# Social:Communism

Short description: Political and socioeconomic ideology

Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a left-wing to far-left sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement,[1] whose goal is the establishment of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society.[3][4][5] Communist society also involves the absence of private property,[1] social classes, money,[6] and the state.[7][8][9] Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance but disagree on the means to this end. This reflects a distinction between a more libertarian approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers' self-management, and a more vanguardist or Communist party-driven approach through the development of a constitutional socialist state followed by the withering away of the state.[10] As one of the main ideologies on the political spectrum, communism is placed on the left-wing alongside socialism, and communist parties and movements have been described as radical left or far left.[11][12][note 1]

Variants of communism have been developed throughout history, including anarcho-communism, Marxist schools of thought, and religious communism, among others. Communism includes a variety of schools of thought, which broadly include Marxism, Leninism, and libertarian communism, as well as the political ideologies grouped around those. All of these different ideologies generally share the analysis that the current order of society stems from capitalism, its economic system, and mode of production, that in this system there are two major social classes, that the relationship between these two classes is exploitative, and that this situation can only ultimately be resolved through a social revolution.[21][note 2] The two classes are the proletariat (the working class), who make up the majority of the population within society and must sell their labor to survive, and the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class), a small minority that derives profit from employing the working class through private ownership of the means of production.[22] According to this analysis, a communist revolution would put the working class in power,[23] and in turn establish common ownership of property, the primary element in the transformation of society towards a communist mode of production.[24][25][26]

Communism in its modern form grew out of the socialist movement in 19th-century Europe, who blamed capitalism for the misery of urban factory workers.[1] In the 20th century, several ostensibly Communist governments espousing Marxism–Leninism and its variants came into power,[27] first in the Soviet Union with the Russian Revolution of 1917, and then in portions of Eastern Europe, Asia, and a few other regions after World War II.[28][note 3] As one of the many types of socialism, communism became the dominant political tendency, along with social democracy, within the international socialist movement by the early 1920s.[34] During most of the 20th century, around one-third of the world's population lived under Communist governments. These governments, which have been criticized by other leftists and socialists, were characterized by one-party rule and suppression of opposition and dissent. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, several previously Communist governments repudiated or abolished Communist rule altogether.[1][35] Afterwards, only a small number of nominally Communist governments remained, which are China ,[36] Cuba, Laos, North Korea,[note 4] and Vietnam.[43]

While the emergence of the Soviet Union as the world's first nominally Communist state led to communism's widespread association with the Soviet economic model, several scholars posit that in practice the model functioned as a form of state capitalism.[44][45] Public memory of 20th-century Communist states has been described as a battleground between anti-anti-communism and anti-communism.[46] Many authors have written about excess deaths under Communist states and mortality rates,[note 5] such as excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin,[note 6] which remain a controversial, polarized, and debated topic in academia, historiography, and politics when discussing communism and the legacy of Communist states.[64][65]

## Etymology and terminology

Communism derives from the French communisme, which developed out of the Latin roots communis and the suffix isme.[66] Semantically, communis can be translated to "of or for the community", while isme is a suffix that indicates the abstraction into a state, condition, action, or doctrine. Communism may be interpreted as "the state of being of or for the community"; this semantic constitution has led to numerous usages of the word in its evolution. Prior to becoming associated with its more modern conception of an economic and political organization, it was initially used in designating various social situations. Communism came to be primarily associated with Marxism, most specifically embodied in The Communist Manifesto, which proposed a particular type of communism.[1][67]

One of the first uses of the word in its modern sense is in a letter sent by Victor d'Hupay to Nicolas Restif de la Bretonne around 1785, in which d'Hupay describes himself as an auteur communiste ("communist author").[68] In 1793, Restif first used communisme to describe a social order based on egalitarianism and the common ownership of property.[69] Restif would go on to use the term frequently in his writing and was the first to describe communism as a form of government.[70] John Goodwyn Barmby is credited with the first use of communism in English, around 1840.[66]

### Communism and socialism

The hammer and sickle is a common theme of communist symbolism. This is an example of a hammer and sickle and red star design from the flag of the Soviet Union.

Since the 1840s, communism has usually been distinguished from socialism. The modern definition and usage of the latter would be settled by the 1860s, becoming predominant over alternative terms associationist (Fourierism), co-operative, and mutualist, which had previously been used as synonyms; instead, communism fell out of use during this period.[71]

An early distinction between communism and socialism was that the latter aimed to only socialize production, whereas the former aimed to socialize both production and consumption (in the form of common access to final goods).[5] This distinction can be observed in Marx's communism, where the distribution of products is based on the principle of "to each according to his needs", in contrast to a socialist principle of "to each according to his contribution".[25] Socialism has been described as a philosophy seeking distributive justice, and communism as a subset of socialism that prefers economic equality as its form of distributive justice.[72]

By 1888, Marxists employed socialism in place of communism which had come to be considered an old-fashioned synonym for the former. It was not until 1917, with the October Revolution, that socialism came to refer to a distinct stage between capitalism and communism, introduced by Vladimir Lenin as a means to defend the Bolshevik seizure of power against traditional Marxist criticism that Russia's productive forces were not sufficiently developed for socialist revolution.[24] A distinction between communist and socialist as descriptors of political ideologies arose in 1918 after the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party renamed itself to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, where Communist came to specifically refer to socialists who supported the politics and theories of Bolshevism, Leninism, and later in the 1920s those of Marxism–Leninism,[73] although Communist parties continued to describe themselves as socialists dedicated to socialism.[71]

Both communism and socialism eventually accorded with the cultural attitude of adherents and opponents towards religion. In European Christendom, communism was believed to be the atheist way of life. In Protestant England, communism was too phonetically similar to the Roman Catholic communion rite, hence English atheists denoted themselves socialists.[74] Friedrich Engels stated that in 1848, at the time when The Communist Manifesto was first published,[75] socialism was respectable on the continent, while communism was not; the Owenites in England and the Fourierists in France were considered respectable socialists, while working-class movements that "proclaimed the necessity of total social change" denoted themselves communists. This latter branch of socialism produced the communist work of Étienne Cabet in France and Wilhelm Weitling in Germany.[76] While liberal democrats looked to the Revolutions of 1848 as a democratic revolution, which in the long run ensured liberty, equality, and fraternity, Marxists denounced 1848 as a betrayal of working-class ideals by a bourgeoisie indifferent to the legitimate demands of the proletariat.[77]

According to The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx, "Marx used many terms to refer to a post-capitalist society—positive humanism, socialism, Communism, realm of free individuality, free association of producers, etc. He used these terms completely interchangeably. The notion that 'socialism' and 'Communism' are distinct historical stages is alien to his work and only entered the lexicon of Marxism after his death."[78] According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "Exactly how communism differs from socialism has long been a matter of debate, but the distinction rests largely on the communists' adherence to the revolutionary socialism of Karl Marx."[1]

### Associated usage and Communist states

In the United States, communism is widely used as a pejorative term, much like socialism, mainly in reference to authoritarian socialism and Communist states. The emergence of the Soviet Union as the world's first nominally Communist state led to the term's widespread association with Marxism–Leninism and the Soviet-type economic planning model.[1][79][80] According to Rachel Walker, Marxism–Leninism is an empty term that depends on the approach and basis of ruling Communist parties, and is dynamic and open to re-definitions, being both fixed and not fixed in meaning.[81] In his essay "Judging Nazism and Communism",[82] Martin Malia defines a "generic Communism" category as any Communist political party movement led by intellectuals; this umbrella term allows grouping together such different regimes as radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's anti-urbanism.[83] According to Alexander Dallin, the idea to group together different countries, such as Afghanistan and Hungary, has no adequate explanation.[84]

While the term Communist state is used by Western historians, political scientists, and news media to refer to countries ruled by Communist parties, these socialist states themselves did not describe themselves as communist or claim to have achieved communism; they referred to themselves as being a socialist state that is in the process of constructing communism.[85] Terms used by Communist states include national-democratic, people's democratic, socialist-oriented, and workers and peasants' states.[86]

## History

### Early communism

According to Richard Pipes,[87] the idea of a classless, egalitarian society first emerged in Ancient Greece ; since the 20th century, Ancient Rome has also been discussed, among them thinkers such as Aristotle, Cicero, Demosthenes, Plato, and Tacitus, with Plato in particular being discussed as a possible communist or socialist theorist,[88] or as the first author to give communism a serious consideration.[89] The 5th-century Mazdak movement in Persia (modern-day Iran) has been described as communistic for challenging the enormous privileges of the noble classes and the clergy, criticizing the institution of private property, and striving to create an egalitarian society.[90][91] At one time or another, various small communist communities existed, generally under the inspiration of religious text.[49]

In the medieval Christian Church, some monastic communities and religious orders shared their land and their other property. As summarized by historians Janzen Rod and Max Stanton, the Hutterites believed in strict adherence to biblical principles, church discipline, and practised a form of communism. In their words, the Hutterites "established in their communities a rigorous system of Ordnungen, which were codes of rules and regulations that governed all aspects of life and ensured a unified perspective. As an economic system, communism was attractive to many of the peasants who supported social revolution in sixteenth century central Europe."[92] This link was highlighted in one of Karl Marx's early writings; Marx stated that "[a]s Christ is the intermediary unto whom man unburdens all his divinity, all his religious bonds, so the state is the mediator unto which he transfers all his Godlessness, all his human liberty."[93] Thomas Müntzer led a large Anabaptist communist movement during the German Peasants' War, which Friedrich Engels analyzed in his 1850 work The Peasant War in Germany. The Marxist communist ethos that aims for unity reflects the Christian universalist teaching that humankind is one and that there is only one god who does not discriminate among people.[94]

Thomas More, whose Utopia portrayed a society based on common ownership of property

Communist thought has also been traced back to the works of the 16th-century English writer Thomas More.[95] In his 1516 treatise titled Utopia, More portrayed a society based on common ownership of property, whose rulers administered it through the application of reason and virtue.[96] Marxist communist theoretician Karl Kautsky, who popularized Marxist communism in Western Europe more than any other thinker apart from Engels, published Thomas More and His Utopia, a work about More, whose ideas could be regarded as "the foregleam of Modern Socialism" according to Kautsky. During the October Revolution in Russia, Vladimir Lenin suggested that a monument be dedicated to More, alongside other important Western thinkers.[97]

In the 17th century, communist thought surfaced again in England, where a Puritan religious group known as the Diggers advocated the abolition of private ownership of land. In his 1895 Cromwell and Communism,[98] Eduard Bernstein stated that several groups during the English Civil War (especially the Diggers) espoused clear communistic, agrarianist ideals and that Oliver Cromwell's attitude towards these groups was at best ambivalent and often hostile.[99][100] Criticism of the idea of private property continued into the Age of Enlightenment of the 18th century through such thinkers as Gabriel Bonnot de Mably, Jean Meslier, Étienne-Gabriel Morelly, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in France.[101] During the upheaval of the French Revolution , communism emerged as a political doctrine under the auspices of François-Noël Babeuf, Nicolas Restif de la Bretonne, and Sylvain Maréchal, all of whom can be considered the progenitors of modern communism, according to James H. Billington.[102]

In the early 19th century, various social reformers founded communities based on common ownership. Unlike many previous communist communities, they replaced the religious emphasis with a rational and philanthropic basis.[103] Notable among them were Robert Owen, who founded New Harmony, Indiana, in 1825, and Charles Fourier, whose followers organized other settlements in the United States, such as Brook Farm in 1841.[1] In its modern form, communism grew out of the socialist movement in 19th-century Europe. As the Industrial Revolution advanced, socialist critics blamed capitalism for the misery of the proletariat—a new class of urban factory workers who labored under often-hazardous conditions. Foremost among these critics were Marx and his associate Engels. In 1848, Marx and Engels offered a new definition of communism and popularized the term in their famous pamphlet The Communist Manifesto.[1]

### Revolutionary wave of 1917–1923

In 1917, the October Revolution in Russia set the conditions for the rise to state power of Vladimir Lenin's Bolsheviks, which was the first time any avowedly communist party reached that position. The revolution transferred power to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets in which the Bolsheviks had a majority.[104][105][106] The event generated a great deal of practical and theoretical debate within the Marxist movement, as Marx stated that socialism and communism would be built upon foundations laid by the most advanced capitalist development; however, the Russian Empire was one of the poorest countries in Europe with an enormous, largely illiterate peasantry, and a minority of industrial workers. Marx warned against attempts "to transform my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into a historico-philosophy theory of the arche générale imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself",[107] and stated that Russia might be able to skip the stage of bourgeois rule through the Obshchina.[108][note 7] The moderate Mensheviks (minority) opposed Lenin's Bolsheviks (majority) plan for socialist revolution before the capitalist mode of production was more fully developed. The Bolsheviks' successful rise to power was based upon the slogans such as "Peace, Bread, and Land", which tapped into the massive public desire for an end to Russian involvement in World War I, the peasants' demand for land reform, and popular support for the soviets.[112]

By November 1917, the Russian Provisional Government had been widely discredited by its failure to withdraw from World War I, implement land reform, or convene the Russian Constituent Assembly to draft a constitution, leaving the soviets in de facto control of the country. The Bolsheviks moved to hand power to the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies in the October Revolution; after a few weeks of deliberation, the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries formed a coalition government with the Bolsheviks from November 1917 to July 1918, while the right-wing faction of the Socialist Revolutionary Party boycotted the soviets and denounced the October Revolution as an illegal coup. In the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election, socialist parties totaled well over 70% of the vote. The Bolsheviks were clear winners in the urban centres, and took around two-thirds of the votes of soldiers on the Western Front, obtaining 23.3% of the vote; the Socialist Revolutionaries finished first on the strength of support from the country's rural peasantry, who were for the most part single issue voters, that issue being land reform, obtaining 37.6%, while the Ukrainian Socialist Bloc finished a distant third at 12.7%, and the Mensheviks obtained a disappointing fourth place at 3.0%.[113]

Most of the Socialist Revolutionary Party's seats went to the right-wing faction. Citing outdated voter-rolls, which did not acknowledge the party split, and the assembly's conflicts with the Congress of Soviets, the Bolshevik–Left Socialist-Revolutionaries government moved to dissolve the Constituent Assembly in January 1918. The Draft Decree on the Dissolution of the Constituent Assembly was issued by the Central Executive Committee of the Soviet Union, a committee dominated by Lenin, who had previously supported a multi-party system of free elections. After the Bolshevik defeat, Lenin started referring to the assembly as a "deceptive form of bourgeois-democratic parliamentarianism."[113] Some argued this was the beginning of the development of vanguardism as an hierarchical party–elite that controlles society,[114] which resulted in a split between anarchism and Marxism, and Leninist communism assuming the dominant position for most of the 20th century, excluding rival socialist currents.[115]

