I am new to this forum and this is my first post, I normally post articles at the St. Louis IndyMedia site. Many people in here will undoubtedly know this info. all ready, others are not as learned, it is for these folks and those that are opposed to Marx that I post this. Looking very forward to hearing from you. Thank you, take care and have a Merry Capitalistmas.


Lies VS. Facts



Since the 1850’s the truth of socialism (in general), communism and Karl Marx (in particular) has been severely distorted by those who are opposed to it and those that claim to advocate it. I’m constantly angered, disappointed and saddened by the fact that to this day people still don’t know what socialism/communism is, and more importantly what it is not!

There are many lies and misconceptions that have been told about socialism/communism. Since the 1850’s the truth of socialism (in general), communism and Karl Marx (in particular) has been severely distorted by those who are opposed to it and those that claim to advocate it. I, at this time, will give you the cold, hard, proven facts about it. First of all, socialism and communism is in fact the same thing, communism is only Karl Marx’s version of socialism; if you read into it you will see that Marx is, and is referred to as, a socialist.

Since it’s inception in the early 1800’s there have been many versions of socialism; from “utopian socialism” espoused by Owens, Saint-Simon and Fourier to the “conspiratorial socialism” of Blanqui, “anarchism” of Proudhon and Bakunin right up through the so-called socialism of Lenin and Mao.

Some forms of socialism do advocate tight governmental controls of everything, however, these forms are in the minority and in no way are advocated by most socialists. It is indeed unfortunate that socialism/communism has become a flag of convenience that accommodates bureaucrats and market-minded economists and allows evil-minded two-bit dictators a way of deceiving people in order to basically enslave them. Most socialists/communists do however advocate Karl Marx’s version of socialism in which no way involves a large governmental bureaucracy that controls everything, and anyone who calls him/herself a socialist/communist that is in favor of such a thing is not a true socialist.

I am providing this information in order to set the record straight and so that in the end you may make up your own mind about it since our so-called leaders are afraid to tell the you truth that they’ve known about for so, so long.

Let us examine just a few of the lies told about socialism/communism.

LIE- Marx was just some old gray haired radical with wacky utopian ideas.

FACT- Marx was an intellectual, historian, economist and sociologist. He was a Doctor of Philosophy; he was fluent in Latin, Greek and French. He studied Legal Sciences, Roman law, mythology, modern art history, German law, European legal systems and Natural law at the University of Bonn. At the University of Berlin he studied criminal law, anthropology, Ecclesiastical law, criminal procedures, Prussian Civil codes and logic.

Karl Marx confronts us as a thinker of world-historical dimensions; it would be hard to imagine another scholar who has had as much influence on intellectual history as Karl Marx. He provided a complex and profound analysis of the class system under capitalism- an analysis that, although over a 100 years old continues to inform sociological analysis and has been the basis for major world change, the study of modern sociology still begins with the work of Karl Marx. On every continent, to this day, people find inspiration in his writings. His Communist Manifesto is the second most published book in history, the Bible being the first.

LIE- Communism is a brutal repressive system ruled by a dictator in which people have no civil liberties and are forced to live a sub-standard life in the name of equality.

FACT- When Marx became a socialist, what set him apart from other socialists of his time was his insistence upon the democratic character of the coming revolution. The commitment to democracy dominates his whole life, this can be found in all of his writings.


The core idea of communism is democracy, not a chairman or dictator or bureaucracy. Marx makes this point very clear from his earliest writings, in 1847 he wrote: “We are not among those socialists who are out to destroy personal liberty, who wish to turn the world into one huge barrack or into a gigantic workhouse… We have no desire to exchange liberty for equality. We are convinced that in no social order will be freedom assured as in a society based upon communal ownership”.

“Man’s self-esteem, freedom, must be awakened once more in the heart of these men. Only this feeling, which disappeared from the world with the Greeks…can once more transform society into a fellowship of men working for their highest purposes, a democratic state.”---Karl Marx, A Correspondence of 1843

“Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinated to it.”--- Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program

LIE- In communism you can’t own property.

FACT- “Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property!...There is no need to abolish that”.---Karl Marx, Proletarians and Communists

“We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labor, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labor of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the laborer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it”---Karl Marx, Proletarians and Communists

What Marx meant by the abolition of private property (or bourgeois property) was that no one person or small group of persons was to privately own property that was utilized to make profits (at the expense of others) for their own advantage, not personal property!


Everyone has been led to believe that the common ownership of property means that you share everything including personal belongings, not true.

Marx wrote clearly that common ownership only included those items which were necessary for the means of production for society i.e. factories, foundries, mines, farms, etc., etc.

LIE- Communism forces everyone to be equal.

FACT- “ One man is superior to another physically or mentally and so supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment and thus productive capacity as natural privileges. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right.”---Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program

Marx was an intellectual and was intelligent enough to know that in no way could any system, no matter how good it might be, could ever have all individuals equal, he knew that to even try would be pure folly.

LIE- A person would receive the same no matter how hard he/she works.

FACT- Further, one man is married, another not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence and equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid these defects, right instead of being equal would have to be unequal.”---Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program

LIE- There would be no incentive to work…it would make everyone lazy.

FACT- This is the funniest of the all the lies about communism…what incentive is there to clean your house or yard? What incentive is there to do many of the things that we do in which we work but yet we receive no monetary compensation for?

Marx clearly states that the economic goal of communism is to require everyone to work an equal and minimum amount of time and to eliminate differential rewards at least as life’s basic necessities are concerned. The motivation to perform the accepted minimum amount of work would derive from a sense of civic duty and/or the need to acquire life’s material necessities, while the motivation to do additional work would derive from the enjoyment of unalienated labor or, alternatively, from it’s material rewards justly earned.

The fact of the matter is, is that the incentive to work will be the same as it is now. In order to secure the basic necessities of life we have to work. The last part of the above statement also serves to show that people will not be equal, if a person decides to do additional work he or she will in fact receive more; in other words, if a person wants to have more material items in which to enrich their lives, all they have to do is work for it. And what about those lazy folks? Simple fact is, is that in any system you’re going to have a very small minority of person’s who genuinely don’t want to work.

LIE- You don’t have the right to own guns in communism.

FACT- “Universal arming of the people. In the future the army shall be simultaneously a worker army, so the military arm shall not, as in the past, merely consume, but shall produce more than is actually necessary for it's upkeep. This will like wise be an aid to the organization of labor”.---Karl Marx, The Demands of the Communist Party in Germany


“The arming of the whole proletariat with flintlocks, carbines, guns, ammunition must be put in hand directly...Arms and ammunition are on no account to be handed over; every attempt at disarmament must be frustrated, by force if need be”.---Karl Marx, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League

LIE- Communism forbids religion and the worship of God.

