What the heck does COMMUNISM really mean? [1]

Critiques of the Oversimplification, Distortion, and Vulgarisation of Marxism and Communism

Part 1: "Equal Distribution of Wealth"

Abstract:

This article provides an investigation into some of the misconceptions about Communism, from its definition to the reality. Chiefly caused by oversimplification, these mistakes have resulted in the distortion and, thus, the vulgarization of Marxist theories and practices. Although the author identifies himself as pro-communist, he will try his best not to embody his personal opinions into this article. The following writing is based on facts and evidence, which will, unfortunately, necessitate a number of clunky, tedious quotations from the works of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Vladimir Lenin themselves.

MISCONCEPTION ONE: “Communism is an economic system where wealth is distributed evenly to everybody.”

Ah! How many times I’ve heard this! “Communism is theoretically good insofar as it promotes equality. Communism doesn’t work, but it’s ideally good ‘cuz it’s the most equal system.” “Communism means everyone’s equal.”

Yes... and no... but actually yes. The final phase of Communism does indeed mean everyone being equal in terms of social status and possession, but such an outcome is merely an add-on effect of what Communism aims to achieve, that is, “the elimination of private property and its replacement by the community of property.” The definition has, hence, deviated from the initial proposal of Karl Marx. I know the words inside the quotation marks look intimidating—just don’t click ‘close’—we’ll break it down bit by bit.

I. ‘Wealth’

Before moving onto the issue of ‘distribution,’ let’s first examine the word ‘wealth,’ which appears on loads of articles/videos explaining Marxism on the internet. Marx in Capital defined it as “an immense accumulation of commodities (in the capitalist mode of production, of course).[3]” But what of the commodity should be distributed? The means of production? Or the product itself? Or its value? And in the latter case, what part of value with the commodity makes it a piece of “wealth”? The use-value (determined by its utility[3]) or the exchange-value (determined by the amount of labour-power expended[4])?

Hence, the term “wealth” here is a loose notion that is not reflective of Marxist thinking. Terms like “property” or “product” would probably better fit into Marx’s concepts and theories, but that is only passing.

II. ‘Even/Equal distribution’

Rather than Marxism, the idea of ‘even distribution’ to a larger extent fits the ideology of Ferdinand Lassalle (whose catchword was exactly ‘equal distribution of undiminished proceeds of labour’ [1]) and his Gotha Program, which has long been criticized by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Lassalle suggested that,

“The emancipation of labour demands [...] the co-operative regulation of the total labour, with a fair distribution of the proceeds of labour.”[2]

Marx himself has criticized the idea of “fair distribution” in Critiques of the Gotha Program, stating that,

“It was in general a mistake to make a fuss about so-called distribution and put the principal stress on it.

“Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. [...] If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically.” [5]

As Marx elucidated, any forms of distribution of ‘wealth’ are, in fact, only a consequence of the mode of production.

In Marxist theory, society consists of two parts: the economic base and superstructure. The base comprises the forces and relations of production (aka the mode of production), whereas the superstructure determines society's other relationships and ideas, including its culture, institutions, politics, etc.

The vague notion of ‘equality’ is solely a ‘superstructure’ established upon certain societal conditions, which was determined by its production mode. In slaving empires, for instance, all social resources were claimed to be owned by ‘God Emperors’ (i.e. the Roman Emperor) with slaves working under them. How, then, is it sensible to bring “equality” to the slaves without breaking their shackles first?

The theory of historical materialism applies in the Capitalist society just as well. Such ‘distribution’ is made unequal in the capitalist mode of production because the means of production (capital, land, factories) are in the hands of non-workers, namely, the bourgeoisie.[6] On the other hand, the proletariats, the working men, are “reduced to selling their labour-power” to earn a living.[7] Thus, the distribution of wealth appears to be “unequal” only insofar as the bourgeoisie exploitation of the surplus-value of the proletariat’s production,

In a Communist society (by ‘Communist society’ we mean a ‘pure’ Communist society in Marxist theory, or “the higher phase of Communism” in the words of Vladimir Lenin[8]), however, the means of production is to be owned by all members of the community. So are all properties. You can definitely say that people are getting more equal, but it’s futile to analyze a Communist economy from the capitalist perspective.

The real aim of Communism is revealed by Friedrich Engels in A Communist Confession to Faith with utmost lucidity:

“To organize society in such a way that every member of it can develop and use all his capabilities and powers in complete freedom and without thereby infringing the basic conditions of this society [...] by the elimination of private property and its replacement by the community of property.” [9]

The term “community of property” might be too vague to understand. Let’s take air as an example. In our society, thankfully, fresh air is one of the only properties that are not being charged for money (apparently because it does not possess an exchange-value[10]). Any healthy human being can breathe as much air as he/she possibly can without worrying about the lack of nitrogen or oxygen. In short, the air is commonly owned by all members of our community. We, therefore, take sufficient air for granted.

Of course, commodities are not like air, which requires no labour or resources to produce. But I hope that this gives you a grasp of what Marx and Engels meant by the ‘community of property.’ There’s no need to distribute wealth evenly by the ‘society’ - in a Communist society; you can freely take anything right away, and use it however you want since its ownership belongs to the community you are a part of. [11] We will later investigate further into the feasibility of common ownership.

It should also be noticed that the establishment of the common ownership can only be built on the basis of the abolition of private property, as elaborated by Marx,

“Modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in a single sentence: [the] abolition of private property.” [12]

In the statement “equal distribution of property,” it is presumed that each member in a community possesses an equal quantity of property. The Communist society arises where, when, and only insofar as private property is abolished, which is directly contradictory to the bourgeois concept of “equal distribution.” And, conversely, the abolition of private property follows that property cannot and should not be distributed equally among members of the community.

From the capitalist point of view, though, one can argue that ‘wealth’ in this way is made equal for everybody. Still, this condition exists only on the fundament of the Communist mode of production mentioned above, where “individual labour exists directly as a component part of total labour.” [6] Hence, the attention should not be drawn to the equal distribution of “wealth,” but on property ownership.

A moneyless, stateless, and classless society owned and managed by the association of workers and peasants, under the philosophy of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”—that’s what a Communist society looks like in Marx’s ideal. [13]

---

All sorts of friend discussion are welcome in the comment section.

---

References:

Chapter 1: “Communism is an economic system where wealth is distributed evenly to everybody.”

[1] Marx, Karl. Critiques of the Gotha Programme. PDF, Marxists Internet Archive, 1999, p. 7.

[2] Critique of the Gotha Programme, p. 8.

[3] Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. PDF, Progress Publishers, Moscow (Sources from the First English edition of 1887), 1887, p. 27.

[4] Capital, p. 29.

[5] Critique of the Gotha Programme, p. 11.

[6] Critique of the Gotha Programme, p. 10.

[7] Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. PDF, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969, p. 14.

[8] Lenin, Vladimir I. State and Revolution: The Marxist Theory of the State & the Tasks of the Proletariat in the Revolution. PDF, Lenin Internet Archive (marxists.org), 1999, p. 55.

[9] Engels, Friedrich. "A Communist Confession of Faith." The Communist Manifesto, PDF, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1971, pp. 37-40.

[10] Capital, p. 30.

[11] State and Revolution, p. 56.

[12] The Communist Manifesto, p. 22.

[13] Finnegan, Alexander. "Definition of Communism, Socialism, is China Socialist, is Venezuela Socialist, Etc." Quora, 25 Apr. 2019, www.quora.com/q/alexanderfinnegan/Definition-of-communism-socialism-is-China-socialist-is-Venezuela-socialist-etc.