1 | P a g e

COMMUNIST PHILOSOPHY OF KARL MARX AND PLATO

SUBMITTED TO:

Faculty- Dr. Anita Samal

Faculty-In-Charge

BY:

Anamika Ballewar

Roll Number- 12

Semester II

Section- B

B.A. LL.B (Hons.)

DATE OF SUBMISSION: February 18, 2015

Hidayatullah National Law University

Uparwara Post, Abhanpur, New Raipur - 493661(C.G.)

2 | P a g e

Declaration

I, Anamika Ballewar hereby declare that, the project work entitled, ‘Communist

Philosophy of Plato and Karl Marx’ submitted to H.N.L.U. Raipur is record of an original

work done by me under the able guidance of Dr. Anita Samal, Faculty Member, H.N.L.U.,

Raipur.

Anamika Ballewar

Semester - II

Roll No. - 12

Section - B

3 | P a g e

Acknowledgments

I feel highly elated to work on the topic “Communist Philosophy of Plato and Karl

Marx”

The practical realization of this project has obligated the assistance of many persons. I

express my deepest regard and gratitude for Dr. Anita Samal, Faculty of Political

Science. Her consistent supervision, constant inspiration and invaluable guidance have

been of immense help in understanding and carrying out the nuances of the project

report.

I would like to thank my family and friends without whose support and encouragement,

this project would not have been a reality.

Some printing errors might have crept in, which are deeply regretted. I would be grateful

to receive comments and suggestions to further improve this project report.

-Anamika Ballewar

Semester II

Section B

4 | P a g e

Table of Contents

1. Declaration ……..………………………………………………………….02

2. Acknowledgements …………...……..…………………………………….03

3. Introduction ...……………………………………………………………...05

4. Objectives ………..………………………………………………………...07

5. Study of Scope……..……………………………………………………….08

6. Research Methodology……………………………………………………..09

7. History of Communism…………………………………………………….10

8. Marxism Communism…………………………….. ………………………14

9. Maxx’s division of Communism………..………………………………….17

10. Plato’s Theory of Communism…………………………………………….18

11. Forms of Communism……………………………………………………...20

12. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………22

13. Bibliography ……………………………………………………………….23

5 | P a g e

Introduction

Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a socioeconomic system

structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the

absence of social classes, money, and the state; as well as a social, political and economic

ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order.

Communism is represented by a variety of schools of thought, which broadly

include Marxism, anarchism and the political ideologies grouped around both. All these hold

in common the analysis that the current order of society stems from its economic

system,capitalism, that in this system, there are two major social classes: the proletariat - who

must work to survive, and who make up a majority of society - and the capitalist class - a

minority who derive profit from employing the proletariat, through private ownership of the

means of production, and that political, social and economic conflict between these two

classes will trigger a fundamental change in the economic system, and by extension a wide-

ranging transformation of society. The primary element which will enable this transformation,

according to communism, is the social ownership of the means of production.

Because of historical peculiarities, communism is commonly erroneously equated to Marxism-

Leninism in mainstream usage. The term 'Marxism-Leninism' refers to an ideology developed

by Joseph Stalin which controversially claims adherence to Marxism and Leninism, yet is not

accepted as a genuine development of Marxism by other kinds of Marxists. 'Marxism-

Leninism' was founded as Stalin and his ideologists' own doctrine, with Marx and Lenin's

words being merely used as an afterthought, selectively selected out of context. States run

under 'Marxism-Leninism' (such as the Soviet Union) did not represent what Marxists would

term a 'communist society', nor did they claim to. States based on Marxism-Leninism were run

under single-party rule, in contradiction to Marxism's dictatorship of the proletariat, which is a

democratic state form (despite its name, which at the time and place it was coined had nothing

to do with the current meaning of the term 'dictatorship'); single-party rule cannot be a

dictatorship of the proletariat under the Marxist definition.

