Capitalism and the Free Market

Innovation occurs more often in free market nations, a concept acknowledged throughout recorded time; yet neglected by governments with rooted foundations in communism. A lack of innovation is the primary reason that Communism failed, specifically in the Soviet Union. Free trade increases growth rates; therefore by refusing to trade with other nations, and discouraging the formation of businesses deviating from the government’s declared initiative; the Soviet Union did not have adequate resources to sustain its citizens' state of commonwealth and provide the necessary national defense required to preserve its cultural traditions.

Communism is an archaic ideology popularized by Sir Thomas More (1478–1535); Karl Marx (1818–1883); Friedrich Engels (1820–1895); Georges Sorel (1847–1922); and actualized in the Soviet Union with the 1917 Russian Revolution, lasting until its fall in 1991. Today, advocates continue the believe that communism is still a viable prospect. These contemporary thinkers include Jürgen Habermas; Antonio Negri (1933–2023); and Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum. It isn’t the duty of citizens to consider national influence over the actions of foreign governments operating strictly within their own jurisdiction. But the political theory and historicity of Communism speaks for itself; and its obvious historical detriments are omitted by its modern proponents.
The remaining nations currently implementing communism reveal the extreme dangers the ideology invokes upon individual sovereignty; attempting to undermine God’s intent for His creations. In North Korea, citizens reside under an isolative command economy, whereby foreign trade is severely limited; and business success is confined to those who align with the national political ideology. In China, Mao Zedong (1893–1976) was radicalized by Communists from the Soviet Union, and funded its forced labor industrial revolution. Following Mao’s death and Deng Xiaoping’s (1904–1997) ascension to power, China began to expand its economic policy—becoming a hybrid communist-capitalism nation. In both instances of North Korea and China, the nations utilize a former name familiar to the west—the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the People’s Republic of China—as a pretext for its behind-the-scenes conduct. Deng’s acceptance of capitalism displays the inefficiency and unsustainability of communism actualized. From Deng to Xi, China has embraced capitalism; whilst clinging to the prehistoric totalitarian tactics to preserve its dictatorship. Dutch Historian Frank Dikötter writes that “[a]fter Xi Jinping’s ascent to power in November 2012, [China’s historical data archives began closing down again. Large batches of documents on Mao’s Great Famine and the Cultural Revolution have since been reclassified,” (Dikötter, F., p. 8).

A Note On Capitalism

One aspect to note that detracts many critics from embracing the notion of capitalism is the suffix “ism,” depicting an absolute ideology. There are few individuals—if any—that would reject the possession of personal capital. Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word Capital, as “ [m]oney or assets invested, or available for investment,” (Garner, B.,p. 258). The “ism” facilitates a rift in consensus, formulating a cohort of absolutists. Yet, with semantics removed, “capitalism” is a fundamental concept enacted by God that preceded man. Jay W. Richards opines, “as a practical manner, we take capitalism for granted,” (Richards, J., p. 2).
But capitalism, is defined as a force not contingent on the government; thus its existence is reliant on the absence of authoritative oversight or coercion. Instead, the authority of capitalism is free market competition. Bryan Garner further defines the term Capitalism,” [a]n economic and political system in which businesses belong mostly to private owners and not to the government; esp., an economic system that depends on the private ownership of the means of production and on competitive forces to determine what is produced,” (Garner, B., p. 259). Capitalism is (1) natural to the landscape of man; (2) rejects tyranny; and (3) rejects discrimination through free-market competition. Therefore, it appears that capitalism has gained an undeserved negative connotation; its definition confused with Corporatism. The Oxford Dictionary of Politics expounds on the term Corporatism, writing that “[a]fter the First World War, the idea of corporatism was taken up by the radical right, in particular by Mussolini, who placed it at the centre of the fascist regime in Italy, (McLean, I., p. 121). Thus, “[a]s a consequence, corporatism suffered from guilt by association. It came to be regarded as a synonym for fascism and disappeared from most political discussion, although it survived in Spain and especially Portugal, (McLean, I., p. 121). In modern polity, there exists “an alternative liberal version of corporatism . . . clearly distinct from the surviving remnants of authoritarian corporatism,” (McLean, I., p. 121). Similarly, Communism is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary “[a] political doctrine, based on Marxism, advocating the abolition of capitalism by ground-roots revolution; specif., a social and political doctrine advocating the abolition of private ownership in favor of common ownership of the means of production and the goods produced, each person contributing as able and receiving as needed,” (Garner, B., p. 348). Bryan Garner adds a second definition for the term: “[t]otalitarian government,” (Garner, B., p. 348). Conversely, Community is defined as “[a] neighborhood, vicinity, or locality. A society or group of people with similar rights or interests,” (Garner, B., p. 349).

