From RationalWiki

The hammer and sickle, a common commie symbol.

“ ” From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. —Slogan popularised by Karl Marx.[1]

Communism is a far-left ideology whose followers[2] believe that a better society would be structured around common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state.[3] Its most familiar form(s) are informed by Marxist theory, which posits that history moves through stages driven by class conflict. This analysis maintains that feudalism, led by aristocrats, was transformed through class conflict with the bourgeoisie (those who own the means of production, typically upper middle class and above) into capitalism, and that the capitalism forged through bourgeois victory will in turn, through class conflict with the proletariat (working class), lead to the creation of a socialist society when the proletariat takes the means of production from the bourgeoisie, effectively ending all class distinctions as society transitions into communism.[4]

Modern communist thought took shape in 19th century Europe, when appalling working conditions and low wages were the norm and brought Europe to the brink of large-scale revolution.[5] These worsening social tensions made communism a serious challenge to the status quo and gained it a wide popular support base. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels predicted that capitalism would simply become more and more oppressive in response to communism and eventually result in revolution, but this linear process did not happen.

During the 20th century, the arrival of more progressive and left-leaning governments and the development of a social safety net helped to diminish economic inequality in much of the developed world, which undermined much of communist dogma. Additionally, various regimes claiming to be communist devolved into totalitarian and atrocity-ridden dictatorships. These dictatorships often left mass graves. Towards the end of the century, most of the Soviet-aligned communist regimes fell due to a combination of Cold War pressures, popular protests and strikes, economic problems, and Mikhail Gorbachev's liberalization policies.[6] Meanwhile, many former followers of Marx and Engels such as Eduard Bernstein abandoned communism and turned to social democratic politics.

Communism in the modern era is largely discredited, and few nations even claim to still adhere to it.[7] Almost all that do have introduced market reforms to liberalize their economies to varying extents.[8][9][10]

That being said, many of the non-shitty forms of communism still survive, not sharing the stain of the dictatorships that historically existed. There are non-authoritarian non-murderous forms of communism, which is why modern communists don't warrant the same immediate hostility that fascists deserve.

Communism in theory

Early forms

Communism, as a political philosophy, advocating the communal ownership of property and abolition of commodity production, has been around almost since the dawn of politics, even the dawn of time. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels argued that early hunter-gatherer societies represent primitive communism. Such societies had no social classes or forms of capital.[11] Many religious groups and other utopian communities throughout history have practiced it on a small scale as well.

The French revolutionary Gracchus Babeuf has been called "the first revolutionary communist" and was killed for conspiring against the First French Republic during the French Revolution.[12]

Marxism

Monument to Marx and Engels in China.

The most (in)famous form of communism is derived from the ideas of Karl Marx. Marx, who had studied the German idealist Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, attempted to turn Hegel's idealism on its head in his own philosophy; he did something similar to the earlier communist ideas by attempting to take out the idealism and give them a materialistic footing (what later came to be called "dialectical materialism").

Marx himself is quoted as saying that "If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist" in relation to how his ideas were being misunderstood or misapplied.[13] However, a set of core beliefs called "Marxist" can certainly be ascribed to Marx, most notably the overthrow of capitalism, rejection of reformism, emphasis on the importance of socio-economic factors and class conflict in history, and the rejection of religious or semi-religious justifications for the existing order.[14] Marxism can also be differentiated from other branches of socialism by its insistence on "scientific socialism".[15] Marx believed his contemporary socialists making arguments based on morality and justice (the sort attacked by Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific) were missing the point entirely, to the extent that he reportedly would burst out laughing when anyone tried to talk to him about morality. For Marx, the contradictions inherent in the capitalist system made the emergence of socialism (and thus eventually communism) an inevitability. He saw himself as a scientist analysing the development of the political economy of his time, not a moralist agitating for its abolition.