According to Marxism-Leninism, the Soviet Union had achieved socialism and was on the way

to communism; other communists disagree, some claiming that it had in fact established state

capitalism. To other communists, 'Marxism-Leninism' is neither Marxism, Leninism, nor the

union of both; but rather an artificial term created to justify Stalin's ideological distortion. Such

communists typically do not claim that the Russian experience had nothing to do with

6 | P a g e

communism, but rather state that despite origins linked to the communist movement, it was

deviated from and turned into an entirely different path, while preserving communist

ideological aesthetics. Because Marxism-Leninism was used to establish a variety of regimes

around the world (such as Cuba, China and North Korea) and claimed leadership of the

communist movement, and the portrayal by anti-communists of such regimes being an example

of communism, in mainstream usage communism has come to be incorrectly regarded as

equivalent to this ideology and these regimes.

7 | P a g e

Objectives

Set in above prospective the major aim of the project is:

To study about Communism

To analyze the Communist Philosophy of Plato and Karl Marx

To study the History of Communism

To analyze the Forms of Communism

8 | P a g e

Scope of Study

The scope of this project is limited to the study about the Communist Philosophy of

Plato and Karl Marx, its forms and history of Communism.

9 | P a g e

Research Methodology

This project is a Doctrinal by nature. It is descriptive and analytical. Aid has been taken

from secondary sources of data like books and websites. Books recommended by our

teacher, Mrs. Anita Samal have been highly helpful in shaping the project. Footnotes

have been provided as and where needed.

10 | P a g e

History of Communism

Early communism:

The origins of communism are debatable, and there are various historical groups, as well as

theorists, whose beliefs have been subsequently described as communist. German

philosopher Karl Marx saw primitive communism as the original, hunter-gatherer state of

humankind from which it arose. For Marx, only after humanity was capable of producing

surplus, did private property develop. The idea of a classless society first emerged in Ancient

Greece.[16] Plato in his The Republic described it as a state where people shared all their

property, wives, and children: "The private and individual is altogether banished from life and

things which are by nature private, such as eyes and ears and hands, have become common,

and in some way see and hear and act in common, and all men express praise and feel joy and

sorrow on the same occasions.

In the history of Western thought, certain elements of the idea of a society based on common

ownership of property can be traced back to ancient times. Examples include the

Spartacus slave revolt in Rome. The 5th-century Mazdak movement in Persia (Iran) has been

described as "communistic" for challenging the enormous privileges of the noble classes and

the clergy, criticizing the institution of private property and for striving for an egalitarian

society.

At one time or another, various small communist communities existed, generally under the

inspiration of Scripture. In the medieval Christian church, for example, some

monastic communities and religious orders shared their land and other property.

Communist thought has also been traced back to the work of 16th-century English

writer Thomas More. In his treatise Utopia (1516), more portrayed a society based on common

ownership of property, whose rulers administered it through the application of reason. In the

17th century, communist thought surfaced again in England, where a Puritan religious

group known as the "Diggers" advocated the abolition of private ownership of land. Eduard

Bernstein, in his 1895 Cromwell and Communism argued that several groupings in the English

Civil War, especially the Diggers espoused clear communistic, agrarian ideals, and that Oliver

Cromwell's attitude to these groups was at best ambivalent and often hostile. Criticism of the

idea of private property continued into the Age of Enlightenment of the 18th century, through

11 | P a g e

such thinkers as Jean Jacques Rousseau in France. Later, following the upheaval of the French

Revolution, communism emerged as a political doctrine.

Various social reformers in the early 19th century founded communities based on common

ownership. But unlike many previous communist communities, they replaced the religious

emphasis with a rational and philanthropic basis. Notable among them were Robert Owen, who

founded New Harmony in Indiana (1825), and Charles Fourier, whose followers organized

other settlements in the United States such as Brook Farm (1841–47). Later in the 19th

century, Karl Marx described these social reformers as "utopian socialists" to contrast them

with his program of "scientific socialism" (a term coined by Friedrich Engels). Other writers

described by Marx as "utopian socialists" included Saint-Simon.

In its modern form, communism grew out of the socialist movement of 19th-century Europe.

As the Industrial Revolution advanced, socialist critics blamed capitalism for the misery of

the proletariat—a new class of urban factory workers who laboured under often-hazardous

conditions. Foremost among these critics were Marx and his associate Friedrich Engels. In

1848, Marx and Engels offered a new definition of communism and popularized the term in

their famous pamphlet The Communist Manifesto.