Other communists and Marxists, especially social democrats who favored the development of liberal democracy as a prerequisite to socialism, were critical of the Bolsheviks from the beginning due to Russia being seen as too backward for a socialist revolution.[24] Council communism and left communism, inspired by the German Revolution of 1918–1919 and the wide proletarian revolutionary wave, arose in response to developments in Russia and are critical of self-declared constitutionally socialist states. Some left-wing parties, such as the Socialist Party of Great Britain, boasted of having called the Bolsheviks, and by extension those Communist states which either followed or were inspired by the Soviet Bolshevik model of development, establishing state capitalism in late 1917, as would be described during the 20th century by several academics, economists, and other scholars,[44] or a command economy.[116][117][118] Before the Soviet path of development became known as socialism, reminiscenting the two-stage theory, communists made no major distinction between the socialist mode of production and communism;[78] it is consistent with, and helped to inform, early concepts of socialism in which the law of value no longer directs economic activity. Monetary relations in the form of exchange-value, profit, interest, and wage labor would not operate and apply to Marxist socialism.[26]

While Joseph Stalin stated that the law of value would still apply to socialism and that the Soviet Union was socialist under this new definition, which was followed by other Communist leaders, many other communists maintain the original definition and state that Communist states never established socialism in this sense. Lenin described his policies as state capitalism but saw them as necessary for the development of socialism, which left-wing critics say was never established, while some Marxist–Leninists state that it was established only during the Stalin era and Mao era, and then became capitalist states ruled by revisionists; others state that Maoist China was always state capitalist, and uphold People's Socialist Republic of Albania as the only socialist state after the Soviet Union under Stalin,[119][120] who first stated to have achieved socialism with the 1936 Constitution of the Soviet Union.[121]

### Communist states

#### Soviet Union

The devastation of World War II resulted in a massive recovery program involving the rebuilding of industrial plants, housing, and transportation as well as the demobilization and migration of millions of soldiers and civilians. In the midst of this turmoil during the winter of 1946–1947, the Soviet Union experienced the worst natural famine in the 20th century.[126] There was no serious opposition to Stalin as the secret police continued to send possible suspects to the gulag. Relations with the United States and Britain went from friendly to hostile, as they denounced Stalin's political controls over eastern Europe and his Berlin Blockade. By 1947, the Cold War had begun. Stalin himself believed that capitalism was a hollow shell and would crumble under increased non-military pressure exerted through proxies in countries like Italy. He greatly underestimated the economic strength of the West and instead of triumph saw the West build up alliances that were designed to permanently stop or contain Soviet expansion. In early 1950, Stalin gave the go-ahead for North Korea's invasion of South Korea , expecting a short war. He was stunned when the Americans entered and defeated the North Koreans, putting them almost on the Soviet border. Stalin supported China 's entry into the Korean War, which drove the Americans back to the prewar boundaries, but which escalated tensions. The United States decided to mobilize its economy for a long contest with the Soviets, built the hydrogen bomb, and strengthened the NATO alliance that covered Western Europe.[127]

According to Gorlizki and Khlevniuk, Stalin's consistent and overriding goal after 1945 was to consolidate the nation's superpower status and in the face of his growing physical decrepitude, to maintain his own hold on total power. Stalin created a leadership system that reflected historic czarist styles of paternalism and repression yet was also quite modern. At the top, personal loyalty to Stalin counted for everything. Stalin also created powerful committees, elevated younger specialists, and began major institutional innovations. In the teeth of persecution, Stalin's deputies cultivated informal norms and mutual understandings which provided the foundations for collective rule after his death.[126] For most Westerners and anti-communist Russians, Stalin is viewed overwhelmingly negatively as a mass murderer; for significant numbers of Russians and Georgians, he is regarded as a great statesman and state-builder.[128]

#### China

After the Chinese Civil War, Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party came to power in 1949 as the Nationalist government headed by the Kuomintang fled to the island of Taiwan. In 1950–1953, China engaged in a large-scale, undeclared war with the United States, South Korea, and United Nations forces in the Korean War. While the war ended in a military stalemate, it gave Mao the opportunity to identify and purge elements in China that seemed supportive of capitalism. At first, there was close cooperation with Stalin, who sent in technical experts to aid the industrialization process along the line of the Soviet model of the 1930s.[129] After Stalin's death in 1953, relations with Moscow soured—Mao thought Stalin's successors had betrayed the Communist ideal. Mao charged that Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev was the leader of a "revisionist clique" which had turned against Marxism and Leninism and was now setting the stage for the restoration of capitalism.[130] The two nations were at sword's point by 1960. Both began forging alliances with communist supporters around the globe, thereby splitting the worldwide movement into two hostile camps.[131]

Rejecting the Soviet model of rapid urbanization, Mao Zedong and his top aide Deng Xiaoping launched the Great Leap Forward in 1957–1961 with the goal of industrializing China overnight, using the peasant villages as the base rather than large cities.[132] Private ownership of land ended and the peasants worked in large collective farms that were now ordered to start up heavy industry operations, such as steel mills. Plants were built in remote locations, due to the lack of technical experts, managers, transportation, or needed facilities. Industrialization failed, and the main result was a sharp unexpected decline in agricultural output, which led to mass famine and millions of deaths. The years of the Great Leap Forward in fact saw economic regression, with 1958 through 1961 being the only years between 1953 and 1983 in which China's economy saw negative growth. Political economist Dwight Perkins argues: "Enormous amounts of investment produced only modest increases in production or none at all. ... In short, the Great Leap was a very expensive disaster."[133] Put in charge of rescuing the economy, Deng adopted pragmatic policies that the idealistic Mao disliked. For a while, Mao was in the shadows but returned to center stage and purged Deng and his allies in the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976).[134]

The Cultural Revolution was an upheaval that targeted intellectuals and party leaders from 1966 through 1976. Mao's goal was to purify communism by removing pro-capitalists and traditionalists by imposing Maoist orthodoxy within the Chinese Communist Party. The movement paralyzed China politically and weakened the country economically, culturally, and intellectually for years. Millions of people were accused, humiliated, stripped of power, and either imprisoned, killed, or most often, sent to work as farm laborers. Mao insisted that those he labelled revisionists be removed through violent class struggle. The two most prominent militants were Marshall Lin Biao of the army and Mao's wife Jiang Qing. China's youth responded to Mao's appeal by forming Red Guard groups around the country. The movement spread into the military, urban workers, and the Communist party leadership itself. It resulted in widespread factional struggles in all walks of life. In the top leadership, it led to a mass purge of senior officials who were accused of taking a "capitalist road", most notably Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping. During the same period, Mao's personality cult grew to immense proportions. After Mao's death in 1976, the survivors were rehabilitated and many returned to power.[135]

Mao's government was responsible for vast numbers of deaths with estimates ranging from 40 to 80 million victims through starvation, persecution, prison labour, and mass executions.[136][137][138][139] Mao has been praised for transforming China from a semi-colony to a leading world power, with greatly advanced literacy, women's rights, basic healthcare, primary education, and life expectancy.[140][141][142][143]

### Cold War

Countries of the world now (red) or previously (orange) having nominally Communist governments

Its leading role in World War II saw the emergence of the industrialized Soviet Union as a superpower. Marxist–Leninist governments modeled on the Soviet Union took power with Soviet assistance in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Poland, Hungary, and Romania. A Marxist–Leninist government was also created under Josip Broz Tito in Yugoslavia; Tito's independent policies led to the Tito–Stalin split and expulsion of Yugoslavia from the Cominform in 1948, and Titoism was branded deviationist. Albania also became an independent Marxist–Leninist state following the Albanian–Soviet split in 1960,[119][120] resulting from an ideological fallout between Enver Hoxha, a Stalinist, and the Soviet government of Nikita Khrushchev, who enacted a period of de-Stalinization and re-approached diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia in 1976.[144] The Communist Party of China, led by Mao Zedong, established the People's Republic of China, which would follow its own ideological path of development following the Sino-Soviet split.[145] Communism was seen as a rival of and a threat to Western capitalism for most of the 20th century.[146]

In Western Europe, communist parties were part of several post-war governments, and even when the Cold War forced many of those countries to remove them from government, such as in Italy, they remained part of the liberal-democratic process. There were also many developments in libertarian Marxism, especially during the 1960s with the New Left. By the 1960s and 1970s, many Western communist parties had criticized many of the actions of communist states, distanced from them, and developed a democratic road to socialism, which became known as Eurocommunism.[147] This development was criticized by more orthodox supporters of the Soviet Union as amounting to social democracy.[148]

### Dissolution of the Soviet Union

With the fall of the Warsaw Pact after the Revolutions of 1989, which led to the fall of most of the former Eastern Bloc, the Soviet Union was dissolved on 26 December 1991. It was a result of the declaration number 142-Н of the Soviet of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union.[149] The declaration acknowledged the independence of the former Soviet republics and created the Commonwealth of Independent States, although five of the signatories ratified it much later or did not do it at all. On the previous day, Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev (the eighth and final leader of the Soviet Union) resigned, declared his office extinct, and handed over its powers, including control of the Cheget, to Russian president Boris Yeltsin. That evening at 7:32, the Soviet flag was lowered from the Kremlin for the last time and replaced with the pre-revolutionary Russian flag. Previously, from August to December 1991, all the individual republics, including Russia itself, had seceded from the union. The week before the union's formal dissolution, eleven republics signed the Alma-Ata Protocol, formally establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States, and declared that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist.[150][151]

### Post-Soviet Communism

A poster of the Communist Party of Vietnam in Hanoi

As of 2023, states controlled by Marxist–Leninist parties under a single-party system include the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Cuba, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.[note 4] Communist parties, or their descendant parties, remain politically important in several other countries. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Fall of Communism, there was a split between those hardline Communists, sometimes referred to in the media as neo-Stalinists, who remained committed to orthodox Marxism–Leninism, and those, such as The Left in Germany, who work within the liberal-democratic process for a democratic road to socialism;[152] other ruling Communist parties became closer to democratic socialist and social-democratic parties.[153] Outside Communist states, reformed Communist parties have led or been part of left-leaning government or regional coalitions, including in the former Eastern Bloc. In Nepal, Communists (CPN UML and Nepal Communist Party) were part of the 1st Nepalese Constituent Assembly, which abolished the monarchy in 2008 and turned the country into a federal liberal-democratic republic, and have democratically shared power with other communists, Marxist–Leninists, and Maoists (CPN Maoist), social democrats (Nepali Congress), and others as part of their People's Multiparty Democracy.[154][155]

Chinese economic reforms were started in 1978 under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, and since then China has managed to bring down the poverty rate from 53% in the Mao era to just 6% in 2001.[156]

## Theory

Communist political thought and theory are diverse but share several core elements.[lower-alpha 1] The dominant forms of communism are based on Marxism or Leninism but non-Marxist versions of communism also exist, such as anarcho-communism and Christian communism, which remain partly influenced by Marxist theories, such as libertarian Marxism and humanist Marxism in particular. Common elements include being theoretical rather than ideological, identifying political parties not by ideology but by class and economic interest, and identifying with the proletariat. According to communists, the proletariat can avoid mass unemployment only if capitalism is overthrown; in the short run, state-oriented communists favor state ownership of the commanding heights of the economy as a means to defend the proletariat from capitalist pressure. Some communists are distinguished by other Marxists in seeing peasants and smallholders of property as possible allies in their goal of shortening the abolition of capitalism.[158]

For Leninist communism, such goals, including short-term proletarian interests to improve their political and material conditions, can only be achieved through vanguardism, an elitist form of socialism from above that relies on theoretical analysis to identify proletarian interests rather than consulting the proletarians themselves,[158] as is advocated by libertarian communists.[10] When they engage in elections, Leninist communists' main task is that of educating voters in what are deemed their true interests rather than in response to the expression of interest by voters themselves. When they have gained control of the state, Leninist communists' main task was preventing other political parties from deceiving the proletariat, such as by running their own independent candidates. This vanguardist approach comes from their commitments to democratic centralism in which communists can only be cadres, i.e. members of the party who are full-time professional revolutionaries, as was conceived by Vladimir Lenin.[158]

### Marxist communism

Main page: Philosophy:Marxism
A monument dedicated to Karl Marx (left) and Friedrich Engels (right) in Shanghai

Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand social class relations and social conflict and a dialectical perspective to view social transformation. It originates from the works of 19th-century German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. As Marxism has developed over time into various branches and schools of thought, no single, definitive Marxist theory exists.[159] Marxism considers itself to be the embodiment of scientific socialism but does not model an ideal society based on the design of intellectuals, whereby communism is seen as a state of affairs to be established based on any intelligent design; rather, it is a non-idealist attempt at the understanding of material history and society, whereby communism is the expression of a real movement, with parameters that are derived from actual life.[160]

According to Marxist theory, class conflict arises in capitalist societies due to contradictions between the material interests of the oppressed and exploited proletariat—a class of wage laborers employed to produce goods and services—and the bourgeoisie—the ruling class that owns the means of production and extracts its wealth through appropriation of the surplus product produced by the proletariat in the form of profit. This class struggle that is commonly expressed as the revolt of a society's productive forces against its relations of production, results in a period of short-term crises as the bourgeoisie struggle to manage the intensifying alienation of labor experienced by the proletariat, albeit with varying degrees of class consciousness. In periods of deep crisis, the resistance of the oppressed can culminate in a proletarian revolution which, if victorious, leads to the establishment of the socialist mode of production based on social ownership of the means of production, "To each according to his contribution", and production for use. As the productive forces continued to advance, the communist society, i.e. a classless, stateless, humane society based on common ownership, follows the maxim "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."[78]

While it originates from the works of Marx and Engels, Marxism has developed into many different branches and schools of thought, with the result that there is now no single definitive Marxist theory.[159] Different Marxian schools place a greater emphasis on certain aspects of classical Marxism while rejecting or modifying other aspects. Many schools of thought have sought to combine Marxian concepts and non-Marxian concepts, which has then led to contradictory conclusions.[161] There is a movement toward the recognition that historical materialism and dialectical materialism remain the fundamental aspects of all Marxist schools of thought.[91] Marxism–Leninism and its offshoots are the most well-known of these and have been a driving force in international relations during most of the 20th century.[162]

Classical Marxism is the economic, philosophical, and sociological theories expounded by Marx and Engels as contrasted with later developments in Marxism, especially Leninism and Marxism–Leninism.[163] Orthodox Marxism is the body of Marxist thought that emerged after the death of Marx and which became the official philosophy of the socialist movement as represented in the Second International until World War I in 1914. Orthodox Marxism aims to simplify, codify, and systematize Marxist method and theory by clarifying the perceived ambiguities and contradictions of classical Marxism. The philosophy of orthodox Marxism includes the understanding that material development (advances in technology in the productive forces) is the primary agent of change in the structure of society and of human social relations and that social systems and their relations (e.g. feudalism, capitalism, and so on) become contradictory and inefficient as the productive forces develop, which results in some form of social revolution arising in response to the mounting contradictions. This revolutionary change is the vehicle for fundamental society-wide changes and ultimately leads to the emergence of new economic systems.[164] As a term, orthodox Marxism represents the methods of historical materialism and of dialectical materialism, and not the normative aspects inherent to classical Marxism, without implying dogmatic adherence to the results of Marx's investigations.[165]