Marx initially rejected the reformist tactics and goals of social democrats in his Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League in 1850.[16] Specifically, he argued that measures designed to increase wages, improve working conditions and provide welfare payments would be used to dissuade the working class away from socialism and the revolutionary consciousness he believed was necessary to achieve a socialist economy and would thus be a threat to genuine structural changes to society by making the conditions of workers in capitalism more tolerable through reform and welfare schemes. Marx's view on labor reform matured as he developed his thought and he later expressed disagreement with French workers' leaders Jules Guesde and Paul Lafargue on this point.[17] Accusing Guesde and Lafargue of 'revolutionary phrase-mongering' and of denying the value of reformist struggles, Marx made his famous remark that, if their politics represented Marxism, he wasn't a Marxist.

The Marxist view of society focuses on economic and class relationships and the role of the workers, or proletariat. Marx theorized that human society develops from primitive communism to a slave society, then to feudalism, and then, after feudalism ceases to be productive, to capitalism. He claimed that capitalism, in a similar manner, leads to socialism, since once it is developed enough, the proletariat will be an organized force capable of revolution: "What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers."

A workers' revolution having brought about the "dictatorship of the proletariat,"[note 1] the State would "wither away," bringing in communism, this being defined as a classless and stateless form of social organization. Marx was not deterministic, though he does occasionally seem as such, he believed that socialists would have to actively help educate the workers, and fight for a revolution, rather than it just happening automatically, though crises and such would aid it. The Communist Manifesto[18] was his statement of purpose, though he later called parts of it (especially the ten generally applicable points for "advanced societies") antiquated. It was mainly a propagandistic document, and thus did not go into detail in terms of economic theory, as does his later work, Das Kapital.[19] However, one thing that Marx made an explicit warning about was that attempts to do this in a society that had not yet undergone an Industrial Revolution would most likely backfire, which brings us to...

Leninism

Tearing down a statue of Lenin.

“ ” Dictatorship is rule based directly upon force and unrestricted by any laws. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is rule won and maintained by the use of violence by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws. —Vladimir Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky (1918).[20]

Vladimir Lenin, leading the Russian Revolution, paid large amounts of lip service to Marx, while instead taking more ideas from Blanquism (even though Marx hadn't thought too highly of the chances of revolution from a feudalistic society, and had coined the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to differentiate from the Blanquist minority dictatorship) and declared open class warfare on the bourgeoisie (and that he would bring "Peace, Bread and Land!"), in an attempt to take power. Lenin jumped the gun by leading a communist revolution with a small group of intellectuals without waiting for a significant working class to develop, trying to jumpstart a socialist state by "skipping" an entire step in the process Marx had described. In Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism,[21] Lenin argued that foreign capital intervention in backward countries (colonies and economic dependents) created the conditions for socialist revolution, which was contrary to what the Mensheviks thought (that the Revolution in Russia should first impose capitalism as a way for socialism to develop).[22] Lenin was basically asking: "Why would you need to make a revolution to put a capitalist system when capitalism is already here?" Russia, although a mostly peasant and backward country, had developed over the years a significant working class in the cities. Lenin saw this as the basis for the revolution in which workers and peasants would unite against the monarchy and the Bourgeoisie.

This would become known as Leninism, a sort of forced Marxism on steroids, in which a small yet significant group of leaders, known as a vanguard, ensured "two revolutions for the price of one" by "telescoping" the capitalist and communist revolutions and took over the state and industry. In Leninism, the revolutionary party would lead the revolution. This party would be "the voluntary selection of the most advanced, more aware, more selfless and more active workers", which would handle the socialist state and transform society into "communism" (as the beginning of the idea of socialism and communism being different stages of revolution originated mainly from Lenin). Crucially, this idea of a vanguard party was a big criticism of left-wing socialists to the "mass" party structure of most socialist organizations, which had become a huge bureaucratic apparatus, with thousands of leased politicians and union officials who exercised absolute control of the press and labor organizations that adhered to socialism. A soviet state was established and opposition on both right and left fomented and soon exploded into the brutal Russian Civil War, which in practice, and mainly due to the harsh conditions faced by Lenin and his supporters (German invasion and civil war), resulted in elevating the Bolsheviks to become a new elite within Russia, while the workers and peasants —the same people the Bolsheviks claimed to represent— were subjected to the same dictatorial control as in the Tsar's regime.

