Conceptual Question: Is Democracy the same as Communism?

1. Model Case – Yes, democracy is the SAME as communism

a) As the economy continues its downward spiral in the worst recession since the depression, retailers across the United States are thankful that it is the holiday season and they will get a brief sense of prosperity from the influx of anxious shoppers. At the JC Penny seasonal meeting this issue is discussed between the store managers, but more importantly Ted, the chain manager announces that he is planning to retire as of the New Year. At the conclusion of the meeting, as Bill is leaving, he slyly says to Jean “I don’t know how you manage to keep up every year, the way you run that store. With the way you empower your employees, I am surprised there is still order in your store.” Jean replies “The embedded culture and norms at my store are our secret to success. Your egalitarian approach will never work. People are too greedy by nature and a productive, classless workforce is impossible. Employees are driven by incentives!” In response to this, Bill handed Jean an annual report and said “Maybe we are not so different after all.” This confused Jean, but on the drive home, he thought to himself confidently about this potential promotion and was certain he can not lose. He stresses that his employees are protected by the fundamental freedom of speech and this enables them to be creative in their selling techniques. Jean also knows that he is held responsible for his decisions because with the way his store is structured, those who voted him into his position can also vote him out. When Jean got home, he thought he would flatter himself by glancing at Bill’s report and was intrigued by what he read. He was surprised to find out that although they employ different styles of management, Bill’s store still decides what to produce democratically. Also, contrary to what Jean thought before, he read that the generalization of jobs provides sufficient motivation because the absence of a hierarchy establishes a strong sense of unity among the employees, similar to one he preaches to his employees. A couple months later, at the next store managers meeting, Ted apologized because he had reversed his decision and decided to keep his position for one more year. To his surprise, Bill and Jean were not upset because with the new found respect they developed for each other after learning about their respective stores, they had turned into allies instead of competitors.

b) - Bill was surprised that with the way that Jean empowers his employees that he is able to maintain order

- Initially, Jean was convinced that Bill’s egalitarian style of management would not work because with a classless workforce, there would not be enough incentive to motivate the employees

- Jean stressed freedom of speech and creativity to his employees when trying to make a sale- In reading Bill’s annual report, Jean discovered that the generalization of jobs provides motivation

because of the strong sense of unity among the employees

c) Democracy Communism

Empowerment Egalitarian/ClasslessOrder Generalization Freedom Unity

2. Contrary Case – No, democracy is NOT THE SAME as communism

Ling, an uneducated but tireless working businessman who was born in South Korea 40 years ago, took pride in following in the footsteps of his father. Upon his father’s recent passing Ling inherited the position as principal owner of the store “Ping Pong Shoes.” Ling remembered the way his father used to talk about the opportunities that were there for the taking in Korea. His father told him that South Korea is one of the fastest growing countries in the world! He would explain that there are two main statuses of people in the workforce; survivors and the rest. Ling wanted to make his father proud by being a survivor. Although Ling had seen profits grow steadily over the last few years, he made an executive decision to relocate to North Korea because he was under the impression that he could have the same kind of success there as his father had described occurs in South Korea. Ling had no idea that something which seemed as simple as relocating north could have such profound repercussions on his business. Upon arrival, he set up his store in a nice area, and was optimistic about what the future held in store for him. However, when Ling tried to get all of his merchandise shipped over, it was stopped because of North Korea’s “Isolation Policy” which Ling knew nothing about. This upset Ling, but did not faze him in trying to carry on his fathers work. Ling thought he could make good use of his time while he waited for his goods to arrive by visiting his neighbors to hear about their successful business endeavors, but the news he heard was not promising. His neighbors just kept telling him about the stagnation that has plagued their economy under the North Korean regime. After hearing this, Ling took it upon himself to no longer be ignorant about the glaring differences between South and North Korea and educated himself on the parameters under which he could operate. He quickly learned that to achieve the success he originally envisioned, he would have to rally for change. Before taking action, he remembered another thing he learned about North Korea; they have a very rigid system and because of the centralization of power, the only way change can be occur is with an uprising, which was not feasible. It was now six months after his arrival, and Ling did not need to see or learn any more about North Korea because he now knew enough to realize the mistake he had made in leaving his homeland.