#### Marxist concepts

##### Class conflict and historical materialism
Main pages: Social:Class conflict and Philosophy:Historical materialism

At the root of Marxism is historical materialism, the materialist conception of history which holds that the key characteristic of economic systems through history has been the mode of production and that the change between modes of production has been triggered by class struggle. According to this analysis, the Industrial Revolution ushered the world into the new capitalist mode of production. Before capitalism, certain working classes had ownership of instruments used in production; however, because machinery was much more efficient, this property became worthless and the mass majority of workers could only survive by selling their labor to make use of someone else's machinery, and making someone else profit. Accordingly, capitalism divided the world between two major classes, namely that of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. These classes are directly antagonistic as the latter possesses private ownership of the means of production, earning profit via the surplus value generated by the proletariat, who have no ownership of the means of production and therefore no option but to sell its labor to the bourgeoisie.[166]

According to the materialist conception of history, it is through the furtherance of its own material interests that the rising bourgeoisie within feudalism captured power and abolished, of all relations of private property, only the feudal privilege, thereby taking the feudal ruling class out of existence. This was another key element behind the consolidation of capitalism as the new mode of production, the final expression of class and property relations that has led to a massive expansion of production. It is only in capitalism that private property in itself can be abolished.[167] Similarly, the proletariat would capture political power, abolish bourgeois property through the common ownership of the means of production, therefore abolishing the bourgeoisie, ultimately abolishing the proletariat itself and ushering the world into communism as a new mode of production. In between capitalism and communism, there is the dictatorship of the proletariat; it is the defeat of the bourgeois state but not yet of the capitalist mode of production, and at the same time the only element which places into the realm of possibility moving on from this mode of production. This dictatorship, based on the Paris Commune's model,[168] is to be the most democratic state where the whole of the public authority is elected and recallable under the basis of universal suffrage.[169]

##### Critique of political economy
Main page: Philosophy:Critique of political economy

Critique of political economy is a form of social critique that rejects the various social categories and structures that constitute the mainstream discourse concerning the forms and modalities of resource allocation and income distribution in the economy. Communists, such as Marx and Engels, are described as prominent critics of political economy.[170][171][172] The critique rejects economists' use of what its advocates believe are unrealistic axioms, faulty historical assumptions, and the normative use of various descriptive narratives.[173] They reject what they describe as mainstream economists' tendency to posit the economy as an a priori societal category.[174] Those who engage in critique of economy tend to reject the view that the economy and its categories is to be understood as something transhistorical.[175][176] It is seen as merely one of many types of historically specific ways to distribute resources. They argue that it is a relatively new mode of resource distribution, which emerged along with modernity.[177][178][179]

Critics of economy critique the given status of the economy itself, and do not aim to create theories regarding how to administer economies.[180][181] Critics of economy commonly view what is most commonly referred to as the economy as being bundles of metaphysical concepts, as well as societal and normative practices, rather than being the result of any self-evident or proclaimed economic laws.[182] They also tend to consider the views which are commonplace within the field of economics as faulty, or simply as pseudoscience.[183][184] Into the 21st century, there are multiple critiques of political economy; what they have in common is the critique of what critics of political economy tend to view as dogma, i.e. claims of the economy as a necessary and transhistorical societal category.[185]

##### Marxian economics
Main page: Finance:Marxian economics

Marxian economics and its proponents view capitalism as economically unsustainable and incapable of improving the living standards of the population due to its need to compensate for falling rates of profit by cutting employee's wages, social benefits, and pursuing military aggression. The communist mode of production would succeed capitalism as humanity's new mode of production through workers' revolution. According to Marxian crisis theory, communism is not an inevitability but an economic necessity.[186]

##### Socialization versus nationalization

An important concept in Marxism is socialization, i.e. social ownership, versus nationalization. Nationalization is state ownership of property whereas socialization is control and management of property by society. Marxism considers the latter as its goal and considers nationalization a tactical issue, as state ownership is still in the realm of the capitalist mode of production. In the words of Friedrich Engels, "the transformation ... into State-ownership does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. ... State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution."[lower-alpha 2] This has led Marxist groups and tendencies critical of the Soviet model to label states based on nationalization, such as the Soviet Union, as state capitalist, a view that is also shared by several scholars.[44][116][118]

### Leninist communism

Main page: Social:Leninism
"We want to achieve a new and better order of society: in this new and better society there must be neither rich nor poor; all will have to work. Not a handful of rich people, but all the working people must enjoy the fruits of their common labour. Machines and other improvements must serve to ease the work of all and not to enable a few to grow rich at the expense of millions and tens of millions of people. This new and better society is called socialist society. The teachings about this society are called 'socialism'."

Leninism is a political ideology developed by Russian Marxist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin that proposes the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, led by a revolutionary vanguard party, as the political prelude to the establishment of communism. The function of the Leninist vanguard party is to provide the working classes with the political consciousness (education and organisation) and revolutionary leadership necessary to depose capitalism in the Russian Empire (1721–1917).[187]

Leninist revolutionary leadership is based upon The Communist Manifesto (1848), identifying the Communist party as "the most advanced and resolute section of the working class parties of every country; that section which pushes forward all others." As the vanguard party, the Bolsheviks viewed history through the theoretical framework of dialectical materialism, which sanctioned political commitment to the successful overthrow of capitalism, and then to instituting socialism; and as the revolutionary national government, to realize the socio-economic transition by all means.[188]

#### Marxism–Leninism

Main page: Social:Marxism–Leninism
Vladimir Lenin statue in Kolkata, West Bengal

Marxism–Leninism is a political ideology developed by Joseph Stalin .[189] According to its proponents, it is based on Marxism and Leninism. It describes the specific political ideology which Stalin implemented in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and in a global scale in the Comintern. There is no definite agreement between historians about whether Stalin actually followed the principles of Marx and Lenin.[190] It also contains aspects which according to some are deviations from Marxism such as socialism in one country.[191][192] Marxism–Leninism was the official ideology of 20th-century Communist parties (including Trotskyist), and was developed after the death of Lenin; its three principles were dialectical materialism, the leading role of the Communist party through democratic centralism, and a planned economy with industrialization and agricultural collectivization. Marxism–Leninism is misleading because Marx and Lenin never sanctioned or supported the creation of an -ism after them, and is revealing because, being popularized after Lenin's death by Stalin, it contained those three doctrinal and institutionalized principles that became a model for later Soviet-type regimes; its global influence, having at its height covered at least one-third of the world's population, has made Marxist–Leninist a convenient label for the Communist bloc as a dynamic ideological order.({{{1}}}, {{{2}}})[lower-alpha 3]

During the Cold War, Marxism–Leninism was the ideology of the most clearly visible communist movement and is the most prominent ideology associated with communism.[162][note 8] Social fascism was a theory supported by the Comintern and affiliated Communist parties during the early 1930s, which held that social democracy was a variant of fascism because it stood in the way of a dictatorship of the proletariat, in addition to a shared corporatist economic model.[194] At the time, leaders of the Comintern, such as Stalin and Rajani Palme Dutt, stated that capitalist society had entered the Third Period in which a proletariat revolution was imminent but could be prevented by social democrats and other fascist forces.[194][195] The term social fascist was used pejoratively to describe social-democratic parties, anti-Comintern and progressive socialist parties and dissenters within Comintern affiliates throughout the interwar period. The social fascism theory was advocated vociferously by the Communist Party of Germany, which was largely controlled and funded by the Soviet leadership from 1928.[195]

Within Marxism–Leninism, anti-revisionism is a position which emerged in the 1950s in opposition to the reforms and Khrushchev Thaw of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. Where Khrushchev pursued an interpretation that differed from Stalin, the anti-revisionists within the international communist movement remained dedicated to Stalin's ideological legacy and criticized the Soviet Union under Khrushchev and his successors as state capitalist and social imperialist due to its hopes of achieving peace with the United States. The term Stalinism is also used to describe these positions but is often not used by its supporters who opine that Stalin practiced orthodox Marxism and Leninism. Because different political trends trace the historical roots of revisionism to different eras and leaders, there is significant disagreement today as to what constitutes anti-revisionism. Modern groups which describe themselves as anti-revisionist fall into several categories. Some uphold the works of Stalin and Mao Zedong and some the works of Stalin while rejecting Mao and universally tend to oppose Trotskyism. Others reject both Stalin and Mao, tracing their ideological roots back to Marx and Lenin. In addition, other groups uphold various less-well-known historical leaders such as Enver Hoxha, who also broke with Mao during the Sino-Albanian split.[119][120] Social imperialism was a term used by Mao to criticize the Soviet Union post-Stalin. Mao stated that the Soviet Union had itself become an imperialist power while maintaining a socialist façade.[196] Hoxha agreed with Mao in this analysis, before later using the expression to also condemn Mao's Three Worlds Theory.[197]

##### Stalinism
Main page: Social:Stalinism
1942 portrait of Joseph Stalin , the longest-serving leader of the Soviet Union

Stalinism represents Stalin's style of governance as opposed to Marxism–Leninism, the socioeconomic system and political ideology implemented by Stalin in the Soviet Union, and later adapted by other states based on the ideological Soviet model, such as central planning, nationalization, and one-party state, along with public ownership of the means of production, accelerated industrialization, pro-active development of society's productive forces (research and development), and nationalized natural resources. Marxism–Leninism remained after de-Stalinization whereas Stalinism did not. In the last letters before his death, Lenin warned against the danger of Stalin's personality and urged the Soviet government to replace him.[91] Until the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953, the Soviet Communist party referred to its own ideology as Marxism–Leninism–Stalinism.[158]

Marxism–Leninism has been criticized by other communist and Marxist tendencies, which state that Marxist–Leninist states did not establish socialism but rather state capitalism.[44][116][118] According to Marxism, the dictatorship of the proletariat represents the rule of the majority (democracy) rather than of one party, to the extent that the co-founder of Marxism, Friedrich Engels, described its "specific form" as the democratic republic.[198] According to Engels, state property by itself is private property of capitalist nature,[lower-alpha 2] unless the proletariat has control of political power, in which case it forms public property.[lower-alpha 5] Whether the proletariat was actually in control of the Marxist–Leninist states is a matter of debate between Marxism–Leninism and other communist tendencies. To these tendencies, Marxism–Leninism is neither Marxism nor Leninism nor the union of both but rather an artificial term created to justify Stalin's ideological distortion,[199] forced into the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Comintern. In the Soviet Union, this struggle against Marxism–Leninism was represented by Trotskyism, which describes itself as a Marxist and Leninist tendency.[200]

##### Trotskyism
Main page: Social:Trotskyism
Detail of Man, Controller of the Universe, fresco at Palacio de Bellas Artes in Mexico City showing Leon Trotsky, Friedrich Engels, and Karl Marx

Trotskyism, developed by Leon Trotsky in opposition to Stalinism,[201] is a Marxist and Leninist tendency that supports the theory of permanent revolution and world revolution rather than the two-stage theory and Stalin's socialism in one country. It supported another communist revolution in the Soviet Union and proletarian internationalism.[202]

Rather than representing the dictatorship of the proletariat, Trotsky claimed that the Soviet Union had become a degenerated workers' state under the leadership of Stalin in which class relations had re-emerged in a new form. Trotsky's politics differed sharply from those of Stalin and Mao, most importantly in declaring the need for an international proletarian revolution—rather than socialism in one country—and support for a true dictatorship of the proletariat based on democratic principles. Struggling against Stalin for power in the Soviet Union, Trotsky and his supporters organized into the Left Opposition,[203] the platform of which became known as Trotskyism.[201]

Stalin eventually succeeded in gaining control of the Soviet regime and Trotskyist attempts to remove Stalin from power resulted in Trotsky's exile from the Soviet Union in 1929. While in exile, Trotsky continued his campaign against Stalin, founding in 1938 the Fourth International, a Trotskyist rival to the Comintern.[204][205][206] In August 1940, Trotsky was assassinated in Mexico City on Stalin's orders. Trotskyist currents include orthodox Trotskyism, third camp, Posadism, and Pabloism.[207][208]

Long Live the Victory of Mao Zedong Thought monument in Shenyang
##### Maoism
Main pages: Philosophy:Maoism and Marxism–Leninism–Philosophy:Maoism

Maoism is the theory derived from the teachings of the Chinese political leader Mao Zedong. Developed from the 1950s until the Deng Xiaoping Chinese economic reform in the 1970s, it was widely applied as the guiding political and military ideology of the Communist Party of China and as the theory guiding revolutionary movements around the world. A key difference between Maoism and other forms of Marxism–Leninism is that peasants should be the bulwark of the revolutionary energy which is led by the working class.[209] Three common Maoist values are revolutionary populism, being practical, and dialectics.[210]

The synthesis of Marxism–Leninism–Maoism,[lower-alpha 6] which builds upon the two individual theories as the Chinese adaption of Marxism–Leninism, did not occur during the life of Mao. After de-Stalinization, Marxism–Leninism was kept in the Soviet Union, while certain anti-revisionist tendencies like Hoxhaism and Maoism stated that such had deviated from its original concept. Different policies were applied in Albania and China, which became more distanced from the Soviet Union. From the 1960s, groups who called themselves Maoists, or those who upheld Maoism, were not unified around a common understanding of Maoism, instead having their own particular interpretations of the political, philosophical, economical, and military works of Mao. Its adherents claim that as a unified, coherent higher stage of Marxism, it was not consolidated until the 1980s, first being formalized by the Shining Path in 1982.[211] Through the experience of the people's war waged by the party, the Shining Path were able to posit Maoism as the newest development of Marxism.[211]

Enrico Berlinguer, the secretary of the Italian Communist Party and main proponent of Eurocommunism

#### Eurocommunism

Main page: Social:Eurocommunism

Eurocommunism was a revisionist trend in the 1970s and 1980s within various Western European communist parties, claiming to develop a theory and practice of social transformation more relevant to their region. Especially prominent within the French Communist Party, Italian Communist Party, and Communist Party of Spain, Communists of this nature sought to undermine the influence of the Soviet Union and its All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) during the Cold War.[147] Eurocommunists tended to have a larger attachment to liberty and democracy than their Marxist-Leninist counterparts.[212] Enrico Berlinguer, general secretary of Italy's major Communist party, was widely considered the father of Eurocommunism.[213]

### Libertarian Marxist communism

Main page: Social:Libertarian Marxism

Libertarian Marxism is a broad range of economic and political philosophies that emphasize the anti-authoritarian aspects of Marxism. Early currents of libertarian Marxism, known as left communism,[214] emerged in opposition to Marxism–Leninism[215] and its derivatives such as Stalinism, Trotskyism, and Maoism.[216] Libertarian Marxism is also critical of reformist positions such as those held by social democrats.[217] Libertarian Marxist currents often draw from Marx and Engels' later works, specifically the Grundrisse and The Civil War in France,[218] emphasizing the Marxist belief in the ability of the working class to forge its own destiny without the need for a revolutionary party or state to mediate or aid its liberation.[219] Along with anarchism, libertarian Marxism is one of the main derivatives of libertarian socialism.[220]

Aside from left communism, libertarian Marxism includes such currents as autonomism, communization, council communism, De Leonism, the Johnson–Forest Tendency, Lettrism, Luxemburgism Situationism, Socialisme ou Barbarie, Solidarity, the World Socialist Movement, and workerism, as well as parts of Freudo-Marxism, and the New Left.[221] Moreover, libertarian Marxism has often had a strong influence on both post-left and social anarchists. Notable theorists of libertarian Marxism have included Antonie Pannekoek, Raya Dunayevskaya, Cornelius Castoriadis, Maurice Brinton, Daniel Guérin, and Yanis Varoufakis,[222] the latter of whom claims that Marx himself was a libertarian Marxist.[223]

#### Council communism

Main page: Organization:Council communism

Council communism is a movement that originated from Germany and the Netherlands in the 1920s,[224] whose primary organization was the Communist Workers Party of Germany. It continues today as a theoretical and activist position within both libertarian Marxism and libertarian socialism.[225] The core principle of council communism is that the government and the economy should be managed by workers' councils, which are composed of delegates elected at workplaces and recallable at any moment. Council communists oppose the perceived authoritarian and undemocratic nature of central planning and of state socialism, labelled state capitalism, and the idea of a revolutionary party,[226][227] since council communists believe that a revolution led by a party would necessarily produce a party dictatorship. Council communists support a workers' democracy, produced through a federation of workers' councils.