There was a total of one democratic election in Russia after the October Revolution, and when the Bolsheviks lost out to the moderate and liberal parties (the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks), they sent in the Red Guard and closed the Constituent Assembly.[23] It is true that Lenin's ideas (especially applying planned economy principles to agriculture) didn't really work, but though some reforms were suggested, Lenin and Trotsky killed most of those suggesting them. Then Lenin died.

Stalinism vs. Trotskyism

“ ” Stalin is a Genghis Khan, an unscrupulous intriguer, who sacrifices everything else to the preservation of power... He changes his theories according to whom he needs to get rid of next. —Nikolai Bukharin, 1928.[24]

The popular appeal of the revolutionary wave begun by the Russian Revolution understandably fell short in nations sporting a social democratic option — in Hungary, the government persecuted the communist leaders. In Italy, the communists didn't seize power and instead managed to indirectly pave way for Benito Mussolini (who started out as a far-leftist[25]), while in Germany the powers-that-be-outright murdered the revolutionaries Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht[26] (aided by the Freikorps, which would later become the basis of the Nazi party). Additionally, the Soviet Union's first experiment in spreading communism by force, the 1919 Polish-Soviet War, had ended in embarrassing failure.[27]

All of these factors meant that the Russian Revolution was becoming more isolated. Meanwhile, the notorious thug and military leader Joseph Stalin used his personal fame to gather supporters inside the Soviet Union's Party bureaucracy, eventually becoming General Secretary.[28] As General Secretary, Stalin ensured that he was one of the only people allowed to see Lenin after his stroke, and he used that position to ensure that he became the new leader of the country.

Stalin felt that the failure of just about all communist revolutions in Europe meant that the Soviet Union should focus on strengthening itself internally before attempting to spread its ideology; this idea became known as "Socialism in One Country."[29] This pitted Stalin not only against the previous position of the Bolsheviks, but also against his greatest rival Leon Trotsky. Trotsky thought that the nature of a world market meant that no socialist revolution could survive on its own in one country, and that therefore the Soviet Union needed to assist communists in other countries in order to ensure its long term survival.[30] Trotsky's doctrine of "international socialism" eventually, as every communist knows, earned him an ice axe in the brain courtesy of one of Stalin's assassins.[31]

After winning out against Trotsky, Stalin became one of the most brutal dictators in world history. He was a hammer, and he treated his entire country like a nail in his relentless quest for personal power. He went after his rivals, then his own comrades, then everyone else he didn't like. He was aided by the fact that Lenin had abolished democracy and implemented Party dictatorship while ushering in politics of fear.[32]

Stalin's brutality against other leftists had terrifying consequences abroad as well. Leftist infighting in Germany weakened them all, and they were all subsequently shoved into concentration camps by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. In Spain, Stalin's zigzags with France and the UK and his policy of persecuting Trotskyists and anarchists meant that the Soviet-supported republican faction was too busy fighting itself to fight the fascists, indirectly helping Franco win the war.[33] With each defeat suffered, a socialist revolution in Europe was more improbable and the chances of another World War starting seemed more likely, thus Stalin's government grew more and more tyrannical with each day. So not only was the great Soviet experiment failing, Stalin stepped in and ensured it never would recover.

Maoism

Backyard steel furnaces during the Great Leap Forward.

See the main article on this topic: Maoism

“ ” Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' —Mao Zedong, 1938.[34]

Mao Zedong's particularly gruesome take on Marxism easily ranks as the most devastating attempt to establish a Communist society, as far as the total number of human casualties is concerned. Having taken over mainland China in 1949, he developed a branch of Communist theory that was supposed to address China's specific circumstances, commonly referred to as "Mao Zedong thought." Since China was a mostly agrarian country without a solid industrial base, it lacked the distinct class of urban factory workers that, according to Marxism, were theoretically necessary to form any kind of revolutionary force. Hence, Mao's take on communism had two primary differences from others. First, Mao focused on the millions of impoverished Chinese peasants as the backbone of the revolution.[35] Additionally, Maoism called for a much greater emphasis on the organized military, which resulted in Mao using the army as a hammer against his political enemies as well as greater Chinese nationalism.[35]