b)- Ling’s father spoke about the opportunities that presented themselves living in South Korea and

about how South Korea was a rapidly growing economy- Ling’s father distinguished between the two main status’ of people in the workforce; there are

survivors and the rest - Ling’s neighbours spoke about the stagnation that plagued North Korea’s economy - In educating himself about North Korea, he learned about the rigid style of government and the

centralization of power that discouraged change

c) Democracy Communism

Opportunity Growth StagnationStatus Rigid Survival (of the fittest) Centralization (of power)

3. Borderline Case – Yes/No

Hans Kolzig was a German police officer who served until 1989 and like his fellow comrades was jingoistic and vowed to serve his country by any means necessary. Hans and his fellows officers referred to themselves as “Germany’s Biceps” because of their strength and rule. Hans served 20 years in the force with some of his daily duties being things as simple as maintaining the general peace to things like carrying out covert missions as a member of the “Secret Police.” Although Hans’ devotion to his job and his country were never questioned, he took it upon himself to always be aware and to know as much as possible. Some very important things he did know are that in his time serving with the Secret Police, he had to perform many jobs he could never speak of. Also, Hans knew there was corruption in the government with regards to the allocation of scarce resources like food and money but it did not bother him. The reason it did not bother him is because the only thing he loved more than his country was being looked after and that was his family. Hans had one son in public school and one son in the workforce. Although Hans wished he could spend more time around his family, he did not worry about them because of free education and full employment which communism was committed to. Life was very stable for Hans until 1989 when communism fell in Germany and the “reunification” began. The fusion of West and East Germany was a process that would take time but Hans knew there were certain assurances that were just a matter of time. One of these assurances was the dismantling of the “Secret Police” which enabled Hans to be the father he always wished he could be. A couple other primary assurances, with parliament being voted in by the people, is a much more transparent, stable style of governance and privatization of industry. It was crystal clear that sweeping change would be extensive throughout Germany but there would be some constants. Hans knew there are some common beliefs of the old communist and new democratic structures like preservation of progressive taxes which he could still depend on. This would enable the government to continue to provide the basic necessities that communism provided like education, opportunity for employment and universal healthcare. While prevailing attitudes in Germany were filled with uncertainty and ambiguity for what is to come, Hans realized that this would be a chance for his kids to not only live, but to prosper and reach heights that were insurmountable until this revolution.

b) No:- Hans Kolzig, a German police officer was jingoistic and vowed to serve his country by any means

necessary - Hans knew there was corruption in the government but it did not bother him- Some other assurances of the reunification were a more transparent, stable style of governance and

the privatization of industry Yes:

- Although Hans wished he could spend more time with his family, he did not worry while he was away because of free education and full employment which his government was committed to

- Hans knew because progressive taxes were still in place, the government would still provide necessities like education, opportunity for employment and universal healthcare

c)Democracy Communism

YES (Universal) Healthcare (Full) Employment (Progressive) Taxes (Free) Education

Democracy CommunismTransparent Jingoistic NOPrivatization Corruption Stability

4. Related Concept a) Opportunity, Full Employment, Stagnation, Stability, Growth b)

• Growth implies progress towards a better tomorrow • The long term result of growth is a paradigm shift to be more efficient • Growth is fueled by innovation which is a product the importance of competitive edge • Growth could involve rebuilding or retooling to ensure precision and mitigate flaw• To grow is to think outside the box by challenging the norms of society

c) Does democracy ensure growth?

