposing force of capitalism not only in the European countries but also across the world. Capitalism and communism are two opposing commercial systems that dominated the world in the 19th century, but currently, capitalism is more dominant with many countries exercising the hybrid economic system of the two.
In contrast, Appadurai perceives capitalism as means of cultural, technological, and economic globalization, thus national development. Due to complexity of global culture and globalization, this essay compares and contrasts communism ideologies relative to Arjun Appadurai’s argument.
Karl Max and Frederick Engel see global culture and globalization as constructs of capitalism that result into power and class struggles. Individual members of the society are competing for available resources to attain different social classes that have certain powers.
Countries and mega-companies are also striving to achieve international hegemony by keeping abreast with the demands of globalization. Appadurai agrees that global cultural economy is subject to local factors that regulate it, such as surplus and deficits, consumers and producers that balance delicately in the world of capitalism.
Therefore, from perspective of communism, capitalism is shaping the individual, companies, society, and countries towards power and class struggles and as Kuhn argues, “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe.
It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, and establish connections everywhere” (2011, Para.9). The quest for free market by capitalism has made capitalists venture into the remotest parts of the world, thus causing cultural globalization.
Appadurai argues that the complexity of global culture is due to economic, political, and social disjunctures that exist in the modern world. He elucidates five disjunctures that are responsible for globalization by stating that, “current global flows occur in and through the growing disjunctures between ethnoscapes, technoscapes, finances, mediascapes, and ideoscapes” (Appadurai, 1990, p.11).
The ethnical diversity and increased international travel has enhanced intercultural interaction and thus globalization of culture. International and cross-cultural exchange of information has increased speedily due to technological advancement and powerful influence of media to different audiences.
The ideology of capitalism has shaped acquisition and utilization of modern finances. Karl Max and Fredrick Engels argue that capitalism is eliminating cultural and international borders and replacing them with economic and social classes as product of cultural globalization. According to the communism manifesto, property has power and capitalism promotes individual acquisition of property, hence social power in the society.
Moreover, “Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations” (Kuhn, 2011, Para.16). Karl Max and Frederick Engels hold that communism enhances equitable sharing of national and international resources while preserving cultural entities amidst the process of globalization. Capitalism, on the other hand, eliminates and destroys cultural entities and international borders by creating social and economic classes of people across the world. In contrast, Appadurai argues that capitalism provides a platform of social, economic, political, and cultural transformation that is imperative in keeping abreast with globalization.
Cultural and economic globalization results into ‘deterritorialization’ of various aspects of economic borders; for instance, shift from local industry and cultural diversity to outsourcing and class struggles respectively. Appadurai asserts that “deterritorialization is one of the central forces of the modem world, since it brings laboring populations into the lower-class sectors and spaces of relatively wealthy societies, creating exaggerated senses of criticism or attachment to politics in the home state” (1990, p.11).
Consistent with communism perception, deterritorialization is a consequent of globalization that causes inequality and exploitation of human labor under capitalism economic system. The strength of communism ideology lies in the creation of an equal society with cultural preservation, but its weakness lies in the fact that communal property ownership and restriction of market discourages economic growth. In comparison, strength of Appadurai’s argument is in the identification of disjunctures that flow in the process of globalization, but its weakness is that, disjunctive flows promote inequality among nations.
What is globalization?
Globalization is due to disjunctive flows that lead to cultural heterogenization and homogenization. The movie, Paris Is Burning, depicts ball culture and classifies contestants according to their race, gender, and social class. The movie portrays how social, political, and economic disjunctures have influenced ball culture not only in America but also in other countries.
The disjunctive flows elucidate how various aspects of society such as ethnicity, media, technology, ideas, and finance collectively interact resulting into cultural globalization. “At all periods in human history, there has been flow of disjunctures, but the sheer speed, scale and volume of each of these flows is now so great that the disjunctures have become central to the politics of global culture” (Appadurai, 1990, p.12). As depicted in Paris Is Burning, the performance of contestants depends upon their gender, social class, and race meaning that ball culture reflects both cultural imperialism and globalization across the world.
Paris Is Burning shows ‘deterritorialization’ of the world’s economic and cultural system that is gradually transforming in the modern society. Appadurai argues that, “the idea of deterritorialization may be applied to money and finance, as money managers seek the best markets for their investments, independent of national boundaries” (1990, p.13).
