Misconceptions About Communism, Pt. III

"Communism destroys liberty."

This myth has been harbored in the rhetoric of anti-communism for sometime; however, it bears no significant truth in the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin or the application of socialism. In fact, what is needed here is a redefinition of 'freedom.' Freedom can mean many things, and its application in political rhetoric is dependent upon the foundation of economic base. In capitalist-bourgeois society - where the market-based system of private ownership of the means of production provides the base for liberal society - economic freedom is heralded as the unique distinguishing characteristic from past feudal, monarchical societies. Through the development of bourgeois society, man has been attributed with economic freedom of private property. However, there is no denying that this has proven useful in developing a modern capitalist society. The legitimacy of any given right to private property is only vested in the political legitimacy of the given system/state in power. Thus, it has no objective reality outside the political/cultural/social superstructure.

In socialism, a new type of freedom is devised. Namely, the freedom from exploitation and the wage-labor system. Freedom, in its varying forms, finds new meaning under socialism that places it beyond the narrow scope of the economic freedoms of the bourgeoisie to own things. Instead, freedom is transformed into the right of every working man and woman to contribute his labor to the overall good of his social being while at the same time receiving the true value of his labor. The fruit of his labor (if you will) is neither siphoned off nor reversed into a wage for which he loses his invaluable efforts towards productivity. Rather, he is given (in return) the necessary goods for his survival and his labor is thus transformed into a more human process of production based on need, rather than exchange.

Misconception Number 10:

"Communism Does Not Work"

This has neither been affirmed nor denied; rather, it simply is a false statement that explains nothing. This misconception is popularly spouted by those more ignorant of communism. This misconception differs in that it does not try to explain through argumentation why communism does not work, or rather, that it could not work. Rather, it uses the example of the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc states, and the People's Republic of China as examples of communism's apparent failures. As defined in one of my previous examples (misconception Number 7 'All socialists are communists'), there is a distinction to be made between 'socialism' and 'communism.' Yes, the leaders of the Soviet Union can be said to be communists in their ideological predispositions, their philosophical outlooks, and their economic objectives; however, the USSR never claimed to have achieved communism - which, by its definition, would be impossible to achieve without worldwide socialist revolution. Rather, the USSR, the People's Republic of China, the Eastern Bloc nations, etc. were examples of socialism - the workers' dictatorship. Thus, this misconception depends greatly on a misrepresentation of facts and a misunderstanding of the arrangements that separate communism from socialism. In communism the state (as it exists under socialism) has no need to exist - for there are no classes. And, as it is commonly understood in Marxism-Leninism, the state is used as a tool of class repression.

So, while economic arguments can certainly be made against the merits of communism - no such refutation has thus been put forward, and the examples set by the USSR and other socialist states do not serve as proof that communism cannot work. Statements that claim communism has been proven a failed economic system are wrong, and all arguments against communism are strictly speculative.

Misconception Number 11:

"Socialist states need to use propaganda to deceive their peoples."

Propaganda, which can be defined as the use of varying media to portray, convey, or construct certain ideals within the populace, is by no means anything new to socialism. Indeed, when class conflict has erupted in various times in U.S. history - like the Great Depression - the bourgeoisie has used anti-communist propaganda to quell rising antagonisms between classes. It is true that like other governments and states, the USSR and other socialist governments used propaganda to convey certain ideals about the state of affairs and their objectives - but this is not something unique to these particular states. Propaganda does not need to be seen as an evil, deceptive tool used to fool or oppress a population. We experience propaganda on a daily basis from our own governments in Western bourgeois society - whether it be certain political ideals, advertisements from numerous corporate interests, lobby groups, special interest groups, etc. Propaganda is nothing new, and there is no reason why socialist states would not employ these tools and mechanisms of socialization for the very same purposes. In the case of the USSR, hostile segments of the population were present due to misunderstandings, economic backwardness, and the efforts of the enemy classes to try and subvert the construction of socialism created a dire need for reaching the populace with messages of hope, optimism, unity, and social responsibility for the accomplishment of their established objectives. The hostilities faced early on by the Bolshevik regime required certain means to address a number of problems, and propaganda was a peaceful means of swaying the population