5. Invented Case – The tall tale of alien dreamer, Chamling Frye

A)In the year 3000, citizens and aliens of Nepal were proud to say that they were one of only three

democratic states in the entire world to elect a communist government. More specifically, Chamling Frye, an alien T.V. show producer who had previously lived many years on one of the moons of Mars, North and South Korea, was ecstatic about this. Chamling felt this enthusiasm because he recalled from his time on the moon living in anarchy and with no structure, he was not able to show off his talents as other aliens were not appreciative of his skills. Through the alien “eavesdropping instrument,” Chamling and his fellow aliens were able to hear chatter from Earth and one of the things that appealed to him was structure through process and government. Chamling heard promising things about North Korea, like how the government possessed absolute control. Contrary to what Chamling had hoped, it resulted in many irresponsible decisions in which the greater good of the people was not considered and it reminded him of the moon where he used to live and this upset him. This directly impacted him because of the restrictions imposed on his work. Although the specifications were not clear, Chamling was told that he could not show any program that contradicted the government’s ideology or was deemed to be too much of an expression of free thought. Chamling struggled with this (on his moon, aliens did not have the ability to filter thoughts) and as a result did not end up totally conforming to the rules as he could not understand them, and the government ultimately cancelled his show, due to what they called “Improper Content”. Events like this were the primary reason that Chamling had decided to take his hovercraft and head south. Unfortunately for Chamling, he had issues in South Korea too. In South Korea, Chamling worked at a local TV station and was excited to be able to show off his creativity and spirit without being restricted. Chamling was a very political man, and he wanted to produce a show about some of his findings with respect to the styles of governments in Korea. The platform issues for the show were the extreme concentration of wealth and poverty, and the resultant great power this gave the wealthy to influence policy in South Korea. Chamling’s sub-issue was inefficiencies of a minority government with respect to assertiveness. This is because through his findings, Chamling concluded that minority governments are often handcuffed, as their ambitions are continually questioned and opposed. Chamling had all of the raw footage filmed and interviews lined up for expert opinions, until he received a letter from the SKRTB (South Korea Radio & Telecommunications Broadcasting), They explained that although they really liked his show, they could not allow him to air it on the local network as the network was regulated to only show issues that affect the local community (on his moon, there were no boundaries with regards to localities and territories so he could not understand this either). It was after this that Chamling once again packed up and took his hovercraft to Nepal. As noted above, Chamling was ecstatic at the chance to live under a democratic-communist rule. This is because he hoped that a democratic, communist state would employ the most attractive features of both styles of governance because in his opinion, they were both equally flawed. Only the future knows what lies ahead for Chamling, and like the old saying goes “Third time is a charm.”

B) - Chamling experienced a government with absolute control and one that made many irresponsible decisions in North Korea

- Chamling faced difficult restrictions on his work by the government - Concentration of wealth and poverty was the platform issue for Chamling’s show in South Korea- Minority governments are inefficient with respect to assertiveness - There was regulation imposed, as Chamling worked for a local station and could only broadcast

shows on local matters

C) Democracy Communism

Concentration (of wealth and poverty) Control Inefficient Irresponsible Regulation Restriction

6. Social Context – Government Lobbyist’s role in a democratic regime, and their absence in an autocratic, communist regime

A) Government Lobbyist

B) In a democracy, policies and statutes are continually adapting, but what most people do not know is it is usually not the government itself who initiates change, but those around it. Antonio is a lobbyist who belongs to an interest group who serves the function of putting pressure on Government officials to change policy in order to appeal to a particular interest that is meant to benefit either a particular group, or in some cases, society as a whole. Antonio, a full-time farmer, belongs to an in interest group called “The Farmers of Ontario” in which he lobbies on behalf of his fellow farmers for subsidies and favourable tax legislation because full-time farmers struggle to live and even just pay for basic necessities. It is the fundamental freedoms that democracy guarantees that make it an open system, which causes not only internal thoughts to matter but external forces, like Antonio and his group, have the ability to make a difference in policy. It is the actions of lobbyists and other outside forces that make the government’s decisions on policy representative of the people. The best way for the government to be knowledgeable on what the people want and value, is to listen to what they are saying. Antonio is thankful that he lives under a democratic rule because in an autocratic, communist regime, a lobbyist would serve no purpose. This is because under this type of rule, there would be only one political party and one who tries to rally for policy change would be seen as a threat. Autocratic communism is sensitive, in that it does not view those favourably who they feel have different ideologies and are impediments to their goals. Communist government officials are extremely confident that they can provide all of the basic necessities, and more, to their people, and thus do not need help from the outside and the efforts of a lobbyist would be futile. C) - In a democracy, policies and statutes are continually adapting, but what most people fail to realize is the impact of lobbyists in causing change- Because it is an open system, not only internal thoughts matter but external forces are essential to the process - The actions of lobbyists are what make government truly representative of the people - Autocratic, communism is sensitive to those deemed as impediments to their goals- They are confident that they can provide all that is needed and do not need outside help or opinion

