Morgan Hughes

Dec. 3, 2014

Communism and Democracy; Peas from the Same Pod

It is such a common thing to hear people discuss politics and policy. It seems that
everybody has an opinion on what works and what doesn't. A proud American would fight to the
death (as is often done) to defend the good name of democracy, while a red citizen would support
the communist government that lifted them out of poverty and into purpose. Granted, the ideals
presented by differing governmental systems arent necessarily followed through. If Communism
worked as perfectly as Marx intended, perhaps America wouldnt have feared it so much. If the
kings and queens of early Europe had been for the people rather than for themselves, monarchy
might be celebrated instead of mocked. The most interesting thing about these differing forms of
government is their similarities in value. One would think that because communism and
capitalism are sworn enemies they would share nothing but hatred for the other, but when
analyzing the doctrines that each originated from, the ideas of justice and the pursuit of
happiness resonate from both sides. For the purpose of this paper, I will analyze articles and
editorials published in favor of differing political systems, focusing on democracy and
communism. Through these analyses, I plan to prove that the ideals different systems of
government were founded on are similar and directed towards the same goals, despite the
governmental systems being executed in ways that produce differently functioning governments.
Words like democracy, communism, capitalism, and so on tend to sound like 10 dollar
words being exchanged for some sort of significant reaction. What these words mean and
represent are of seemingly less value than the reaction they receive. This being said, its
important to understand what these words actually represent. The essence of democracy can be

described in a we the people, for the people mentality. Along with an active body of citizens,
democracy relies on capitalism. It could be argued that one doesnt rely on the other, but for the
sake of this explanation, the traits are linked. Capitalism and democracy represent an essence of
freedom. They represent the ability to enhance the lives of citizens by giving the citizens the
reigns to their own destiny. They represent liberty. As a member of parliament, J.S Mill wrote
about what liberty meant. He asks for the liberty of conscience, and the freedom of thought. He
asks for the liberty of expression, the liberty of pursuit, and the liberty to unite. No society in
which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of
government (Sources of the West 164). On the other side, Communism has a dirty connotation,
and lacks the idea of liberty. Americans perspective on communism may be skewed, as a hatred
or a fear of the idea has been almost engrained in us all, but Communism was designed to benefit
the citizens. Karl Marx spoke more philosophy than politics, but his utopia thrived in
communism. He saw communism as a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of
the labourer (Sources of the West 181). If capitalism doesnt share this goal, then what goal
does it have?
The biggest idea attached to communism, as stated by Karl Marx himself, is that of
private property, The theory of Communism may be summed up in the single sentence:
abolition of private property (Sources of the West 180). This is probably the biggest difference
in value between democracy and communism. But even Marx doesnt completely discount
property, only private property. So then the question of what property really means comes into
focus, and the grand scheme of what is meant and what is assumed is shifted. A 19th century
French anarchist Pierre Proudhon had an interesting idea regarding property, saying that
property is theft and blamed the entire dishevelment of the human spirit on private property.

The exploitation of man by man, or bondage; usury, or the tribute levied upon the conquered by
the conqueror; and the whole numerous family of taxes, duties, monarchical prerogatives, houserents, farm-rents, and etc.; in one word property (Sources of the West 168). Marx and
Proudhon see very different ends to the abolition of property, but both value the idea of public
ownership. Proudhon covers this idea though, because in his eyes, he and Marx are the same. A
republican! Res Publica; the public thing. Now, whoever is interested in public affairs no
matter under what form of government may call himself a republican (Sources of the West
168). What democracy promises is the ability to pursue happiness, and that promise was derived
from John Lockes want of the pursuit of property. All of these people share a common goal
though; the advancement of their citizens, and an interest in the public. Given this idea, that even
under different forms of government, opposing sides can have similar means to meet different
ends. Or, looking at it through another perspective, opposing governmental systems can have
different means to meet similar ends.
Of course there are differences between these systems and the ideas they were founded
upon, there is no denying that. The point being made is that regardless of these differences, the
political spectrum is much less vast than it seems. One side of the spectrum can agree completely
with the other end of the spectrum. What government doesnt promise the best for its citizens?
Communism is often considered to work only in theory, because Marx failed to account for the
human spirit. I challenge that, and would instead say that he misinterpreted it. The human spirit
wants happiness, and in each form of government, the ultimate goal grants that happiness.