Mao spent much of his rule flying by the seat of his pants in terms of ideology and planning. Mao initially tried following the Stalinist economic model, but he and his advisors reacted negatively to the consequential creation of a managerial and technocratic elite.[35] Deciding to focus on peasants instead, Mao ordered a vast industrialization program that was supposed to transform China's agrarian economy into a much more advanced one. This project, called the "Great Leap Forward", hoped to create an industrial society that focused on manpower more than machines; hence the "backyard steel furnaces" phenomenon.[36] As a result of the incompetent attempt to shift peasants from farming to steelworking, China's economy crashed and around 45 million people starved to death.[37] After being sidelined as a result of this failure, Mao eventually launched yet another attempt at a rapid societal transformation in a bid to reestablish himself as the undisputed leader of China. Starting in 1966, his so-called "Great Cultural Revolution" again toppled China into chaos, as a fanatic youth movement set out to destroy Chinese traditional culture and the supposed last vestiges of the old elites.[38] In practice, it was a reign of terror that consisted of completely random attacks against anyone and anything that drew the suspicion of the frenzied "Red Guards," among them no small number of their own operatives.

Mao Zedong and his legacy.

Apart from China itself, several Communist movements in Southeast Asia, Central Asia and Latin America claimed an explicit adherence to Maoism. Despite significant political differences, Cambodia's Khmer Rouge was considered almost a recreation of Mao's Chinese Communist party (down to the extreme, culturally motivated purges).[39] However, many such parties are no longer exclusively agrarian in focus, placing a dual emphasis on both rural and urban workers.

"Dengism"

“ ” Socialism and market economy are not incompatible... We should be concerned about right-wing deviations, but most of all, we must be concerned about left-wing deviations. —Deng Xiaoping.[40]

Since he had brought the country to the brink of ruin, Maoist ideology was mostly discredited as an actual guideline for governing the nation. Mao's eventual successor, Deng Xiaoping, effectively abandoned it by promoting pragmatic developmental policies, so that today's China is a booming capitalist economy ruled by a totalitarian oligarchy.[41] However, because of Mao's status as a larger-than-life figure in Chinese politics and especially the CCP, Maoism is, for now, upheld as a part of "Deng Xiaoping Theory".[42]

It is extremely important to note that economic liberalization did not result in more political or civil freedoms for the Chinese people. Deng oversaw the Tiananmen Square Massacre, a brutal crackdown on student protesters, the political fallout of which transformed his reform agenda into a post-Soviet style wealth grab by members of the Party.[43] The Chinese economy now represents the worst excesses of capitalism combined with the structural brokenness of the old communist system. China now relies heavily on aggressive jingoistic nationalism to motivate its people.[44]

Communism as implemented

What was espoused by Karl Marx differs greatly from how it has been put into practice; indeed, there has never been (and may never be) a "pure" communist society based solely on Marx's ideals, due to the most visible "communist" states being single party states applying the theory of Lenin rather than Marx himself. Much of this is certainly attributable to the fact that Marx left a great deal of his work unfinished, and that Vladimir Lenin engaged in a campaign to rectify this by making a complete worldview out of Marx's philosophy — what was later called Leninism (Marxism-Leninism, contrary to its name was not developed by Lenin but rather by Stalin after Lenin's death[45]). However, Lenin also deviated a good deal from what Marx had said, as detailed above.

General problems

Experience of the 20th century also showed that the vanguardist revolutionary method, as espoused by Lenin's misinterpretation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, conceived as a means of defending the revolution, led not to the annihilation of the state, but to its reinforcement and degeneration into state capitalism and totalitarianism. This has become rather a touchy subject to bring up, [46] This isn't the case for every leftist government; some have historically managed to stay respectful of rights and democracy (e.g., in Moldova and Cyprus) and that it is not uncommon for communist parties to govern as part of broader left-wing coalitions (e.g., the French Popular Front in the 1930s and the communist wing of the African National Congress). However, these governments and coalitions have all been constrained by liberal-democratic, non-communist constitutions guaranteeing free speech, free elections, and the right to dissent.

