Communism

COMMUNISM, a term originally used as almost synonymous with Socialism. Both conceptions cover a multitude of ideas: Utopian descriptions of an ideal society (as in Plato's Republic); sharp criticism of the unequal distribution of wealth and happiness in present society, sometimes on moral grounds (as in More) ; the application of the principle of equality to practical conditions, especially to the world of economics; and finally the most far reaching political schemes, which aim at nothing less than the reconstruction of the whole system of society. Common to all these variations, without exception, is their rejection of private property (in general only private ownership of the means of pro duction, but with the French Socialists and Communists also, to a large extent, ownership of articles of consumption). They thus advocate a form of production which is in the hands of the com munity; in which the ownership of the means of production is vested in the community. It is, however, more usual, and also more practical, to confine the words "Socialism" and "Com munism" to those systems and movements which aim at com munalizing the means of production, justify their pursuit of this end by a scientific analysis of the capitalist system of economics, and in their efforts to reach it, count principally on the support of the masses of industrial workmen, the proletariat and the nu merous classes of lower clerks, etc. In pre-capitalist times wealth lay essentially in superfluity of articles of consumption, precious metals, houses, and landed property. Injustice, where it occurred, was in the distribution, and every reform of society was based on moral grounds.

Wealth Mainly Embodied as Capital.

In the capitalist age, wealth consists of productive plant (wharfs, factories, ware houses). Thus the private ownership of the means of production has come to be questioned, and altered distribution contemplates the abolition of private wealth, i.e., the transference of the means of production to national ownership. It is convenient to apply the term "Communism" to those movements in particular which rest, to a greater or less degree, on Marx's and Engels' Communist Manifesto, which identify communism with the cause of the pro letariat, as a party to the class war, and which, as the corollary to this train of thought, look to the communalizing of the means of production to bring about not merely increased total production and total consumption, and juster distribution, but also a radical reorganization of all conditions of life whatsoever, all creative achievement, the whole spiritual contents of the age. According to such views, it is not possible to plan conditions of living in advance, in the style of a Utopian romance. No inventive power, no fantasy is strong enough to deduce a world from one general principle; it must be moulded by mankind through life, through the development of experience. This is the communistic conclu sion drawn from a sociological survey of historical development.

Communism and anarchism are often identified by their political enemies; but this is not justified, either by common usage or by the programmes of the parties concerned. The Corn-law Rhymer's lines on the subject are amusing, but apply only to the baser sort: What is a Communist? One that has yearnings.

For equal division of unequal earnings.

Idler or bungler, or both, he is willing To fork out his penny and pocket your shilling.

Such sneers at Communist ideas are cheap. They interpret as vulgar spite, a spiritual movement based on the deepest moral mo tives and reject, not only the Utopian communism, but also the modern form, with its sociological, historical and economic basis.

Plato's Utopian Communism.

The most influential of all • works of Utopian communism was Plato's Republic. In Plato's Republic not only is private property aboli hed, but marriage also; children are educated by the State, art is banished as seduction of the soul, the world is stripped of all ideologies, mercilc:sly "disenchanted" and reconstructed rationally. The differentiation between the sexes also disappears. It is, however, too often for gotten that these radical measures are applicable only to the two leading or ruling classes: the warriors and the (ruling) philoso phers, who have to renounce any sort of private life, in order to carry out their duties properly. The citizens, however, on whose labour the whole communal life is based, who only produce, but do not rule, and can take no decisions of importance for the whole community, live the ordinary life. They can acquire property; they can, and indeed should, found families.