In contrast to those of social democracy and Leninist communism, the central argument of council communism is that democratic workers' councils arising in the factories and municipalities are the natural forms of working-class organizations and governmental power.[228][229] This view is opposed to both the reformist[230] and the Leninist communist ideologies,[226] which respectively stress parliamentary and institutional government by applying social reforms on the one hand, and vanguard parties and participative democratic centralism on the other.[230][226]

#### Left communism

Main page: Social:Left communism

Left communism is the range of communist viewpoints held by the communist left, which criticizes the political ideas and practices espoused, particularly following the series of revolutions that brought World War I to an end by Bolsheviks and social democrats.[231] Left communists assert positions which they regard as more authentically Marxist and proletarian than the views of Marxism–Leninism espoused by the Communist International after its first congress (March 1919) and during its second congress (July–August 1920).[232][233][234]

Left communists represent a range of political movements distinct from Marxist–Leninists, whom they largely view as merely the left-wing of capital, from anarcho-communists, some of whom they consider to be internationalist socialists, and from various other revolutionary socialist tendencies, such as De Leonists, whom they tend to see as being internationalist socialists only in limited instances.[235] Bordigism is a Leninist left-communist current named after Amadeo Bordiga, who has been described as being "more Leninist than Lenin", and considered himself to be a Leninist.[236]

### Other types of communism

#### Anarcho-communism

Main page: Social:Anarcho-communism
Peter Kropotkin, main theorist of anarcho-communism

Anarcho-communism is a libertarian theory of anarchism and communism which advocates the abolition of the state, private property, and capitalism in favor of common ownership of the means of production;[237][238] direct democracy; and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".[239][240] Anarcho-communism differs from Marxism in that it rejects its view about the need for a state socialism phase prior to establishing communism. Peter Kropotkin, the main theorist of anarcho-communism, stated that a revolutionary society should "transform itself immediately into a communist society", that it should go immediately into what Marx had regarded as the "more advanced, completed, phase of communism".[241] In this way, it tries to avoid the reappearance of class divisions and the need for a state to be in control.[241]

Some forms of anarcho-communism, such as insurrectionary anarchism, are egoist and strongly influenced by radical individualism,[242][243][244] believing that anarchist communism does not require a communitarian nature at all. Most anarcho-communists view anarchist communism as a way of reconciling the opposition between the individual and society.[lower-alpha 7][245][246]

#### Christian communism

Main page: Social:Christian communism

Christian communism is a theological and political theory based upon the view that the teachings of Jesus Christ compel Christians to support religious communism as the ideal social system.[49] Although there is no universal agreement on the exact dates when communistic ideas and practices in Christianity began, many Christian communists state that evidence from the Bible suggests that the first Christians, including the Apostles in the New Testament, established their own small communist society in the years following Jesus' death and resurrection.[247]

Many advocates of Christian communism state that it was taught by Jesus and practiced by the apostles themselves,[248] an argument that historians and others, including anthropologist Roman A. Montero,[249] scholars like Ernest Renan,[250][251] and theologians like Charles Ellicott and Donald Guthrie,[252][253] generally agree with.[49][254] Christian communism enjoys some support in Russia. Russian musician Yegor Letov was an outspoken Christian communist, and in a 1995 interview he was quoted as saying: "Communism is the Kingdom of God on Earth."[255]

## Analysis

### Reception

Emily Morris from University College London wrote that because Karl Marx's writings have inspired many movements, including the Russian Revolution of 1917, communism is "commonly confused with the political and economic system that developed in the Soviet Union" after the revolution.[67][lower-alpha 8] Historian Andrzej Paczkowski summarized communism as "an ideology that seemed clearly the opposite, that was based on the secular desire of humanity to achieve equality and social justice, and that promised a great leap forward into freedom."[56]

Anti-communism developed as soon as communism became a conscious political movement in the 19th century, and anti-communist mass killings have been reported against alleged communists, or their alleged supporters, which were committed by anti-communists and political organizations or governments opposed to communism. The communist movement has faced opposition since it was founded and the opposition to it has often been organized and violent. Many of these anti-communist mass killing campaigns, primarily during the Cold War,[256][257] were supported by the United States and its Western Bloc allies,[258][259] including those who were formally part of the Non-Aligned Movement, such as the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 and Operation Condor in South America.[260][261]

### Excess mortality in Communist states

Many authors have written about excess deaths under Communist states and mortality rates,[note 5] such as excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin.[note 6] Some authors posit that there is a Communist death toll, whose death estimates vary widely, depending on the definitions of the deaths that are included in them, ranging from lows of 10–20 million to highs over 100 million. The higher estimates have been criticized by several scholars as ideologically motivated and inflated; they are also criticized for being inaccurate due to incomplete data, inflated by counting any excess death, making an unwarranted link to communism, and the grouping and body-counting itself. Higher estimates account for actions that Communist governments committed against civilians, including executions, man-made famines, and deaths that occurred during, or resulted from, imprisonment, and forced deportations and labor. Higher estimates are criticized for being based on sparse and incomplete data when significant errors are inevitable, skewed to higher possible values, and that victims of civil wars, the Holodomor and other famines, and war-related events should not be included.[55] Others have argued that, while certain estimates may not be accurate, "quibbling about numbers is unseemly. What matters is that many, many people were killed by communist regimes."[46]

There is no consensus among genocide scholars and scholars of Communism about whether some or all the events constituted a genocide or mass killing.[note 9] Among genocide scholars, there is no consensus on a common terminology,[269] and the events have been variously referred to as excess mortality or mass deaths; other terms used to define some of such killings include classicide, crimes against humanity, democide, genocide, politicide, holocaust, mass killing, and repression.[54][note 10] These scholars state that most Communist states did not engage in mass killings;[273][note 11] Benjamin Valentino proposes the category of Communist mass killing, alongside colonial, counter-guerrilla, and ethnic mass killing, as a subtype of dispossessive mass killing to distinguish it from coercive mass killing.[278] Genocide scholars do not consider ideology,[271] or regime-type, as an important factor that explains mass killings.[279] Some authors, such as John Gray,[280] Daniel Goldhagen,[281] and Richard Pipes,[282] consider the ideology of communism to be a significant causative factor in mass killings. Some connect killings in Joseph Stalin 's Soviet Union, Mao Zedong's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia on the basis that Stalin influenced Mao, who influenced Pol Pot; in all cases, scholars say killings were carried out as part of a policy of an unbalanced modernization process of rapid industrialization.[54][note 12]

Some authors and politicians, such as George G. Watson, allege that genocide was dictated in otherwise forgotten works of Karl Marx.[284][285] Many commentators on the political right point to the mass deaths under Communist states, claiming them as an indictment of communism.[286][287][288] Opponents of this view argue that these killings were aberrations caused by specific authoritarian regimes, and not caused by communism itself, and point to mass deaths in wars and famines that they argue were caused by colonialism, capitalism, and anti-communism as a counterpoint to those killings.[289][290] According to Dovid Katz and other historians, a historical revisionist view of the double genocide theory,[291][292] equating mass deaths under Communist states with the Holocaust, is popular in Eastern European countries and the Baltic states, and their approaches of history have been incorporated in the European Union agenda,[293] among them the Prague Declaration in June 2008 and the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism, which was proclaimed by the European Parliament in August 2008 and endorsed by the OSCE in Europe in July 2009. Among many scholars in Western Europe, the comparison of the two regimes and equivalence of their crimes has been, and still is, widely rejected.[293]

### Memory and legacy

Criticism of communism can be divided into two broad categories, namely that criticism of Communist party rule that concerns with the practical aspects of 20th-century Communist states,[294] and criticism of Marxism and communism generally that concerns its principles and theory.[295] Public memory of 20th-century Communist states has been described as a battleground between the communist-sympatethtic, or anti-anti-communist, political left and the anti-communism of the political right.[46] Critics of communism on the political right point to the excess deaths under Communist states as an indictment of communism as an ideology.[286][287][288] Defenders of communism on the political left say that the deaths were caused by specific authoritarian regimes and not communism as an ideology, while also pointing to anti-communist mass killings and deaths in wars that they argue were caused by capitalism and anti-communism as a counterpoint to the deaths under Communist states.[257][46][287]

Memory studies have been done on how the events are memorized.[296] According to Kristen R. Ghodsee and Scott Sehon, on the political left, there are "those with some sympathy for socialist ideals and the popular opinion of hundreds of millions of Russian and east European citizens nostalgic for their state socialist pasts.", while on the political right, there are "the committed anti-totalitarians, both east and west, insisting that all experiments with Marxism will always and inevitably end with the gulag."[46] The "victims of Communism" concept,[297] has become accepted scholarship, as part of the double genocide theory, in Eastern Europe and among anti-communists in general;[298] it is rejected by some Western European[293] and other scholars, especially when it is used to equate Communism and Nazism, which is seen by scholars as a long-discredited perspective.[299] The narrative posits that famines and mass deaths by Communist states can be attributed to a single cause and that communism, as "the deadliest ideology in history", or in the words of Jonathan Rauch as "the deadliest fantasy in human history",[300] represents the greatest threat to humanity.[287] Proponents posit an alleged link between communism, left-wing politics, and socialism with genocide, mass killing, and totalitarianism,[301] with some authors, such as George Watson, advocating a common history stretching from Marx to Adolf Hitler.[284] Some right-wing authors allege that Marx was responsible for Nazism and the Holocaust.[302]

Some authors, as Stéphane Courtois, propose a theory of equivalence between class and racial genocide.[303] It is supported by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, with 100 million being the most common estimate used from The Black Book of Communism despite some of the authors of the book distancing themselves from the estimates made by Stephen Courtois.[46] Various museums and monuments have been constructed in remembrance of the victims of Communism, with support of the European Union and various governments in Canada, Eastern Europe, and the United States.[64][65] Works such as The Black Book of Communism and Bloodlands legitimized debates on the comparison of Nazism and Stalinism,[303][304] and by extension communism, and the former work in particular was important in the criminalization of communism.[64][65]

The failure of Communist governments to live up to the ideal of a communist society, their general trend towards increasing authoritarianism, and the inherent inefficiencies in their economies have been linked to the decline of communism in the late 20th century.[1][43] Walter Scheidel stated that despite wide-reaching government actions, Communist states failed to achieve long-term economic, social, and political success.[305] The experience of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the North Korean famine, and alleged economic underperformance when compared to developed free market systems are cited as examples of Communist states failing to build a successful state while relying entirely on what they view as orthodox Marxism.[306][307] Despite those shortcomings, Philipp Ther stated that there was a general increase in the standard of living throughout Eastern Bloc countries as the result of modernization programs under Communist governments.[308] Branko Milanović wrote that following the end of the Cold War, many of those countries' economies declined to such an extent during the transition to capitalism that they have yet to return to the point they were prior to the collapse of communism.[309]

Most experts agree there was a significant increase in mortality rates following the years 1989 and 1991, including a 2014 World Health Organization report which concluded that the "health of people in the former Soviet countries deteriorated dramatically after the collapse of the Soviet Union."[310] Post-Communist Russia during the IMF-backed economic reforms of Boris Yeltsin experienced surging economic inequality and poverty as unemployment reached double digits by the early to mid 1990s.[311][312] By contrast, the Central European states of the former Eastern Bloc–Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia–showed healthy increases in life expectancy from the 1990s onward, compared to nearly thirty years of stagnation under Communism.[313] Bulgaria and Romania followed this trend after the introduction of more serious economic reforms in the late 1990s.[314][315] The economies of Eastern Bloc countries had previously experienced stagnation in the 1980s under Communism.[316] A common expression throughout Eastern Europe after 1989 was "everything they told us about communism was a lie, but everything they told us about capitalism was true."[310]:192 According to Grigore Pop-Eleches and Joshua Tucker in their book Communism's Shadow: Historical Legacies and Contemporary Political Attitudes, citizens of post-Communist countries are less supportive of democracy and more supportive of government-provided social welfare. They also found that those who lived under Communist rule were more likely to be left-authoritarian (referencing the right-wing authoritarian personality) than citizens of other countries. Those who are left-authoritarian in this sense more often tend to be older generations that lived under Communism. In contrast, younger post-Communist generations continue to be anti-democratic but are not as left-wing ideologically, which in the words of Pop-Eleches and Tucker "might help explain the growing popularity of right-wing populists in the region."[317]

Conservatives, liberals, and social democrats generally view 20th-century Communist states as unqualified failures. Political theorist and professor Jodi Dean argues that this limits the scope of discussion around political alternatives to capitalism and neoliberalism. Dean argues that, when people think of capitalism, they do not consider what are its worst results (climate change, economic inequality, hyperinflation, the Great Depression, the Great Recession, the robber barons, and unemployment) because the history of capitalism is viewed as dynamic and nuanced; the history of communism is not considered dynamic or nuanced, and there is a fixed historical narrative of communism that emphasizes authoritarianism, the gulag, starvation, and violence.[318][319] Some historians, among them Gary Gerstle and Walter Scheidel, suggest that the rise and fall of communism had a significant impact on the development and decline of labor movements and social welfare states in the United States and other Western societies. Gerstle argues that organized labor in the United States was strongest when the threat of communism reached its peak, and the decline of both organized labor and the welfare state coincided with the collapse of communism. Both Gerstle and Scheidel posit that as economic elites in the West became more fearful of possible communist revolutions in their own societies, especially as the tyranny and violence associated with communist governments became more apparent, the more willing they were to compromise with the working class, and much less so once the threat waned.[320][321]

