A Comparison Between the Benefits of a Communistic Society as Opposed to a Democratic System and an Analysis of Both

 “When many people are required to complete tasks within a given timeframe, they are always harder pressed to make decisions without a defined leader, or if they debate all things possible. This is rather the way a democracy works. Democracies are slow and inefficient, but more just as a whole.”

~My  Name

“[Socialism is a] Political-economic doctrine that, unlike Capitalism, which is based on competition, seeks a cooperative society in which the means of production and distribution are owned by the government or collectively by the people.”

~Answers.com

There are many forms of government that are used in today’s society, all made for various reasons. However, all of them have in common the common goal of protecting their peoples’ rights, or, in more corrupt instances, increasing one’s own power. The differing forms of government, must, therefore have a standard by which they can be judged. In the past, such philosophers as John Stuart Mill have used Utilitarianism as the basis for a just government. However, a more accurate standard to judge by is the protection of human rights. Human rights may be served through a number of ways, but the most effective is justice. This is because justice is giving each their due, so each is due their own human rights. Keeping that in mind, there can be many differences seen in the way that a Communistic state and a Democratic state are run. Primarily, the most celebrated by the modern world has been Democracy, but there are other factors to consider. These factors include, but are not limited to: how effective the government is at protecting the rights, how much the government can do to sway public opinion, what minimums the government will accept as the base standard of living, and finally, whether or not there ever been a true communistic state. For the purposes of this paper, only sovereign governments will be discussed, because the discussion is on conceptual governments, as opposed to corrupt forms represented in corrupt countries. The comparison is being made between the purest forms of Democracy, as opposed to the purest forms of Communism.

Human rights must be used for a standard because it incorporates the fundamental concept that is the core of every sovereign government (sovereign here meaning: ability and right to rule): the government serves the citizenry. Human rights will be defined as: the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law. This definition will provide the standard against which the governmental systems can be judged. As stated previously, the only defense of human rights can be justice, because in justice is the intrinsic value of human rights, and that is of a minimum that an individual is allotted by a just society.

            The concept of Democracy has long been an idealistic goal, and yet a worthy achievement when acquired. Democracy can be defined as: Government by the people exercised either directly or through elected representatives. While this may be the definition of Democracy, it is recognized that not all the Democratic governments fit this definition exactly. As quoted above, Democracies are slow and inefficient, but more just as a whole. However, when does inefficiency and injustice overlap? Democratic governments are more expensive to maintain. There are industrialized nations that can well afford to be Democracies; notable among such is The United States of America. However, there are nations that cannot or could not afford to have Democracies. The notable example among which is Russia, before it became the U.S.S.R. When people are starving in the city streets, is it tolerable to have expensive campaigns and elections for those privileged enough not to have to worry about such matters? One may say, yes, it is. This form of government assures the starving citizen that tier needs will be met, because the candidate needs their vote. One may also say, no, though. They may argue that it is a human right to have a minimum standard of living, which should supercede all other issues. They may argue that such luxuries as elections should come only when all can look after themselves. This person would advocate for the sacrifice of freedom for safety and protection. So which is more important, the liberty and agency of the majority, or the survival of the minority. Dictators would generally say that there are times when a strong and charismatic leader who was unafraid to make unpopular decisions for the greater good in the longer time span could avoid crises. Those on the receiving end of welfare may well argue this as well. However, this ideal leader is not always the one in power. Not all leaders look to the welfare of the people before personal glory or power. This corruption in human nature can be a stopper in justice. The Democratic processes can avoid that, because the candidate will stand for reelection so they need to remain popular. However, the concepts of Democracy present three key problems. The first is that the candidate needs to have the majority of the popular vote. This means that often times they may go for only 51% of the voting public, which would lead to biased and unfair leadership. The second is that the most powerful check on a politician is that they will always stand for reelection. This can mean that if an opponent is voted into their old office, it is very likely that the opponent will undo many policies created. This would mean that the time spent in office could be made null and void by an opponent who wishes to undo them. This, in turn, undermines the efficiency of the government. This leads to the government becoming more expensive. This financial burden would be placed onto those the government serves in forms of taxes, and that might mean that the government becomes more of a nuisance than it is worth to the people it serves. The third is that more of a question: How much say must the minorities get so that they will not be ignored, and yet keep it proportional to their influence? This is a very hard question to answer. There have been many ways to deal with it. France made a direct voting system for their president, thereby ensuring that the people got equal voice. However, then minority groups might be unheard and then have their rights taken away. The United States dealt with this issue by creating the Electoral College. However, this, too, takes away from Democracy because the decisions are not being made by the people, rather, it is being made by the geographical locations of voters. Democracy can be seen as an effective form of government today, but it can also be seen that is needs change, as well.

