Let this be clear; I am not a fan of American capitalism, nor am I a real communist. I can not understand why human beings (me included) fancy themselves worthy the ownership of nature resources, nor can I imagine a society based on the theories of the German philosopher, the father of practical communism, Karl Marx. Not with ease, that is. I am naught but an idealist knowing too little about the world to write a meaningful essay on such an important and extensive issue. I’ll give it a shot anyway. I will explain why a global community with open borders based on Marxism and democracy is the best way to make the world a better place for the majority. However, this is a utopia of which I may only dream.

If we were like the animals, claiming nothing but what we need to survive, there would’ve been enough food for everyone. This is a fact. Unfortunately, our race is born to make societies stretching across huge areas of land, and to exploit the goods of our planet, including living creatures, to make our time on earth more comfortable for ourselves. Seeing that the concept of ownership is a reality which will exist as long as there are humans on earth, there has to be a government to distribute the goods. This is where the Marxism comes in. Elimination of private riches would even out the differences, and could open for a society where everyone work for the fellowship, and receive what they need from the fellowship.

Many try to justify the cruelty of capitalism by describing Marxism as unfair. Friends and relatives tell me that everyone is responsible for their own lives, that hard work might get anyone to the top some day. Imbeciles! These statements would be nearly relevant if a child from Mali had the same opportunities as a child from Sweden. As this is not the case, I choose to ignore this arrogance. Yes, a small amount of people would lack the freedom they’re privileged with today in a Marxist society. But what good does the liberty of private marketing if you can’t afford to feed your family?

I’ve met those who refer to the books of George Orwell when assaulting my politic sympathies. It is true that the books 1984 and Animal Farm describe a communist dictatorship. The communities which are illustrated in these books are frightening similar to the terror regimes countries like Cambodia, the Soviet Union and China have experienced. Arguments like these are as irrelevant as calling capitalism absolute freedom. Orwell’s books only describe the plausible results of communism, not the communism itself. Marx himself did not believe in dictatorship, and neither did Lenin and Trotsky, the main founders of the Soviet Union.

Let us presume that a regular worker in a regular country is able to purchase half a kilo of meat a day with his means. Some of the richest people in the world are able to purchase the worker’s day ration times a million, every day. What have these people done to deserve such an advantage? Have people with such fortunes done anything in particular to actually rightfully claim the means which could feed the mouths of millions? No. They have managed to exploit the community structure for their own good. In a society following the rules of absolute socialism, bus drivers and pop stars have the same rights to survival. In a society following the rules of absolute socialism, everyone who makes a contribution to the fellowship shall be taken care of. No one shall be able to exploit their peers, and no one shall be left on their own.