Crimes against humanity

Totalitarian communist governments have been responsible for a great many mass slaughters, often considered genocides. Prominent examples include:

In the Soviet Union during the leadership of Joseph Stalin, millions of Ukrainians starved to death. Debate continues over whether this was intentional or the result of the general incompetence of Soviet agricultural policy, as the Holodomor happened in the context of a broader Soviet famine. [53] Later, Stalin railroaded approximately a million people to their deaths in the Great Purge of 1936-1938, with millions more sent to gulags. [54] Through a combination of starvation, labor camps, and outright massacre, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge killed between 1.7 and 2.5 million people 1975 and 1979. [55] The death toll from the Great Leap Forward in China under Mao Zedong has ranged from 18 million to (as previously mentioned) 45 million, [56] as a consequence of economic upheavals caused by the government's attempts to "modernize" the country. Millions more died in the violence of the Cultural Revolution. And that's not mentioning the Soviet Union's various proxy wars against the USA across the globe.



Final remnants

Communism shakes hands with capitalism.

As it stands, there are only a few remaining nation-states which proclaim themselves Communist, and it is obvious without comment how well the judgement of history will handle them. These systems are:

Is communism at all workable?

Warning: Historical hazard. Please dispose of properly.

It depends on what you mean by "communism" and what you mean by "workable."

Current status

Certainly, while the 20th century Marxist-Leninist states had some bright spots like the Soviet Union's industrialization and investment in science and space exploration, they also left a trail of blood and pollution in their wake. Their legacy of failure is also hard to ignore. China can hardly be called communist anymore and now more closely resembles a far-right authoritarian state, while the Soviet experiment was destroyed by Stalin's brutality and put out of its misery by the Gorbachev reforms.

Previous experiments in communism, whether fundamentally capitalist (Jamestown, VA) or utopian (the Oneida community) lasted only for a couple of generations at most before being torn apart by internal dissent.[note 3] In addition, the confusion of Communism and the politics of the Warsaw Pact community has essentially stained the name of communism, to the point that even if it was tweaked into a workable form, we'd have to find some other name for it.

It's also worth noting not all post-communist states successfully transitioned into democracy and capitalist economies. For instance, many former Warsaw Pact states underwent economic shock therapy and massive privatization programs, which led to periods of massive wealth gap, unemployment, and loss of social welfare, while in other cases, communist politicians simply rebranded themselves as social democrats and continued to run the show, with many gobbling up former state-owned enterprises for themselves. Yugoslavia disintegrated into a series of wars over ethnic and religious lines, and Boris Yeltsin ran Russia like a circus by introducing widely unpopular economic reforms, creating a new class of oligarchs and unemployment as high as 40%. These economic uncertainties, along with events such as the 2008 economic crisis and the current European refugee crisis, led to many disillusioned people longing for the good old days under communism, and in other cases, elect authoritarian strongmen such as Russia's Vladimir Putin and Hungary's Viktor Orbán.

Critics of Communism tend to fault it for its hyper-idealistic egalitarianism, based on the assumption that a state set up to fade away is a sitting target for authoritarians and slackers, and also assuming that there would be no incentive to excel in any given field. In addition, the planned economy aspects of Soviet Communism in particular have consistently failed, due to an ideology that proved unable to react to the slightest outside changes.

Viability?

The question then becomes this: what does this "great apostasy" say about the viability of Marxism? Opinions run the gamut:

Some (George Orwell, for example [note 4] ) say that Marxism's highly theoretical and dogmatic nature can cause its more enthusiastic devotees to become isolated from the proletariat at large — thus almost ensuring that any successful communist takeover will result in a dictatorship of some sort.