Modern Communism:

The 1917 October Revolution in Russia set the conditions for the rise to state power of

Lenin's Bolsheviks, which was the first time any avowedly communist party reached that

position. The revolution transferred power to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, in which

the Bolsheviks had a majority. The event generated a great deal of practical and theoretical

debate within the Marxist movement. Marx predicted that socialism and communism would be

built upon foundations laid by the most advanced capitalist development. Russia, however, was

one of the poorest countries in Europe with an enormous, largely illiterate peasantry and a

minority of industrial workers. Marx had explicitly stated that Russia might be able to skip the

stage of bourgeois rule. Other socialists also believed that a Russian revolution could be the

precursor of workers' revolutions in the West.

The moderate Mensheviks opposed Lenin's Bolshevik plan for socialist revolution before

capitalism was more fully developed. The Bolsheviks' successful rise to power was based upon

the slogans such as "Peace, bread, and land" which tapped the massive public desire for an end

12 | P a g e

to Russian involvement in the First World War, the peasants' demand for land reform, and

popular support for the Soviets.

The Second International had dissolved in 1916 over national divisions, as the separate national

parties that composed it did not maintain a unified front against the war, instead generally

supporting their respective nation's role. Lenin thus created the Third International (Comintern)

in 1919 and sent the Twenty-one Conditions, which included democratic centralism, to all

European socialist parties willing to adhere. In France, for example, the majority of the French

Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) party split in 1921 to form the French Section of

the Communist International (SFIC). Henceforth, the term "Communism" was applied to the

objective of the parties founded under the umbrella of the Comintern. Their program called for

the uniting of workers of the world for revolution, which would be followed by the

establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat as well as the development of a socialist

economy.

During the Russian Civil War (1918–1922), the Bolsheviks nationalized all productive

property and imposed a policy named war communism, which put factories and railroads under

strict government control, collected and rationed food, and introduced some bourgeois

management of industry. After three years of war and the 1921 Kronstadt rebellion, Lenin

declared the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921, which was to give a "limited place for a

limited time to capitalism." The NEP lasted until 1928, when Joseph Stalin achieved party

leadership, and the introduction of the Five Year Plans spelled the end of it. Following the

Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks, in 1922, formed the Union of Soviet Socialist

Republics(USSR), or Soviet Union, from the former Russian Empire.

Following Lenin's democratic centralism, the Leninist parties were organized on a hierarchical

basis, with active cells of members as the broad base; they were made up only of

elite cadres approved by higher members of the party as being reliable and completely subject

to party discipline. The Great Purge of 1937–1938 was Stalin's attempt to destroy any possible

opposition within the Communist Party. In the Moscow Trials many old Bolsheviks who had

played prominent roles during the Russian Revolution of 1917, or in Lenin's Soviet government

afterwards, including Kamenev, Zinoviev, Rykov, and Bukharin, were accused, pleaded guilty,

and executed.

Following World War II, Marxist-Leninists consolidated power in Central and Eastern Europe,

and in 1949, the Communist Party of China (CPC), led by Mao Zedong, established

13 | P a g e

the People's Republic of China, which would follow its own ideological path of development

following the Sino-Soviet split. Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Angola,

and Mozambique were among the other countries in the Third World that adopted or imposed

a government run by a Marxist-Leninist party at some point. By the early 1980s almost one-

third of the world's population lived in states ruled by a self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist party,

including the former Soviet Union and the PRC.

14 | P a g e

Marxism Communism

Marx constructed his vision of communism out of the human and technological

possibilities already visible in his time, given the priorities that would be adopted by a new

socialist society. The programs introduced by a victorious working class to deal with the

problems left by the old society and the revolution would unleash a social dynamic whose

general results, Marx believed, could be charted beforehand. Projecting the communist future

from existing patterns and trends is an integral part of Marx's analysis of capitalism, and

analysis which links social and economic problems with the objective interests that incline each

class to deal with them in distinctive ways; what unfolds are the real possibilities inherent in a

socialist transformation of the capitalist mode of production. It is in this sense that Marx

declares, "we do not anticipate the world dogmatically, but rather wish to find the new world

through the criticism of the old.” Like the projections Marx made of the future of capitalism

itself, however, what he foresaw for communism is no more than highly probable. Marx, whose

excessive optimism is often mistaken for crude determinism, would not deny that some for of

barbarism is another alternative, but a socialist victory—either through revolution or at the

polls—is considered far more likely.

