A Concise Overview of the History and Ideologies of Communism (Part 9)
The Social Structure of a Classless Society
Every society has its own management system, which changes and evolves according to the needs and demands of the community and its people. Sometimes, stratifying social classes yields prosperity and grandeur, while at other times, it results in the collapse and decline of social and economic conditions. In other words, and for a more detailed explanation, a classless society is one in which there is no distinction between the poor and the rich. Otherwise, society is divided into the bourgeoisie and the proletariat—the owning class and the working class, respectively. In such a system, a lord-peasant structure prevails, where the burden of labor falls on one class, while the profit and benefits are considered the rights of another. There is no equal or just distribution of labor and wealth.
To achieve a classless society, people must dismantle the current control and distribution systems. Collective ownership is the best way to reach this goal. Thus, society as a whole produce, and society as a whole benefit.
A common misconception about communism is that communist countries claimed to have abolished social classes. In reality, no communist official ever claimed to have eliminated classes altogether; rather, they typically claimed—after holding power for a few years—to have eliminated the opposing classes. Most communist countries believed they consisted of two main classes: peasants and workers. In this context, class was primarily defined as a large social group whose members shared a common relationship to the means of production.
Additionally, communists identified a third group, sometimes referred to as white-collar workers or employees, and sometimes as intellectuals. This group occupied a middle position between the classes and was referred to as a “stratum” rather than an intellectual class. In communist systems, this “stratum” was often broader than what English speakers typically understood by the term and included intellectuals with scientific, creative, and critical characteristics. The term “intellectual” was commonly used to refer to anyone with higher education. In fact, the concept was often broad enough to encompass nearly all white-collar workers. In other cases, the broader concept of white-collar workers was divided into more educated, higher-status intellectuals and lower-level administrative employees without higher education.
Communists held that none of these three groups—the two main classes and one stratum—exploited the others. This distinction explained how a society could have non-antagonistic classes. On the other hand, communist officials and sociologists typically distinguished between mental and manual labor, as well as between rural and urban labor forces. Yet, confusingly, people working on state farms near villages were classified as workers in many countries, while typically only those working on collective farms were considered peasants. From the communist perspective, the advantage of this classification was that it expanded the size of the working class. This supported the claim that such societies were sufficiently developed, according to Marxist theory, to become socialist. It is doubtful, however, that Marx would have accepted such claims.
Some communist leaders, such as the first communist leader Lanus Kison Fumoyane, argued that classifying people based on ethnicity was un-revolutionary and un-communist. His approach amounted to a refusal to recognize ethnic differences and the right of people to make demands. Other leaders, including Soviet leaders, acknowledged ethnic differences in society. However, by the 1970s, they optimistically and unrealistically claimed that all major tensions among these groups had been resolved and that the ethnic groups would eventually merge and unify. This approach was largely inspired by Lenin, who, like Marx, believed that national identities and nationalism would gradually disappear with the rise of socialism and its eventual development into communism.
Unfortunately, ethnic conflicts sometimes erupted openly in certain communist countries. A notable example was Lithuanian nationalism in the Soviet Union. The forced incorporation of Lithuania into the Soviet Union in 1940 helps explain why many citizens of this country never truly accepted Moscow’s rule.
In the late 1960s, several Lithuanian Catholic priests demanded greater religious freedom for their predominantly Catholic country. Eventually, in 1971, two priests were arrested, leading to widespread protests. Lithuanian hostility toward Moscow peaked in 1972 when a young man named Romas Kalanta self-immolated in protest against Soviet dominance. His funeral in Kaunas, Lithuania’s second-largest city, triggered another wave of mass demonstrations involving thousands of Lithuanians. Although these protests and others were suppressed by force by Soviet authorities, dissent was not completely silenced. In November 1973, the KGB launched a coordinated effort to prevent prolonged unrest, arresting several Lithuanian dissidents and sentencing nationalist leaders to up to six years in prison. These convictions effectively curtailed overt anti-Soviet demonstrations in Lithuania for years.
It can be seen that, in the social realm—like in other areas—the communist record is a mix of both negative and positive aspects. These records vary significantly depending on the time and country. In recent years, some remaining communist countries have moved away from communist policies but are now re-evaluating their decisions.
Thus, one can conclude that dividing society into upper and lower classes, giving more privileges to one class—mainly the affluent—while reducing social benefits for others—typically the lower class—has counterproductive and undesirable consequences. It incites uprisings, protests, and demands for justice and pushes society toward tension and discord.
However, this conclusion should not be misinterpreted to mean that merely producing a classless society guarantees success and leads to utopia. Rather, everything should be used appropriately and according to necessity, and everyone should be given the opportunity to advance based on their ability and effort—not hindered merely because of ethnicity, race, birth, or social class. A society that follows this principle can rightly claim to have acted justly and not to have failed its people.
By admin2