) say that Marxism's highly theoretical and dogmatic nature can cause its more enthusiastic devotees to become isolated from the proletariat at large — thus almost ensuring that any successful communist takeover will result in a dictatorship of some sort. Some argue that the tendency of communists to only look at society in terms of classes and to only care about the well-being of the "underclass" while being highly dismissive, if not contemptuous, of those who fall into the category of the "overclass", nearly ensures mass slaughter and/or repression would come about by a communist takeover due to the obvious problems with declaring a good chunk of society is essentially "free game" during a revolution merely for being members of the wrong class. [note 5] Also, this analysis does not take individual rights into consideration but only what is good for the underclass as a whole, whose very nature is often conveniently defined by communist leaders themselves (i.e. often translating to "those who agree with us"). [65]

Also, this analysis does not take individual rights into consideration but only what is good for the underclass as a whole, whose very nature is often conveniently defined by communist leaders themselves (i.e. often translating to "those who agree with us"). Some claim that while communism had its uses at the time, the nature of modern economies — even if you were able to separate the human rights issues — make it quickly outdated and solely the domain of moonbats. Having full state control of the economy can be workable and even helpful when your economy is small and dysfunctional, but when it starts growing the central bureaucracy grows increasingly incompetent at managing the affairs of the economy. Command economies very often follow the pattern of first causing mass deprivation and starvation, then growing rapidly with attendant increases in life expectancy, then stalling, then collapsing or stagnating, necessitating the introduction of market reforms.

Some suggest that Marxism is by itself just a relatively harmless pile of bullshit, especially as concerns economics, but it can easily be hijacked by a dictatorial methodology like Leninism, so that when its economic methods do not work, anyone who tries to point out that the Emperor has no clothes on can be conveniently silenced.

Some (greatly reduced in number since the Soviet gravy train derailed) continue to support the core ideas of Marxism, and continue to work toward the proletarian revolution using a wide variety of methodologies, in sure and certain hope of the pure communist society to come. [note 6]

Some reject Marxism in its original form but think the core ideas — such as class struggles (generalized into conflict theory) and the comparatively idyllic world spoiled by the ascendancy of one of these classes — are still worthwhile. Indeed, Marxist historical analysis, a distinctly different beast from communism in and of itself, is generally considered a useful tool for understanding quite a bit of history.

Also, although state-imposed collectivism did not work out so well, private corporations run as collectives[note 7] do slightly better than companies based on a more traditional hierarchy, and even if Marx was somewhat naive about economics (and, in hindsight, every economist from the 19th century and prior looks rather naive about economics: for example the labor theory of value, the discrediting of which forms the basis for much of the modern economic critique of Marxism, was not unique to Marxism by a long shot, being supported by the father of capitalism himself, Adam Smith) his contributions as a historian and pioneering work in then nascent field of sociology shouldn't be overlooked or understated. It's reasonable to look at the train wreck of Communism-in-practice as an utter failure, but that doesn't mean there isn't anything to learn from it.

Communist or not?

Again, advocates of Communism look at the failure of every attempt to implement Communism and argue that those societies were not really communist - either for immediate, local reasons or for the blanket reason that none of them have taken place in advanced industrial societies, which (for Marx, at least) would doom them to failure, or attribute them to social conditions inherited from prior regimes. In most cases, Communist governments didn't necessarily follow Marx's theories as set out, and corruption and cronyism were rampant; Marx certainly wouldn't have approved of that, or the use of tactics by the governing authorities that he considered reserved for the use of the proletariat at large, such as expropriation.[66] However, Marx's antipathy towards the bourgeoisie was used as an excuse to kill millions (especially in China and Cambodia, but more famously Ukrainian country folk in the USSR) because they were branded "petty-bourgeois counter-revolutionaries" for the crime of looking cross-eyed at the nomenklatura.

Additionally, it might be worth looking at forms of Libertarian Marxism and Libertarian Communism before generalizing history's bloody communist dictatorships as the whole of communism. To summarize, communism is a classless, "democratic" (Marx called for 'self-government of the commune' in response to Bakunin's accusations that he wished for a minority dictatorship) and international society. There are different theories to how it such a regime should be organized, for example:

The anarcho-syndicalists and De Leonists wish for a Socialist Industrial Union.

