There is an immense difference between ideological theories and their practical implementations. Often, even the most brilliant ideas become complete failures. So was the case with communism and national approaches to its implementation. Depending on country’s specifics and initial people’s needs, communism had various interpretations from “the human face socialism” in Tito’s Yugoslavia to Cultural Revolution in Mao’s China. The topic of the present essay is the analysis of whether some communist theories and their institutional embodiments were somehow successful. The central thesis is that both communist theory and practice had some initial positive results, but they were diminished by the following distortion of the primary concepts through human implementation. In other words, communist theories showed their inconsistency with human nature – the eternal conflict of control and freedom. The structure of the offered essay consists of four parts referring to four regions - Eastern Europe, Balkans, USSR and China. Discussion of every regional example consists of theoretical idea, its practical implementation in the country, its benefits and reason for failure.
If to explore communism from strictly theoretical and objective perspective, Marx’s and Engels’ concept of proletarian parity might seem remarkably close to the democratic idea of social equality. According to Marx and Engels, fairness of social access to the benefits of means of production evolves from the abolition of private ownership and development of common property (Marx, & Engels, 39). Such approach worked under conditions of after war period, economic imbalance and severe social stratification of the society. From the theoretical perspective, common ownership on means of production contributed to protection of individuals’ equally. This concept was relatively successful in implementation, in Soviet system of collective farms, also known as “kolkhozes” (Kapuscinski, 63). Although, in the beginning, people went to farm communities and worked the land under compulsion, eventually collective harvests were distributed among people in equal shares. Thus, even the poorest peasant received a minimal share of goods. The proletariat, in the face of workers, also gained variation of equality – they worked, although for a minimal salary, and gained social benefits like food coupons or accommodation provision (Kapuscinski, 70). From the theoretical perspective, such system could work effectively for ages since there was no surplus and everything was redistributed (Marx, & Engels, 59). In practice, Marx and Engels underestimated the human nature. Although human being is a tribal animal, people need profit and personal interest in order to work effectively. Common benefit worked for a while in the after-war reconstruction period, but, in the peacetime, it needed compulsion to exist. This inconsistency of theoretical concept with national human reality caused the decline of kolkhoz’s and plants’ efficiency.
In the Eastern Europe, particularly in Romania, ideas of Stalinism and human exploitation prevailed over classic Marxism-Leninism concepts of common ownership and rule of the proletariat. The long communism rule usually resulted in more exploitative measures. Romania during the rule of Gheorghiu-Dej and Ceausescu was the brightest example. Lenin’s idea that the proletariat should have worked from a mere comprehension of common benefit in Stalin’s interpretation stated: “You must keep the masses occupied. Give them a big project to do. Have them build a canal or something” (Kaplan, 75). Answering this advice, Gheorghiu-Dej initiated construction of “the Danube-Black Sea Canal” (Kaplan,75). From the theoretical perspective, even Stalin’s exploitation attitude to proletariat seemed irrelevant, since the whole society could have benefitted from creation of the new working places. Although there were no indications that trade through channel would bring much money, it could have contributed to the transport infrastructure improvement. Just as everything in communism, no matter how positive and prosperous idea was, its practical implementation was extremely poor and irrational. In four years of channel building, from 1949 to1953, more than 100,000 workers died in the construction due to the hazardous working environment and slavery conditions (Kaplan,77). Ceausescu implemented Stalin’s prescription even further, reducing human lives to subsistence existence, where material survival was all that mattered. Both Lenin’s concept had some positive rational and could have been implemented efficiently, if he had considered the factor of human nature. This time it was a desire for power and self-indulgence, inevitable result of one group’s control over the common system. The cult of personality, as an integral part of communism, was its pick.
In case of China, the establishment of the politburo and national militia contributed not only to support of the military regime but also to some social improvements. According to Mao’s idea of unified and strong Chinese nation, Chinese population was the purest and most advanced one, and it should have been clean from any Western impurities like drug dependence or prostitution. Chinese communism can be criticized for many things, but not for its anti-opium campaign. According to Kristof and Wudunn, one of the greatest achievements of communism in China was “wiping out the plague of opium in 1949” (135). This was something no other government or authority could have done before. This also referred to prostitution. During the Mao regime, politburo and militia managed to eliminate prostitution as a social phenomenon. It was officially forbidden. Prostitutes were taken into schools; sick girls were treated medically; and they had chances for work and return to their homes (Kristof and Wudunn, 209). The failure of this approach was in its command character and dependence on constitutor’s will; with the death of Mao, concepts and policies changes, and prostitution flourished even more than before. Another reason was the inconsistency of social policy with labor opportunities. Women were often discriminated and lacked direct access to profit earning; thus, prostitution was the only means to survive under conditions of communist unified purity of nation (Kristof and Wudunn, 212).
Overall, from all the arguments mentioned above, it becomes clear that, irrespective of positive theories and partly successful practices, communism in any embodiment could not endure. All theorists of the ideology underestimated human nature; irrespective of the tribal instinct, human being also needed to experience its individuality and favor essential human right – freedom of choice. Communism was doomed to be a utopia, since there was no possibility for common equality in the reality where leaders and followers, geniuses and ordinary people existed. The history of human kind is in diversity and differences.
Works cited
Djilas M. Tito: The Story From Inside. London, LD: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. 2000. Print.
Drakulic, S. How We Survived Communism and Even Laughed. New York, NY: Harper
Perennial. 1993. Print.
Kaplan, R. Balkan Ghosts. Vancouver, WA: Vintage Books. 1994. Print.
Kapuscinski, R. Imperium. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. 1994. Print.
Kristof, N.D. and Wudunn, S. China Wakes: The Struggle for the Soul of a Rising Power.
New York, NY: Random House USA. 1995. Print.
Marx, K. & Engels F. The Communist Manifesto. London, LD: Longman. 2004. Print.