D) Democracy Communism

Adaptive Open Confident Representative Provide External Internal Change Sensitive

7. Practical Results

A) What would happen in the real world if democracy were the SAME as communism?

- Democracy would always be run by a majority and rule would be absolute - There would be a strong sense of community and an absence of cutthroat competition - There would be no more civil wars as they would be too costly to the aggregate society as common ownership would ensure that one person cannot gain without everyone else contributing too

B) What would happen in the real world if democracy were DIFFERENT than communism?

- Democracy would focus on optimizing input with scarce resources and maximizing output - There would be international quarrels over communist policies in practice, as so often in history, they are different from what they preach and the rule is tyrannical - It would be near impossible to monitor and police the practice of communist countries, even if the practice is illegal, because of the state sovereignty employed

C) Democracy Communism

SAME Optimize Tyranny Maximize State Sovereignty

Democracy Communism Competition Community DIFFERENTMajority Absolute

Common Ownership

8. Results in Language A)

Democracy • Empowerment – The people have the power to elect members of parliament in or out• Order – Behaviour is guided by embedded societal norms and culture • Freedom – Liberties like speech, opinion, thought and expression are guaranteed • Opportunity – Everyone has the chance to be successful • Growth – Steady increases in overall output every year• Status –Formally or informally, it puts people on different levels• Survival (of the fittest) – Only the best and brightest will prosper to new heights • (Universal) Healthcare – Most democracies provide healthcare to it’s people• (Progressive) Taxes – source of government funding to provide infrastructure, education,

employment and healthcare• Transparent – The government’s policies and procedures are available to the public to either

commend or criticize • Privatization – Enables people to make profit by owning and running business• Stability – Regimes are guaranteed a specified term in office which enables long-term strategy • Concentration (of wealth and poverty) – Wealth is converged towards the upper/middle-class • Inefficient – Minority governments waste time and effort trying to appease opposition or else they

can obstruct change • Regulation – Government makes guidelines that industry must adhere to • Adaptive – Governments are flexible to meet swiftly changing needs of society • Open – Enablement of external forces to impact policy by protest and pressure • Representative – External forces ensure that policies practiced are what was promised in campaign • External – Forces outside the government, like lobbyists, who rally for change • Change – The modification of ideology in policy • Optimize – Make efficient use of scarce resources • Maximize – Focus on extraordinary aggregate output • Competition – Members of society vie for a social and economic supremacy • Majority – A form of government where legislature can be passed unopposed

Communism • Egalitarian/Classless - People are not distinguished by what they have or who they are • Generalization – Jobs are simplified and uniformed to eliminate disparity • Unity – People develop a sense of togetherness as they are all equals • Stagnation – People lack incentive to innovate which stunts growth• Rigid – Governments are stiff in their policies and procedures • Centralization (of power) – The bulk of the decision-making power resides in the hands of the few • (Full) Employment – A fundamental principle that every member in society must contribute by

working • (Free) Education – Provided secondary education to train members of society so they can be

productive

• Jingoistic – Tendency of government officials to protect it’s national interests by any means necessary

• Corruption – Centralization often results in abuse of power • Control – Government can unconditionally dictate where the resources go • Irresponsible – Government makes decisions where the greater good of society is not considered at

all, or considered subordinate • Restriction – Any medium of communication that does not coincide with government ideology is

discharged • Confident – Displays supreme assurance in effectiveness of policy • Provide – Government’s philosophy that it can be solitary supplier of basic needs• Internal – Decision-making power resides strictly inside government • Sensitive – Aware and alert to anything deemed as an impediment to their goals • Tyranny – Order is often maintained by instilling fear in the people • State sovereignty – Ability of regime to rule (unjustly) without fear of being held accountable • Community – People assemble to try and grow not as individuals but as one• Common Ownership – Linking the community together by the abolition of private property • Absolute – Always a majority and thus there will is unopposed and power is supreme