Adam Smith (1723–1790) provided a theory on capital that holds, “[n]o regulation of commerce can increase the quantity of industry in any society beyond what its capital can maintain,” (Smith, A., p. 432). Smith provided a maxim: that homeowners should “never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy,” (Smith, A., p. 435). Thus, the object of a free-market is convenience and motivated by self-interest. Rather than advocating the labor of anther individual; paying the individual who engages in labor to make the product, can save the consumer time—should the product cost less to purchase than to make. This principle continues its applicability in contemporary polity.
Natural law cannot be redacted, nor can it be controlled. As noted by Stephen Hopkins (1701–1785) during America’s founding, “[m]inisters have great influence, and Parliaments have great power—can either of them change the nature of things, stop all our means of getting money, and yet expect us to purchase and pay for British manufactures?” (Lutz, D., Loc. 1123). Stephens, like Adam Smith, recognized the benevolence of self-interest within a free-market. Stephens wrote that “[t]he genius of the people in these colonies is as little turned to manufacturing goods for their own use as is possible to suppose in any people whatsoever; yet necessity will compel them either to go naked in this cold country or to make themselves some sort of clothing, if it be only the skins of beasts,” (Lutz, D., Loc. 1123).

The Impact of the Soviet Union (U.S.S.R.)

One of the many negative aspects of communism include isolationism. The unwillingness to conduct international trade, or engage in capitalism leaves one solution: expanding the ideology across multiple nations. Whilst the Soviet Union was itself composed of multiple nations, its expansion to China would likely help secure its position on the global stage. American journalist Edgar Snow recorded that “Moscow had at first (1918-22) tried to advance Russian revolutionary interests in the Far East by working with the Peking warlords,” (Snow, E., p. 98).
Biographer Jung Chang, describing her experience under Communist Chinese rule notes of its origin, that the Soviet Union shared the Chinese nationalist’s goal of subverting the Peking government employed Sun Yat-sen—“the only [provincial potentate] willing to accept the Soviet presence,” (Chang, J., p. 31). But the Soviet Union “knew that Sun had his own agenda, and was trying to use Russia,” therefore “it ordered the Chinese Communists to join the Nationalist Party,” (Chang, J., p. 32). Moscow wanted to use the CCP as a Trojan house to manipulate the much biggest nationalist party; but all CCP leaders . . . opposed joining Sun’s party, [but] [t]he pragmatic Mao embraced Moscow’s energy,” (Chang, J., p. 32. Communism relied upon a state of deception in order to metastasize itself throughout traditional communities; sickening the body politic. Thus, Mao was chosen to as the liaison between Moscow and China; becoming “so pessimistic” that he believed that only means of saving China was a “Russian intervention,” (Chang, J., p. 32).
In May 1923, Moscow “ordered the CCP to pay attention to the peasantry;” as the “issue of peasants” was “the centre” of all its policies, p. 39. Thus the CCP began to further its revolt to “land revolution against the remnants of feudalism,” p. 39). Chang explains “[t]his meant aiming to divide the Chinese peasants into different classes on the basis of wealth, and to stir up the poor against the better-off,” Chang, J., p. 39).
Jay W. Richards writes that “Communism appealed to, even if it inverted, man’s moral impulse,” (Richards,J., p. 31). Adam Smith acknowledged that, “[t]he wisdom of every state or commonwealth endeavours, as well as it can, to employ the force of the society to restrain those who are subject to its authority, from hurting or disturbing the happiness of one another,” (Smith, A., p. 1547). Speaking on jurisprudence, Smith added that “[t]he rules which it establishes for this purpose, constitute the civil and criminal law of each particular state or country,” (Smith, A., p. 1547).

