The Oracle: Different People, Different Forms of Government (Pt.11)

By Chief Mike Ozekhome

INTRODUCTION

Last week, we discussed totalitarianism, capitalism and a bit of communism, as forms of government that run against the grain of democracy. Democracy appears to be the most popular and accepted form of government across the world. Readers, globally, have been urging me to continue with this enlightening project. I will therefore continue our discourse today with Communism and Aristocracy. 

WHAT IS COMMUNISM? (continues)

The concept of communism revolves around the theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their abilities and needs. Communism seeks to create a classless society in which the major means of production such as mines, mills, factories and natural resources are owned not by private individuals but the public.

Communism seeks to replace private ownership of properties, and control the means of production and the absence of social classes, money and the state. Propagated by Karl Marx, communism believes that inequality and suffering actually resulted from capitalism.  According to its protagonists, communism is actually a higher advanced form of socialism. Communism is thus regarded as “revolutionary socialism” of Karl Marx.

KARL MARX AND COMMUNISM

Karl Marx, a 19^th century thinker and writer often tended to use the terms communism and socialism interchangeably. In his book, “Critique of Gotha Programme” (1875), Marx actually identified two phases of communism that would replace or overthrown capitalism. The first phase would be a transitional system where the working class would control government and economy; and yet, still find it necessary to pay citizen according to how long, head or well they worked.

The second phase would be one where communism is fully realized. This would be the phase where there is no class division, or even government. In this phase, the production and distribution of goods would be based upon the principle of “from each according to his ability; to each according his needs”. This distinction was later to be copied by many Marxists, including Russian Russian’s revolutionary “Vladimir Lenin”

ORIGIN OF COMMUNISM

The term “communism” came into focus in the 1840s. But Communist societies had been described as far back as the 4^th century BCE, when the great Philosopher, Plato, wrote the “Republic”. Plato had described an idea society in which the governing class serves only the interest of the entire community. This system was practised by the first set of Christians. In his book, Utopia (1516), the English Humanist, Thomas More, envisaged an imaginary society in which use of money is abolished, while all the people shall houses, meals, clothes, and other goods.

Communism was however populated by Karl Marx, who carefully outlined this system of government with Fredrich Engels in the book, “The Communist Manifesto”, written in 1848. Marx’s embrace of communism was partly ignited by the inequalities caused by the industrial revolution.

Lenin was later to argue in his “State and Revolution” book (1917) that socialism corresponded with Marx’s first phase of communism, why communism proper was that achieved in the second phase.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks reinforced this distinction in 1918 (a year after they seized power in Russia). This is why communism is always identifies with the now defunct Soviet Union. It was later adopted by the People’s Republic of China.

Thus, for much of the 20^th century, about one-third of the entire world’s population was governed by communist regimes, usually single party that brooded no dissent or plurality of voices. Party leaders institutionalized command economies, in which the state controlled properly while bureaucrats determined wages, prices and other means of production and distribution of services and goods.

These systems were grossly inefficient, leading to their eventual breakdown.

Today, only China, Cuba, Laos and Vietnam, practice communism, even with full adulteration of the original Marxist ideology. Marx, Lenin and Stalin would chuckle in their graves at this form of communism.

It is thus clear that Marxism was targeted at abolishing the bourgeoisie (who owned the means of production and earned surplus profit) and replace it with the Proletariat (who sold their labour to the bourgeoisie). Leon Trotsky opposed Stalinism, but embraced Leninism. Maoism (named after Chinese leader Mao Zedong) was crafted after Marxism-Leninism.

For years, in the Western world, many of the young ​and even some not so young, were attracted by the communist ideology. But, persistent bad news seeping out of many communist lands and the one-way flow of refugees has left many disillusioned.

Communism has been criticized from the angle of historical materialism. It is viewed as a kind of historical determinism, which suppresses liberal democratic rights and the distortion of price signal.

ARISTOCRACY

“Government by the nobility, a privileged minority, or an elite class thought best qualified to rule.”

The argument of proponents of this form of government is that it is logical that the best kind of government would result if it was composed only of the best people. To this school of thought, the best people are better educated, more qualified, and more competent, and therefore better able to lead others. Even at that, an aristocratic government headed by such an elite class may still be one of different genre. For example, it could be rule by the wealthy called a plutocracy. It could be rule by the clergy known as a theocracy. It may boil down to rule by government officials, called a bureaucracy.

In the past, many primitive societies, under the rulership of tribal elders or chiefs, were aristocracies. At one time or another, some countries such as Rome, England, and Japan, to name but three, all had aristocratic governments. In ancient Greece, the word “aristocracy” was used in reference to the city-states, or poleis, in which a small group governed. Often a number of prominent families shared power amongst themselves. In some cases, however, single families seized power illegally and set up a more tyrannical type of rule of other families considered less powerful.

