Communism = Dictatorship?

Based on our class discussion concerning the question of why countries that practice communism are ruled by dictators, George Orwell’s Animal Farm offers some insight (For more information see Wikipedia’s Article on Animal Farm). In the book, farm animals overthrow their “capitalist” farmer and proceed to make a farm where equality among all animals is the chief concern. However, the pigs eventually take on the role of the farmer who they had helped topple and then effectively destroy all opposition to their plans/ideas. The pigs even post a sign reading “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Clearly, the pigs became the “dictators” of the farm, despite the original purpose of equality for all farm animals.

Overall, Orwell’s purpose in writing how the pigs became just like the farmer conveys the message that communism does not work when brought on by a revolution. Marx’s call for a proletarian revolution does not provide much detail on who will lead the revolution and how the reforms will be carried out. As history has shown, a charismatic leader has led a “people’s revolution” and then proceeds to carry out Marx’s reforms--alone. However, once the new leader has to give up their power for the sake of equality--the leader refuses and destroys all opposition to ensure that no uprising topples their new government.

Today, and especially during the Cold War, the “threat” of a dictatorship has been used to scare people away from Marx and communism. However, it is ironic that Marx’s ideas in the section, “Bourgeois and Proletarians” are very progressive and mirror some of the language used in Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. This is the reason why many opponents of the New Deal like to deride it as “communist propaganda.” However, these opponents fail to realize (as we discussed in class) that communism is an economic program, while a dictatorship is a form of government. Since some of Marx’s ideas have been used in various political movements, it has become common to deride these movements as communistic or socialistic. However, as Marx pointed out:

“Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic
by its opponents in power?” (Paragraph 2)

Therefore, when people call economic ideas “Marxist” and assail them as “dangerous,” the real threat may not lie in what the new programs entail, but how they were carried out. This is true with former Soviet Union and to a degree in current-day Russia. For example, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his government has been accused of being involved in the death of a Russian journalist (see ABC news article) who was critical of the Russian Government’s recent slide back towards old Soviet-style practices.