FACT- Most communists are atheists, however, many do believe in God, like the author of this pamphlet.
Marx only wished to see religious organizations diminished to the point where they exercised no power to influence society at the behest of the ruling class, a true separation of church and state. As far as the right of a person to worship as one pleases Marx stated that:

“These rights include freedom of conscience, the right to practice one’s chosen religion. The privilege of faith is expressly recognized, either as a right of man or as a consequence of one of the rights of man-the right of freedom”.- Karl Marx, On The Jewish Question

“The incompatibility between religion and the rights of man is so little part of the concept of the rights of man that the right to be religious in the fashion that pleases one and to practice a particular form of worship is explicitly included among the rights of man. The privilege of faith is a universal human right.” - Karl Marx, On The Jewish Question

LIE- The USSR collapsed and that proves communism doesn’t work.

FACT- Everyone has been taught that the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, N. Korea, Vietnam, etc., etc. are communist, this is simply not true; there has never been a communist country in existence, the closest thing to communism that has existed was the Paris Commune and the Amana Colonies (The Amana colonies existed right here in the US for almost a hundred years).


The USSR was formed by the Bolshevik Party after the 1917 revolution, they later renamed themselves the Communist Party after the term used by Marx. It would seem that the only test politicians and the media use to determine if a country is communist is whether or not they call themselves communist. Ask yourself this; was Jim Jones or David Koresh Christians? They stated they were Christians, they talked and acted as though they were Christians, but, of course they were not Christians, same difference.

In order to simplify this particular topic I will use the Soviet Union as an example because I think that you and most people will agree that the USSR was the model for all other so-called communist countries.

Who was the “father” of the Soviet Union? Of course it was Vladimir I. Lenin. Lenin himself stated on numerous occasions (in speeches, articles and letters) that the USSR was not communist or socialist. If you read his [Lenin’s] works you will see that he strove to establish capitalism in Russia, state capitalism specifically.

It is because Russia cannot advance from the economic situation now existing-here without traversing the ground which is common to state capitalism.--- V.I. Lenin,“The Tax in Kind”-The Significance Of The New Policy And Its Conditions, Published: May 1921

“The alternative (and this is the only sensible and the last possible policy) is not to try to prohibit or put the lock on the development of capitalism, but to channel it into state capitalism. This is economically possible, for state capitalism exists—in varying form and degree—wherever there are elements of unrestricted trade and capitalism in general”.--- V.I. Lenin, “Tax in Kind”-Freedom to trade and concessions, Published: May 1921

“Since the spring of 1921, instead of this approach, plan, method, or mode of action, we have been adopting (we have not yet “adopted” but are still “adopting”, and have not yet fully realized it) a totally different method,
a reformist type of method: not to break up the old social economic system—trade, petty production, petty proprietorship, capitalism—but to revive trade, petty proprietorship, capitalism, while cautiously and gradually getting the upper hand over them, or making it possible to subject them to state regulation only to the extent that they revive”.---V.I. Lenin, “The importance of gold now and after the complete victory of socialism” Published: Pravda No. 251, November 6-7, 1921

With its concern to maintain social ranks, and its exploitation of the state apparatus for personal gains, the Soviet Union is similar to every other bureaucracy, especially the fascist, a bureaucracy which had converted itself into an uncontrolled caste alien to socialism/communism. The state in the USSR (and all other so-called communist countries) acted as a collective capitalist class, ruled by Leninist/Stalinist dictatorship(s) and driven by military competition. The capitalist nature of the USSR and its allies became clear with the collapse of Stalinism in 1989-91, when yesterday’s Communist Party bureaucrats became today’s corporate executives.

So, in short, the USSR was not communist, it was in fact a state-capitalist society led by a small bureaucratic elite. They were/are communist in name only (in fact they were Bolsheviks and what you had was not the “spread of communism”, but the spread of bolshevism), they called themselves communists in order to make the claim that they were bringing to the people a system of true freedom as envisioned by Marx, instead all they received was an ‘ole bait and switch routine. Leninism and bolshevism have nothing at all in common with Marx. Lenin and the Bolsheviks distorted Marx in every conceivable way in order to gain and hold power. Consequently the less one knows about Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution the more one is likely to confuse Leninism/bolshevism with Marxism.

“They” used the term communist in order to hoodwink their people in order to take and keep power and “we” use that term for the exact same reason; except that “we” use “them” as an example to our people to make them automatically reject it, instead of educating them as to what it truly is and thus keeping the upper class in it’s dominate position in society.

LIE- Communism could never work.

FACT- People that have researched this subject know what a simple system it is…and it is a simple system, it’s not hard to understand at all if you know the facts. It is all together amusing and ironic that since the late 1930’s man has split the atom, cured scores of diseases, invented computers that can perform a billion actions a second, invented artificial hearts, performed intricate brain surgeries, mapped the human genome, put men into space and on the moon and invented nano-technology. With all the countless technological marvels that we have now, that just a few short years ago were thought to be beyond the realm of possibility; doesn’t it stand to reason, that we could group together the most brilliant minds of society, and give them the simple task of making communism work?

I think everyone would agree that Albert Einstein was first and foremost a genius, everyone would also agree the he was a lover of freedom and liberty. What people do not realize is that Albert Einstein was a socialist/communist and was against the capitalist system and was very much in favor of communism. We are sure that by himself he could have worked out the particulars of making communism work. After all, if the common citizens of the Paris Commune and the simple immigrants of the Amana Colonies came very close to making it work surely the best minds of today’s world surely could!
As it was stated briefly before, my intention is to provide you with just a few of the facts about the true nature of Marx and communism so that YOU can make up your own mind.

Some maybe asking the question-“If communism is so great why all the lies about it?” It’s very simple folks, think about it for a minute; the powers that be know what it is, they know that to teach the truth about Marx and communism would mean the end of their power, control and their privileged, sheltered lives! That’s why.

My intention is not an attempt to change anyone’s mind; my intention is to have you change your own mind by hopefully reading what Marx actually wrote and learning the truth. A system in which a person can go without the basic necessities of life simply because they don’t have enough money is truly immoral and disgusting. Though we can’t have a perfect society, we can sure as hell have a better one than this and it all starts with abolishing ignorance and lies…in other words, it all starts with people like you learning the truth!

Questions/comments can be directed to: Chris or Brandon by E-mail at- marxist_duo2004@yahoo.com

Suggested readings-

KARL MARX- THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO Edited by Frederic L. Bender, Norton Critical Editions---Includes all prefaces by Marx and Engels- sources and backgrounds- history of Marxism- interpretations.

THE PORTABLE KARL MARX Edited by Eugene Kamenka, Penguin Books---The complete Marx anthology includes personal letters, early and major writings.