Marx's communist society is in the anomalous position of being, at one and the same time,

the most famous of utopias and among the least known. And, while no one disputes the

importance of Marx's vision of communism to Marxism, the vision itself remains clouded and

unclear. Responsibility for this state of affairs lies, in the first instance, with Marx himself who

never offers a systematic account of the communist society. Furthermore, he frequently

criticizes those socialist writers who do as foolish, ineffective, and even reactionary. There are

also remarks which suggest that one cannot describe communism because it is forever in the

process of becoming: "Communism is for us not a stable state which reality will have to adjust

itself. We can call Communism the real movement which abolished the present state of things.

The conditions of this movement result from premises now in existence."

Yet, as even casual readers of Marx know, descriptions of the future society are scattered

throughout Marx's writings. Moreover, judging from an 1851 outline of what was to

become Capital, Marx intended to present his views on communism in a systematic manner in

the final volume. The plan changed, in part because Marx never concluded his work on political

economy proper, and what Engels in a letter to Marx refers to as "the famous 'positive,' what

15 | P a g e

you 'really' want" was never written. This incident does point up, however, that Marx's

objection to discussing communist society was more of a strategic than of a principled sort.

More specifically, and particularly in his earliest works, Marx was concerned to distinguish

himself from other socialist for whom prescriptions of the future were the main stock-in-trade.

He was also very aware that when people change their ways and views it is generally in reaction

to an intolerable situation in the present and only to a small degree because of the attraction of

a better life in the future. Consequently, emphasizing communism could not be an effective

means to promote proletarian class consciousness, his immediate political objective. Finally,

with only the outline of the future visible from the present, Marx hesitated to burden his

analysis of capitalism with material that could not be brought into focus without undermining

in the minds of many the scientific character of his entire enterprise.

Notwithstanding Marx's own practice and contrary to his implicit warning, in what follows

I have tried to reconstruct Marx's vision of communism from his writings of 1844, the year in

which he set down the broad lines of his analysis, to the end of his life. Assembling these varied

comments the communist society falls into place like the picture on a puzzle. It is a picture in

which many pieces are missing and other so vague as to be practically undecipherable. Yet,

what is left is a more complete and coherent whole than most people have thought to exist.

Despite some serious temptations, I have not gone beyond Marx's actual words in piecing

together the components of the communist society. Gaps and uncertainties are left untouched.

On occasion, however, when all the evidence points to a particular conclusion, I am not averse

to stating it.

It is this effort to reconstruct Marx's vision of the future open to the same criticism that

kept Marx from presenting his own views on this subject in a more organized manner? I don't

think so. No one today is likely to confuse Marxism, even with the addition of an explicit

conception of communism, with other socialist schools whose very names are difficult to recall.

Whether describing communism can help raise proletarian class consciousness is a more

difficult question. There is no doubt in my mind that getting works to understand their

exploitation as a fundamental and necessary fact of the capitalist system, the avowed aim of

most of Marx's writings is the "high road" to class consciousness. It seems equally clear to me

that the inability to conceive of a humanly superior way of life, an inability fostered by this

same exploitation, has contributed to the lassitude and cynicism which helps to thwart such

consciousness. Viewed in this light, giving workers and indeed members of all oppressed

16 | P a g e

classes a better notion of that their lives would be like under communism (something not to be

gleaned from accounts of life in present day Russia and China) is essential to the success of the

socialist project.

As for only being able to know the broad outlines of communism, this is as true now as it

was in Marx's time. But whereas presenting this outline then could only reflect negatively on

Marxism as a whole, this is no longer the case, for the intervening century had brought pieces

of Marx's horizon underfoot and made the most of the rest—as I have indicated—easier to see

and comprehend. Still general and incomplete, the secret of the future revealed in Marx's

masterly analysis of capitalist society is a secret whose time has come, and publicizing it has

become another means of bringing the human fulfilment it portrays into existence.

