Interdependence of Communism and Capitalism

Karl Marx saw the world as two opposed groups; the thesis, or those in charge of production and the antithesis, the group seeking social change but is powerless. Because the antithesis lacked power to control production, but were themselves responsible for proving a source of labor for the factories of the thesis, Marx believed the only way to relieve the tensions between the “haves” and the “have-nots” was revolution.
Through revolution, the thesis and antithesis would be combined and voila, a new thesis comes into being until a new antithesis brings about revolution once again. This eventually brings about what we know as communism where all parties share equally in the means of production and the supposed power that comes with it.
Marx, however, left one party out of his equation. Ultimately it is the consumer of goods is who holds the most power over production. Without demand by the consumer, there is no valid reason for production. He also never calculated the cost of too many cooks in the kitchen. In countries where communism has failed, the new thesis, made up mostly of Marx’s proletariat, concentrated more on the wants of the producers rather than the needs of the consumers.
One of the consequences of this was the long lines outside stores in the old USSR awaiting the chance to buy the few goods available to them. Here, we introduce the new antithesis, the consumer, and the consumer demands something which eventually leads us back to something which more resembles capitalism.
On one matter, however, Marx was right. If the haves refuse to share with their labor force the fruits of their labors, a new antithesis will always form and this cycle will continue. To stabilize and maybe eliminate the back and forth between Marx’s socialism and modern capitalism, both labor and management need to be sensitive to each other’s needs and viewpoints.
When labor quits demanding so many concessions as to stifle profits from the risk takers, the owners, and the...