WHY SOCIALISM? By Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions From Monthly Review, New York, May 1949

SOCIALISM FROM BELOW By Prof. David McNally www.anu.edu/polsci/marx/contemp/pamset/ socfrombel/sfb.main.htm

THE MARXIST INTERNET ARCHIEVE www.marxist.org ---Major writings by Marx, Engels, Rosa Luxembourg, Lenin, Mao and many other major figures in socialist history.

A CONCISE HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION By Richard Pipes, Vintage Books- A Division of Random House Publishers add your own comments




Christopher Henry

C.Henry,excellent post --good spam for the communist/socialist---good reference

I believe that communisim/socialism in a modern society would also not include all of Marx's theroretical communisim just most of it.There are some of his views on capital and distribution of wealth,that are not accepted by all communists/socialist however,I agree in most of his theory and do reguard him as one of the fathers of modern communisim.

USA

Yes...I agree, there are many "things" that Marxists/communists/socialists,etc. disagree on, however, like I've said for a couple of years now, there is much commonality between all of "us" and it's that common ground that needs to focused to bring everyone together in a united front. It's all ways been these petty matters that has kept everybody at odds...much to the delight of the bourgeois. If all these different groups, factions,etc. would remember that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, I believe great strides could be made.

Thank you Kamerad for your kind comments, hope to here from you again,
take care!!!



Christopher Henry

Excellent post christopher henry - communists are frequently subjected to insults which stem from capitalist propaganda and outrageous lies. I hope to remedy this as much as I can.
Bush & co. have managed to host a 2billion dollar convention and haven't got money on the table for it - are now trying to raise $40 million for the inaugural stuff(this means they need at least $45 million). But hey, I thought the democrats were the ones who were not fiscally sound ! It is strange that they are the ones who are completely up to date with their spending etc.
I love marx - the communist society which he envisaged is not one which russia, china, cuba or czech republic managed to carry out. There is corruption in every government..........

And on that note, merry christmas

Lilly
P.S. USA communist, I hope you read my response to racism post, I have been feeling strangely guilty about what you said, would really like a positive response for you - call it a christmas present. Also I have no argument with what you said, and if you would like, I would like to know what you thought about the original post.

Exelent interpritation, my thoughts exactly. I've actualy been trying to get others to see the truth of about Marx, but you seem to do it far better. Ironicly I am Fascist, who is angered by people opposing socialism for the wrong reasons. Here's what I think.


First, I don't condone history as a necessarily good argument when used often, but I think we would have to ask ourselves; Even though Communism failed in every country, that doesn't mean it will always fail, but what caused it to fail? I believe once that is diserned, a hidden fatal flaw in communism will be unmasked. I wouldn't accept the whole "Attack from other nations" thing. Communism failed within the first generation of revolution, even in countries where revolution may have been genuine. In any case there were no wars during any of the revolutions and coups that brought about bolshevism. This says only to me that either none of the revolutions were genuine(The law of reason says no), or something went wrong multiple times, or maybe a combiantion of the two. So how would you garuntee the saftey of a revoluton, especaily a large and violent one, with the possiblity of corruption in the masterminds of it? Well, you could use your theory of making it the inteligent people's responcablity, but not only is that unlikly, it may have a negative effect. Not to generalize, but intelectuals can be some of the most pomous and self-centerd men alive. The pursuit of knowlage and science are progressive but not realy civic virtues, nor is inteligene alone enought to lead or guide. Socialism is indeed possible, and would most likly work, but the odds of getting everything in the right position to trigger it has to be very high. Even if everything is thought of(Impposible), the possiblity of something going wrong is always there. I disagree with your theory that socialism is simple. The philosophy alone is easy enough to grasp, but the methods of practice would be very complicated I'm certain. I don't think socialism is all that fit for the real world, which is a very cynicalist world and will probobly remain so. We are of course not stuck with Laizzes-faire capitalism, but we cannot change the way the universe functions either. All societies eventualy revert to an elite. A society not prepared for one will be more likly to be consumed by a greedy and corrupt one. So it is my theory that a future society be built to function with its own elite, not trying to live without one, but as harmoniously as possible with one.


Personaly, I would only call Lenin the Fascistic one. The rest did things highly unfascistic, and otherwise stupid in general, while Lenin was fairly decent. For one, Fascism has a regualted economy, not a planned one, so Stalin and co don't fit. Fascism seeks less subsidization, while the entire state was subsidized under Bolshevism. I also think that communists should hate Bolshevism just as much as we Fascists. The fact that it lost the cold war while having in its possesion so many resources is evidence enough for its stupidity. Socialism is a good dream, but there will always be thoughs trying to stop it, like me for example.

------------------------------------------
Fairy Tales are important, not because they teach us dragons are real, but because they teach us dragons can be defeated.

Hi Christopher, I wrote a similar post called, 'Myths about Communism,' but your post puts it to shame, mine has nowhere near the level of detail that yours has. Thanks for a great contribution to the movement for the emancipation of mankind.
Since you're new here, I'll recommend two other forums for you to visit, Democrat DF, a forum that actually contains mostly Republicans, but me, USA Communist, and another communist called Max Bul also debate there. There are a lot of fools there but it also has a good number of enlightened people.
And another communist forum also that opened up more recently: http://www.network54.com/Index/29168
It is a sad reflection of the world around us that you even needed to write this thread, that communists who want to do so much good are considered no better than Nazis while capitalists who are destroying humanity and the world itself are celebrated. It makes me really sad that people are constantly praising the people who oppress and exploit them. Destroying capitalism is a more pressing concern than ever before because time is running out, estimates state that if capitalism with its, 'immiediate profit,' motive continues the world may have only 100 years left, actually some estimates put it at 50 years.
Every day of capitalism is another part of the environment destroyed, another person of great potential oppressed, another brave political dissident killed, every day of capitalism is a day that sickens and horrifies a person who craves freedom, justice, and a future for mankind.
Hope to hear from you again, and a happy Xmas to you.

H&S,I agree with your estimate of time left(50--100years) before capitalists societies get very ugly and start destroying everything,everyone,anywhere for it's own self preservation.

Destroying capitalism is a more pressing concern than ever before because time is running out, estimates state that if capitalism with its, 'immiediate profit,' motive continues the world may have only 100 years left, actually some estimates put it at 50 years.
Every day of capitalism is another part of the environment destroyed, another person of great potential oppressed, another brave political dissident killed, every day of capitalism is a day that sickens and horrifies a person who craves freedom, justice, and a future for mankind.