A Brief History of Communist China

The Chinese Communist Party initially sought to abolish the death penalty and torture, attributing popularity to its uprising, (Chang, J., p. 84). Similarly, division is a tactic used by tyrants to preclude rebellion. By dividing and conquering the army of the aggrieved, the Leviathan can reflect opposition from it, back upon its subjects. But citizens are not subjects, a distinct difference between capitalist and communist systems. This factor makes communism undesirable to those who value individual liberty and hold reverence in civil rights.
Chang notes that “[a]t the time Chiang Kai-shek broke with the Communists in April 1927, Stalin had emerged as the No. I in the Kremlin and was personally dictating policy in China,” Chang, J., p. 49). Here, the Soviet Union’s extension of economic policy into China brought with it a temporal foundation that would force the nation’s industry be forged by trial and error at the expense of its citizens. But “[b]y the beginning of 1948, the Reds controlled some 160 million people,” (Chang, J., p. 317). Thus the government is not meant to be the arbiter of thoughts, decisions, and actions for millions of individuals.
Frank Dikötter notes that “[b]etween 1958 and 1962, China descended into hell,” (Dikötter, F., p. 1). Whilst millions of Chinese citizens were dying, Mao held regular meetings with his party “refer[ing] to the gathering[s] as a ‘meeting of immortals’,” (Dikötter, F., p. 90). It is clear that Communist party leaders were operating on the basis of delusion; the official narrative given was that “China was suffering from unprecedented natural catastrophes which had ravaged a great deal of the countryside, and no more foodstuffs could be exported to the Soviet Union. All trade with the socialist camp had to be reduced, with the exception of Albania,” (Dikötter, F., p. 108). As Dikötter notes, ultimately “China moved away from the socialist bloc not as punishment for the withdrawal of Soviet experts but because it was bankrupt, (Dikötter, F., p. 109). In 1960, party leaders “Zhou Enlai, Li Fuchun and Li Xiannian” were placed “in charge of foreign trade,” proceeded to “move the trade structure away from the Soviet Union towards the West,” (Dikötter, F., p. 116). Opening up trade to the West would begin the infiltration of capitalism within the communist dictatorship. Slowly over the next thirty years, Chinese citizens began a trend that continues today; “[a]s famine developed, the survival of an ordinary person came increasingly to depend on the ability to lie, charm, hide, steal, cheat, pilfer, forage, smuggle, slack, trick, manipulate or otherwise outwit the state,” (Dikötter, F., p. 197). In contemporary China, dissent remains against the digital frontier; whereby the Great Firewall of China strives to depose the citizen of access to information. Citizens are forced to learn to utilize VPNs and other technologies to escape the government’s restrictions on internet access. By removing the element of information, the Communist government can curate the reality they wish the citizens to perceive in order to usurp the decision making power granted unto all men by God.
Worse, “[h]ospitals, even in major cities, were stripped of resources, and by 1960 doctors and nurses were fighting for their own survival,” (Dikötter, F., p. 274). Those opposed to the regime were sentenced to labor reform camps—Laogai—where they would be overworked, malnourished, and subjected to disease. Dikötter notes that “the laogai, or reform-through-labour camps” population was determined by “Xie Fuzhi [who] put the total – excluding Tibet – at 1.8 million in 1960. Prisoners worked in 1,077 factories, mines and quarries, as well as on 440 farms,” (Dikötter, F., p. 289).