Likewise, the Paris is Burning reflects diversity in the world by selecting contestants from various races, gender, and social classes and interact them for the disjunctive flows to occur. Drag balls offered the opportunity for exchange of diverse attributes of contestants as disjunctive flows.
Transformation of global culture occurs due to social, political, and economic systems that nations possess. Communism is an economic system that antagonizes capitalism, but both have a significant influence on cultural globalization. Karl Max and Frederick Engel believe that capitalism is a bad economic system that creates inequality in the society and ‘deterritorialization’ of economic jurisdictions, but communists believe that deterritorialization enhances free market for business leading to unhealthy competition.
Appadurai holds that deterritorialization offers an opportunity of disjunctive flows that enhance cultural globalization. Therefore, capitalism provides political, social, and cultural environment where disjunctures interact effectively as in Paris Is Burning for the society to keep abreast with the globalization.
Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy. Spring, 2(2), 1-24
Kuhn, R. (2011). Karl Max and Frederick Engels: Manifesto of Communist Party 1848. Communist League. Web.
Communist and Economy Essay
It was in February 1986 during the 27th congress of CPSU that Mikhail Gorbachev’s ideas of glasnost (openness), perestroika (restructuring), and demokratizatsiya (democratization) were launched. Gorbachev came up with the ideas with a key focus on the economy.
The main reason for doing this was to improve the soviet’s economy, which all along had been poor as it had no signs of growth (Gibbs, 1999, p.1). To him, success in all his attempts could not be realized if social and political reforms were to be left out. In fact, efforts to bring such reforms began immediately. Gorbachev’s ideas had several impacts on the communist society and the soviet economy in general.
Impacts of Gorbachev’s idea
Glasnost encouraged freedom of speech and expression in the society. Freedom of speech was critical towards ensuring great awareness was raised concerning the shortcomings and strengths of the Soviet Union as compared to the past where information was held in secret.
It was under this principle of openness that people talked freely against communism and spoke positively about democratization. Democratization on the other hand had an effect of undermining not only CPSU power but also, Gorbachev’s power. A feeling for nationalism was raised in several parts of the Soviet Union where a number of riots were staged up.
Restructuring both the social and political arena had its own outcome. One profound change consisted in encouraging free markets and appointment of non- ruling party members into the government. The three changes had the great impact of turning U.S.S.R from communism to a democratic union. All the gains were registered because the members realized the positives of democracy.
Gorbachev believed that moving from traditional command to market economy would see the economy improve greatly. To him, Perestroika and Glasnost would favor this a great deal.
His principles were incompatible with collectivization and command economy. Adjusting to the new reforms was quite difficult and the traditional communists were not ready to adopt them. Lack of support from the commoners and the leaders led to very slight changes in the economy. To the leaders, introduction of such reforms would compromise standards and doctrine of the communist.
The idea of dismissing some of the workers from the factories in order to cut down on cost was not received warmly. Because Glasnost had been effected and gave people freedom to express themselves, the dismissed workers engaged into open protests. Factory managers, equally, did not understand the new policies of the government on the same matter. Consequently, they continued to oppress workers.
Contrary to the initial aim of Gorbachev ending communism and introducing democracy, his three principles led U.S.S.R into capitalism (Gibbs, 1999, p. 2). It is during this era that the Russian economy collapsed and even up to date it has never picked. Therefore, Gorbachev’s idea did not work; instead, it led to an economic turmoil in the Soviet Union. Apart from the economic turn down, U.S.S.R as a state ceased to exist.
Gorbachev’s efforts were opposed strongly; in fact, bureaucrats, apparatchiks and unemployed caused a lot of delay in the achievement of his aim. Gorbachev was greatly blamed for all the problems that the country faced at the time (Namiesniowski, 1994). The fact that he did not get support from other leaders is further demonstrated by his arrest and detention.
In conclusion, not all of Gorbachev’s efforts to improve the country’s economy bore much fruits. At first, all things seemed to work out well and people embraced the idea of openness and democratization. Contrary to the expectation, the country’s economy deteriorated. A lot of awakening among laborers happened and the country faced many open protests. His three changes, that is, openness, democratization and restructuring had diverse effects on the economy and the communist society.
Gibbs, J. (1999). Gorbachev’s Glasnost: The Soviet Media in the First Phase of Perestroika. Texas: A&M University Press
Namiesniowski, C. (1994). Commentary No. 41: Russia – An Odyssey of Change. Web.