17 | P a g e

Marx’s division of Communism

Marx divides the communist future into halves, a first stage generally referred to as the

"dictatorship of the proletariat" and a second stage usually called "full communism." The

historical boundaries of the first stage are set in the claim that: "Between capitalist and

communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other.

There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but

the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

The overall character of this period is supplied by Marx's statement that "What we have

to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but

on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society: which is thus in every respect still

stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges." This first stage

is the necessary gestation period for full communism: is it as time when the people who have

destroyed capitalism are engaged in the task of total reconstruction. As a way of life and

organization it has traits in common with both capitalism and full communism and Marx never

indicates how long this may take—the first stage gives way gradually almost imperceptibly to

the second.

18 | P a g e

Plato’s Theory of Communism

Plato’s theory of communism was certainly a corollary of his conception of justice. He believed

that without communism there would be clash of ideas and interests between reason and

appetite. Plato’s communism is based on the premise that property, family instincts and private

interests would distract man’s attention from his obligations to the community.

He strongly opined that family and property are always impediments not only to philosopher

king, but also to a commoner in his discharge of duties. As property and family relationships

seemed to be the main source of dissension in the society, Plato stated that neither of them must

be given any recognition in an ideal state. Therefore, a sort of communism of family and

property was essential to offset the consequences of Plato’s design of ideal state.

Plato strongly believed that an economic division between the citizens of a state is the most

dangerous political condition. This belief was mainly due to the widespread and frank opinions

expressed by the Greeks that economic motives are very influential in determining political

action and political affiliations.

Long before The Republic was written, Euripides had divided citizens into three classes, viz.,

the useless rich—who are always greedy for more, the poor—who have nothing and are

devoured by envy, and finally the middle class—a strong body of men who saves the state.

An oligarchical state to a Greek meant a state governed by, and in the interest of the well-born

whose possession of property was hereditary, while a democratic state was governed by and

for the many who had neither hereditary birth nor property.

These economic differences were the key to the political institutions and it was no new idea,

which the Greeks were following since ages. The cause for unrest that Plato was experiencing

in Athens was mainly due to the troubles present since the days of Solon a statesman reforms

in Athens.

This situation convinced Plato that wealth has a very pernicious effect on the government, but

was dismayed at the fact that there was no way to abolish the evil except by abolishing the

wealth itself To cure greed among the rulers, there is only one way and that was to deny them

any right to call anything their own. Devotion to their civic duties admits no private rival.

19 | P a g e

The example of Sparta, wherein the citizens were denied the use of money and the privilege of

engaging in trade, undoubtedly influenced Plato in reaching this conclusion. The main reason

for Plato to emphasize on communism of property was to bring about greater degree of unity

in the state.

Plato was equally vehement about the institution of marriage and opined that family affections

directed towards a particular persons, as another potent rival to the state in competing for the

loyalty of rulers.

He stated that anxiety for one’s children is a form of self-seeking more dangerous than the

desire for property, and the training of children at homes as a poor preparation for the whole

and sole devotion, which the state has the right to demand. Plato was, in fact, appalled by the

casualness of human mating which according to him would not be tolerated in the breeding of

any domestic animal.

The improvement of the race demands a more controlled and a more selective type of union.

Finally, the abolition of marriage was probably an implied criticism of the position of women

in Athens, where her activities were summed up in keeping the house and rearing children. To

this, Plato denied that the state serve half of its potential guardians.

Moreover, he was unable to see that there is anything in the natural capacity of women that

corresponds to the Athenian practice, since many women were as well qualified as men to take

part in political or even military duties.

The women of the guardian class will consequently share the work of the men, which makes it

necessary that both shall receive the same education and strictly be free from domestic duties.

Plato’s argument about breeding of domestic animals refers to the sexual relations between

men and women.

It is not that he regarded sex casually, but he demanded an amount of self-control that has never

been realized among any large populations. According to him, if the unity of the state has to be

secured, property and family stand in the way, therefore, they both must be abolished.

20 | P a g e

Forms of Communism

Plato’s communism is of two forms, viz., the abolition of private property, which included

house, land, money, etc., and the second, the abolition of family, through the abolition of these

two, Plato attempted to create a new social order wherein the ruling class surrendered both

family and private property and embraced a system of communism. This practice of

communism is only meant for the ruling class and the guardian class.