            The concept of Communism is based in socialism. Socialism, already defined above in the quote is essentially the cooperative society that works together to achieve common goals. Communism will be defined as: A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members. This raises the question of whether or not a true Communistic society has ever existed. There have been many reasons people have come up with for why this has never happened. “Socialism cannot exist, no matter where, contrary to the will of the people”-Georgi Arbatov. This quotes summarizes why Communism has never been seen on the face of the Earth. When examined more closely, it can be concluded that the core reason is human nature. Human nature is such that all people think differently, and so, therefore, will have differing opinions. By the definition, Communism is created for the common advantage of all members. However, because of human nature, a common goal or advantage cannot be identified. To use an extreme example, if a company run by four people were created for bettering the lifestyle of the workers, and one of the workers was disabled, then how can a clear “advantage” be seen? There are clearly accommodations that need to be made, but how far do they go? The disabled would most likely say that the highest priority of the company is to make sure that they are treated. Another member may say that the good of the company is the good of the majority, so the others should be looked to just as much as the disabled. A third may say that the good of the company dictates that all must be accommodated. Finally, the last may say that the good of the company is served by making money. To the first, one may ask what makes them better than the others, such that they will be served first? To the second one may ask if the majority is being served if even one of them is not being served? To the third, one may ask how far the accommodations will extend? To the fourth one may ask if the company can make money when 25% of the workforce is limited in their ability to work in an unaccommodating work environment. It is because of examples like this, granted, not always so extreme, that the concept of Communism is always doomed to failure. The mantra of Communism is “From each according to their ability; to each according to their need”. The problem with this: what is their need?

            Democracy has generally had more freedom than a Communistic state. A good example of this is freedom of the press and of speech. This freedom of the press allows the people to question the government publicly. The freedom of speech allows the people to give voice to their questions. Both are essential to a just society because both are elemental in human rights. But one may ask one’s self: when can the freedom of speech turn into slander and libel? When does the freedom of the press infringe on privacy? When do opinions about change become anarchy? When are constructive freedoms not worth it? The freedom of speech is used often in the elections, used to boost one candidate’s support, or to push aside an opponent. This is a good thing, but only to a point. Being able to publicly challenge a candidate’s, who will be running your government, opinion is a good thing, because then you can make sure that they can defend their viewpoints. The press should have free reign until they start dealing in matters that may become a security issue, or that can be seen as intolerance to a personal opinion. Opinions about change only become anarchy when the thinker starts taking action against a legitimately formed government. Constructive freedoms are not worth it when they are abused and infringe on other’s basic human rights. Despite all this, the government has little say in people’s opinions. The public will cry out if they are being deceived, and because of the system of government, the wrongdoers will be impeached or removed from office. Democracy has this safeguard against the evil of deception.

