Next year will mark the 100th anniversary of the 1917
October Revolution in Russia, which brought us the first Communist experiment.
There is little argument, even from orthodox Marxists, that the various
revolutions favoring Communism have failed to attain their promise. They all
established governments that progressed to the phase of Dictatorship of the
Proletariat. But none were capable of progressing to the final phase: the Collective
Ownership of Property. The next three paragraphs will be spent briefly elucidating
the reasons for those failures. They are the predictable and pedantic
expressions of hindsight, but they must be stated for clarity and the sake of a
well-balanced critique. Following that will be a discussion of the benefits
communism provided.
The reasons for this failure have as much to do with the
nature of governments as they do with the nature of people. Governments are not
designed to give away power; they exist to concentrate power into a few hands
so that goals can be accomplished. Bureaucracies as well are generally seen as
successful when they expand their functions and purposes. It is a constant struggle
in Representative Republics to contain the size of government. Whether one
approaches the State from the right or the left of the political spectrum,
efforts are frequently, though certainly not exclusively, centered on limiting
the role of government. Leftists, from a human rights perspective, are often
attempting to curb the excesses of laws which limit personal freedom. Those on
the right repeatedly find themselves working to curb government size, taxation
and spending. Understandably, both sides also have political projects that
serve to expand the role and size of the state apparatus.
People are also not designed to make themselves powerless
and useless. Humans did not rise to the top of the food chain by being anything
less than brutal and rapacious. Natural Selection is frequently subtitled
“survival of the fittest” for a reason. One might argue that individuals who
choose to lead a violent revolution, seize power and usurp the position of the
previous ruling class, are less likely than the rest of us to surrender that
power and control in the end. But it wasn’t just the nature of governments and
the nature of people that undermined the success of Communism. An important
additional factor was that Karl Marx never provided a mechanism for governments
to give away power and property once they reached the phase of dictatorship. Without
a framework that would provide a check on these regimes, they remain stunted in
a situation of totalitarianism, unable to advance.
Advocates of Communism have argued that their vision was
never permitted to advance because centralized authority was necessary to
defend national borders against outside attempts to overthrow their regimes. In
their view, the dictatorship phase was required to be extended until the
victory of worldwide Communism. At that time, the transfer of power and
property to the people could be completed. However, Communists always knew that
Capitalists would go down swinging. They weren’t simply going to surrender
wealth and influence as soon as the first revolution succeeded nationally. If Capitalists
put-up a violent opposition within the borders of a revolutionary nation, they
could equally be expected to fight the threatened spread of Communism abroad.
The short-sighted excuse that enemies were responsible for the continuation of
dictatorship is a transparent failure to take responsibility for one’s own
actions or worse, a lie designed to justify continued autocracy. If an
authority is unwilling to surrender power and wealth when it is smaller or
national, how much less willing to surrender power will it be when it is global
and has no opposition?
While those of us living under Capitalist and Democratic
systems are familiar with the defects of Communism, we are less familiar with
benefits it provided to its’ populations. From the perspective of the world’s
poor, (its’ agricultural, industrial and unemployed workers), communism
provided a way to meet basic needs. The systems these people were revolting
against were autocratic and oligarchical. The priorities of these systems
ignored inhumane working conditions, twelve hour work days and inadequate pay.
The barest essentials of food, clothing and shelter, were not fully available
to the populace. The goal of the Russian Revolution of 1917, from the viewpoint
of the poor and workers facing the rifles, was to provide their children with
enough to survive. This is why most historic revolts occurred at the onset of
Russian winters; especially after a bad harvest. To those whose goals were
greater distribution of food, shelter and clothing, the Russian Revolution was
a success. At least, one can admit that the USSR succeeded where the Capitalist
West continues to fail.
Another benefit was the provision of a dissenting, if
imperfect, voice against the greedy rich in the world. Communist nations
continually propagandized against the chief shortcoming of non-communist
nations: the penchant to place profits above human need. Propaganda, along with
the sowing of Communist parties in Capitalist nations and the threat of
Bolshevist expansion, encouraged western reforms. Societies based on free
markets were obliged to answer the challenging communist question: “What are
you doing for those who are not rich?” Some responses, like the Kennedy-Johnson
War on Poverty, failed. Some programs, (like Social Security, Job Training,
Public Housing or School Lunch), remain as a social safety net today. The
United States tolerates a good deal more Socialism than it would have without
that dissenting voice in the world.
The mere existence of purportedly Communist nations, also
prevented the level of economic exploitation one sees in unrestrained
Capitalist Globalization today. If one had told a patriotic US factory worker
in 1960 that the fall of Communism as a revolutionary force would mean that her
job would go overseas, she would have been incredulous. US citizens thought
that the absence of revolutionary Communist alternatives would lead to
prosperity for all; that world markets would expand, producing a boom in
production requiring more factories and higher wages at home. Instead, the
wealthy 1% have used the lack of ideological competition as an opportunity to
divide the spoils of the world amongst themselves. In 1960, the idea of shipping
jobs and factories to poor nations, where residents would tolerate low wages
and inhumane working conditions, would only have worked briefly. Workers would
have recognized, (and would have been told by Communists), how badly they were
being exploited. They would have then, as people did in so many situations, taken
the guns offered to them by Russian-and-Chinese-backed Communist insurgents,
and seized the means of production. Capitalists knew that their investments
were safer in the US and Western Europe, so that’s where most of the factories
stayed.
Globalization has led the international work force back to
the exploitative days of the 19th Century. Now, as then, unions are
ineffective against greed. Since aggressive union activity in overseas
workplaces would result in plant closure and relocation to another poor nation,
there is little challenge to owner demands. Current treaties provide for some
regulation around factory safety, working conditions and environmental
destruction. However, these are only the first of Globalism’s treaties. They
have to appear somewhat benign. But how long will the initial treaties last
when there’s always a poorer community to where owners can build a factory?
Communities where governmental leaders are willing to make human and
environmental concessions for a kickback? And in regards to regulation of
treaties, who pays the regulators if not the politicians that are bought by the
rich in so-called democratic elections?
The rich are only becoming more wealthy and more powerful,
as fortune is concentrated among fewer and fewer corporations. Over time, the
methods of globalization will become even more sophisticated; more easily and
deftly used by international businesses. We are only at the beginning of
globalization. The trajectory is not pointing towards economic justice.
The answer to this dilemma is relatively obvious:
Governments need to be more representative of the people they govern. There
need to be limits on the amount of money given to electoral candidates in
republics. The elected governments of those republics must then produce
representatives to world councils which regulate international treaties & commerce
in the interests of the people. The currently labeled communist nations like
China and Vietnam are an animal never envisioned by Marx: nations run by a
self-styled Communist dictatorship, but supporting a Capitalist economy. They
and other non-democratic nations must abide by agreements that make provisions
for worker’s rights and environmental protection, in order to do business with
the democratic nations. We must find some way to regulate the power of
currently unregulated businesses if we are to stop worker exploitation and
environmental degradation.
This is a long struggle. The steps to success are not clear.
Getting big money out of election campaigns has thus far proved an intractable
problem. International networking and agitation by activists committed to
preventing global corporate domination, has not been as effective as the
efforts of big business to network and attain its’ goals. It’s a tall order.
But in the end, a world with less exploitation of workers, healthier
environments and more democracy, is a worthwhile objective. Since the opposite
scenario is to permit less than 1% of the world population to control and
exploit the rest of us, what choice do we have?