Lilly,your exactly correct,corruption is a problem for all political systems --capitalisim or communisim---corruption/greed is a common problem for every goverment and has been since the beginning of time.As communist/socialist we know that any goverment can be corruped by greed and must have institutions and/or policeing of the goverment to insure its legitimacy.


"the communist society which he envisaged is not one which russia, china, cuba or czech republic managed to carry out. There is corruption in every government.."

Unfortunately greed is a sad part of human nature and it is what nietzsche called "the will to power". If we didn't have a will to survive, humans would have died out by now , and if we did not all have obsessive desires to control others(to a greater or lesser extent ofcourse), life would be totally different. I think that all of us at some time in our life delight in having control over others, in holding power over someone else. In a relationship where only love is not reciprocated by both people, one will often enjoy the power they have over the other person - it is so difficult to analyze love when you're in it that you are weakened to begin with.
Corruption is probably inevitable , and it has been going since the constitution was written, but I have never seen such blatant lies as in the bush presidency. I was only a kid when clinton was re-elected , and even in the monica lewinsky stuff, I remember thinking that as long as he doesn't lie about politics, it's ok. At the beginning of the bush presidency in 2000, people related to him as a man, they thought he was a good guy, moral etc, but he was in a divided country of hallucinated republicans and angry democrats. And his only solution was to lie? The spin machines have never been busier, and now in the senate there is constant talk of who shouldn't be at a certain meeting, and about what deals to do with who to get a bill passed. What can you do? Idealism is a useful tool in politics, and essential for any belief in humanity, but people have to also be realistic and accept that this corruption is maybe here to stay.

Lilly,a socialist democracy can limit the greed factor,I have posted an outline for a communist/socialist democracy on H&S's topic of Lenin/Trotsky,please read it because,I think the greed factor would be limited by a communist/socialist constitution.

Actualy Lilly I disagree that greed is a human nature. I think that there is one only one real element of human nature, and that is our own will to survive. That may manifest itself into forms such as greed but it isn't itself greed. Far from fighting the will to survive, a future society should accept it, because it is indeed here to stay, but also cultivate to serve a greater purpose. When someone is taught virtue, what is happening is hi's outlook on survival has broadend. Instead of just himself, the man with a cultivated sense of survival will see family, social group, nation and eventualy species. So while a man is not blank from birth, as Marx suggjested, whether or not he is virtuous is indeed based on experiance. I also disagree that any greedy tendancies would be a real threat. As the Bible is to quote, "Bring up a child in the way he should be, and when he is an adult he will not depart from it." So I think that a man raised to be virtuous, while he may be tempted, he will not succumb unless he is very weak willed.

------------------------------------------
Fairy Tales are important, not because they teach us dragons are real, but because they teach us dragons can be defeated.

I think the way I talked about greed was wrong in that post. Our will to survive , is different and separate from our will to compete. It is competition that manifests itself in petty "money" contests which leads to greed. Steinbeck , in his excellent novel"The winter of our discontent", wrote that there are only two measures of money : No money and Not Enough money. In the disgusting capitalist system of today, power = money= status.

USA communist, a communist(marxist) system would probably cure the greed thing to an extent. However, as I said before, no communist system cured it yet.

Lilly

Quite right. Personaly I don't see money as much of a problem at all. If money is put in its proper place, that is too say under humanity to serve as a slave, it can achieve great things. Money is an exelent way for mankind to motivate itself and thus achieve more. If greed is less of factor, which can be ahcieved through moral teachings, and law, than money is mankinds usefull tool that should never be disposed of. If however money is king, and people are not taught moral values, like today, than it is a huge problem.

------------------------------------------
Fairy Tales are important, not because they teach us dragons are real, but because they teach us dragons can be defeated.

Lilly,when you say that no communist system has cured the greed yet your exactly correct but,what I ask you to consider is that there has not yet been a true socialist democracy established,yes,many countries that call themselfs communist have tried to establish a working socialist democracy but, as yet there really hasn't been one sucessfully implemented.That hardly means that a socialist democracy isn't possible,it is,with the correct constitution written for a socialist democracy to run under and, support from the people it is very possible to achive a true working socialist democracy.The controlling world capitalist have tried and will continue to sabotage any attempt to establish such a goverment,that's why it is not an easy task to accomplish.

I guess you're maybe right. Many people see marx as a socialist and maybe this is because they believe communism to be an abolishment of civil liberties. Marx believed communism to be what he wrote in his manifesto with engels, and marx is essentially the father of communism.
Communists and democrats need to have a way to find a common ground , and to agree more than they disagree if they want to have any hope of changing anything in the law. IT is the way the christian coalition (which I hate ) with ralph reed , moral majority and other small organizations become influential.

Happy new year. From one communist to another.
Lilly

I do believe God is a Socialist,do you think god created man and had no idea what man would become?Do you think God has no political ideas for his/her creation?Do you think God minds me identifing him/her as a sosialist when the ameica democrats and republican have been using his/her name in vain since the begining of america and,unjustly affiliating God with capitalsim and capitalist goverments?I think God has had about enough of american christian mis-representation and he/she does not mind me associating Gods name with socialsim.

Lilly,thats what I would ask those right wing christians,what I wrote above in my presvious post,I was not addressing you with those questions.I do think the right wing christians don't even think about God in a political(capitalist/socialist)term but,they're the first to use their capitalist christian religion to attack everyone that doesn't think like they do and unjustly use christianity for their own political agenda.

Lilly,yes,Happy New Year to you and all our socialist comrades!

Let us review what the capitalists have done for us :
upper 2% get tax cuts, taxes are raised on lower classes
44 million people lost healthcare
abortion will soon be illegal if they get their way .

Yes, I think God would hate to be identified with capitalism.
I will make one of my resolutions to convert as many illusioned right-wing christians to marxism.

Happy New Year. Even to the capitalists. Well.

Lilly

Lilly,the right wing christians are too tough to change,I think you would have better luck trying to change the views of american democrats to except socialism/marxism.Trying to change the views of arrogant,greedy,pig headed,right wing capitalist christians is almost imposible.I'm sure your argument for socialism/marxism is very good and wish you luck with your just cause.

HAPPY NEW YEAR
2005
USAcommunist

Whats wrong with making abortion illegal? If its legel all it will do is encorage kids to just have sex all the time and just through their babies away.

------------------------------------------
Fairy Tales are important, not because they teach us dragons are real, but because they teach us dragons can be defeated.

Justin,the question of abortion is not that simple,it is a very complex question and to catorgorize it as you do,simplistically,you belittle the question of abortion altogether.

Justin,you just hit on a exelent argument against facsism,if you were the facsist leader of a country you would make your morals law,abortion would be illegal,thats another case against facsist theory,why
should one small group of people decide moral law for all society,I submit that they should not because,it is not fair and totally disreguards and disrepects other peoples morals/beliefs.

