I have noticed a disturbing lack of insight into the realities of the political ideology of communism. I have read history since young, have studied history on university on first and primary levels and I am also politically active I will share my own findings of having studied this ideology extensively.
1. What was Communism?
Communism started with a school of though referred to as Marxism. The Marxist school of thought stems from the works of Karl Marx, a German philosopher, sociologist, and historian. Historically, there exists a wide variation of interpretive sub schools in Marxism, such as Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism etc. But the established categorization to make sense of them all has been divided into three main branches: Classical Marxism, which is the original thoughts and creeds of Marx, Orthodox communism, a development which primarily rose in revolutionary Russia in the 20th century, and NeoMarxism.
2. Ontology and epistemology
Classical Marxism is, although this is purportedly contested, based upon a foundationalist
ontology coupled with a realist epistemology. A real world exists “out there”, and thus
Marxism focuses upon an essentialist position that “there are essential processes and
structures which shape or cause contemporary social existence”, (Marsh, David. P. 154).
The four “isms” which is integrally related to the Marxist theorem; economism, wherein
Marxists privilege economic relations, determinism, in that economic relations determine
social and political relations, structuralism, and materialism.
3. Core assumptions
To Marxism, economic relations undergirded the conditions of life in society. The economy
was an inevitable determinant factor that political institutions, laws, belief systems and even
the constellations of family would conform to. Thus, under capitalism, it became the primary
goal of the law to protect private property and therefore, the state was rendered an active
agency of the ruling class, (Marsh, David. P. 154). It was furthermore the assumption of
Marxism that material relations shaped ideas at any given time, and the dominant ideas were
always aligned with the interests of the ruling class, thus the position is materialist. The
structuralist portion of Marxism dictates that structures, economic ones in particular
determines the actions of agents, and the agents themselves according to Marxism are then
rendered as no more than “bearers” of their structural position, (Marsh, David. P. 155). The
state is therefore inevitably and incontrovertibly an agent of the ruling class, and strategic
calculations of subjects prominent within rational institutionalism are therefore void.
These bullet points of Marxist assumptions culminate into what is known as metanarrative, a
view of the world and a theory of history, which covers the past, present and future in a
predictive epistemology, (Marsh, David. P. 155).
4. Weaknesses
One theoretical strength of Marxism is that it bases its core assumptions upon a foundationalist ontology which means that, as there is a real world out there independent of our knowledge of it, Marxists have the potential from objective observations to derive empirical substantiation for their credo, which weighs heavily on scientific discourse. However, as put forth by David Marsh in Theory and Methods of Political Science, the theoretical critique aimed at Marxism has several starting points. One of these belong to the work of Gramsci who emphasized the need of analyzing the relevance of ideologies, hegemonic and political struggles, the significance of agents, which in Gramsci’s works broke with the credo of economism, determinism and structuralism’s rigid dogma which decried strategic calculations of individuals, (Marsh, David. P. 155). There has also been heavy, and well founded, critique against the Marxist proposition of social, economic, and political change. In short, determinist, economist and structuralist principles were not accurate tools of explaining the changes that occurred within these fields, and empirical evidence indicated that economic relations were not in fact a determinant factor for either ideology, the forms of the state nor culture, (Marsh, David. P. 155). It was furthermore evident that the bulk of Marxist conclusions regarding the ubiquitous subservience of the state towards the ruling class, wasn’t a necessary rule of capitalist countries as it was observed that policy did not always nor even clearly in many cases serve the interests of owners and the possessors of capital. It has also been evidenced that the determinist historical view of Marx was and is
unsubstantiated. As Marx wrote his theorems in the context of industrialized Europe in the
19th century, he also ascertained that it was the natural course of development that the
working class would one day overthrow the elites and usher in a socialist regime wherein the
state would eventually wither and absolve itself, creating a utopia for the workers as owners
of the means of production. This is not what transpired however, instead a large middle class
emerged from growing urbanization, constituting a majority in western societies and has
contemporary also seen a decline in both the percentages of elites and working class
adherents in a given capitalist nation.
References:
Marsh, D. (2008). Marxism. In Lowndes V., Marsh, David. & Smith, Martin. (eds), Theory
and Methods in Political Science. (2nd ed.), London: Palgrave Macmillan.
5. War crime examples:
Soviet Russia under Stalin: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/may/01/news.features11
https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/fr/document/kurapaty-1937-1941-nkvd-mass-killings-soviet-belarus.html
https://news.stanford.edu/2010/09/23/naimark-stalin-genocide-092310/Key elements: Mass rape, mass murder, ethnic targeting.
Mao's China: https://www.history.com/topics/china/cultural-revolution Key elements: Dictatorship, failing economy, person-cult.
Soviet Russia under Lenin: https://www-britannica-com.proxy.lnu.se/topic/Red-Terror Key elements: Red terror, Mass execution of prisoners, person-cult.
With much, much more.
6. Take away: When professional thinkers and opinionists in the West aim a disdainful finger at capitalism, that is in their freedom to do so. Capitalism isn't perfect nor does it claim to be. Capitalism can be abused and requires in my view an ethical leash as to not become limitless and oppressive. But it is the best system by far the world has had and has. And when these people instead glorify communism as the messianic opposition to "cruel and extorting capitalism" we enter into the world of direct fallacy and lies. And that I will never stand for. Communism, is an evil.
Most Helpful Opinions