Capitalist vs Communist – From Each Word According to Its Lack of Definitional Clarity, to Each Argument According to its Number of Non Sequiturs

The Legacy of Karl Marx

Oxford Defines Communism as “a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.”

The actual quote by Marx is ” From each according to ability; to each according to need.” Depending where you get the reference you’ll find the word “his” within the quotes as the second to last word in each of the two phrases within the sentence. I only mention this to highlight the potential problems with modern interpretations of Marx’s beliefs. He was alive during the 1800’s and didn’t even live to see a “communist” system come to fruition.

Karl Marx was born in 1818 in what is now modern day Germany. He died in 1883 in London, England. Since he died in 1883, he was never able to witness or comment upon any governmental system that existed under the self-stated title of communism.

The Birth of Communism in Russia

The first official communist country was Russia when a violent revolution led to the overthrowing of the centuries old Russian Monarchy and the subsequent implementation of communism in Russia. Despite the popularity of communism and the lack of popularity of the government under monarchy, Lenin failed to retain power under democratic rule. Nonetheless he became the face of the advent of communism in terms of applied theory.

Communism: Economic Ideals vs. Governmental Structure

Communism is a strange form of government, in that the concept itself lends itself more to economic outcomes, then it does to defining a governmental structure. This is why it is often forgotten that many communists did not support Lenin or the Bolsheviks who spearheaded the revolution.

Modern Misinterpretations

I believe this misunderstanding of history to be the primary cause behind the modern adoption of so-called “communist” ideals as well as the fervent opposition to the communism by its counterparts in the modern day most often standing for the flag of “capitalism”.

The lack of specificity with which the founder of communism, Karl Marx, defined his ideas has allowed anyone and everyone to throw their own definition behind the term. Many people who I have spoken with personally seem to believe that it stands for individual dignity, altruistic deeds, and something akin to direct democracy. However, under the few prominent systems considered to be communist ones, individual dignity was not offered unless one submitted to strict party policies, had extreme levels of inequality, and were even less democratic than our modern representative governments under the so called “capitalist” system. This begs the question of whether the outcomes these societies achieved were aligned with their stated goals.

Lenin’s Communism

The first prominent example of communism is that of the Bolshevik government established under the rule of Vladamir Lenin in 1917 Russia. After the Czar’s overthrow, Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky returned to Russia from exile to form the Bolshevik party, staunchly opposing the ongoing war. Capitalizing (ha, see what I did there?) on their anti-war stance’s popularity, they seized power, ending Russian involvement in the conflict. Lenin’s “Bread, Land, and Peace” promise further boosted their popularity amid famine. Despite gaining only 25 percent of votes in the 1917 elections, Lenin used force to maintain control, implementing state-centered policies that shaped the Soviet Union’s future. His GOLERO Plan aimed to stimulate the economy, while he introduced free healthcare, public education, and the Cheka secret police. In response to assassination attempts, Lenin initiated the Red Terror, targeting former officials and the royal family.

The example of Vladimir Lenin in no way aligns with the ideals that I am hearing espoused by modern Americans when they define themselves as communists. They are in my experience on average people who would vehemently oppose the anti-democratic way in which Lenin forcefully maintained power after losing the very first election. They would also typically oppose violence against political dissidents, and would likely oppose the idea of having a singular figurehead such as Lenin controlling the means of production since they typically define their preferences for where control of the means of production should be as in the hands of the workers, which was not the case with the Bolshevik government, and has not been the case in any communist system that I am aware of.

Capitalism’s Role in Shaping Perceptions

It occurs to me that the reason why many people in the modern day call themselves communist is not because they have deeply researched communism and support the ways in which it plays out, but rather they support communism as it is the stated enemy of capitalism, which is how most Americans define the modern political and economic landscape even though it is definitionally inaccurate as a label for the modern system.

Oxford defines Capitalism as “an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.”

In the modern system, the government controls such an extremely large portion of our nation’s trade and industry, that it is a crime against language to call our current system capitalist. When people defend the modern “capitalist” system they are in general defending their rights to what little they do own, the ability to create individual enterprises, and having some elements of decentralized free trade (the single element of capitalism that in part remains).