I submit that is perfectly faire for a minority to have power over a majority, if it is in the majorities benifit. Perhaps I did be-little the whole thing, but legalizing it would also be-little it. The fact is freedoms change with the passing of time "There is a freedom for peace which is not same freedom for a time of war, a freedom for prosperity which is not the freedom to be allowed in a time of poverty."

To say abortion should always be legal or illegal would be denying the complexity of a universe in flux. Surly there are individual moments where it would fine either war, and also there will be a gradual shift on the whole as time goes by. When the population is too low for example would be a time to make it illegal, but when it is too high it can be legalized. Or perhaps in war it can be made illegal, because in war your population can never be to high. Freedom is in flux with the world you see. I understand that in the case of a bad elite, then it would be in the interests of the state (State being collective people's being and will) to do all they can it destroy it. But in the case of a good elite they should not attempt to. So obviosly where effort should go is maintaining a good elite, which Fascism was created to do. If the elite is good then they must have the power to lead the populace through education, propaganda, and thier own decision making. If the government has no power to lead then the people will again revert to the capitalists to lead them, and this would be a sin against themselves that the elite must put an end to. A Fascist government is not a night watchmen but a literal leadership system.

Think about it, reason, and logic are exelent qualities but they will never be possed by everyone. Even if they needed to be, which they don't, only a totalitarian embracing system could posses efective ways to teach them.




------------------------------------------
Fairy Tales are important, not because they teach us dragons are real, but because they teach us dragons can be defeated.

Justin,
USAC is right, abortion is a complex issue. We have to respect other peoples beliefs as well as our own, and while I believe that abortion shouldn't be used as a method of birth control, I think it needs to be an option is cases of rape /incest, don't you agree?

Lilly

Christopher Henry,I totally agree with your views on private property,I think Marx did not mean no private property such as homes/realestate,he meant more towards your definition,that the state could take natural resources ect..Many people including many communists still insist that true communisim means no private property,they are wrong.They also think true communisim means a class-less society,again,I don't agree with those sentiments at all,eliminating class altogether is impossible,limiting class disparities is not impossible and, thats what I believe a true communist goverment under a socialist democracy should strive for.It's bad enough that we have to defend ourselfs from capitalists,other communists that keep these distorted views don't help our cause either.

Christopher Henry,this site is one that says communisim believes in no private property,I believe they are totally wrong in this assumption/statement.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This article is about communism as a form of society, as an ideology advocating that form of society, and as a popular movement. For issues regarding the organization of the communist movement, see the Communist party article. For issues regarding one-party states ruled by Communist Parties (and everything associated with them), see Communist state.


This article is part of the
Communism series. edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:Communism&action=edit)

Schools of Communism

Marxism
Leninism
Trotskyism
Stalinism
Maoism
Left communism
Council communism
Anarcho-Communism
Eurocommunism

Communist states

Afghanistan (1978-1992)
Albania (1945-1990)
Angola (1975-1991)
Bulgaria (1946-1990)
Cambodia (1975-1991)
China (1949-present)
Cuba (1959-present)
Czechoslovakia (1948-1989)
East Germany (1949-1989)
Ethiopia (1974-1991)
Hungary (1947-1989)
Laos (1975-present)
Mongolia (1921-1992)
Mozambique (1975-1990)
North Korea (1948-present)
Poland (1945-1989)
Romania (1947-1989)
Somalia (1969-1991)
South Yemen (1969-1990)
Soviet Union (1917-1991)
Vietnam (1954/75-present)
Yugoslavia (1945-1992)

Other Articles

Communist Party
List of Parties
Bolsheviks
Soviet Communist Party
Chinese Communist Party
Comintern
October Revolution
Cominform
Warsaw Pact
Communist bloc
Comecon
Socialism
Planned economy
Anti-Communism


Communism is a term that can refer to one of several things: a certain social system, an ideology which supports that system, or a political movement that wishes to implement that system.

As a social system, communism would be a type of egalitarian society with no state, no private property and no social classes. In communism, all property is owned by the community as a whole, and all people enjoy equal social and economic status. Perhaps the best known principle of a communist society is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

As an ideology, the word communism is a synonym for Marxism and its various derivatives (most notably Marxism-Leninism). Among other things, Marxism proposes the Materialist Conception of History; there are four stages of economic development: Slavery, Feudalism, Capitalism, and Communism. These stages are advanced through a dialectical process, refining society as history progresses. This refinement is driven by class struggle. Communism is the final refinement as it will result in one class.

As a political movement, communism is a branch of the broader socialist movement. The communist movement differentiates itself from other branches of the socialist movement through various things - such as, for example, the communists' desire to establish a communist system after the socialist one, and their commitment to revolutionary strategies for overthrowing capitalism.
Contents [showhide]
1 "Communism" and other related terms

1.1 History of use of the word "communism"
1.2 "Communism" and "socialism"
1.3 Communism and "communist states"
1.4 Communism and Marxism
1.5 Communism and anarchism
1.6 Writing "Communism" or "communism"
2 Marxism and Leninism
3 Leninism versus Democratic Socialism
4 Stalinism versus Trotskyism
5 Other forms of communism
6 Critiques

6.1 Economic development
6.2 "Human nature"
6.3 Revolutionary violence
7 The Future of Communism
8 Related topics

8.1 Personalia
9 Further reading
10 External links

10.1 Online resources for original Marxist literature
10.2 Communist Parties
10.3 Other
[edit]

"Communism" and other related terms
The from the flag has become known as the international symbol of communism.
Enlarge
The hammer and sickle from the Soviet flag has become known as the international symbol of communism.
[edit]

History of use of the word "communism"

The words "communism" and "communist" first came into use in France after the Revolution of 1830. They began to enter common speech in the 1840s. In particular, in 1840, the first "communist banquet" was held in Paris. The term was also used to refer to supporters of Étienne Cabet, a utopian socialist. In French, the root of the word "communism" could be interpreted to refer both to a commune, a self-governing village or community, and to communauté, common ownership. The later Marxist use of the word "communism" contains elements from both interpretations. "Communism" came into usage in England through the French exile community and had a connotation of militancy, as opposed to the milder connotation of "socialism". This is why Marx and Engels chose to use "communism" in the title of the Communist Manifesto.
[edit]

"Communism" and "socialism"

Much confusion surrounds the words "communism" and "socialism", particularly in the United States. In terms of ideology and politics, communism is a sub-category of socialism. Communist ideology is a specific branch of socialist ideology and the communist movement is a specific branch of the larger socialist movement. A person who calls himself or herself a "communist" is a certain kind of socialist; in other words, all communists are socialists but not all socialists are communists. In terms of socio-economic systems, communism and socialism are two different things. For example, socialism involves the existence of a state, while communism does not. Socialism involves public ownership of the means of production and private ownership of everything else, while communism abolishes private ownership altogether.
[edit]

Communism and "communist states"

As noted several times above, a communist system does not involve the existence of a state. Thus, the term "communist state" is an oxymoron. No country ever called itself a "communist state" and no government ever claimed to have established a communist system (in fact, no government can ever claim to have established a communist system, since the very existence of that government shows that the system is not communist).