B) Democracy

- Freedom- Opportunity - Competition - Survival (of the fittest)- Growth

Democracy is the most common form of government in the world today and that can be attributed to the fundamental freedoms that it guarantees its people. Embedded in these freedoms is equal opportunity for all members of society to achieve their own “American Dream.” Although it is possible for everyone to succeed (because everyone has opportunity) it is not the reality. People face cutthroat competition and only the most conscientious, deserving and talented will survive (with the exception of those who survive through inheritance). The benefit of this is that fierce competition sparks innovation as everyone vies to not only improve internally but relatively too. The result is steady, annual growth that makes this form of government inherently appealing and successful.

Communism- Classless/Egalitarian - Unity- Centralization (of power) - Control- Stagnation

Communism is a political ideology which platforms living in a classless society and equal outcomes. This is beneficial in the sense that people become dependant on each other and everyone’s interests are entrenched in each other. Because one person’s success is reliant on the communal effort of the group, it enables the people to establish a supreme sense of unity, where people are not competing, but collaborating to collectively succeed. If one were to try to excel on their own and accumulate wealth, it would not be possible as power is centralized to the government and they control the allocation of resources. Although in theory this sounds flawless, in practice, it is human nature for one not to exert full effort when the outcome in

not clearly defined. This results in the “Social Loafing Effect” (one member of a group does not contribute and expects the others to do the work on his behalf) and the “Sucker effect” (one member sees another loafing and in an effort to restore equity, he holds back effort too). The fallout of this is an aggregate economy that cannot progress and gets stuck in a state of stagnation.

C)

No, democracy is not the same as communism. With respect to economic structure, democracy is often associated with capitalism in which the “instruments” to create wealth are privately owned. The government lays out a general blueprint with the goals of ensuring “fair play”, but other than few regulations, the people operate under a free market. Resources do not go where they are needed, but to who can afford them. On the other hand, the economic structure of communism is often associated with an autocratic rule, in which the instruments to create wealth are commonly owned. Communism is supposed to be an answer to the income disparities caused by capitalism. The concept of a free market is foreign as the government restricts and monitors the flow of income. Resources are spread out equally among the people and affordability is a non-issue. Although they do share some similar viewpoints, like the idea of equality, the implementation is employed in two very different ways. Democracy stresses equality within the parameters of opportunity, which means that people are supposed to all have the same chance to succeed, but it is only society’s best that actually do. Communism stresses equality within the parameters of outcomes, which means that one person cannot have more success than his neighbour. Since democracy is a form a government and communism is an ideology, it is possible for a country to be a democratic communist state (there are three in the world, Nepal, Cyprus and Moldova), however democracy and communism have too many incompatibilities on major issues for this to be a widespread form of government.

9. Interior Dialogue

A) After I have read all of my notes, I stand by my conclusion that democracy is not the same as communism. In a democracy, although it is ultimately the government who makes the decisions, it is the people who are empowered because they evaluate the government on those decisions and have the opportunity to either re-elect them, or elect a new government. The government is held accountable and therefore must be responsible. In a communist state, which history shows to be employed under a dictatorship, this idea is reversed. Although one might think power resides in the people resulting from the unity created by a classless society, this would only be the case in “theoretical communism” which is not the same as communism in practice. This can be attributed to one of communism’s core principles, centralization of power. History has shown through controversial leaders like Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro and Joseph Stalin that having absolute power and control will result decision making that is irresponsible and not in the best interests of the people. Because communist parties are often dictatorships, the government is not held accountable, opposing parties with different ideological views are outlawed and the people do not have the means or power to initiate a change in government.

B) Are guaranteed equal outcomes better than equal opportunity and uncertain outcomes?

