1
Student
Dr. Joan Kennedy
ENGL 1302.1P1
June 23, 2008
Communism: A Study of Hypocrisy
Can a society really exist and thrive without having any definitive separation of
classes? This question has been argued time and again since the evolution of classes.
With the evolution of man and society, from the first cavemen, to the present day, there
has always been a separation between the classes: leader and follower, vassal and serf,
yuppie and welfare recipient. The words of Abba’s song “Waterloo,” “The history book
on the shelf, is always repeating itself,” begin to ring true (Abba). Why then has the
world changed so much since the days of the cavemen, yet some things remain the same?
Some of the most famous, and infamous, works of literature have suggested social
structures that may seem ideal, such as Two Treatises of Government, Utopia, and The
Republic. However, time, common sense, and trial and error have proven again and
again that a perfect social structure does not exist. Focusing on the idea of a classless
society presented by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their essay The Communist
Manifesto, reveals flaws that are evident in not only the book, but the practical
application observed in countries such as China, Cuba, and the Former Soviet Union.
Marx and Engels both make the mistake of assuming that people are ideal; they do not
sin; they like to be controlled; and they strive to be just like everyone else. Though
individually, examples can be made of any of these cases, as a whole, this is not a
realistic observation of mankind. In their attempt to describe the perfect society, they
2
have stripped away people’s identities, sense of pride and accomplishment, and personal
freedom. These are the inevitable truths about humanity that will never allow a long term
regime to prosper in a truly classless society.
The Communist Manifesto begins by asserting that “the history of all hitherto
existing society is the history of class struggles” (Bannon). Marx and Engels believe that
all of mankind’s struggles and achievements have been focused on the plight of the
classes, in particular the lower or proletariat class. Castes will rise and fall, and until the
proletariat stand up and fight, things will never change. They go on to describe the ways
the bourgeois takes advantage of the proletarians, likening them to slaves (Bannon).
Workers may find that they are being replaced by machines. They may see their wage
decrease, and many times, they may see their work become repulsive. Often, the workers
will find that their paychecks barely cover living expenses, with the majority of their
income due back to the bourgeois for rent. Granted, this has been true in the past, and
still may be true for third world countries; however, this is no longer a valid argument in
today’s leading countries. Countries such as the USA, Canada, Sweden, and the UK, all
have minimum wage requirements, educational systems, and many other social services.
No longer is the phrase, “I owe my soul to the company store” applicable (Ford). There
is now a system of checks and balances that exists in order to prevent companies, or the
bourgeois, from taking advantage of the working class citizens. When managed
appropriately, government can be beneficial to the proletarians and the bourgeois.
In section two of the manifesto, Marx and Engels argue the points of communism,
including common property, abolishing the family, and nationality. Ask any Texan what
the four most important things to them are, and one will find that God is the only addition
3
to this list. The idea of taking these realities away from an entire society seems
inconceivable. Marx and Engels argue that these are unnecessary. On property, their
stance is that the proletarians never owned property anyway, so one is not taking away
anything by making property government owned. People should work for the sake of
work only, with no concern for reward (Bannon). In today’s world, these are called
machines. In effect, communism and the equalization of all of the classes would strip
people of their passion for achievement and rewards for their hard work. Many argue
that this will only serve to make people lazy and apathetic. In examination of communist
countries such as China, we can see this in evidence. China, for all of their recent
expansion, cannot keep up per capita with any of the world’s other powers. With one of
the largest populations in the world and communism firmly established, they should have
surpassed countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Belgium, countries with a fraction of
their population. China’s regime and the use of the social structure of communism have
prohibited it from dominating the world’s market.
Though Marx and Engels make some valid arguments, they forget to take into
account human nature. The majority of people want security and comfort. For some, that
may mean owning property; while for others, that may mean the freedom to seek
whatever employment they want. One thing can be said without argument; there will
always be classes in any society. There will always be leaders and followers. Even in
communism, some have to lead, and in doing so, they set themselves apart from other
people. The greatest bit of irony is that while Marx may have penned this manifesto, he
never lived it. He died having never held a job and was continually supported by others.
It would seem that Marx spent most of his life whining about oppression, and never doing
4
anything to overcome it for himself. Can an effective social system be sponsored by
someone with no experience? The proof would answer, no.
5
Works Cited
Abba. Waterloo. “Waterloo.” Polar/Polyor, 1974.
Bannon, Alicia. SparkNote on The Communist Manifesto. Web. 22 June 2008
<http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/communist>.
Ford, Tennessee Ernie. Sixteen Tons. “ Sixteen Tons.” Capitol Nashville, 1960.