            Communism, however, has two different views on this. The first is of the real life applications thus far, and that is of a totalitarian society that has taken control of the power. These governments have taken control of the press and have used it for propaganda and for boosting its own image. However, they are non-sovereign, because they have violated human rights. This means they no longer have the right to rule. The second view is of idealistic Communism. This is of a society that shares because it is recognized that altruism is for the greater good. This government would probably not need any government, and if it did, it would be so minimal that it would not be an issue. Therefore, the possibility of a true Communist Government taking over the press is minimal if at all present. The first view of Communism, one displayed through history, has been tainted by social classes in a “classless” society. Furthermore, these upper classes have taken advantage of the lower classes to the point where they would deny them their rights. Communism does not mean giving up one’s rights for the greater good; it means giving up one’s possessions for the advancement of society. The examples in history have not displayed this, so the general feeling of Communism has been swayed in a negative fashion.

            Economics must be seen as a factor in the deliberation between Democracy and Communism. Democracies generally have free capitalist economies. This creates competition, which can be seen as both good and bad. The good side is that the competition will make products sturdier, because companies want to sell their product, and prices will be competitive, because each company wants the customer coming to them. The bad side is that the competition for jobs will lower wages, and that, in turn, will make it such that the standard of living is lower. Also, as a balance, Unions are put into place to even the field for workers who are trying to make their way in the competitive business world. Democracies are much more open to strikes because of the corrupt power of Unions. While Unions may once have had their place, the Labor Laws that are set up by governments now prevent any serious need for them. The exceptions to this can petition the government for change if they should see fit. The governments that do not have labor laws are not sovereign, so not part of the discussion. Another problem that faces a free economy is the incredible amount of competition in originality. Patents are given so that nobody can “steal” an idea, but it also hinders progress when the new ideas are banned and slowed by old ones. The economics in a Democracy are much more open to strife and depressions, and so in this case, the Democracies have to have something that makes them worthwhile to the average worker. This would be incentive; there is an incentive to succeed in the free capitalist economy. This is because personal gain and the accruement of money and wealth is the first and foremost goal in a capitalist society. Finally, the last issue with free economy is that there may be the overproduction of goods, due to popularity. The other side of the coin is that there may be an underproduction of goods, such as unprofitable essentials. This can create a dependency on other nations that would then export to the areas that overproduce unessential items of luxury and under produce necessities. This dependency is damaging to any economy.

            Communism, on the other hand does not have the same issues that Democracy presents. This would be that there is little incentive to succeed if there is a set wage for a varying degree of success. Success in and of itself is not worthwhile is it is not rewarded. This makes it such that sometimes progress and advancement may be slow. However, the upside to socialism is that there is not an over production or under production of any good, because it is all being regulated such that the required items would be made first and the luxury items would be made in the extra time. This makes for a very self-sufficient economy, which in turn, means that the exporting will far outstrip the importing which is a considered, a trade gain. Also, the previously assigned jobs would make it such that each would maximize their ability, and that they would not have to work in a competitive work force. This is good insofar that there would be an amazingly low unemployment rate. This would be bad because that means that there would be less motivation to move on and succeed and excel. It also takes away from the human right of being able to reap what one sows. The set price of goods would also make it such that there would be very little competitive pricing. The set quota of goods means that the people do not have to make unique products that would sell, because everything will be sold anyway. This lack of incentive to exceed or achieve new heights is the weakest part of an otherwise impressive socialist economic system.

            Communism and Democracy can be seen as two highly unique governmental institutions, but each with their own benefits and impediments. While the Democratic system may be seen as more successful in terms of longevity of the nations, Communism has never really been seen in a pure, unadulterated form. Theoretical Communism may be seen to be the more just of the two, but because of human nature it is highly unlikely that it will ever be established. In terms of success in the protection of human rights, practiced Communism takes away unnecessarily, Democracy is sometimes sabotaged by the abuse of the rights, and theoretical Communism does not need any restrictions of rights, because all are working for the common good. In terms of defending the standard of living, the Communistic government would elevate the poor, and yet lower the rich and successful. A Democracy would allow those who failed to continue to fail until they reached the poverty line, and let the rich get richer. So which is more just, the real defender of human rights, Democracy in its present form, or Communism as it was meant to be?