Works
• American Communist History
• Twentieth Century Communism

## References

### Citations

1. Ball, Terence; Dagger, Richard, eds (2019). "Communism". Encyclopædia Britannica (revised ed.). Retrieved 10 June 2020.
2. "Communism". World Book Encyclopedia. 4. Chicago: World Book. 2008. pp. 890. ISBN 978-0-7166-0108-1.
3. Ely, Richard T (1883). French and German socialism in modern times. New York: Harper & Brothers. pp. 35–36. OCLC 456632. "All communists without exception propose that the people as a whole, or some particular division of the people, as a village or commune, should own all the means of production—land, houses, factories, railroads, canals, etc.; that production should be carried on in common; and that officers, selected in one way or another, should distribute among the inhabitants the fruits of their labor."
4. Bukharin, Nikolai; Preobrazhensky, Yevgeni (1922). "Distribution in the communist system". The ABC of Communism. London, England: Communist Party of Great Britain. pp. 72–73, § 20. Retrieved 18 August 2021.
5. Steele (1992), p. 43: "One widespread distinction was that socialism socialised production only while communism socialised production and consumption."
6. Engels, Friedrich (2005). "Section 18: What will be the course of this revolution?". The Principles of Communism. Retrieved 18 August 2021. "Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain."
7. Bukharin, Nikolai; Preobrazhensky, Yevgeni (1922). "Administrtion in the communist system". The ABC of Communism. London, England: Communist Party of Great Britain. pp. 73–75, § 21. Retrieved 18 August 2021.
8. Kurian, George, ed (2011). "Withering Away of the State". The Encyclopedia of Political Science. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. doi:10.4135/9781608712434. ISBN 978-1-933116-44-0. Retrieved 3 January 2016.
9. Kinna, Ruth (2012). Libertarian Socialism: Politics in Black and Red. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 1–34. ISBN 9781137284754.
10. March, Luke (2009). "Contemporary Far Left Parties in Europe: From Marxism to the Mainstream?". IPG 1: 126–143.
11. George & Wilcox 1996, p. 95
"The far left in America consists principally of people who believe in some form of Marxism-Leninism, i.e., some form of Communism. A small minority of extreme leftists adhere to "pure" Marxism or collectivist anarchism. Most far leftists scorn reforms (except as a short-term tactic), and instead aim for the complete overthrow of the capitalist system including the U.S. government."
12. "Left". 2009-04-15. "... communism is a more radical leftist ideology."
13. "Radical left". "Radical left is a term that refers collectively to people who hold left-wing political views that are considered extreme, such as supporting or working to establish communism, Marxism, Maoism, socialism, anarchism, or other forms of anticapitalism. The radical left is sometimes called the far left."
14. March, Luke (2009). "Contemporary Far Left Parties in Europe: From Marxism to the Mainstream?". IPG 1: 126. "The far left is becoming the principal challenge to mainstream social democratic parties, in large part because its main parties are no longer extreme, but present themselves as defending the values and policies that social democrats have allegedly abandoned.".
15. March, Luke (2012). Radical Left Parties in Europe (E-book ed.). London: Routledge. p. 1724. ISBN 978-1-136-57897-7. Retrieved 19 November 2021.
16. Cosseron, Serge (2007) (in fr). Dictionnaire de l'extrême gauche (paperback ed.). Paris: Larousse. p. 20. ISBN 978-2-035-82620-6. Retrieved 19 November 2021.
17.
18. March, Luke (2012). Radical Left Parties in Europe (E-book ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-57897-7. Retrieved 19 November 2021.
19. March, Luke (September 2012). "Problems and Perspectives of Contemporary European Radical Left Parties: Chasing a Lost World or Still a World to Win?". International Critical Thought (London: Routledge) 2 (3): 314–339. doi:10.1080/21598282.2012.706777.
20. Engels, Friedrich; Marx, Karl (1969). "Bourgeois and Proletarians". The Communist Manifesto. Marx/Engels Selected Works. 1. Moscow: Progress Publishers. pp. 98–137. Retrieved 1 March 2022.
21. Engels, Friedrich; Marx, Karl (1969). "Bourgeois and Proletarians". The Communist Manifesto. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Retrieved 1 March 2022.
22. Gasper, Phillip (October 2005). The Communist Manifesto: A Road Map to History's Most Important Political Document. Haymarket Books. p. 23. ISBN 978-1-931859-25-7. "Marx and Engels never speculated on the detailed organization of a future socialist or communist society. The key task for them was building a movement to overthrow capitalism. If and when that movement was successful, it would be up to the members of the new society to decide democratically how it was to be organized, in the concrete historical circumstances in which they found themselves."
23. Steele (1992), pp. 44–45: "By 1888, the term 'socialism' was in general use among Marxists, who had dropped 'communism', now considered an old fashioned term meaning the same as 'socialism'. ... At the turn of the century, Marxists called themselves socialists. ... The definition of socialism and communism as successive stages was introduced into Marxist theory by Lenin in 1917 ..., the new distinction was helpful to Lenin in defending his party against the traditional Marxist criticism that Russia was too backward for a socialist revolution."
24. Gregory, Paul R.; Stuart, Robert C. (2003). Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First (7 ed.). South-Western College Pub.. pp. 118. ISBN 0-618-26181-8. "Under socialism, each individual would be expected to contribute according to capability, and rewards would be distributed in proportion to that contribution. Subsequently, under communism, the basis of reward would be need."
25. Bockman, Johanna (2011). Markets in the Name of Socialism: The Left-Wing Origins of Neoliberalism. Stanford University Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-8047-7566-3. "According to nineteenth-century socialist views, socialism would function without capitalist economic categories – such as money, prices, interest, profits and rent – and thus would function according to laws other than those described by current economic science. While some socialists recognized the need for money and prices at least during the transition from capitalism to socialism, socialists more commonly believed that the socialist economy would soon administratively mobilize the economy in physical units without the use of prices or money."
26. Smith, Stephen (2014). The Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. pp. 3.
27. Darity, William A. Jr., ed (2008). "Communism". International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 2 (2nd ed.). New York City, New York: Macmillan Reference USA. pp. 35–36. ISBN 9780028661179.
28. "IV. Glossary". University of Washington. "... communism (noun) ... 2. The economic and political system instituted in the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Also, the economic and political system of several Soviet allies, such as China and Cuba. (Writers often capitalize Communism when they use the word in this sense.) These Communist economic systems often did not achieve the ideals of communist theory. For example, although many forms of property were owned by the government in the USSR and China, neither the work nor the products were shared in a manner that would be considered equitable by many communist or Marxist theorists."
29. Diamond, Sara (1995). Roads to Dominion: Right-wing Movements and Political Power in the United States. Guilford Press. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-8986-2864-7. Retrieved 23 August 2021.
30. Courtois, Stéphane (1999). "Introduction". in Courtois, Stéphane. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press. pp. ix–x, 2. ISBN 978-0-674-07608-2. Retrieved 23 August 2021.
31. Wald, Alan M. (2012). Exiles from a Future Time: The Forging of the Mid-Twentieth-Century Literary Left. UNC Press Books. p. xix. ISBN 978-1-4696-0867-9. Retrieved 13 August 2021.
32. Silber, Irwin (1994). Socialism: What Went Wrong? An Inquiry into the Theoretical and Historical Sources of the Socialist Crisis (hardback ed.). London, England: Pluto Press. ISBN 9780745307169.
33. Newman 2005, p. 5: "Chapter 1 looks at the foundations of the doctrine by examining the contribution made by various traditions of socialism in the period between the early 19th century and the aftermath of the First World War. The two forms that emerged as dominant by the early 1920s were social democracy and communism."
34. Dunn, Dennis (2016). A History of Orthodox, Islamic, and Western Christian Political Values. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan. pp. 126–131. ISBN 978-3319325668.
35. Frenkiel, Émilie; Shaoguang, Wang (15 July 2009). "Political change and democracy in China".
36. Dae-Kyu, Yoon (2003). "The Constitution of North Korea: Its Changes and Implications". Fordham International Law Journal 27 (4): 1289–1305. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
37. Park, Seong-Woo (23 September 2009). "Bug gaejeong heonbeob 'seongunsasang' cheos myeong-gi" (in ko). Radio Free Asia.
38. Seth, Michael J. (2019). A Concise History of Modern Korea: From the Late Nineteenth Century to the Present. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 159. ISBN 9781538129050. Retrieved 11 September 2020.
39. Fisher, Max (6 January 2016). "The single most important fact for understanding North Korea".
40. Worden, Robert L., ed (2008). North Korea: A Country Study (5th ed.). Washington, D. C.: Library of Congress. p. 206. ISBN 978-0-8444-1188-0. Retrieved 11 September 2020.
41. Schwekendiek, Daniel (2011). A Socioeconomic History of North Korea. Jefferson: McFarland & Company. pp. 31. ISBN 978-0786463442.
42. Lansford 2007, pp. 9–24, 36–44.
43. Wheatcroft, Stephen G. (1999). "Victims of Stalinism and the Soviet Secret Police: The Comparability and Reliability of the Archival Data. Not the Last Word". Europe-Asia Studies 51 (2): 315–345. doi:10.1080/09668139999056. ISSN 0966-8136.
44. Wheatcroft, Stephen G. (2000). "The Scale and Nature of Stalinist Repression and Its Demographic Significance: On Comments by Keep and Conquest". Europe-Asia Studies 52 (6): 1143–1159. doi:10.1080/09668130050143860. ISSN 0966-8136. PMID 19326595.
45. Lansford 2007, pp. 24–25.
46. Getty, J. Arch (22 January 1987). "Starving the Ukraine". The London Review of Books 9 (2): 7–8. Retrieved 13 August 2021.
47. Marples, David R. (May 2009). "Ethnic Issues in the Famine of 1932–1933 in Ukraine". Europe-Asia Studies 61 (3): 505–518. doi:10.1080/09668130902753325.
48. Davies, Sarah; Harris, James (2005). "Joseph Stalin: Power and Ideas". Stalin: A New History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 3–5. ISBN 978-1-139-44663-1.
49. Ellman, Michael (2002). "Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments". Europe-Asia Studies 54 (7): 1172. doi:10.1080/0966813022000017177.
50. Karlsson, Klas-Göran; Schoenhals, Michael (2008). Crimes Against Humanity Under Communist Regimes – Research Review. Stockholm: Forum for Living History. ISBN 9789197748728.
51. Paczkowski 2001, pp. 32–33.
52. Hoffman, Stanley (Spring 1998). "Le Livre noir du communisme: Crimes, terreur, répression (The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, and Repression) by Stéphane Courtois.". Foreign Policy 110 (Special Edition: Frontiers of Knowledge): 166–169. doi:10.2307/1149284.
53. Rosefielde, Steven (2010). Red Holocaust. London: Routledge. p. xvi. ISBN 978-0-415-77757-5.
54. Suny, Ronald Grigor (2007). "Russian Terror/ism and Revisionist Historiography". Australian Journal of Politics & History 53 (1): 5–19. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8497.2007.00439.x. "... [leaves out] most of the 40-60,000,000 lives lost in the Second World War, for which arguably Hitler and not Stalin was principally responsible.". Quote at p. 13.
55. Getty, J. Arch; Rittersporn, Gábor; Zemskov, Viktor (October 1993). "Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence". The American Historical Review 98 (4): 1017–1049. doi:10.2307/2166597. Retrieved 17 August 2021.
56. Wheatcroft, Stephen G. (March 1999). "Victims of Stalinism and the Soviet Secret Police: The Comparability and Reliability of the Archival Data. Not the Last Word". Europe-Asia Studies 51 (2): 340–342. doi:10.1080/09668139999056. Retrieved 17 August 2021.
57. Snyder, Timothy (27 January 2011). "Hitler vs. Stalin: Who Was Worse?". The New York Review of Books. Retrieved 17 August 2021.  See also p. 384 of Snyder's Bloodlands.
58. Ghodsee, Kristen (2014). "A Tale of 'Two Totalitarianisms': The Crisis of Capitalism and the Historical Memory of Communism". History of the Present 4 (2): 115–142. doi:10.5406/historypresent.4.2.0115.
59. Neumayer, Laure (2018). The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War. Routledge. ISBN 9781351141741.
60. Harper, Douglas (2020). "Communist".
61. Grandjonc, Jacques (1983). "Quelques dates à propos des termes communiste et communisme" (in fr). Mots 7 (1): 143–148. doi:10.3406/mots.1983.1122.
62. Hodges, Donald C. (1 February 2014). Sandino's Communism: Spiritual Politics for the Twenty-First Century. University of Texas Press. pp. 7. ISBN 978-0-292-71564-6.
63. Nancy, Jean-Luc (1992). "Communism, the Word". Commoning Times.
64. Williams, Raymond (1985). "Socialism". Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society (revised ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 289. ISBN 978-0-1952-0469-8. OCLC 1035920683. "The decisive distinction between socialist and communist, as in one sense these terms are now ordinarily used, came with the renaming, in 1918, of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks) as the All-Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). From that time on, a distinction of socialist from communist, often with supporting definitions such as social democrat or democratic socialist, became widely current, although it is significant that all communist parties, in line with earlier usage, continued to describe themselves as socialist and dedicated to socialism."
65. Ely, Richard T. (1883). French and German socialism in modern times. New York: Harper & Brothers. pp. 29–30. OCLC 456632. "The central idea of communism is economic equality. It is desired by communists that all ranks and differences in society should disappear, and one man be as good as another ... The distinctive idea of socialism is distributive justice. It goes back of the processes of modern life to the fact that he who does not work, lives on the labor of others. It aims to distribute economic goods according to the services rendered by the recipients ... Every communist is a socialist, and something more. Not every socialist is a communist."
66. Busky, Donald F. (2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-275-96886-1. "In a modern sense of the word, communism refers to the ideology of Marxism-Leninism."
67. Williams, Raymond (1985). "Socialism". Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society (revised ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1952-0469-8.
68. Engels, Friedrich (2002). Preface to the 1888 English Edition of the Communist Manifesto. Penguin. pp. 202.
69. Todorova, Maria (2020). The Lost World of Socialists at Europe's Margins: Imagining Utopia, 1870s–1920s (hardcover ed.). London: Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9781350150331.
70. Gildea, Robert (2000). "1848 in European Collective Memory". The Revolutions in Europe, 1848–1849: From Reform to Reaction (hardcover ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 207–235. ISBN 9780198208402.
71. Hudis, Peter (10 September 2018). "Marx's Concept of Socialism". in Hudis, Peter; Vidal, Matt; Smith, Tony et al.. The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190695545.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-069554-5.