The Utopia of Thomas More is equally radical, but confines itself in the main to criticism. Neither here nor, indeed, anywhere in the communist Utopias do we find the constructive principle of the new social system; criticism alone gives us no picture of so ciety. Thomas More is thus obliged to accept slavery as the foun dation of society, in order to be able to build up society as an ideal state, without "disagreeable work." He could obviously not conceive of any way in which his ideals, which included general education for citizens, a six-hour working-day, health reforms, etc., could be carried through without slavery. The age of these Uto pian systems is long since past. Formerly it bore fruit in works such as Campanella's Sonnenstaat, Harrington's Oceana, and Fenelon's Voyage dans l'ile des plaisirs; but works of this type have ceased to appear to-day. Utopia, too, is more like reality today, as we see, for instance, in various novels of the future by H. G. Wells, while a book like Ballod's Zukunftsstaat fails to achieve any wide success, precisely because it confines itself to mere facts and to reducing dreams of the future to sober problems of statistics and organization. The examination and analysis of the forms of society, the study of the most various historical social types, has given criteria by which to judge the present order, and led men to seek bases for the new society in the "stream of events." Interest in ideal postulates which fail to reveal in them selves how they are to be carried into practice, has weakened.

The era of socialistic and communistic experiments is also passed. Morris Hillquit, in his History of Socialism in the United States (I 903) divides these into (I) sectarian, (2) Owenistic, (3 ) Fourieristic, and (4) Icaristic. The last echo of these ambitions (a meagre ghost of the glorious plans of the Utopists) must be sought in the modern experimental settlements which enticed so large a following in the Continent of Europe after the War. The modern development of communist thought, as has been said above, lays chief stress on overcoming the conflict of classes by abolishing private ownership of the means of production. By capture of the means of production it is hoped to liberate the oppressed and to emancipate the proletariat. Communism is peculiar, in that, basing itself on the utterances of Marx and Engels, it holds that this end is only attainable by means of a revolution. Revolution is not re jected by Socialism as a last resort for overcoming historical and social obstacles ; but modern Communism regards revolution as necessary and a period of the dictatorship of the proletariat based on open terror as the only means of creating the Socialist economic and social system.

Modern Developments.

Communism has undergone very far-reaching changes since the World War, not so much in theory as owing to its international expansion. Russia, by coming under the rule of a Communist Party, has become the parade ground of communist practice. Communism, in its Russian form, has some remarkable features which originally did not belong to it. Modern communism repudiates erstwhile beliefs when it regards the social revolution as possible in every capitalist country of Europe with out regard to the stage of its economic development. This clearly springs from its thesis of a world revolution which can break out anywhere, and which must then spread from the coun try of origin over the whole world. Modern Communism, other wise known as Leninism, based as it is on the Communist Mani festo issued by Marx and Engels in 1848, emphasizes the initial necessity of civil war. It regards the victims of the Paris Com mune as the advance-guard in the battle for the emancipation of the proletariat which was stamped out with bloodshed. Similarly, the 19o5 revolution in Russia is treated as a prelude to Commun ism. Communism in its Russian form is closely allied to syndical ism but not to anarchism, as is often falsely maintained. Syndical ism is the revolt of the rank and file of the workers against the democratic State, against capitalism, but also against trade union bureaucracy. It is born of impatience of the compromises brought by daily life. It is the transplanting of the elan vital into the social conflict. Just as syndicalism places action above everything, and moreover direct action (not only strikes but also sabotage) just as it seeks to conquer the capitalist structure even at the cost of the temporary destruction of productive forces, so also in the case of modern Communism (Bolshevism) force is the necessary road to success and the militant period constitutes a necessary training of the proletariat for the control of society. On the other hand, Communism differs from syndicalism in that the latter glorifies the "militant minority" and believes that a determined minority is necessarily superior both in wisdom and power to the loosely as sociated majority, whereas Communism considers that the acqui escence, at least, of the majority must be obtained by propaganda. This is, indeed, necessarily a long process, involving, unf ortun ately but inevitably the sacrifice of an entire generation. Further more, syndicalism is in revolt against all forms of centralized control, above all, of economic processes. If the proletariat is to achieve its aim it must as a class elect its own representatives. Just as in the French commune the sections, i.e., the individual city quarters, elected their representatives directly, so also Russian Communism has created a similar direct representation of the proletariat in the workers', soldiers' and peasants' councils.

The Soviet System.