No, but to better answer this question, I will use an anecdote. Jim was told that he is going to work as a salesman and that no matter how much he sold, he will earn 50 dollars at the end of the day which is the same as everyone else in the store. However, at a different retail store, Mark was told that he will earn 10 dollars for showing up, which is the same as everyone else, but depending on how much he sold, his earnings could be limitless. This short example sums up one of the intrinsic differences between communism and democracy that I have learned through this process and it is incentive. It is human nature for people to be motivated by something visible. If Jim came to work and exerted maximum effort or if he came to work and did not sell a thing, it would not make a difference to him, so then this leads to the question why would he exert maximum effort? On the other hand, Mark is motivated by limitless earnings and has tremendous incentive to work hard, be creative, and sell products. This is why so often communist economies stagnate and democratic economies flourish.

Are Democratic regimes more efficient than Autocratic, communist regimes in implementing policy?There is no straight answer as the efficiency in a democracy is contingent on the type of government.

In a majority government, they can maximize efficiency because the government in power has enough power to pass whatever legislation they desire. There is opposition, but they do not hold enough seats to combat the majority and are powerless to obstruct change. However, through this process, I learned that a minority government may not be efficient. The government would not have enough power to simply pass any legislation they desire, but they can form a coalition with another party to potentially act and be as efficient as a majority. However, this works two ways, and their opposition can also form a coalition, to obstruct the passing of any legislation of the government and power, in which case they would be extremely inefficient. In comparison to an autocratic, communist regime, they are always maximizing efficiency in passing legislation as there is no opposition. However, this can have negative implications, and often does, as the quality of the legislation with respect to the people it affects us usually not a priority an autocratic, communist regime.

10. Essay Outline

Introduction: - Is democracy the same as communism?- No, democracy is not the same as communism - Democracy, empowers the people and encourages competition - Communism, centralizes power and institutes a classless society - Although democracy and communism do have some similarities, democracy encourages healthy

competition and status in society, communism encourages unity and a classless society

Body: Paragraph one

- Democracy empowers the people - Democracy ensures that the government must be responsible - Democracy is an open, external system that adapts- Democracy encourages competition and survival of the fittest

Paragraph two - Communism centralizes power in the government - Communist policymakers are not held responsible - Communism is a closed, internal system that is rigid - Communism employs a classless society and emphasizes unity

Paragraph three - Democracy and communism both believe in progressive taxes and equality - Use taxes for different purposes - Emphasize different types of equality

Conclusion - Democracy empowers the people and encourages competition in an effort spark innovation- Communism centralizes power and institutes a classless society in an effort to create unity - Practicing what is preached is a determinant on whether they are the same (Responsible and

accountable communist leader)- If so, would lead one to re-think answer to original question

Is Democracy the same as Communism?

In this paper, I will be evaluating the conceptual question, is democracy is the same as communism?

Having reflected upon the various concepts, I concluded that they are not the same. Democracy is a form of

government that empowers the people through their right to vote and encourages healthy competition in the

business sector. Communism is a political ideology which centralizes power in the hands of the few at the top

and institutes a classless society with the goal of creating unity among the people. Although democracy and

communism share some similarities, (one primary one being their common long term ambition of economic

growth), it is their fundamental, embedded beliefs that cause them to employ different ideologies of

achieving this.

Democracy (translated from Greek meaning “people rule”) empowers the people by giving them the

right to vote and employs a free market in which supply and demand determine the flow of goods and

services. Democracy ensures that the government in power makes responsible decisions. This is because the

people can use their power to either re-elect the current government if they agree with their policies and

decisions or they possess the ability to initiate change. Change would stem from the fact that if they are

unsatisfied with the governing regime, they can vote them out of power at the end of their term. This also

ensures accountability, because a government will be publicly commended if the people perceive their

policies and decisions positively, or they will be publicly criticized and forced to answer to the people, if

their policies and decisions result in failure. The democratic government has the tough task of implementing

policy that serves the economy’s best interests with respect to growth and progress and they must appeal to

the people because as I said above, the people possess the power. This would cause one to ask, why wouldn’t

the government only implement “window dressing” in an effort to appease and please those who determine

their fate? It is because there is stability in a democracy and the government is guaranteed a term (usually 4

years) which enables them to construct long-term, dynamic strategy Democracy is an open, external system

that adapts in order to remain current as society changes within it. It is open and external because

policymakers’ decisions are not confined in scope to the objectives of the party in power, rather they

combine their objectives with those of society (who are represented by lobbyists) and look for an equilibrium

in which they can satisfy both. Democracy encourages fair, cut-throat competition in the free market and

“survival of the fittest” where only those who are conscientious and deserving will flourish and the rest will

falter.