72. Busky, Donald F. (2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger. pp. 6–8. ISBN 978-0-275-96886-1. "In a modern sense of the word, communism refers to the ideology of Marxism–Leninism. ... [T]he adjective democratic is added by democratic socialists to attempt to distinguish themselves from Communists who also call themselves socialists. All but communists, or more accurately, Marxist–Leninists, believe that modern-day communism is highly undemocratic and totalitarian in practice, and democratic socialists wish to emphasise by their name that they disagree strongly with the Marxist–Leninist brand of socialism."
73. "Communism". The Columbia Encyclopedia (6th ed.). 2007.
74. Walker, Rachel (April 1989). "Marxism–Leninism as Discourse: The Politics of the Empty Signifier and the Double Bind". British Journal of Political Science (Cambridge University Press) 19 (2): 161–189. doi:10.1017/S0007123400005421.
75. Malia, Martin (Fall 2002). "Judging Nazism and Communism". The National Interest (Center for the National Interest) (69): 63–78.
76. David-Fox, Michael (Winter 2004). "On the Primacy of Ideology: Soviet Revisionists and Holocaust Deniers (In Response to Martin Malia)". Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 5 (1): 81–105. doi:10.1353/kri.2004.0007.
77. Dallin, Alexander (Winter 2000). "The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. By Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartošek, and Jean-Louis Margolin. Trans. Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999. xx, 858 pp. Notes. Index. Photographs. Maps. $37.50, hard bound.". Slavic Review (Cambridge University Press) 59 (4): 882–883. doi:10.2307/2697429. 78. Wilczynski (2008), p. 21; Steele (1992), p. 45: "Among Western journalists the term 'Communist' came to refer exclusively to regimes and movements associated with the Communist International and its offspring: regimes which insisted that they were not communist but socialist, and movements which were barely communist in any sense at all."; Rosser & Barkley (2003), p. 14; Williams (1983), p. 289 79. Nation, R. Craig (1992). Black Earth, Red Star: A History of Soviet Security Policy, 1917–1991. Cornell University Press. pp. 85–86. ISBN 978-0801480072. Retrieved 19 December 2014. 80. Pipes, Richard (2001). Communism: A History. pp. 3–5. ISBN 978-0-8129-6864-4. 81. Bostaph, Samuel (1994). "Communism, Sparta, and Plato". in Reisman, David A.. Economic Thought and Political Theory. Recent Economic Thought Series. 37 (hardcover ed.). Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 1–36. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-1380-9_1. ISBN 9780792394334. 82. Franklin, A. Mildred (9 January 1950). "Communism and Dictatorship in Ancient Greece and Rome". The Classical Weekly (Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press) 43 (6): 83–89. doi:10.2307/4342653. 83. Yarshater, Ehsan (1983). "Mazdakism (The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Period)". The Cambridge History of Iran. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 991–1024 (1019). Retrieved 10 June 2020. 84. Ermak, Gennady (2019). Communism: The Great Misunderstanding. ISBN 978-1-7979-5738-8. 85. Janzen, Rod; Stanton, Max (2010). The Hutterites in North America (illustrated ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 17. ISBN:9780801899256. 86. Houlden, Leslie; Minard, Antone (2015). Jesus in History, Legend, Scripture, and Tradition: A World Encyclopedia: A World Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio. p. 357. ISBN 9781610698047. 87. Halfin, Igal (2000). From Darkness to Light: Class, Consciousness, and Salvation in Revolutionary Russia. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh Press. p. 46. ISBN 0822957043. 88. Surtz, Edward L. (June 1949). "Thomas More and Communism". PMLA (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 64 (3): 549–564. doi:10.2307/459753. 89. Nandanwad, Nikita (13 December 2020). "Communism, virtue and the ideal commonwealth in Thomas More's Utopia". Retrospect Journal (Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh). Retrieved 18 August 2021. 90. Papke, David (2016). "The Communisitic Inclinations of Sir Thomas More". Utopia500 (7). Retrieved 18 August 2021. 91. Elmen, Paul (September 1954). "The Theological Basis of Digger Communism". Church History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 23 (3): 207–218. doi:10.2307/3161310. 92. Juretic, George (April–June 1974). "Digger no Millenarian: The Revolutionizing of Gerrard Winstanley". Journal of the History of Ideas (Philadelfia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press) 36 (2): 263–280. doi:10.2307/2708927. 93. Hammerton, J. A.. Illustrated Encyclopaedia of World History Volume Eight. Mittal Publications. pp. 4979. GGKEY:96Y16ZBCJ04. 94. Billington, James H. (2011). Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith. Transaction Publishers. p. 71. ISBN 978-1-4128-1401-0. Retrieved 18 August 2021. 95. "Communism" (2006). Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 96. Hough, Jerry F.; Fainsod, Merle (1979). How the Soviet Union is Governed. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press. p. 81. ISBN 9780674410305. 97. Dowlah, Alex F.; Elliott, John E. (1997). The Life and Times of Soviet Socialism. Praeger. p. 18. ISBN 9780275956295. 98. Marples, David R. (2010). Russia in the Twentieth Century: The Quest for Stability. Routledge. p. 38. ISBN 9781408228227. 99. Wittfogel, Karl A. (July 1960). "The Marxist View of Russian Society and Revolution". World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 12 (4): 487–508. doi:10.2307/2009334. "Quote at p. 493.". 100. Edelman, Marc (1984). "Late Marx and the Russian Road: Marx and the 'Peripheries of Capitalism'". Monthly Review. 36 (December): 1–55. Retrieved 1 August 2021 – via Gale. 101. Faulkner, Neil (2017). A People's History of the Russian Revolution (hardback ed.). London: Pluto Press. pp. 34, 177. ISBN 9780745399041. Retrieved 18 August 2021. 102. White, Elizabeth (2010). The Socialist Alternative to Bolshevik Russia: The Socialist Revolutionary Party, 1921–39 (1st hardback ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 9780415435840. Retrieved 18 August 2021. "Narodniki had opposed the often mechanistic determinism of Russian Marxism with the belief that non-economic factors such as the human will act as the motor of history. The SRs believed that the creative work of ordinary people through unions and cooperatives and the local government organs of a democratic state could bring about social transformation. ... They, along with free soviets, the cooperatives and the mir could have formed the popular basis for a devolved and democratic rule across the Russian state." 103. "Narodniks". Encyclopedia of Marxism. Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 18 August 2021. 104. Holmes, Leslie (2009). Communism: a very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 18. ISBN 978-0-19-157088-9. OCLC 500808890. 105. Dando, William A. (June 1966). "A Map of the Election to the Russian Constituent Assembly of 1917". Slavic Review 25 (2): 314–319. doi:10.2307/2492782. ISSN 0037-6779. 106. White, Elizabeth (2010). The Socialist Alternative to Bolshevik Russia: The Socialist Revolutionary Party, 1921–39 (1st hardback ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 9780415435840. Retrieved 18 August 2021. 107. Franks, Benjamin (May 2012). "Between Anarchism and Marxism: The Beginnings and Ends of the Schism". Journal of Political Ideologies 17 (2): 202–227. doi:10.1080/13569317.2012.676867. ISSN 1356-9317. 108. Wilhelm, John Howard (1985). "The Soviet Union Has an Administered, Not a Planned, Economy". Soviet Studies 37 (1): 118–30. doi:10.1080/09668138508411571. 109. Gregory, Paul Roderick (2004). The Political Economy of Stalinism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511615856. ISBN 978-0-511-61585-6. Retrieved 12 August 2021. "'Although Stalin was the system's prime architect, the system was managed by thousands of 'Stalins' in a nested dictatorship,' Gregory writes. 'This study pinpoints the reasons for the failure of the system—poor planning, unreliable supplies, the preferential treatment of indigenous enterprises, the lack of knowledge of planners, etc.—but also focuses on the basic principal agent conflict between planners and producers, which created a sixty-year reform stalemate.'" 110. Ellman, Michael (2007). "The Rise and Fall of Socialist Planning". in Estrin, Saul; Kołodko, Grzegorz W.; Uvalić, Milica. Transition and Beyond: Essays in Honour of Mario Nuti. London: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-230-54697-4. "In the USSR in the late 1980s the system was normally referred to as the 'administrative-command' economy. What was fundamental to this system was not the plan but the role of administrative hierarchies at all levels of decision making; the absence of control over decision making by the population ... ." 111. Bland, Bill (1995). "The Restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union". Revolutionary Democracy Journal. Retrieved 16 February 2020. 112. Bland, Bill (1997). Class Struggles in China (revised ed.). London. Retrieved 16 February 2020. 113. Smith, S. A. (2014). The Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism. Oxford University Press. p. 126. ISBN 9780191667527. "The 1936 Constitution described the Soviet Union for the first time as a 'socialist society', rhetorically fulfilling the aim of building socialism in one country, as Stalin had promised." 114. Peters, John E. (1998). "Book Reviews: The Life and Times of Soviet Socialism". Journal of Economic Issues 32 (4): 1203–1206. doi:10.1080/00213624.1998.11506129. 115. Himmer, Robert (1994). "The Transition from War Communism to the New Economic Policy: An Analysis of Stalin's Views". The Russian Review 53 (4): 515–529. doi:10.2307/130963. 116. Davies, Norman (2001). "Communism". in Dear, I. C. B.; Foot, M. R. D.. The Oxford Companion to World War II. Oxford University Press. 117. Sedov, Lev (1980). The Red Book on the Moscow Trial: Documents. New York: New Park Publications. ISBN 0-86151-015-1. 118. Gorlizki, Yoram (2004). Cold peace: Stalin and the Soviet ruling circle, 1945-1953. O. V. Khlevni︠u︡k. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-534735-7. OCLC 57589785. 119. Gaddis, John Lewis (2006). The Cold War: A New History. Penguin Books. 120. McDermott, Kevin (2006). Stalin: Revolutionary in an Era of War. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-333-71122-4. 121. Brown 2009, pp. 179–193. 122. Luthi, Lorenz M. (2010). The Sino-Soviet Split: Cold War in the Communist World. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1400837625. 123. Brown 2009, pp. 316–332. 124. Perkins, Dwight Heald (1984). China's economic policy and performance during the Cultural Revolution and its aftermath. Harvard Institute for International Development. p. 12. 125. Vogel, Ezra F. (2011). Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China. Harvard University Press. pp. 4042. 126. Johnson, Ian (5 February 2018). "Who Killed More: Hitler, Stalin, or Mao?". 127. Schram, Stuart (March 2007). "Mao: The Unknown Story". The China Quarterly (189): 205. doi:10.1017/s030574100600107x. 128. Evangelista, Matthew A. (2005). Peace Studies: Critical Concepts in Political Science. Taylor & Francis. pp. 96. ISBN 978-0415339230. 129. Bottelier, Pieter (2018). Economic Policy Making In China (1949–2016): The Role of Economists. Routledge. pp. 131. ISBN 978-1351393812. "We should remember, however, that Mao also did wonderful things for China; apart from reuniting the country, he restored a sense of natural pride, greatly improved women's rights, basic healthcare and primary education, ended opium abuse, simplified Chinese characters, developed pinyin and promoted its use for teaching purposes." 130. Pantsov, Alexander V.; Levine, Steven I. (2013). Mao: The Real Story. Simon & Schuster. p. 574. ISBN 978-1451654486. 131. Galtung, Marte Kjær; Stenslie, Stig (2014). 49 Myths about China. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 189. ISBN 978-1442236226. 132. Babiarz, Kimberly Singer et al. (2015). "An exploration of China's mortality decline under Mao: A provincial analysis, 1950–80". Population Studies 69 (1): 39–56. doi:10.1080/00324728.2014.972432. PMID 25495509. "China's growth in life expectancy at birth from 35–40 years in 1949 to 65.5 years in 1980 is among the most rapid sustained increases in documented global history.". 133. (in sq) Kushtetuta e Republikës Popullore Socialiste të Shqipërisë: [miratuar nga Kuvendi Popullor më 28. 12. 1976. SearchWorks (SULAIR)]. 8 Nëntori. 4 January 1977. Retrieved 3 June 2011. 134. Chambers Dictionary of World History. Edinburgh: Chambers. 2000. p. 769. ISBN 9780550100948. 135. Georgakas, Dan (1992). Encyclopedia of the American Left (paperback ed.). Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 9780252062506. 136. Kindersley, Richard, ed (1981). In Search of Eurocommunism. Macmillan Press. ISBN 978-1-349-16581-0. 137. Deutscher, Tamara (January–February 1983). "E. H. Carr—A Personal Memoir". New Left Review I (137): 78–86. Retrieved 13 August 2021. 138. Alimzhanov, Anuarbek (1991). "Deklaratsiya Soveta Respublik Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR v svyazi s sozdaniyem Sodruzhestva Nezavisimykh Gosudarstv" Декларация Совета Республик Верховного Совета СССР в связи с созданием Содружества Независимых Государств"]. [Declaration of the Council of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR in connection with the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States]. . Vedomosti (in Russian). No. 52. Declaration № 142-Н (in Russian) of the Soviet of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, formally establishing the dissolution of the Soviet Union as a state and subject of international law. 139. Sargent, Lyman Tower (2008). Contemporary Political Ideologies: A Comparative Analysis (14th ed.). Wadsworth Publishing. p. 117. ISBN 9780495569398. "Because many communists now call themselves democratic socialists, it is sometimes difficult to know what a political label really means. As a result, social democratic has become a common new label for democratic socialist political parties." 140. Lamb, Peter (2015). Historical Dictionary of Socialism (3rd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. p. 415. ISBN 9781442258266. "In the 1990s, following the collapse of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe and the breakup of the Soviet Union, social democracy was adopted by some of the old communist parties. Hence, parties such as the Czech Social Democratic Party, the Bulgarian Social Democrats, the Estonian Social Democratic Party, and the Romanian Social Democratic Party, among others, achieved varying degrees of electoral success. Similar processes took place in Africa as the old communist parties were transformed into social democratic ones, even though they retained their traditional titles ... ." 141. Bhattarai, Kamal Dev (21 February 2018). "The (Re)Birth of the Nepal Communist Party". The Diplomat. 142. 143. Morgan 2001, p. 2332. 144. Wolff, Richard; Resnick, Stephen (1987). Economics: Marxian versus Neoclassical. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 130. ISBN 978-0801834806. "The German Marxists extended the theory to groups and issues Marx had barely touched. Marxian analyses of the legal system, of the social role of women, of foreign trade, of international rivalries among capitalist nations, and the role of parliamentary democracy in the transition to socialism drew animated debates ... Marxian theory (singular) gave way to Marxian theories (plural)." 145. Marx, Karl; Engels, Friedrich (1845). "Idealism and Materialism". The German Ideology. p. 48. "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." 146. O'Hara, Phillip (2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy. 2. Routledge. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-415-24187-8. "Marxist political economists differ over their definitions of capitalism, socialism and communism. These differences are so fundamental, the arguments among differently persuaded Marxist political economists have sometimes been as intense as their oppositions to political economies that celebrate capitalism." 