Nevertheless, there have been a number of countries ruled by Communist Parties, and those countries were often called "communist states" by people living in other parts of the world. They called themselves socialist countries, and their ruling Communist Parties claimed to have established a socialist, democratic system, with the aim of eventually reaching communism. However, these countries were generally not seen as democratic by anyone except their leadership, and were not seen as socialistic by any (non-communist) socialists living outside their borders. In fact, most socialists strongly opposed them. Due to these reasons (as well as a number of others), the term "communist states" was invented to refer to those countries.

However, the term "communist state" is itself quite inappropriate. Besides the problem noted above (the fact that "communist state" is technically an oxymoron), there is one further issue with this term: there were (and are) many communists who opposed the governments of those countries and who argued that their ruling parties were communist in name only. The best known of these dissenting communists are probably the Trotskyists.

A better term for "communist states" would be "states ruled by communist parties". But that name is generally considered too long to be practical. Another term could be "Stalinist states", since all of them were governed by communist parties that were either clearly Stalinist themselves or could trace their roots back to Stalinism.
[edit]

Communism and Marxism

Today, the term "communism" is almost universally identified with its specifically Marxist meaning(s). However, the idea of a stateless, propertyless and classless society is not exclusively Marxist. In fact, the idea is considered by some to be much older (see for example religious communism). It is therefore possible to support communism (or more exactly a communist/anarchist society) without being a Marxist. Nevertheless, most people who support revolutionary communism today are Marxists.
[edit]

Communism and anarchism

A communist system is essentially identical to the kind of society that is advocated by anarchism. However, unlike communists, the anarchists do not believe that any other stage is needed between capitalism and the society they wish to establish. In other words, the anarchists wish to implement communism right away, without going through socialism first. This, as well as fundamental disagreements over how capitalism should be overthrown, has resulted in a very deep rift between communists and anarchists. Their ultimate goal is the same, but their proposed methods for reaching it are extremely different.
[edit]

Writing "Communism" or "communism"

According to the 1996 third edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage, communism and derived words are written with the lowercase "c" except when they refer to a political party of that name, a member of that party, or a government led by such a party, in which case the word "Communist" is written with the uppercase "C".
[edit]

Marxism and Leninism

Although many small communist societies have existed throughout human history, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were the first to write down a theoretical (and, according to them, scientific) basis for communism. The political ideology they created, namely Marxism, became the chief advocate of communism in the modern world.

Marxism seeks to explain historical phenomena in terms of class struggle. According to Marxists, human society consists of a number of social classes, which are differentiated by their relationship to the means of production. For example, capitalist society consists of the bourgeoisie (the capitalists; those who own the means of production) and the proletariat (the workers; those who must work for wages in order to make a living, because they do not possess any means of production of their own). One social class is the ruling class, and it uses its wealth and power to exploit the other class(es). For example, in capitalism, the bourgeoisie exploits the proletariat by drawing a profit from the proletariat's work. According to the theory, a business owner's profit equals what the workers produce minus what the workers get paid - thus, in order for the owner to make a profit, the workers must get paid less than what they deserve; see surplus value. Eventually, one of the exploited classes rises up to overthrow the ruling class and the existing system, establishing itself as the new ruling class of a new system (for example, capitalism was established when the bourgeoisie overthrew feudalism and the feudal ruling class - the aristocracy).

According to the theory, class struggle is the engine of a cycle in which socio-economic systems are created, destroyed and replaced. Marxism identifies several systems that have been created and destroyed by it since the beginning of human history. However, social classes - and therefore class struggle - have not always existed. They were created at the dawn of human civilization, when nomadic tribes first settled down and started practicing agriculture. Before that, human beings lived in a kind of classless society that can be described as primitive communism. Primitive communism ended when agriculture created the conditions for private ownership of the means of production (which, at that time, simply meant private ownership of cultivated land). This differentiated people into land owners and those who needed to work other people's land for a living, and this in turn resulted in the slave-based system of the ancient world. That system eventually gave way to feudalism, which eventually gave way to capitalism.

According to Marxism, the class struggle within capitalism will eventually lead to the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie and establishing socialism. Socialism, in turn, will result in the gradual fading of social classes (as the means of production are made public property), which will lead to the final stage of human society - communism.

And that is the Marxist foundation for communism. Communism cannot change into another system because class struggle - the mechanism that drives such changes - no longer exists.

Within Marxism, there are several different trends. The largest of these trends is Leninism, which was based on the writings and actions of Vladimir Lenin. According to Lenin, capitalism can only be overthrown by a proletarian revolution, not by parliamentary means. Furthermore, in opposition to Marx, Lenin argued that the revolution would occur first in the less developed nations, and that it would require a "vanguard of the proletariat" composed of a relatively small, tightly organized Communist Party of workers de-classed intellectuals (see the article on Leninism for an explanation of the differences between Lenin and Marx, and their basis).

Most (but by no means all) present-day communists are of the Leninist variety.
[edit]

Leninism versus Democratic Socialism

As explained above, according to Marxism, the laws of class struggle would drive capitalism to evolve into socialism and then, eventually, into communism. However, Marx never claimed to know exactly how long this process would take, and Marxists have often made very different speculations on the subject. Some of the more optimistic ones believed that capitalism would begin to fall apart by the beginning of the 20th century. But as the years around 1900 came and went, with capitalist society showing no signs of collapse, these Marxists began to search for an explanation.

Some eventually concluded that a socialist society could be created without revolution, and could be brought about through the process of reforming existing capitalist institutions. This ideology became known as democratic socialism (not to be confused with social democracy) and formed the basis on which a number of political parties were founded, including the Social Democratic Party of Germany and the British Labour Party.

Others, however - including people such as Vladimir Lenin and Rosa Luxembourg - argued that Marx had failed to analyze capitalism as a global system (since he had concentrated on the issue of how capitalism works and develops inside a single country). They looked at the larger picture, and concluded that capitalism was entering a new stage (called "imperialism" by Lenin), in which rich countries colonized and exploited poorer ones (in much the same way as the rich exploited the poor within a single country). Therefore, a revolution in the poor countries - or a world revolution - was needed in order to begin the process of overthrowing capitalism and moving towards socialism (with the final aim of reaching communism). This ideology became known as Leninism, and formed the basis on which the political parties of the Communist International were founded.