On the other hand, there is communism, in which power is centralized in the government and the

decision making power lies in the hands of the few at the top. Because history has proven that communist

regimes are often autocratic, the policymakers do not have to be responsible, since they maintain rule by

force and neutralize potential opposition by outlawing the establishment and existence of opposing parties.

This is a main reason why communist regimes legislate irresponsibly and even selfishly as they are not held

accountable for their decisions and do not have to answer to critics. Anyone who openly questions the ruling

party is deemed to be a threat and a traitor. Another reason why they tend to be irresponsible is because of

the lack of stability in communism. Although the governing regime cannot be voted out, it is possible for the

people to try to initiate change through a mutiny, and the government will do its best to make that impossible.

Communism is a closed, internal system that is rigid and unchanging. It is closed and internal because the

government does not entertain the idea of external thought at all in their policymaking. It is only those who

are in the high ranks in the government who have the ability to initiate and influence. Communism is rigid in

that it does not respond to changes in society, rather it is ignorant and expects society to adapt in accordance

with it. With respect to the economy and market, communism employs a classless society. This means that

one cannot obtain “status” with the hope of differentiating oneself as everyone is on the same level. Also,

compensation is restricted and carefully monitored by the government, and individuals cannot accumulate

vast amounts of wealth like they could in a democracy. The underlying reasoning behind this is to establish a

deep sense of unity within the people, which is supposed to serve as implicit motivation. In other words, the

communist belief is that if you tie all the people in society’s interests in together, they will be motivated to

contribute to the group, thus communal progress would be the incentive.

Despite the fact that I have concluded that democracy is not the same as communism, there is some

common ground. Both could be regarded as the same in terms of taxation to provide and the notion of

equality. Both democracy and communism employ taxes on the people as a means of providing basic

fundamentals such as infrastructure, free education (because they both recognize the need to train the

workers of future) and jobs with the hopes of full employment and a healthy, growing economy. Although

they have some of the same priorities as to how to best provide for the people, they also differ in some areas

that are deemed essential. Democracy prioritizes providing safety by establishing friendly relations and

investing in other countries’ economies, while communism prioritizes safety through military spending and

brute force. One can also argue that they both stress equality with respect to nobody gaining an unfair

advantage economically. However, democratic and communist regimes have incompatible definitions of the

concept, equality. To explain further, in a democracy, equality is stressed to ensure equal opportunity for all

people so they start at the same position, but where they end will be determined by a variety of factors which

the government does not directly impact. In communism, equality is also stressed, but to ensure equal

outcomes, as the government controls and monitors the allocation of compensation and implements

uniformity among similar professions. Although democracy and communism employ some of the same

general principles, they differentiate themselves by how they define and apply these principles in ways that

are unique to their own goals.

Democracy is a form of government that empowers the people through their electoral rights, and

supports healthy competition in the business sector. Communism is a political ideology which centralizes

power in the hands of those high up in the communist hierarchy and creates a classless society with the goal

of creating a strong, resilient sense of unity among the people. The vital difference is where the power lies,

because whether power is decentralized within the people, or centralized within the government, it initiates a

series of spin-off differences with respect to responsibility, accountability, stability and several other areas.

While I have taken the position that democracy and communism are not the same, one must consider a

scenario in communism where those at the top of the hierarchy practiced what they preached and sincerely

cared for the well-being of the people. If a communist regime were able to combat a notion that history has

proven to be true, that “absolute power corrupts,” then it could cause one to revisit the original question: is

democracy the same as communism?