147. "Communism". The Columbia Encyclopedia (6th ed.). 2007. 148. Gluckstein, Donny (26 June 2014). "Classical Marxism and the question of reformism". International Socialism. Retrieved 19 December 2019. 149. Rees, John (1998). The Algebra of Revolution: The Dialectic and the Classical Marxist Tradition. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-19877-6. 150. Lukács, György (1967). "What is Orthodox Marxism?". History and Class Consciousness'. Merlin Press. Retrieved 22 September 2021. "Orthodox Marxism, therefore, does not imply the uncritical acceptance of the results of Marx's investigations. It is not the 'belief' in this or that thesis, nor the exegesis of a 'sacred' book. On the contrary, orthodoxy refers exclusively to method." 151. Engels, Friedrich (1969). "Principles of Communism". No. 4 – "How did the proletariat originate?" Marx & Engels Selected Works. I. Moscow: Progress Publishers. pp. 81–97. 152. Engels, Friedrich. [1847] (1969). ""Was not the abolition of private property possible at an earlier time?" Principles of Communism. Marx/Engels Collected Works. I. Moscow: Progress Publishers. pp. 81–97. 153. Priestland, David (January 2002). "Soviet Democracy, 1917–91". European History Quarterly (Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications) 32 (1): 111–130. doi:10.1177/0269142002032001564. Retrieved 19 August 2021. "Lenin defended all four elements of Soviet democracy in his seminal theoretical work of 1917, State and Revolution. The time had come, Lenin argued, for the destruction of the foundations of the bourgeois state, and its replacement with an ultra-democratic 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' based on the model of democracy followed by the communards of Paris in 1871. Much of the work was theoretical, designed, by means of quotations from Marx and Engels, to win battles within the international Social Democratic movement against Lenin's arch-enemy Kautsky. However, Lenin was not operating only in the realm of theory. He took encouragement from the rise of a whole range of institutions that seemed to embody class-based, direct democracy, and in particular the soviets and the factory committees, which demanded the right to 'supervise' ('kontrolirovat') (although not to take the place of) factory management.". 154. Twiss, Thomas M. (2014). Trotsky and the Problem of Soviet Bureaucracy. Brill. pp. 28–29. ISBN 978-90-04-26953-8. 155. Murray, Patrick (March 2020). "The Illusion of the Economic: Social Theory without Social Forms". Critical Historical Studies 7 (1): 19–27. doi:10.1086/708005. ISSN 2326-4462. "'There are no counterparts to Marx's economic concepts in either classical or utility theory.' I take this to mean that Marx breaks with economics, where economics is understood to be a generally applicable social science.". 156. Liedman, Sven-Eric (December 2020). "Engelsismen" (in sv). Fronesis (28): 134. "Engels var också först med att kritiskt bearbeta den nya nationalekonomin; hans 'Utkast till en kritik av nationalekonomin' kom ut 1844 och blev en utgångspunkt för Marx egen kritik av den politiska ekonomin". 157. István Mészáros (2010). "The Critique of Political Economy". Social Structure and Forms of Consciousness. 1. transcribed by Conttren, V. (2022). New York: Monthly Review Press. pp. 317–331. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/65MXD. 158. Henderson, Willie (2000). John Ruskin's political economy. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-203-15946-2. OCLC 48139638. "... Ruskin attempted a methodological/scientific critique of political economy. He fixed on ideas of 'natural laws', 'economic man' and the prevailing notion of 'value' to point out gaps and inconsistencies in the system of classical economics." 159. Louis, Althusser; Balibar, Etienne (1979). Reading Capital. Verso Editions. pp. 158. OCLC 216233458. "'To criticize Political Economy' means to confront it with a new problematic and a new object: i.e., to question the very object of Political Economy" 160. Fareld, Victoria; Kuch, Hannes (2020), From Marx to Hegel and Back, Bloomsbury Academic, p. 142,182, doi:10.5040/9781350082700.ch-001, ISBN 978-1-3500-8267-0 161. Postone 1995, pp. 44,192–216. 162. Mortensen. "Ekonomi" (in sv). Tidskrift för litteraturvetenskap 3 (4): 9. 163. Postone, Moishe (1995). Time, labor, and social domination: a reinterpretation of Marx's critical theory. pp. 130, 5. ISBN 0-521-56540-5. OCLC 910250140. 164. Jönsson, Dan. "John Ruskin: En brittisk 1800-talsaristokrat för vår tid? - OBS" (in sv). Sveriges Radio. "Den klassiska nationalekonomin, som den utarbetats av John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith och David Ricardo, betraktade han som en sorts kollektivt hjärnsläpp ... [Transl. Ruskin viewed the classical political economy as it was developed by Mill, Smith, and Ricardo, as a kind of 'collective mental lapse'.]" 165. Ramsay, Anders (21 December 2009). "Marx? Which Marx? Marx's work and its history of reception". 166. Ruccio, David (10 December 2020). "Toward a critique of political economy". "Marx arrives at conclusions and formulates new terms that run directly counter to those of Smith, Ricardo, and the other classical political economists." 167. Louis, Althusser; Balibar, Etienne (1979). Reading Capital. Verso Editions. pp. 158. OCLC 216233458. "'To criticize Political Economy' means to confront it with a new problematic and a new object: i.e., to question the very object of Political Economy" 168. Murray, Patrick (March 2020). "The Illusion of the Economic: Social Theory without Social Forms". Critical Historical Studies 7 (1): 19–27. doi:10.1086/708005. ISSN 2326-4462. 169. Patterson, Orlando; Fosse, Ethan. "Overreliance on the Pseudo-Science of Economics". The New York Times. 170. Ruda, Frank; Hamza, Agon (2016). "Introduction: Critique of Political Economy". Crisis and Critique 3 (3): 5–7. Retrieved 13 January 2023. 171. Free will, non-predestination and non-determinism are emphasized in Marx's famous quote "Men make their own history". The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852). 172. The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought (Third ed.). 1999. pp. 476–477. 173. "Leninism". Encyclopædia Britannica. 7 (15th ed.). pp. 265. 174. Lisichkin, G. (1989). "Мифы и реальность" (in ru). Novy Mir 3: 59. 175. Butenko, Aleksandr (1996). "Sotsializm segodnya: opyt i novaya teoriya" (in ru). Журнал Альтернативы (1): 2–22. 176. Platkin, Richard (1981). "Comment on Wallerstein". Contemporary Marxism (Synthesis Publications) 4–5 (4): 151. "[S]ocialism in one country, a pragmatic deviation from classical Marxism.". 177. Erik, Cornell (2002). North Korea Under Communism: Report of an Envoy to Paradise. Routledge. p. 169. ISBN 978-0700716975. "Socialism in one country, a slogan that aroused protests as not only it implied a major deviation from Marxist internationalism, but was also strictly speaking incompatible with the basic tenets of Marxism." 178. Haro, Lea (2011). "Entering a Theoretical Void: The Theory of Social Fascism and Stalinism in the German Communist Party". Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory 39 (4): 563–582. doi:10.1080/03017605.2011.621248. 179. Hoppe, Bert (2011) (in de). In Stalins Gefolgschaft: Moskau und die KPD 1928–1933. Oldenbourg Verlag. ISBN 978-3-486-71173-8. 180. Mao, Zedong (1964). On Khrushchev's Phoney Communism and Its Historical Lessons for the World. Beijing: Foreign Language Press. Retrieved 1 August 2021. 181. Hoxha, Enver (1978). "The Theory of 'Three Worlds': A Counterrevolutionary Chauvinist Theory". Imperialism and the Revolution. Tirana: Foreign Language Press. Retrieved 1 August 2021. 182. Engels, Friedrich. "A Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Program of 1891". Marx/Engels Collected Works. 27. p. 217. "If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power under the form of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat." 183. Todd, Allan. History for the IB Diploma: Communism in Crisis 1976–89. p. 16. "The term Marxism–Leninism, invented by Stalin, was not used until after Lenin's death in 1924. It soon came to be used in Stalin's Soviet Union to refer to what he described as 'orthodox Marxism'. This increasingly came to mean what Stalin himself had to say about political and economic issues. ... However, many Marxists (even members of the Communist Party itself) believed that Stalin's ideas and practices (such as socialism in one country and the purges) were almost total distortions of what Marx and Lenin had said." 184. Patenaude 2017, p. 199. 185. Patenaude 2017, p. 193. 186. Daniels, Robert V. (1993). A Documentary History of Communism in Russia (3rd ed.). Burlington, Vermont: University of Vermont Press. pp. 125–129, 158–159. ISBN 978-0-87451-616-6. 187. Trotsky, Leon (May–June 1938). "The Transitional Program". Bulletin of the Opposition. Retrieved 5 November 2008. 188. Patenaude 2017, pp. 189, 194. 189. Johnson, Walker & Gray 2014, p. 155, Fourth International (FI). 190. National Committee of the SWP (16 November 1953). "A Letter to Trotskyists Throughout the World". The Militant. 191. Korolev, Jeff (27 September 2021). "On the Problem of Trotskyism". Peace, Land, and Bread. Retrieved 11 February 2022. 192. Meisner, Maurice (January–March 1971). "Leninism and Maoism: Some Populist Perspectives on Marxism-Leninism in China". The China Quarterly 45 (45): 2–36. doi:10.1017/S0305741000010407. 193. "On Marxism-Leninism-Maoism". Communist Party of Peru. 1982. 194. Escalona, Fabien (29 December 2020). "Le PCF et l'eurocommunisme: l'ultime rendez-vous manqué?" (in fr). Mediapart. 195. "Eurocomunismo" (in it). Enciclopedia Treccani. 2010. Retrieved 22 September 2021. 196. Pierce, Wayne. "Libertarian Marxism's Relation to Anarchism". The Utopian: 73–80. 197. Gorter, Hermann; Pannekoek, Antonie; Pankhurst, Sylvia; Rühle, Otto (2007). Non-Leninist Marxism: Writings on the Workers Councils. St. Petersburg, Florida: Red and Black Publishers. ISBN 978-0-9791813-6-8. 198. "The Retreat of Social Democracy ... Re-imposition of Work in Britain and the 'Social Europe'". Aufheben 8. Autumn 1999. Retrieved 31 August 2021. 199. Screpanti, Ernesto (2007). Libertarian communism: Marx Engels and the Political Economy of Freedom. London: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0230018969. 200. Draper, Hal (1971). "The Principle of Self-Emancipation in Marx and Engels". Socialist Register 8 (8). Retrieved 25 April 2015. 201. Chomsky, Noam, Government In The Future, Poetry Center of the New York YM-YWHA 202. Varoufakis, Yanis. "Yanis Varoufakis thinks we need a radically new way of thinking about the economy, finance and capitalism". Ted. "Yanis Varoufakis describes himself as a "libertarian Marxist" 203. Johnson, Walker & Gray 2014, pp. 313–314, Pannekoek, Antonie (1873–1960). 204. van der Linden, Marcel (2004). "On Council Communism". Historical Materialism 12 (4): 27–50. doi:10.1163/1569206043505275. 205. Pannekoek, Antonie (1920). "The New Blanquism". Der Kommunist (Bremen) (27). Retrieved 31 July 2020. 206. Memos, Christos (Autumn–Winter 2012). "Anarchism and Council Communism on the Russian Revolution". Anarchist Studies (Lawrence & Wishart Ltd.) 20 (2): 22–47. Retrieved 27 May 2022. 207. Gerber, John (1989). Anton Pannekoek and the Socialism of Workers' Self-Emancipation, 1873-1960. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ISBN 978-0792302742. 208. Shipway, Mark (1987). "Council Communism". Non-Market Socialism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. 104–126. 209. Pannekoek, Anton (July 1913). "Socialism and Labor Unionism". The New Review 1 (18). Retrieved 31 July 2020. 210. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Gorter et al. 2007 211. Bordiga, Amadeo. "Dialogue with Stalin". Marxists Internet Archive. 212. Kowalski, Ronald I. (1991). The Bolshevik Party in Conflict: The Left Communist Opposition of 1918. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave MacMillan. p. 2. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-10367-6. ISBN 978-1-349-10369-0. 213. Piccone, Paul (1983). Italian Marxism. University of California Press. pp. 134. ISBN 978-0-520-04798-3. 214. Mayne, Alan James (1999). From Politics Past to Politics Future: An Integrated Analysis of Current and Emergent Paradigms. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 316. ISBN 978-0-275-96151-0. 215. Anarchism for Know-It-Alls. Filiquarian Publishing. 2008. ISBN 978-1-59986-218-7. 216. Price, Wayne. What is Anarchist Communism?. Retrieved 19 January 2011. 217. Gray, Christopher (1998). Leaving the 20th century: the incomplete work of the Situationist International. London. pp. 88. ISBN 9780946061150. 218. Bob Black. Nightmares of Reason. Retrieved 1 November 2010. 219. Dielo Truda (Workers' Cause) (1926). Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists. "This other society will be libertarian communism, in which social solidarity and free individuality find their full expression, and in which these two ideas develop in perfect harmony." 220. "MY PERSPECTIVES – Willful Disobedience Vol. 2, No. 12". "I see the dichotomies made between individualism and communism, individual revolt and class struggle, the struggle against human exploitation and the exploitation of nature as false dichotomies and feel that those who accept them are impoverishing their own critique and struggle." 221. Montero, Roman (30 July 2019). "The Sources of Early Christian Communism". 222. Kautsky, Karl (1953). "IV.II. The Christian Idea of the Messiah. Jesus as a Rebel.". Foundations of Christianity. Russell & Russell. 223. Montero, Roman A. (2017). All Things in Common The Economic Practices of the Early Christians. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 5. ISBN 9781532607912. OCLC 994706026. 224. Renan, Ernest (1869). "VIII. First Persecution. Death of Stephen. Destruction of the First Church of Jerusalem". Origins of Christianity. II. The Apostles. New York: Carleton. p. 122. 225. Boer, Roland (2009). "Conclusion: What If? Calvin and the Spirit of Revolution. Bible". Political Grace. The Revolutionary Theology of John Calvin. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 120. ISBN 978-0-664-23393-8. 226. Ellicott, Charles John; Plumptre, Edward Hayes (1910). "III. The Church in Jerusalem. I. Christian Communism". The Acts of the Apostles. London: Cassell. 227. Guthrie, Donald (1992). "3. Early Problems. 15. Early Christian Communism". The Apostles. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-310-25421-8. 228. Flinn, Frank K. (2007). Encyclopedia of Catholicism. Infobase Publishing. pp. 173–174. ISBN 978-0-8160-7565-2. 229. Agranovsky, Dmitry (12 July 1995). "Yegor Letov: Russkiy Proryv" (in ru). Sovetskaya Rossiya (145). Retrieved 15 August 2021. 230. Aarons, Mark (2007). "Justice Betrayed: Post-1945 Responses to Genocide". in Blumenthal, David A.; McCormack, Timothy L. H.. The Legacy of Nuremberg: Civilising Influence or Institutionalised Vengeance? (International Humanitarian Law). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 71, 80–81. ISBN 978-9004156913. Retrieved 28 June 2021. 231. 232. McSherry, J. Patrice (2011). "Chapter 5: 'Industrial repression' and Operation Condor in Latin America". in Esparza, Marcia; Huttenbach, Henry R.; Feierstein, Daniel. State Violence and Genocide in Latin America: The Cold War Years (Critical Terrorism Studies). Routledge. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-415-66457-8. 233. Bevins, Vincent (18 May 2020a). "How 'Jakarta' Became the Codeword for US-Backed Mass Killing". The New York Review of Books. Retrieved 15 August 2021. 234. Prashad, Vijay (2020). Washington Bullets: A History of the CIA, Coups, and Assassinations. Monthly Review Press. p. 87. ISBN 978-1583679067. 235. Charny, Israel W.; Parsons, William S.; Totten, Samuel (2004). Century of Genocide: Critical Essays and Eyewitness Accounts. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-94430-4. Retrieved 13 August 2021. 