Two separate Entities Commonly misinterpreted.

The discussion herein touches on two completely separate (but commonly considered integrated) ideas. These are communism and absolutism. First off it would be prudent to supply a straightforward definition of both communism and absolutism. Communism is a system of economy where everyone receives the same share of return, independent of form of labor. This has no correlation with the amount of labor, or way in which you spend your gain. Absolutism is a type of government where the leader of the nation has absolute power. This is to say that the ruler could make you lick dried gum off of his shoes if he wanted to. Absolutism is commonly a product of the population's strong, but unwanted dependence on the government, and/or the leader's control of the military.

This being said, we may continue. Communism and absolutism are commonly interpreted as synonymous in modern society, but this is because many recent historical events have taken place to force a prejudice into people's minds. Absolutism has again and again been used to force people to adhere to strict and specific beliefs. Absolutism is also used to the express gain of the ruler. Anyone else who receives something out of absolutism only does because the dictator is dependent on him or her for something.

Absolutism is the government system commonly used to instill communism because the simple fact is that if you want to put a people who have experienced capitalism directly into a communist rein, then more people will be angry than will be happy. This is because of two factors. The first is that the American working class is now smaller than the professional class, due to mechanization of industry. We are currently experiencing a recession because of this. The second reason is that communism is often believed to be a system where you do all the work and someone else gets the money. This is incorrect, however, and through the course of this article, you may just come to realize that capitalism is actually the system which puts a blindfold over your eyes and hits you with a bat.

So you say -- "Whoa, there is no way that I am doing hard work developing jet engines so some janitor can sap my money away!". However, this is another preposterous social misconception. Capitalism has developed your perceptions of reality to make you believe that the man who thinks harder should get more money. I contest this idea. Take into account an accounting business, and a garbage service. If the accounting business were to take 30 days off, who would suffer? You might say that customers would suffer, but that isn't true. There are a millions of services out there to play with your money, and if you are truly desperate you can manage to do the math yourself. However, what if the garbage service took 30 days off? There would be filth everywhere, and do you know why? Because their Job is HARD!

Now who should get paid more -- the man who does the accounting, or the man who cleans up the accountant's defecation? Physical labor is equally important to mental labor, and not everyone has the willpower to do it. I guarantee that you have to be a strong person mentally to go to work every day cleaning up someone else's mess. Just as it may take a special type of person to write up blueprints for a mall, it takes a special type of person to go to work every day and do the same monotonous and disgusting job. However, the people who control money frequently take advantage of the 'physical labor' people. The case today is that the people in lower jobs are GENERALLY less intelligent than the people who take the executive jobs (i.e. manager) in large companies (Don't flame me for this, this is an example and doesn't take EVERY one of your miserable little variables into account). The problem rests in three things; the power structure of companies today; what is 'taboo' in capitalism; and the social structure which has existed based on 'money over morals' ever since Sargon the Great seized the first empire of city-states in Mesopotamia.

Communism is a system of government where everyone puts in their two cents of work, and receives their share of the net income. However, a democratic or republic system can still be used to enforce the laws. See basic rights for a rundown on what these laws must generally encompass to work properly. A democratic system would actually be more useful in a communist situation than in a capitalist one! What do you think would be the legislative outcome of everyone receiving the same share of gross national profit? Not only would the people be able to spend more time arguing real issues, but there would be no more petty laws passed as a direct result of oppression of a specific social class. This would be an unprecedented step forward, albeit an expected one, because there would be no social segregation.

A democratic communism could feasibly take advantage of both the "separation of power" and "system of checks and balances" used in the United States government today. NONE of these systems would have to be drastically altered to allow for representative communism. However, bribery is a very important issue to address in these circumstances. Resistance to bribery is the reason that vital members of both the Executive and Judicial branch get paid a whole lot of money. However, a government has a sure bet that these men cannot be bribed if they have more possessions than they can use. The beauty of a Communist Democracy is that these men have been elected to this office because of the love of their job. If people no longer receive more money for doing a different job, then they will naturally gravitate to the thing that they love most. People will not do a shoddy job if they wake up every morning and focus on enjoying their passion, rather than stressing out about their bills.

In closing, Democratic Communism is possible, if only more people would give it a moment of thought. Breaking down a stereotype is a great thing no matter how you look at it. This dissertation gives some very vital knowledge about common disadvantages of capitalism and absolutism, as well as focusing on its main topic, which is, of course, why communism is NOT absolutism.