Hongda Henry Wu (1937—2016) wrote of his own experience within the laogai, in his book Laogai: The Chinese Gulag. Wu describes that the Reeducation Through Labor (RTL) (Laojiao) as a “government policy designed to force remedial education upon criminals whose offense are not serious but who habe repeatedly resisted reform and are in need of discipline,” (Wu, H., p. 81). Hu adds that China provided no judicial process in this matter, but instead mandated the sentencing independent of the courts. During Mao’s Great Leap Forward, “[v]iolence became a routine tool of control,” (Dikötter, F., p. 292). Jung Chang writes that “[s]tate terror not only hugely raised the level of violence, but was much more horrific than the factional fighting itself, (Chang, J., p. 544).

With the experience of detriment of Communism unto the Chinese citizens came a return to traditionalism; “[b]y the late 1960s, the Soviet Union and other communist countries had begun to view family planning – which they preferred to call ‘demographic development’ – in a more positive light,” (Cueto, M., p. 156). Deng Xiaoping “accelerate[d] the developement of science and technology over the next decade,” (Ash, R., p. 37). China’s “first major development was the significant shift in resources from low to high productivity areas,” (Ash, R., p. 37). Moreover, (1) “changes in the quality of stock and labor,” (Ash, R., p. 33).
Notably, China’s industrial census of 1985 reported that, “38.9 per cent had been built in the 1980s, 43 per cent in the 1970s and only 18.1 per cent before 1970,” (Ash, R., p. 33). Shifting closer to a state of capitalism from a pure state of communism, following the fall of the Soviet Union, Jiang Zemin continued Mao’s project—actualizing an effective structure of communism—as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Yet, Jiang hoped to leave behind a legacy that did not persistent bad decision making and include the death of millions of Chinese citizens under his leadership. Jiang’s solution was to further embrace Deng’s capitalist initiative, lwhilst attempting to preserve the foundation of communism, as the nation’s traditional revolutionary roots. Jiang Zemin hoped to be remembered for “stopping the polarization of income between rich and poor—the sole ingredient that had weakened the Chinese national government, before it was supplanted by the Chinese Communist Party,” (Wo-Lap Lam, W., p. 81).

Communist China ultimately formed its own free-market economy before the nation officially opened itself up to international trade. Dikötter notes that “[i]n 1989 and 1990, an entirely unregulated, over-the-counter market in bonds and shares sprang into existence,” (Dikötter, F., p. 241). On January 19^th, 1992, Deng Xiaoping gave a message in Shenzhen “‘[r]eform and opening up is China’s only option . . . [w]hoever is opposed to reform should leave office,” (Dikötter, F., p. 233). Chinese politics in the era of Hu Jintao began to realign itself with the tradition of its founding. Hu brought focus back to the importance of China’s constitution, making his “weapon of legalism” clear beginning with his ascent to power in the 1980s, (Wo-Lap, Lam, W., p. 118). Hu’s “somewhat contradictory path” sought to preserve “one-party dictatorship and Chinese-style socialism while simultaneously seeking innovation in industry, trade, and technology—would help usher in a prosperous, harmonious, and chuangxinxing (innovative) China by the year 2020,” (Wo-Lap, Lam, W., p. 289).