Mutualists (inspired by the ideas of Proudhon) wish for a non-capitalist free market (often claiming that the capitalist market can never have anything to do with 'freedom').

Other socialists wish for a system of workers' councils (though these can often be compared to the syndicalist unions), as in the "soviets" which represented the working class in Russia until Lenin's coup d'etat. The workers had also taken over factories, instituting elected and recallable factory committees which ran them under their ultimate control before Lenin took over. Such "worker self-management" has also been a key part of socialism, in both libertarian Marxist and anarchist tendencies or schools of thought. However, they are split in two camps: Left Communism and Council Communism. Council communism aims to use trade unions, political party and mass strikes to achieve socialism while left communists believe such actions betray a spontaniety iof te working class.

The few examples when communism worked out relatively fine

Paris communards pose with the fallen statue of Napoleon Bonaparte

If any conclusions can be drawn from what these examples all have in common, working communism needs a minimum of top-down authority (all examples are varied ways of "bottom-up") and to avoid being crushed by any self-declared communists surrounding it who have a more "top-down" approach to things.

Derivative philosophies

Besides communism, there are a great many different ideologies and schools of thought based on Marx's views.

There still is a great deal academics find useful in Marxism as a research tool. For example, Marxist historians focus on economic relationships and progress in history, and believe economic motivations and class consciousness to be the most important underlying causes of change (or, in layman's terms, money in fact does make the world go round, but you'll always get screwed by the rich man). Marxist history is a school of social history, focusing primarily on the conditions of the (working class) majority rather than on the deeds of kings and leaders.[note 9] There are similar Marxist forms of sociology and cultural theory. Marx's outline of how capitalism works is still taught in economics, though it's not considered the whole story.

There are many variants on the idea of some underclass being exploited or oppressed by some upper class and the need for that underclass to unite and make a revolution. The second wave of feminism most active in the 1960s and 1970s, as well as radical feminism, views women as the underclass. Nationalism,[note 10] particularly among colonized peoples, may view the colonized nation as the underclass; an example of this is the strong nationalistic elements in the ideology of left-wing governments in former territories occupied by empires. This often leads to the strange result of leftists supporting nationalist movements in far-off places that do things they would be up in arms against, were they to happen in their own country, up to and including the suppression of a communist opposition. Identity politics abstracts the idea entirely and allows the selection of an arbitrary underclass, thus giving rise to such phenomena as "ethnic studies," "queer studies," "disabled studies," etc. The feminist, black militant, and gay rights movements of the later 1960's and 1970's were informed by a Marxist outlook, including the Black Panthers, as David Horowitz loves to remind us of constantly. So scary.

Libertarian communism is an elimination of the state similar to Marxist communism, but it claims to be a part of the libertarian family.

Communism and religion

Demolition of the original Church of Christ the Saviour in Moscow, 1931.

Marx on religion

Karl Marx famously said that religion was "the opiate of the people." Or, in full:

“ ” Religion is, indeed, the self- Religion is, indeed, the self- consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form , its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Of course, these were simply Marx's beliefs. Religious socialism still exists, as the system of communism is itself not opposed to religion, and indeed, many Christians with socialist sympathies have drawn on the words of Jesus himself in defense of socialism and other anti-capitalist social teachings. Marx did not advocate the banning of religion, instead arguing that it is simply a way to cope and see something bright at the end of the tunnel when one is faced with the injustices of feudal and capitalist society, and says that the criticism of religion is thus the criticism of the conditions that breed it. In an interview, later on, Marx dismissed violent measures against religion as "nonsense," and stated the opinion (he specified that it was an opinion) that, "as socialism grows, religion will disappear. Its disappearance must be done by social development, in which education must play a part."

Hijab burning ceremony in the Uzbek SSR, 1927.

As for the phrase itself, opium in Marx's time was an important painkiller, a source of extraordinary visions for 'opium eaters,' the cause of important conflicts such as the Opium Wars, and also used by parents to keep their children quiet. It is likely that Marx was alluding to all of these.