This Soviet system tended, however, from the very first to centralization of the administrative appa ratus. The reason lies in the theory of dictatorship. The pro letariat, according to Communist ideas, does not form a political body suitable for democratic organization. For, according to Communist theories, the proletariat at the beginning of the revolu tion is no homogeneous mass but contains within itself the vari ous stages of historical development. Only the most enlightened workmen employed in the technically most advanced branches of industry are capable of grasping the situation. The great mass of the workmen employed in medium and small workshops, or in handicraft, the exploited, degenerate masses of the home workers are not in a position to recognize their interests and their "social status" in the moment when revolution breaks out. For the dom ination of the bourgeoisie and of capital is not only an economic and (in the first stages of the industrial system) a physical dic tatorship. The bourgeoisie, according to Communist theory, rules over the proletariat, not only by virtue of unemployment and through the police; its rule is at the same time a spiritual one, in that the whole ideas and ambitions of the workman are perverted by the interests of the bourgeoisie. A proletarian revolution, there fore, based on democratic franchise, even if confined to the work men, would have little chance of success, and the proletariat must, therefore, trust to its advance-guard, the Communist Party, which includes only a small fraction of the workmen. For all these reasons the Soviet system, which originally (19(35) had been based on democratic ideas, was soon transformed; voting was made public, in order to ensure the election of Communists. The Com munist Party, furthermore, drew up the lists of candidates in such a way that candidates other than Communists could not be elected in the electoral assemblies. The system of indirect election to the higher Soviets serves the same purpose. The working proletariat alone is entitled to vote for these bodies ; the other social classes, in so far as they exist at all, are deprived of any political rights as "exploiters." It is hoped, however, that this system will come in creasingly to enjoy the true and unfeigned support of those ruled by it. This is to be achieved, first and foremost, by the system of education, which is to make the ideas of Communism the com mon heritage of the coming generation.

According to modern communist theory, the working classes as such are quite capable of seizing the power of the State, but not of maintaining it with success. For this purpose they require a committee which acts for them : the Communist Party. This party must therefore guide the dictatorship during the period of civil war, and hence it is necessary that only members of the Com munist Party, or those in sympathy with it, should be elected to the councils. The period of dictatorship is regarded as a transi tional stage, in which a freely democratic expression of will would lead to the victory of the counter-revolution, in view of the greater mobility and the economic strength of the former ruling classes. It is only when the socialist society has been achieved that a free expression of will and the representation of the whole people is again possible. Communists do not reject the current conceptions of democracy because they believe in the superiority of the few. but because they believe that the phrases of democracy bear no relation to present realities. True democracy is held to be unrea lizable in capitalist society because of the fundamental helplessness of the propertyless man ; parliamentary forms only serve to veil the reality of the "bourgeois dictatorship" by an appearance of popular consent which is rendered unreal by the capitalist control of the social structure.

Theory of the Dictatorship.—The modern practice of Com munism, especially the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and its maintenance by the Terror, has its theoretical basis in the "true Marxian doctrine of the State," as Otis was developed by Marx and Engels. According to this, the State is not the reality of the ethical idea, nor the realization of a universally valid system of law, nor a power standing above society, but the State is an organ of class rule, an organization of the exploiting class in power at any time for the maintenance of its external conditions of produc tion, and especially for the suppression of the exploited class. It is finally a "special force of repression" even in the case of the democratic State. Hence it can never represent the whole society, except where this consists of one class—the proletariat. For whereas all previous class struggles have resulted simply in the rule of a new minority, the victory of the proletariat carries with it the emancipation of the whole of humanity, because there is no remaining class below them to be freed. The struggle of the work ing class is thus the struggle of the humanity of the future.

When the State seizes the means of production in the name of society (and that is the social revolution), then, and not till then, does it represent the whole society. Then government over per sons is replaced by the administration of things and the control over productive processes. The State is not "abolished"; it dies out. "The machine of the State is put into the museum of an tiquities, alongside of the spinning wheel and the bronze axe" (Engels). For in proportion as the proletarian State carries out its task of suppressing class distinctions, it destroys its own class basis, and the State as a special organ of class power and repres sion gives way to the machinery of a homogeneous communist society. It is only in this subsequent phase of communism that freedom becomes realizable. This end cannot be attained immedi ately by the conquest of the State power. If the proletariat over throws the bourgeois government and takes over the army and the administration, Socialism and the classless society are not yet achieved. On the contrary, the workers must then, by means of the dictatorship of the proletariat, take and maintain possession of the State as the "special force of repression" for keeping under the bourgeoisie. This is, briefly, the theory.