However, Plato did not bind this principle on the third class, namely, the artisans. In other

words, they were allowed to maintain property and family, but were under strict supervision so

that they do not become either too rich or too poor. Though Plato structured the society in this

manner, he never made any attempt to work out his plan that ensured such a system to function.

The following is a brief description of each form of communism:

1. Communism of Property:

Plato’s communism of property is in no way related to the modern communism or socialism

because there was no mention of socialization of the means of production. Plato’s approach

was mainly concerned with one factor of production, that is, property that has to be socialized.

The land and its products were in the hands of the farmers. So, only the guardians were deprived

of property. Plato deprived them of all valuables such as gold and silver, and were told that the

diviner metal is within them, and therefore there is no need for any ornaments as it might pollute

the divine thoughts.

The guardians were paid salaries just right enough for their maintenance. They were expected

to dine at common tables and live in common barracks, which were always open. Thus, Plato’s

communism was ascetic in character. Plato’s communism existed only for the governing class.

Therefore, it was political communism and not economic communism.

2. Communism of Wives:

Plato’s scheme of communism deprived the guardian class not only of property, but also a

private life or a family because family introduced an element of thine and mine. He believed

that family would destroy a sense of cooperation that forms the basis for a state. To destroy

family, it is important to destroy selfishness. Plato wanted the rulers of an ideal state not to get

distracted from their work and get tempted towards self-interests.

21 | P a g e

Plato opined that family was the great stronghold of selfishness, and for this reason it has to be

banned for the governing class. This situation brings about a question of ‘Did Plato deny his

guardians class a normal sex life?’ For this, Plato stated that mating was encouraged between

those who can in the best possible manner produce children of the desired quality.

Another question that was raised was related to those children who were born out of this union.

According to Plato, they would be the property of the state. Immediately after their birth, they

would be taken to a nursery and nursed and nurtured there. This method would make sure that

no parent would have any affection upon one child, and thus love all the children as their own.

Further, the guardians, instead of caring for the welfare of their progeny, would thrive for the

welfare of all. Thus, guardians of the state would constitute one great family wherein all

children would be treated equal and common. Bound by common joys and sorrow, there is

personal or exclusive relation to one family and in the process the entire state.

Plato further stipulated the age for both men and women for begetting children. He stated that

the proper age for begetting children women should be between the age of 20 and 40 and men

between 25 and 55 because at this time, the physical and intellectual vigor is more. If anybody

flouted the rules, they were treated as unholy and unrighteous beings.

Thus, Plato’s communism of wives provided social, political and psychological bases for the

ideal state. Plato believed that such a communism of family would remove the conflict between

the personal interests and the objectives of the state.

22 | P a g e

Conclusion

The qualities and life Marx ascribes to the people of communism represent a complete victory

over the alienation that has characterized humanity's existence throughout class society,

reaching its culmination in the relations between workers and capitalists in modern capitalism.

At the core of alienation is the separation of the individual from the conditions of human

existence, chiefly his activities (particularly production), their real and potential products, and

other people. As a result of class divisions and accompanying antagonisms, people have lost

control over all social expressions of their humanity, grossly misunderstanding them in the

process, coming eventually to service the "needs" of their own creations. Viewing whatever

people do and use to satisfy their needs and realize their powers as elements of human nature,

the progressive dismemberment of human nature (alienation) becomes identical with the

stunting and distortion of potential in each real individual. The bringing together or

reunification on a higher technological plane of the elements of human nature that earlier

societies had torn asunder begins with the revolution, gains momentum in the dictatorship of

the proletariat, and is only completed in full communism. To the extent that social life remains

split up (separated by barriers of occupation, religion, family, etc.) and misunderstood in the

first stage of communism, the people of this period can still be spoken of as alienated (which

is not to say that the theory of alienation with which Marx captures the dynamics of a market

society is still useful in explaining social change).

23 | P a g e

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/vision_of_communism.php

2. http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/politicalscience/platostheoryofcommunismi

ncluding2formsofcommunism