Communism And Communism Analysis

Marx uses his labor theory, which involves the capitalist profit analysis of exploiting the proletariat, to make the economic analysis of capitalism. Besides this, he complains that the intellectual creations of individual nations become common property, and national one-sidedness and limitations are no longer possible. He believes that communism will create a classless society and equality of all individuals and explains the first goals of the communist parties: formation of the proletariat into a class level, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat, and not the abolition of property in general, but the abolition of bourgeois property.
In this regard, communism was formed in the Western world before …show more content…
Whilst communism and capitalism are the economic systems in one point, the main difference is the control of production instruments; whether to have collective ownership or private property. In capitalism, owning the instruments of production is free, but it is also very difficult to maintain this ownership because of the constraints to generate revenue in the perfect competition. Whereas production instruments are shared equally in the communist system, so each individual has the right to use common goods and services. Of course, it is not clear the level of sharing equally. Briefly, communism calls for an economic order of sharing the ownership. By focusing on the idea of sharing equally, communism overlooks the deeper problem of the movement. The point is that the development of the country is not feasible while the government is managing the economy. In order to survive, competition is necessary to stay in the capitalist markets. However, in communism, scientific development occurs by the government 's jostle. For example, the volume of production depends on operating a faster machine for a textile company. Technological developments happen inherently regarding requirements of the sector. In communist countries, the machines belong to the state and the people who work on the same machines for years. Aside from Cuba, China, and North Korea, dozens of communist states …show more content…
My general analysis of the bourgeoisie is about the capitalists’ selfishness and their destruction of social welfare. The bourgeois exempts himself from the disaster of suffering people, so the bourgeois does not have to take responsibility of it. Most of the old national industries have been destroyed and are still being destroyed. Today, this class still protects itself due to the continuation of capitalism; it is unfinished, and will never be finished. Of course, many will probably disagree with this assertion. They are right as well because capitalism focuses on personal freedom and supports opportunities for equalization in capitalist countries; anyone can trade and produce with enough capital accumulation. Furthermore, private law and individual rights are in the foreground. On the one hand, I agree with Marx that communism brings a cosmopolitan production and consumption character to exploit the world market. On the other hand, I want to emphasize that the criticism of capitalism doesn`t mean that communism has to be offered. If capitalism is wrong, communism cannot be verified instead of capitalism because the opposite of false (the anti-thesis) is not always true. Moreover, just like postmodern ideologues claim, the Marxist theory stays in the frame of the centralized state control that has the constraints of a dialectic hierarchy. Allegations have solid