Vavclav Havel, Adam Michnik, and Gyorgy Konrad provide ways of responding to communist regimes based upon their own philosophies. Havel focuses his response on how truth can enact change. Michnik provides a non-violent approach that strives for compromise with communism. Michnik and Havel are similar in their ideas because they both adamantly support the use of peaceful actions versus violence. Konrad’s approach is also non-violent, but aims to depoliticize society versus encourage a political change. Havel and Michnik still believe their countries could be successful under a different political system. Although each intellectual is discussing communism, their differing experiences shaped their responses to the political regime.
In “Power of the Powerless”, Havel comes to the conclusion that the only way to successfully defeat an oppressive regime is by admitting that living in a communist regime is “living in a lie”. Havel expresses how the communist system is built upon lies. He
…show more content…
Konrad explains that the discussion of politics or presence of a political party do not cause political consciousness among a population. In other words, Konrad is explaining that the population is not cured of its social, economic, or moral problems simply by believing in a political ideology. Rather, society is benefited when they are not fooled by politics. Because of his ideas here, he doesn’t believe that the installation of a political party to replace communism is the best choice. Instead, Konrad believes his country would immediately benefit from the removal of the communist regime. Following this removal, Konrad implies that the country must depoliticize itself. He believes that the removal of politics from society would be similar to curing society of some dangerous infection. A new political party, as described by Konrad, would not prevent future “reigns of
In conclusion, it is for sure that the competitive party systems give a plenty of advantages in case of the improvements in the political, economic and civic welfares. But the modern party competition is not based solely on the ideology competition in many states, particularly in those developed countries with the long-standing democracies (USA, UK, most European countries). The facts in support of this argument are next: the changing proportion of mass-cadre parties, globalization, the increasing role of mass media, the domination of the middle class. In this essay the definition of the party, party systems was provided. The arguments for the main conclusion were represented and discussed in detail what resulted in the aforementioned conclusion.
In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, what communism is is discussed; this writing attempts to enlighten the world about what communism ideals are. The communist party is pro-proletariat and wants what is best, in their eyes, for the working class people. “The essential condition for the existence and rule of the bourgeois class is the accumulation of wealth in private hands, the formation of capital; the essential condition of capital is wage-labour” (Marx, p. 135). According to Marx and Engels, the reason the bourgeois class exists is because of the labor from the proletariat class; without the capital produced from the proletariat the bourgeois class would not be as successful as they are. “The Communists are no separate party distinct from other working people” (Marx, p. 135). It is being argued that the Communist party is made up of working class people who are tired of their rights being trampled on and want to do something about it. This shows a connection to the proletariat and the Communist party is more likely to gain support by utilizing this approach.
Society is flawed. There are critical imbalances in it that cause much of humanity to suffer. In, the most interesting work from this past half-semester, The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx is reacting to this fact by describing his vision of a perfectly balanced society, a communist society. Simply put, a communist society is one where all property is held in common. No one person has more than the other, but rather everyone shares in the fruits of their labors. Marx is writing of this society because, he believes it to be the best form of society possible. He states that communism creates the correct balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of society. And furthermore thinks that sometimes violence is necessary to reach the state of communism. This paper will reflect upon these two topics: the relationship of the individual and society, and the issue of violence, as each is portrayed in the manifesto.
The movie “Good Bye Lenin” portrays the differences that had existed between the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany. The movie depicts, through the reason that the father fled to the east, that in the GDR one either had to accept, or at least pretend to accept, the values of the Communist Party or else they will be harassed by the government. This contrasts with the west, where although party affiliation was important, it was not a necessity, and there were at least three options, the CDU, the FDP, and the SPD. The movie also depicts the economic differences between the two Germanys.
Though both Communist Manifesto and “An Appeal to the Young” explain benefits of communism in contrast to capitalism*, the texts differ in style and the ways they explain the advantages of communism.
Whether one thinks that the ideas of communism are good or bad, by taking a look a today’s society, we can certainly see the affect The Communist Manifesto and other books of its kind have had. Karl Marx’s ideas have shaped many programs and organizations to attempt following along the lines of equality.
This essay will concentrate on the comparison and analysis of two communist figures: Mao Zedong, leader of the Communist Party in China, and Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union. The main focus of this paper will be to explore each figure’s world view in depth and then compare and contrast by showing their differences and similarities. Joseph Stalin was a realist dictator of the early 20th century in Russia. Before he rose to power and became the leader of the Soviet Union, he joined the Bolsheviks and was part of many illegal activities that got him convicted and he was sent to Siberia (Wood, 5, 10). In the late 1920s, Stalin was determined to take over the Soviet Union (Wiener & Arnold, 1999).
Though the rewards are pleasing to the ear, the path to obtaining the benefits of communism is a violent one. This strict governing idea was derived from Communist Manifesto, a book written by two German economists, Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels, who declare that many problems in society are caused by the unequal distribution of wealth. These two believe that “Communism deprives no man of the ability to appropriate the fruits of his labour. The only thing it deprives him of is the ability to enslave others by means of such appropriations.” To achieve the goal of happiness and prosperity for all, the lines that distinguish the differences between the rich and poor must be erased. Obviously, the rich will never voluntarily give up their goods or status; therefore the figureheads must force equality among the citizens. Communism places their citizens, whether they be the wealthy or the laborers, into working classes that specify their contribution to the government. With such balanced placement of the people, individuality is impossible for any single person to achieve.
The Communist parties have been raised to power far beyond their numbers and are seeking everywhere to obtain totalitarian control. This is certainly not the liberated Europe we fought to build. Nor is it one which allows permanent peace”.(See annex 2, figure
With time, people realize that they are not in control of the country; not even their government. Then who is? This paper