A Divisive Debate

Both sides fail to understand that they are fighting against those who most align with their ideals and the things in which they would like to see changed. Both those who call themselves capitalist and those who call themselves communists seem to have a general distaste for corporate or state overlords which are not definitionally functions of either system.

These concepts appear to me to be yet another example of an elite ruling class using the principles of the age old saying “divide and conquer” to maintain power by stagnating their potential enemies and misdirecting them towards a perceived enemy who actually has no control to change anything anyways so the point of debating with them is rather nonexistent in reality. Somehow we have billionaires in this country and some of them back political movements considered to be more capitalistic and some support political movements considered to be more communistic, yet they still have billions of dollars a number that was inconceivable in the not to distant past.

Improving Methods of Political Debate: Jubilee

Jubilee, a modern internet video program which produces content that gets Americans of opposing viewpoints to sit down together for a civil, nonformal debate on popular American political topics. The show really peels back the layers of our differences as Americans and does a great job exposing the misinterpretations Americans have about their fellow citizens and their beliefs in large part due to these definitional differences which I just discussed at length. Jubilee did a video recently on exactly the same subject, called: Capitalism vs. Communism. In most cases in which I have found this debate held on the internet previously, I tended to side almost entirely with the Capitalist side of the isle, however in this case I found myself agreeing with points made by both sides, and prompted me to re-read a lot of Marxist material and research the history of communism in greater depth. While I still found the communist side to be largely misinformed and idealistic, as the layers were peeled back I resonated strongly with the origins in which I believe their views stem from. The Communist side made primarily arguments that opposed the modern economic system in the United States today, which i must again reiterate is not by any definition a strictly capitalist system. Nonetheless, the “communists” view the United States’ economic system as capitalist and most of their views in favor of communism were not tied to any definition other than worker controlled means of production, which is not even how Karl Marx himself defined communism and is drastically detached from the Russian iterations of communism since under Russain communism all of the means of production were controlled by a centralized government which was not democratic and thus failed to meet Marx’s own description of communism which would have the means of production belong to “the public”, and did not offer any control in a legal sense to workers broadly.

The communists talked a lot in terms of “in the ideal world”, whereas the capitalists talked more in terms of “in the world as it exists today” and the lack of a better alternative. Neither side was arguing for any definitionally clear forms of either system. It was basically a debate about whether they supported the current system, or were in favor of giving the government more authority over our financial system to redistribute financial resources. Meaning that the capitalists wanted less taxes, free trade to the greatest extent possible, and individual autonomy, but failed to recognize that the current system is quite different from those stated ideals. Whereas the Communists simply wanted a more level playing field among the general population in the economy.

Conclusion: Capitalist vs Communist

When it comes down to it, this debate will never be concluded because it is intentionally divisive by way of its unclear definitions and the random interchange between philosophical ideals, and government policies, which are two entirely different concepts. Philosophy and Policy can align, but they are in no way definitionally synonymous.

Review of the Jubilee Debate Which Inspired this Post

I really liked this debate because I found all of the participants to be personally likable, even though of course I found certain arguments from both sides to be frustrating. By the end of the video, due to Jubilees ability to produce civil and unemotionally charged debates, I was an advocate for every member of the debate and only hoped that we would change the ways in which we discuss these topics, rather than thinking one side was right or wrong or that one side was the ally or the enemy. They were all both right and wrong and they were all people I would consider allies in the grand scheme of things.

The last sentence which perfectly encapsulates the debate that was presented was delivered by Tai Lopez of all people, a surprising participant as he was one of the first people who taught me not to trust figureheads on the internet after I bought his mentorbox and found it to be no more useful to me than a Youtube video, and would be an absurdity to call it a form of true mentorship. Nevermind his online scams though, when he delivered the final statement I was in full support as he asks: “what does the government do well?” the “communists” replied, “Prop up capital” and “kill communists”. Mr. Lopez concludes the video by responding: “But then you don’t like the government, then we all agree we don’t like government.”