Thus, by the 1920s, Marxism had split into three distinct branches: The "classical" Marxists (those who held the original 19th century Marxist views), the Democratic Socialists and the Leninists.

It was the Leninist branch of Marxism that used the terms "communism" and "communist" most extensively. All political parties calling themselves "The Communist Party of [country]" were/are Leninist parties.
[edit]

Stalinism versus Trotskyism

In the early 1930's, Leninism itself fractured in two distinct branches: Stalinism and Trotskyism. The reasons for this split revolved around the controversial policies of Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union. Previous to Stalin's rise to power, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union functioned on a democratic system (known as democratic centralism) and members were encouraged to form their own opinions. It was believed that freedom of speech and diversity helped strengthen the Party (and Soviet society in general). As such, a number of different currents of opinion formed within the Communist Party. The two most prominent of these were headed by Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky, respectively. Stalin argued for the consolidation of socialism in one country (even one as underdeveloped as Russia was at that time) and claimed that, due to the aggravation of class struggle along with the development of socialism, it was necessary to enforce strict Party discipline and eliminate all political dissent. Trotsky argued that the fate of socialism in the Soviet Union depended on the fate of socialist and communist revolutions around the world (therefore supporting the thesis of permanent revolution), and claimed that Stalin's authoritarian practices were harmful and dangerous (therefore calling for more democracy, both inside the Party and throughout the Soviet Union in general).

Stalin eventually succeeded in gaining full control of the Party and the Soviet government. He went ahead with his policies, which became known as Stalinism. Trotsky and his supporters organized into the so-called Left Opposition, and their platform became known as Trotskyism. However, their attempts to remove Stalin from power failed. Stalin imprisoned, executed or exiled all dissenters - especially the Trotskyists. Trotsky himself was exiled, and eventually assassinated in Mexico in 1940 by a Stalinist agent.

After World War II and during the Cold War, Stalinism spread to a number of new countries, and gave rise to a few different branches of its own. No country was ever ruled by Trotskyists.
[edit]

Other forms of communism

Many communist societies (communes) have existed throughout history, and many non-Marxist (or pre-Marxist) Western intellectuals advocated ideas quite similar to what is today known as communism.

The first Christians, as well as many later groups of monks and nuns, lived in communities organized according to communist-like principles. These early groups shared some elements in common with communism but were not completely identical. The individuals of these groups held no property of their own, thereby allowing the community as a whole to hold all property in common; in this way, a classless community was possible. Along with this similarity, there also exist several key elements that differentiate many of these groups from communism. Primarily their free will was considered priceless and any attempt to marginalize it would have quickly been thwarted; and they did possess a form of a state, or ruling authority with varying degrees of hierarchy. See religious communism for more information.

Thomas More's 16th-century work Utopia depicted a society organised along communist lines.

Ideas of communal ownership evolved during the Enlightenment, exerting varying amounts of influence on the philosophes. The greatest of these influences were on Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the abbé de Mably, Morelly (whose thoughts extensively influenced the French Revolution, in particular the Jacobins) and other revolutionary egalitarian clubs embodied in persons like Jean Paul Marat.

Many 19th-century idealists, disgusted by the ongoing oppression and mass poverty created by the Industrial Revolution, broke away from society to form short-lived communal "utopias". An example was Robert Owen's New Harmony community in Indiana. People who believe that communism can be implemented in such a way are called utopian socialists by Marxists.

The French philosopher Étienne Cabet, in his book "Voyage et aventures de lord William Carisdall en Icarie" ("Travel and adventures of lord William Carisdall in Icaria") (1840), depicted an ideal society in which an elected government controlled all economic activity and supervised social affairs, the family remaining the only other independent unit. In 1848 he attempted to organize Icarian communities in the United States. His efforts were mostly in vain, but small Icarian communities existed even after his death, until 1898.

The short-lived Paris Commune (1871) was arguably the main example followed by revolutionaries of the early 20th Century, and also the largest historical example of a communist society. The Communards held Paris for two months against Prussian/ German and French government soldiers. The Commune passed various laws reducing the power of property owners, such as canceling rents and debts, before being bloodily suppressed. Marx later criticized the Commune for being too timid to secure its own survival, but praised it as the first successful revolution of the working class.

Today, a small number of people, primarily from industrialized nations, have, like the Owenites, opted to "drop out" of the existing society, preferring to live on communes of their own design. This movement saw its zenith during the counter-culture phenomenon of the 1960s and 70s in the West, and such people have been characterized as new bohemians or hippies.

Also in the present day, the tradition of communism continues in the form of Israeli kibbutzim although these communes have moved away from the communistic ideal and now allow degrees of individual ownership and capitalist production. The first Christians, as well as many later groups of monks and nuns, Amish-like religious groups ang religious kibbutzim, lived in communities organized according to communist-like principles. See religious communism for more information.
[edit]

Critiques

Critiques of "communist states" are to be found at: Communist state - Criticism and Advocacy.
[edit]

Economic development

Critics of communism say it would be impossible for a communist society to plan its own economy.

People who believe in the subjective theory of value (STV) think that theoretically, in a capitalist system, scarce skills and resources are rationed by prices that reflect relative scarcity of the resources and competing demands. In their view, in a Soviet-style planned economy prices can send the wrong signals to consumers and planners, resulting in decisions that don't reflect the choices they would make if they knew the actual costs and competing demands for those resources.

This is not how communists view the capitalist system. To communists, placing value in a commodity instead of in the labor necessary to create that commodity is commodity fetishism. Values do not reflect scarcity but the necessary and homogenous labor time embedded in a commodity. Prices do not "send signals", since they simply reflect an exchange of commodities with an equal amount of homogeneous and necessary labor time congealed in them. Markets do not simplify planning or improve quality or efficiency because such decisions are made in the production of a commodity, not the exchange of it.

To understand the STV objection to communism, it is necessary to unravel the ambiguities of the word "plan". Of course, people and institutions plan very elaborate and far-sighted projects within a capitalist context. Nobody questions that human beings possess the rationality necessary to plan a skyscraper, for example.

But the critics of communism say that the planning of a skyscraper (the blueprints, sitting, delivery schedule for materials) all typically takes place within a capitalist/contractual context. In their view, investors contract to buy stock or bonds in a development company. That company hires sub-contractors. The terms for the raw materials are haggled out with suppliers, etc. -- in the STV view, all subject to the rise or fall of prices and alternative investment possibilities for various parties.

Critics of communism contend that the implementation of communism in the sense described above would involve supplanting precisely these market and contract conditions that make planning possible. In the STV view it would be planning instead of haggling, rather than planning within the context of haggling. That is what they contend is not practicable.

