Contrasting communism and capitalism

Communism vs. Capitalism

Communism is a system of government control of economic means of production. Capitalism is an economic system that trusts individual freedom and the marketplace to accord resources more fairly. Communism began in a spirit of mistrust to the fundamental principles of the industrial revolution, and sought to undo some of mass production's inequities. Capitalism viewed industrial production and the subsequent division of labor in factory work as a boon to society, instead. Capitalism sees worker, producers, and consumers as in control of their fate in a free market place -- they can decide what to buy, and negotiate a fair price. Communism sees a free market as an oxymoron, controlled to the advantage by the producers.

Both the philosophies of capitalism and communism began in England. Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations in 1867, in defense of industrialization. Karl Marx, a German expatriate, first penned the slogan, "Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!" while living in England, horrified at the conditions of factory workers in London, subject t the whims of capitalists. (Marx & Engles, the Communist Manifesto, Chapter 4) it is for sentiments such as these that Karl Marx is called the intellectual father of modern communism. Marx believed that all of history was an eternal struggle between classes, between the workers who labored with their hands, and the bourgeois and ruling elites who profited off of the labor of the proletariat without working by the sweat and toil of their own brow. Industrialization had worsened these abuses of industrialism. Communism was proposed as the 'answer' to this eternal class struggle, for it meant that, at least in theory, everything would be owned 'in common.' The government, owned by all of the people, would make decisions about how the collective means of production were used by the entire populace of the nation. This would put an end to class struggle and the class divisions that were the hallmark of capitalism.

However, Adam Smith saw the division of labor produced by industrialization as a good thing. In his economic text, the Wealth of Nations, the capitalist economist wrote, "The greatest improvement *17 in the productive powers of labor, and the greater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment with which it is any where directed, or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labor. (I.1.1) Smith writes with great approval of the modern industrial revolution, whereby once a pin maker, "with his utmost industry, make one pin in a day, and certainly could not make twenty," now, with the division of labor, "one man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head... In this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations, which, in some manufactories, are all performed by distinct hands, though in others the same man will sometimes perform two or three of them." (I.1.3) Smith focuses not on the laborer, but on the maker of pins. In fact, the maker of pins, seamlessly becomes the owner of a pin-making factory, even though this would not necessarily be the case under industrialism -- in fact, what had become a specialized trade was now performed in a series of parts by many workers. But in Smith's view, the consumer profits by the lower price of pins and the greater availability of the commodities, while the factory owner profits by the increased supply of goods to sell, and thus can lessen the price in a competitive market. Freedom and division of workers, Smith believed, in a spirit of self-interest, produced positive results.

In contrast, Marx wrote with horror about how workers were alienated from their means of production. In other words, for the enrichment of the factory-owner, the worker rented out his or her body, and was forced to produce far more pins than he or she could ever conceivably require. Marx delineates in Chapter 7, Volume 1 of Capital, an extended example by which the spinning labor of a worker confers value upon thread, turning it into cloth. The factory owner does nothing, the capitalist experiences no wear or tear upon his or her body, but simply owning the factory. The capitalist profit more through the ownership of the factory and the means of production than the laborer does by toiling all day, and providing his or her functionality as an implement.