Practical Modifications.—Since communism to-day is no longer a mere theoretical political system, but has become a po litical power, it is going through different phases. There are the rapidly changing conditions which may necessitate quick changes in tactics or even the temporary sacrifice of principles. As the Soviet State has developed in Russia, many concessions have had to be made to economic necessities. The early militant phase of war Communism gave place to the new economic policy and to a far-reaching recognition of private trade and in particular of the right of the peasant to the free disposal of his products, sub ject to certain fixed taxation. The economic policy of the Corn munists attempted at first to abolish monetary transactions, but was soon forced to re-establish a stable currency, because every complex economic transaction requires a standard of computation.

Finance, too, is developing in the direction inevitable in any corn paratively primitive economic system ; indirect taxation takes the first place. The Soviets are anxious to extend the system of con cessions, to attract foreign capital into the country, and are at tempting to get long-term credits. Interrelations are thus of necessity established with the capitalist world, the legal bases of which are to a certain degree recognized. On the other hand, nationalized industry was still increasing in 1928, and the monopoly of foreign trade remained the strongest bulwark of Communist economic policy.

The Soviet Union is still essentially in a transitional con dition, and it may be argued that it has very little right to the name of Communism at all. Communist thought in other coun tries has been relatively little affected by the changes in Russian practice, and is still very greatly influenced by the theoretical writings of Lenin and the policies advocated by the Third Inter national (see RUSSIA; INTERNATIONAL, THE). Just as the po litical development of the 19th century was profoundly modified by the French Revolution, so economic life during the present century will continue to feel the repercussion of the ideas of the Russian Revolution, even were a new Napoleon to arise and to re store the former capitalist system in Russia. The strength of the Communist movement outside Russia varies greatly in different countries, being greatest wherever economic distress is most acutely felt. The continuance of the intensive propaganda of the Third International, despite very prejudicial effects on the political relations between the Soviet State and other Governments, is mainly attributable to the belief that the Russian experiment de pends for its lasting success upon the accomplishment of the world revolution. (See INTERNATIONAL, THE.) BIBLIOGRAPHY.-K. Marx and F. Engels, The Communist Manifesto Bibliography.-K. Marx and F. Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848) ; Marx, Capital (1887) ; N. Lenin, The State and Revolution (1917) and Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder (1920) ; N. Bukharin and E. Preobrazhensky The ABC of Communism, trans. by E. and C. Paul (Glasgow, 1922) ; J. Clunie, The Third Communist International: Its Aims and Methods (1922) ; G. Sorel, La Decomposi tion du Marxisme, 3rd ed. (1923) ; M. Beer, A Guide to the Study of Marx: an Introductory Course for Classes and Study Circles (1924) ; W. Sombart, Der Proletarische Sozialismus "Marxismus." Sozialismus and soziale Bewegung (loth ed. of Jena, 1924) ; A. Waters L'Evolu tion du Marxisme depuis la mort de Marx (Brussels, 1924) ; see also Reports of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th World Congresses of the Communist International 1918-28; The Communist Review, 1921, issued by the Communist Party in Great Britain. Also Theses of the Communist International, complete. As adopted by the Second Con gress held in Moscow, Aug., 1920, etc. (1921) ; Speeches and Docu ments of the Sixth—Manchester—Conference of the Communist Party of Great Britain, May 17, z8 and 19, 1924. G. Lukacs Lenin, (Vienna) ; British Trades Union Congress: Russia: The Official Report of the British Trades Union Delegation to Russia and Caucasia (1925) ; Der neue Kurs. Reden der Genossen Bucharin and Sinowjew (192 5) ; J. Stalin, Leninism (London, 1928) ; Soviet Union Yearbook edited by A. A. Santalov and Louis Segal (London, 1927) ; Prof. P. Haensel, Moskau: Der Steuersystem Sowjetrusslands (1926) . (E. LE.)