Athens like other Greek city states, was originally an aristocracy. However, as cultural changes weakened class distinctions and disrupted its unity, the city was forced to take on democratic forms. Sparta, for example, on the other hand, was reputedly founded in the ninth century B.C. It was ruled by a military oligarchy. The city of Sparta soon rivaled the much older Athens, and both cities fought for supremacy of the Greek world of their time. It was virtually a “fight-to-finish”. Thus, rule by the many, as in Athens, came into intense conflict with rule by the few, as in Sparta. Of course, their rivalry was quite complex, because it involved more than just a disagreement about government.

WHY AND HOW A NOBLE IDEAL WAS PERVERTED

Political differences were often the subject of philosophical arguments among early Greek philosophers. Plato’s former student, Aristotle, made a distinction between aristocracies and oligarchies. He classified pure aristocracy as a good form of government, a noble ideal that enabled persons with special abilities and high morals to devote themselves to public service for the benefit of others. He argued however, that when headed by an oppressive and selfish elite, a pure aristocracy which is ordinarily good, deteriorated into an unjust oligarchy. This, he canvassed, was a perverted form of government having departed from the nobility and morality of pure and ideal aristocracy.

While advocating rule by ‘the best,’ Aristotle even admitted that combining aristocracy with democracy would probably produce the desired results, an idea that still appeals to some political thinkers till date. In fact, the ancient Romans actually did combine these two forms of government with some measure of success. “Politics [in Rome] was everyone’s affair,” says The Collins Atlas of World History. Nevertheless, at the same time, “the richest citizens and those who were fortunate enough to be high born formed an oligarchy which shared out among itself, the offices of magistrate, military commander and priest.”

Interestingly, even in late medieval and early modern history, European urban centres combined democratic and aristocratic elements in their government. Says Collier’s Encyclopedia: “The extremely conservative Venetian Republic, which Napoleon finally overthrew, provides the classic example of such an oligarchy; but the Free Cities of the Holy Roman Empire, the cities of the Hanseatic League, and the chartered towns of England and western Europe reveal the same general tendencies toward tight oligarchial control by a relatively small but proud and highly cultured patriciate [aristocracy].”

The argument has been powerfully advanced, and with some strong justification, that all governments are in every case aristocratic in nature, since all of them actually strive to have the best qualified people in charge. The concept of a ruling class, till date, has served to strengthen this view. Some reference work has therefore posited that, “Ruling class and elite are becoming synonymous terms to describe as actual what Plato and Aristotle argued for as ideal.”

SEARCHING FOR “THE BEST”

In ancient China under the royal house of Chou, centuries before these Greek philosophers made their appearance on the stage, a feudal society (based on lords and vassals) was already bringing a measure of stability and peace to ancient China. But after 722 B.C.E, during what is called the “Ch’un Ch’iu period”, the feudal system incrementally weakened. In the last part of this period, a new elite emerged, composed of people regarded as the former “gentlemen”. These people had served in feudal households, one who were descendants of the old nobility. Members of this new elite moved into key government positions. Confucius, the renowned Chinese sage, as The New Encyclopedia Britannica points out, stressed that “ability and moral excellence, rather than birth, were what fitted a man for leadership.” Confucius many words on marble litter our moral and leadership landscapes.

However, over two thousand years later in Europe, the process of picking the elite, those best qualified to rule, had little to do with “ability and moral excellence.” Harvard professor, Carl J. Friedrich, notes that “the elite in aristocratic England of the eighteenth century was an elite based primarily on blood descent and riches. The same thing was true in Venice.” He adds: “In some countries such as eighteenth-century Prussia, the elite was based on blood descent and military prowess.”

This idea that the good qualities of ‘better people’ were necessarily passed on to their offsprings, accounts for the closely-knot marriage practices of monarchs in the past. During the Middle Ages, the idea of biological superiority prevailed. To marry a commoner was abominable, as it amounted to polluting and diluting the nobleness of the clan. This was offensive to divine law. Monarchs were therefore obliged to marry only those of noble birth. This idea of strict biological superiority later gave way to a more rationalized and accepted justification, ​ that of a superiority based on better opportunities, education, talents, or achievements. (To be continued).

FUN TIMES

There are two sides to every coin. Life itself contains not only the good, but also the bad and the ugly. Let us now explore these.

“A TEACHER asked a student in a Warri School

What is ‘2’ raised to power ‘5?

The student stood up and replied

Wetin ‘2’ dey raise power for ‘5’? Dem be mate? ‘2’ leave ‘3’, ‘4’ come dey raise power for ‘5’. Him wan die? Him no know say ‘5’ use three years senior am?”

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property. (Karl Marx).