Conversely to the Chinese Communist Party's weaponized command economy aimed soley to enrich the party members, capitalism distributes opportunity for wealth equally—as it derives from God. On personal faith, Adam Smith noted that “religion enforces the natural sense of duty: and hence it is, that mankind are generally disposed to place great confidence in the probity of those who seem deeply impressed with religious sentiments,” (Smith, A., p. 1490). The Lord endowed the earth with abundance so that it might produce the necessary fruits sought by man, and manifest prosperity amongst our brethren. Smith rejected the taxation of necessities; that it disadvantaged the citizenry to the extent of detriment. Smith wrote, “taxes upon the necessaries of life have nearly the same effect upon the circumstances of the people as a poor soil and a bad climate,” (Smith, A., p. 455).
Jay W. Richards concisely concludes, “God knows your heart. Spiritually you’re better off a little mixed up about economics than indifferent to human suffering. Economically, though, only what you do is important, whatever your reason. Buying a bunch of bananas at Costco will have the same economic effect no matter why you buy them.” (Richards, J., p. 2). As it is written in the Old Testament, “[w]ealth obtained by fraud dwindles, [b]ut the one who gathers by labor increases it. Hope deferred makes the heart sick, [b]ut desire fulfilled is a tree of life,” (Proverbs 13:11,12; NASB). Thus, an individual who is capable of contributing to society by some capacity ought to be granted the opportunity to do so. Making a pathway to government assistance more accessible than the means to an education is itself fraudulent and directly oppositional to the intended order enacted by the Lord.

Conclusion

In sum, Communism failed because it requires an opposing force to be applied to the natural law of capital. Communism focused on division; whereas capitalism seeks to unite competitive interests. Communism relies on a Leviathan—a dictatorship; whereas capitalism rejects the notion of government intervention. Communism exploits the working-class in order to produce industrial revolution, benefitting only the ruling class; capitalism removes classism, producing a free-market whereby all are welcome to engage in business transactions in accordance with their will. Communism restricts innovation, whereas capitalism relies upon consistent technological progression. Communism produces friction when applied against the natural laws created by God; whereas capitalism facilitates a perpetual abundance that can remedy disparities in other regional sectors through investment. Communism compromises freewill, whereas capitalism fortifies civic autonomy. Communism relies upon violence and human misery; whereas capitalism sources its power from human interest. Both systems require total participation—as the unwillingness to operate in the manner consistent with the nation’s adopted cultural tradition will likely impose some form of hardship. Capitalism embraces culture; communism condemns it. Yet it remains a force that can be weaponized by the depravity of man; therefore any consumer needn’t position themselves beneath a monopoly. Community is conducive to competition. Yet no matter one’s position on capitalism or communism, man exists in a capitalist world; thus ought to embrace the landscape of opportunity before him, whilst co-laboring with his creator, God, to facilitate an abundance unto His Kingdom. Capitalism bears the power to improve the condition of the Earth for posterity, man must effectively convey its meaning, purpose, and use.

Bibliography

Ash, R. et al. (1996) The Chinese Economy Under Deng Xiaoping. Oxford University Press: New York City, NY

Chang, J. et al. (2006). The Unknown Story of Mao. Alfred A. Knopf: New York

Cueto, M. et al. (2019). The World Health Organization: A History. Global Health Histories. Cambridge University Press.

Dikötter, F. (2022). China After Mao: The Rise of a Superpower. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Dikötter, F. (2010). Mao's Great Famine: The History of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-1962. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Garner, B.A. (2021). Black's Law Dictionary, Eleventh Edition. St. Paul, MN: Thomson Reuters.

Lutz, D. et al. (1983). American Political Writing During the Founding Era: 1760–1805: Two Volume Paperback Set. Liberty Fund Inc.

McLean, I., et al. (1996). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations. Oxford Quick Reference. Oxford University Press: New York, NY.

NASB. Proverbs 13:11,12

Richards, J. W. (2009). Money, Greed, and God: First Edition. HarperOne Publishing: New York, NY.

Smith, A. (1976). The Wealth of Nations. Liberty Fund.

Snow, E. (1937). Red Star Over China: The Classic Account of the Birth of Chinese Communism. Grove Atlantic Press.

Wo-Lap Lam, W. (2006). Chinese Politics in the Hu Jintao Era: New Leaders, New Challenges. Prentice Hall.

Wo-Lap Lam, W. (1999). The Era of Jiang Zemin: Autographed Edition. Prentice Hall.

Wu, H., (1992). Laogai: The Chinese Gulag. Westview Press.