Despite Marx's view that religion could co-exist with communism, many communist states have cracked down on religious groups or banned them altogether. For example, the Russian Orthodox Church had for hundreds of years been a powerful institution in Russia and had many ties to the former czarist regime. Hence, in the mind of the Soviet leaders the church formed an institutional threat to its existence and had to be controlled. Albania under Enver Hoxha banned religion altogether, claiming that it had kept Albania back for a great many years. China tightly regulates religion within its borders, barring the Roman Catholic Church and other churches not under the direct control of the State, leading to a burgeoning Evangelical Protestant "house church" movement.

These evolving, increasingly hostile attitudes can be read in parallel with the evolution of Martin Luther's opinions towards the Jews. Initially, Luther viewed the Jews roughly the same way that Marx viewed religion, arguing that the Jews did not convert to Christianity due to their rotten treatment at the hands of the corrupt Catholic Church leaving them with a terrible impression of the faith. When the Jews refused to give up their religion in favor of Lutheranism, however, Luther became more overtly anti-Semitic and started calling for the synagogues to be burned. The growing antipathy of the communists towards religion can be interpreted in much the same way, as the initial idealism concerning the replacement of religion with communism faded in the face of religion proving itself far more difficult to extinguish.

Religion in communism

Marxism, despite generally rejecting the supernatural, carries distinct millennial overtones about it. Although all sectors of Christianity at least nominally oppose orthodox Marxism due to its materialism, the non-millennial denominations have been most vocal in their opposition to communism. The Catholic Church in particular has explicitly condemned "secular messianism" as a form of millennialism, specifically citing communism as an example.[68][69]

Yeah, get 'em, Jesus!

Communism and rhetoric

not communists? Pop quiz for comprehension: which of the people depicted in this dumb conservative meme arecommunists?

See the main article on this topic: Red scare

Communists are frequently alleged to be the true force behind the UN or some other scheme for a New World Order or one world government. These conspiracy theories are sometimes tied into anti-Semitism and the idea of an international Jewish conspiracy due to the fact that many Jews were aligned with leftist politics. Its latest incarnation is the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory favored by alt-right and Gamergate wingnuts.

Wingnuts also ascribe to the word "communism" quite a different meaning: "Any policy or belief that is insufficiently right-wing for my taste," or "any policy which promotes racial equality and integration." You can thank Joseph McCarthy for that.

In response to the perceived threat by the USSR, the USA engaged in acts of gunboat diplomacy, especially in its sphere of influence. Which meant it toppled left-wing nationalists such as Mohammad Mosaddegh , Jacobo Árbenz , and Salvador Allende to prevent them from cozying up with the Soviets, and tolerated corrupt, authoritarian dictators such as Augusto Pinochet and Suharto, as long as they are anti-communist. This has ramifications and blowback even after the Cold War ended, with the Islamic Republic of Iran and Al-Qaeda both having their roots resulting from US intervention against communism and Soviet influence.





Quotes about communism

“ ” Communism was a gigantic façade, and the reality concealed behind it was the sheer drive for power, for total power as an end in itself. The rest was merely instrumental—a matter of tactics and some necessary self-restrictions to achieve the desired end. —Leszek Kołakowski.[70]

“ ” [O]nly one so-called revolution puts itself above God, insists on total control over the peoples' lives, and is driven by the desire to seize more and more lands... I have one question for those rulers: If communism is the wave of the future, why do you still need walls to keep people in and armies of secret police to keep them quiet? —Ronald Reagan, 1983.[71]

“ ” The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement. —Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

“ ” How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin. —Attributed to Ronald Reagan.[72]

“ ” One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker nudist , sandal-wearer, sex-maniac Quaker , 'Nature Cure' quack pacifist , and feminist in England. —George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier

Pinko commie

"Pinko commie" is a phrase used in parodies or mockeries of opponents of communism, particularly those from the McCarthy era.

"Pinko" refers to someone who is not himself or herself a communist but who sympathizes with communism (hence "pink", not quite red). Consequently "pinko commie" is arguably (logically) an oxymoron.

The phrase started gaining popularity as a description of the communist movement as early as the 1930s.[73]

Notable communists

See also

Notes