Communists would respond that nothing mentioned here would constitute any kind of roadblock in a communist society. While communists do not "write recipes for the cookshops of future"[1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm) communist societies, they claim that projects such as Linux, Amish barn-raisings and societies of the sort Karl Marx called "primitive communist" are 'communist-like' examples of how communist planning might work, from a small to large scale. As far as the idea that prices rise and fall, communists would say that prices simply reflect necessary homogenous congealed labor time, and claim that absent innovations in production, prices generally remain stable relative to one another.

Critics of communism would respond that since communist prices do not reflect the scarcity of the raw materials or the consumer demand for the products, one could easily end up with a Stakhanovite drive to build as many skyscrapers as possible, with a consequent blotting out of the sky with empty buildings, and a shortage of steel and other resources that might have been very useful if market prices had allowed them to be redirected elsewhere.
[edit]

"Human nature"

Objectivists, who see self-interested behavior as itself a moral ideal and identical to rationality, claim that communism removes incentives necessary for human productivity. They argue that communism ignores (or is wrong about) "human nature." Communists, however, take the view that self-interest is a function of the material conditions of society and if the material conditions change so that competition and greed is no longer necessary to survive, human nature will change accordingly.
[edit]

Revolutionary violence

If capitalism is to be overthrown in a revolution, then a socialist revolution could be costly in terms of human lives. Communist revolutionaries argue that the violent or non- violent character of a revolution is not determined solely by the revolutionaries, but also by the owners of the means of production who have a stake in capitalism, and the government tied to the ruling classes. They also argue that capitalism itself is violent, naming such events or eras as chattel slavery in the United States, Jim Crow, genocide directed at American Indians, the Vietnam War, and (although this time often with approval) referencing the bloody revolutions that established capitalism and broke down the feudal order.
[edit]

The Future of Communism

As with all attempts to foresee the future, it is difficult to tell with any degree of confidence what is in store for communism. And, of course, any prediction depends on which "communism" we are talking about (the social system, the ideology, or the political movement).

As a political movement, made up of parties and individuals that consider themselves communist, communism is tied up practically and ideologically with the labor movement and the anti-globalization movement. The tide of the communist movement can generally be gauged by the success of the labor and anti-globalization movements.

Outside of the industrialized core of developed nations, the communist movement takes on legal and extra-legal dimensions. There are several dozen guerrilla groups in the world which identify themselves as communist in one form or another. In places like Peru, the Philippines, Nepal, and Southeast Asia, the success of communism can be gauged by the success of guerrilla wars. In countries with strong Communist Parties, such as India and Russia, the success of communism can be gauged by the success of those political parties.

As far as "communist states" are concerned, there are five countries still ruled by Communist Parties belonging to the Marxist-Leninist tradition: the People's Republic of China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos and Vietnam. However, the experiences of these five states have starkly diverged, especially since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. On the one hand, Cuba and North Korea were hit hard by the lack of Soviet economic assistance, trade and military support. On the other hand, the world's other three remaining communist states (all in East Asia) were far less dependent on Soviet subsidies (and in China's case, not at all, given the Sino-Soviet Split) at the time of the collapse of the Warsaw Pact.

Following the lead of China under Deng Xiaoping whose encouragement in rhetoric and policy of wealth creation was neatly summarized by his exhortation "poverty is not socialism, to get rich is glorious"[2] (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030806-092219-3953r.htm), Vietnam and Laos have moved away from Soviet-style centralized planning, in favour of a private market economy that (at least in China's case) is very difficult to distinguish from outright capitalism. China has been particularly aggressive in its pursuit of "socialism with Chinese characteristics," even to the point of admitting entrepreneurs to the Communist Party. Therefore, China today is generally regarded as being capitalist de facto, with just a little higher degree of government control than is seen in conventional capitalist countries. Many Marxists also regard the other four remaining "communist states" as being state-capitalist rather than socialist.
[edit]

Related topics

* Anarchism
* Anti-communism
* Communist state
* Communist party
* Council communism
* De Leonism
* Eurocommunism
* Festa del' unità
* Left communism
* Leninism
* Libertarian socialism
* Maoism
* Marxism
* Political models
* Post-Communism
* Situationism
* Socialism
* Stalinism
* Syndicalism
* Trotskyism

[edit]

Personalia

* List of socialists
* List of Trotskyists
* Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels
* Rosa Luxemburg
* Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Joseph Stalin
* Antonio Gramsci
* Mao Zedong
* Ho Chi Minh
* Fidel Castro, Che Guevara
* Salvador Allende
* Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin (libertarian socialism)
* Daniel De Leon

[edit]

Further reading

* Rodney Carlisle and James H. Lide, Complete Idiot's Guide to Communism, Alpha Books (http://www.idiotsguides.com/), March, 2002, trade paperback, 362 pages, ISBN 0028643143
* Francois and Deborah Furet, Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century, University of Chicago Press, 1999, hardcover, 506 pages, ISBN 0226273407

[edit]

External links
[edit]

Online resources for original Marxist literature

* Marxists Internet Archive (http://www.marxists.org)
* Marxist.net (http://www.marxist.net)
* Theses on Feuerbach (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm?title=)
* Principles of Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm?title=)
* The Communist Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm?title=)
* The Civil War in France (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm?title=)
* Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm?title=)
* Reform or Revolution? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/works/1896/960126.htm)
* What is to be Done? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/index.htm?title=)
* One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1904/onestep/index.htm?title=)
* Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/two-tact/index.htm?title=)
* Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/index.htm?title=)
* The Right of Nations to Self-Determination (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/index.htm?title=)
* Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm?title=)
* The State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm?title=)
* The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/miliprog/index.htm?title=)
* The Tasks of the Proletariat In Our Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/tasks/index.htm?title=)
* Communism is not exactly dead! (http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/en_index.html)
* Economic and social roots of Communism (http://samvak.tripod.com/pp61.html)

[edit]

Communist Parties

Communist parties are too numerous and diverse to list here. See List of Communist parties.
[edit]

Other

* Che-Lives (http://www.che-lives.com/) - a Web site dedicated to Che Guevara, featuring the Internet's largest leftist, and particularly communist, forum (http://www.che-lives.com/forum).



Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism"

Someone 036 put the h-link to your article on the forum Free Conservatives. They acted disgracefully, completely ignoring your argument that the leaders never intended to bring about communism and just went on about how bad the USSR, China, etc. were. Some of them didn't even do this just gave dumb ass insults. The more time goes on the more I realise that some people make a conscious decision to ignore the viewpoints of others.

you really need to read this entire thread before you say you know what communist/socialists believe

you really need to read this entire thread before you say you know what communist/socialists believe