236. Mann, Michael (2005). The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-53854-1. Retrieved 13 August 2021. 237. Sémelin, Jacques (2007). Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-14282-3. Retrieved 13 August 2021. 238. Andrieu, Claire; Gensburger, Sarah; Sémelin, Jacques (2011). Resisting Genocide: The Multiple Forms of Rescue. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-80046-4. Retrieved 13 August 2021. 239. Valentino, Benjamin (2013). Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-6717-2. Retrieved 13 August 2021. 240. Fein, Helen (1993). "Soviet and Communist Genocides and 'Democide'". Genocide: A Sociological Perspective; Contextual and Comparative Studies I: Ideological Genocides. SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-0-8039-8829-3. Retrieved 13 August 2021. 241. Heder, Steve (July 1997). "Racism, Marxism, Labelling, and Genocide in Ben Kiernan's 'The Pol Pot Regime'". South East Asia (SAGE Publications) 5 (2): 101–153. doi:10.1177/0967828X9700500202. 242. Weiss-Wendt, Anton (2008). "Problems in Comparative Genocide Scholarship". in Stone, Dan. The Historiography of Genocide. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 42–70. doi:10.1057/9780230297784_3. ISBN 978-0-230-29778-4. "There is barely any other field of study that enjoys so little consensus on defining principles such as definition of genocide, typology, application of a comparative method, and timeframe. Considering that scholars have always put stress on prevention of genocide, comparative genocide studies have been a failure. Paradoxically, nobody has attempted so far to assess the field of comparative genocide studies as a whole. This is one of the reasons why those who define themselves as genocide scholars have not been able to detect the situation of crisis." 243. Atsushi, Tago; Wayman, Frank W. (2010). "Explaining the onset of mass killing, 1949–87". Journal of Peace Research 47 (1): 3–13. doi:10.1177/0022343309342944. ISSN 0022-3433. 244. Valentino, Benjamin (2005). Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. pp. 91. ISBN 978-0-801-47273-2. "Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing." 245. (in de) 'Roter Holocaust'? Kritik des Schwarzbuchs des Kommunismus. Hamburg: Konkret Verlag Literatur. 1998. ISBN 3-89458-169-7. 246. Malia, Martin (October 1999). "Preface". The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press. p. xiv. ISBN 978-0-674-07608-2. Retrieved 12 August 2021. "... commentators in the liberal Le Monde argue that it is illegitimate to speak of a single Communist movement from Phnom Penh to Paris. Rather, the rampage of the Khmer Rouge is like the ethnic massacres of third-world Rwanda, or the 'rural' Communism of Asia is radically different from the 'urban' Communism of Europe; or Asian Communism is really only anticolonial nationalism. ... conflating sociologically diverse movements is merely a stratagem to obtain a higher body count against Communism, and thus against all the left." 247. Hackmann, Jörg (March 2009). "From National Victims to Transnational Bystanders? The Changing Commemoration of World War II in Central and Eastern Europe". Constellations 16 (1): 167–181. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8675.2009.00526.x. 248. Heni, Clemens (Fall 2008). "Secondary Anti-Semitism: From Hard-Core to Soft-Core Denial of the Shoah". Jewish Political Studies Review (Jerusalem) 20 (3/4): 73–92. 249. Valentino, Benjamin (2005). Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. pp. 66. ISBN 978-0-801-47273-2. "I contend mass killing occurs when powerful groups come to believe it is the best available means to accomplish certain radical goals, counter specific types of threats, or solve difficult military problem." 250. Straus, Scott (April 2007). "Review: Second-Generation Comparative Research on Genocide". World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 59 (3): 476–501. doi:10.1017/S004388710002089X. 251. Gray, John (1990). Totalitarianism at the crossroads. Ellen Frankel Paul. [Bowling Green, OH]: Social Philosophy & Policy Center. pp. 116. ISBN 0-88738-351-3. OCLC 20996281. 252. Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah (2009). Worse than war: genocide, eliminationism, and the ongoing assault on humanity (1st ed.). New York: PublicAffairs. pp. 206. ISBN 978-1-58648-769-0. OCLC 316035698. 253. Pipes, Richard (2001). Communism: a history. New York: Modern Library. pp. 147. ISBN 0-679-64050-9. OCLC 47924025. 254. Mann, Michael (2005). The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing (illustrated, reprint ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 343. ISBN 9780521538541. Retrieved 28 August 2021. "As in other Communist development plans, this agricultural surplus, essentially rice, could be exported to pay for the import of machinery, first for agriculture and light industry, later for heavy industry (Chandler, 1992: 120–8)." 255. Grant, Robert (November 1999). "Review: The Lost Literature of Socialism". The Review of English Studies 50 (200): 557–559. doi:10.1093/res/50.200.557. 256. Ijabs, Ivars (23 May 2008). "Cienīga atbilde: Soviet Story" (in lv). Latvijas Vēstnesis. "To present Karl Marx as the 'progenitor of modern genocide' is simply to lie." 257. 258. Sullivan, Dylan; Hickel, Jason (2 December 2022). "How British colonialism killed 100 million Indians in 40 years". Al Jazeera. "While the precise number of deaths is sensitive to the assumptions we make about baseline mortality, it is clear that somewhere in the vicinity of 100 million people died prematurely at the height of British colonialism. This is among the largest policy-induced mortality crises in human history. It is larger than the combined number of deaths that occurred during all famines in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Mengistu's Ethiopia." 259. Liedy, Amy Shannon; Ruble, Blair (7 March 2011). "Holocaust Revisionism, Ultranationalism, and the Nazi/Soviet 'Double Genocide' Debate in Eastern Europe". Wilson Center. 260. Shafir, Michael (Summer 2016). "Ideology, Memory and Religion in Post-Communist East Central Europe: A Comparative Study Focused on Post-Holocaust". Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 15 (44): 52–110. 261. Bosteels, Bruno (2014). The Actuality of Communism (paper back ed.). New York City, New York: Verso Books. ISBN 9781781687673. 262. Taras, Raymond C. (2015). The Road to Disillusion: From Critical Marxism to Post-Communism in Eastern Europe (E-book ed.). London: Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781317454786. 263. Kaprāns, Mārtiņš (2 May 2015). "Hegemonic representations of the past and digital agency: Giving meaning to 'The Soviet Story' on social networking sites". Memory Studies 9 (2): 156–172. doi:10.1177/1750698015587151. 264. Neumayer, Laure (November 2017). "Advocating for the Cause of the 'Victims of Communism' in the European Political Space: Memory Entrepreneurs in Interstitial Fields". Nationalities Papers (Cambridge University Press) 45 (6): 992–1012. doi:10.1080/00905992.2017.1364230. 265. Dujisin, Zoltan (July 2020). "A History of Post-Communist Remembrance: From Memory Politics to the Emergence of a Field of Anticommunism". Theory and Society 50 (January 2021): 65–96. doi:10.1007/s11186-020-09401-5. "This article invites the view that the Europeanization of an antitotalitarian 'collective memory' of communism reveals the emergence of a field of anticommunism. This transnational field is inextricably tied to the proliferation of state-sponsored and anticommunist memory institutes across Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), ... [and is proposed by] anticommunist memory entrepreneurs.". 266. Doumanis, Nicholas, ed (2016). The Oxford Handbook of European History, 1914–1945 (E-book ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. pp. 377–378. ISBN 9780191017759. 267. Rauch, Jonathan (December 2003). "The Forgotten Millions". The Atlantic. 268. Mrozick, Agnieszka (2019). Kuligowski, Piotr; Moll, Łukasz; Szadkowski, Krystian. eds. "Anti-Communism: It's High Time to Diagnose and Counteract". Praktyka Teoretyczna (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań) 1 (31, Anti-Communisms: Discourses of Exclusion): 178–184. Retrieved 26 December 2020. "First is the prevalence of a totalitarian paradigm, in which Nazism and Communism are equated as the most atrocious ideas and systems in human history (because communism, defined by Marx as a classless society with common means of production, has never been realised anywhere in the world, in further parts I will be putting this concept into inverted commas as an example of discursive practice). Significantly, while in the Western debate the more precise term 'Stalinism' is used – in 2008, on the 70th anniversary of the Ribbentrop–Molotov Pact, the European Parliament established 23 August as the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism – hardly anyone in Poland is paying attention to niceties: 'communism' or the left, is perceived as totalitarian here. A homogenizing sequence of associations (the left is communism, communism is totalitarianism, ergo the left is totalitarian) and the ahistorical character of the concepts used (no matter if we talk about the USSR in the 1930s under Stalin, Maoist China from the period of the Cultural Revolution, or Poland under Gierek, 'communism' is murderous all the same) not only serves the denigration of the Polish People's Republic, expelling this period from Polish history, but also – or perhaps primarily – the deprecation of Marxism, leftist programs, and any hopes and beliefs in Marxism and leftist activity as a remedy for capitalist exploitation, social inequality, fascist violence on a racist and anti-Semitic basis, as well as homophobic and misogynist violence. The totalitarian paradigm not only equates fascism and socialism (in Poland and the countries of the former Eastern bloc stubbornly called 'communism' and pressed into the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union, which should additionally emphasize its foreignness), but in fact recognizes the latter as worse, more sinister (the Black Book of Communism (1997) is of help here as it estimates the number of victims of 'communism' at around 100 million; however, it is critically commented on by researchers on the subject, including historian Enzo Traverso in the book L'histoire comme champ de bataille (2011)). Thus, anti-communism not only delegitimises the left, including communists, and depreciates the contribution of the left to the breakdown of fascism in 1945, but also contributes to the rehabilitation of the latter, as we can see in recent cases in Europe and other places. (Quote at pp. 178–179)". 269. Moll, Łukasz (2019). "Erasure of the Common: From Polish Anti-Communism to Universal Anti-Capitalism". Praktyka Teoretyczna (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań) 1 (31, Anti-Communisms: Discourses of Exclusion): 178–184. Retrieved 26 December 2020. "As we have learned lately from public television, when the two hundredth anniversary of Karl Marx's birthday was celebrated abroad, according to right-wing journalists Marx was responsible even for Nazism and the Holocaust (Leszczyński 2018). As former Foreign Minister in Law and Justice's government Witold Waszczykowski elaborated in an interview with German daily newspaper Bild: We just want to heal our country of certain diseases. The previous government applied a left-wing concept. As if the world, according to the Marxist model, must move in only one direction, towards a mixture of cultures and a world of cyclists and vegetarians, which stands only for renewable energy and combating all forms of religion. This has nothing in common with traditional Polish values (Cienski 2017). It is hard to find a better manifestation of right-wing all-encompassing anti-communism, which mixes together nearly all possible progressive discourses. (Quote at pp. 126–127)". 270. Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide. CERI Series in Comparative Politics and International Studies. New York: Columbia University Press. 2009. pp. 37. ISBN 978-0-231-14283-0. 271. Kühne, Thomas (May 2012). "Great Men and Large Numbers: Undertheorising a History of Mass Killing". Contemporary European History 21 (2): 133–143. doi:10.1017/S0960777312000070. ISSN 0960-7773. 272. Scheidel, Walter (2017). "Chapter 7: Communism". The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0691165028. 273. Scheidel, Walter (2017). The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century. Princeton University Press. pp. 222. ISBN 978-0691165028. 274. Natsios, Andrew S. (2002). The Great North Korean Famine. Institute of Peace Press. ISBN 1929223331. 275. Ther, Philipp (2016). Europe Since 1989: A History. Princeton University Press. p. 132. ISBN 978-0-691-16737-4. "Stalinist regimes aimed to catapult the predominantly agrarian societies into the modern age by swift industrialization. At the same time, they hoped to produce politically loyal working classes by mass employment in large state industries. Steelworks were built in Eisenhüttenstadt (GDR), Nowa Huta (Poland), Košice (Slovakia), and Miskolc (Hungary), as were various mechanical engineering and chemical combines and other industrial sites. As a result of communist modernization, living standards in Eastern Europe rose. Planned economies, moreover, meant that wages, salaries, and the prices of consumer goods were fixed. Although the communists were not able to cancel out all regional differences, they succeeded in creating largely egalitarian societies." 276. Milanović, Branko (2015). "After the Wall Fell: The Poor Balance Sheet of the Transition to Capitalism". Challenge 58 (2): 135–138. doi:10.1080/05775132.2015.1012402. "So, what is the balance sheet of transition? Only three or at most five or six countries could be said to be on the road to becoming a part of the rich and (relatively) stable capitalist world. Many of the other countries are falling behind, and some are so far behind that they cannot aspire to go back to the point where they were when the Wall fell for several decades.". 277. Ghodsee, Kristen; Orenstein, Mitchell A. (2021). Taking Stock of Shock: Social Consequences of the 1989 Revolutions. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 78. doi:10.1093/oso/9780197549230.001.0001. ISBN 978-0197549247. 278. Scheidel, Walter (2017). The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century. Princeton University Press. pp. 51, 222–223. ISBN 978-0691165028. "Following the dissolution of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and then of the Soviet Union itself in late 1991, exploding poverty drove the surge in income inequality." 279. Mattei, Clara E. (2022). The Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism. University of Chicago Press. pp. 301–302. ISBN 978-0226818399. ""If, in 1987–1988, 2 percent of the Russian people lived in poverty (i.e., survived on less than$4 a day), by 1993–1995 the number reached 50 percent: in just seven years half the Russian population became destitute."
280. Dolea, C.; Nolte, E.; McKee, M. (2002). "Changing life expectancy in Romania after the transition"]. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 56 (6): 444–449. doi:10.1136/jech.56.6.444. PMID 12011202. PMC 1732171. Retrieved 4 January 2021.
281. Chavez, Lesly Allyn (June 2014). "The Effects of Communism on Romania's Population".
282. Hirt, Sonia; Sellar, Christian; Young, Craig (4 September 2013). "Neoliberal Doctrine Meets the Eastern Bloc: Resistance, Appropriation and Purification in Post-Socialist Spaces". Europe-Asia Studies 65 (7): 1243–1254. doi:10.1080/09668136.2013.822711. ISSN 0966-8136.
283. Pop-Eleches, Grigore; Tucker, Joshua (12 November 2019). "Europe's communist regimes began to collapse 30 years ago, but still shape political views". The Washington Post.
284. Ehms, Jule (9 March 2014). "The Communist Horizon".
285. Ghodsee, Kristen (2015). The Left Side of History: World War II and the Unfulfilled Promise of Communism in Eastern Europe. Duke University Press. p. xvi–xvii. ISBN 978-0822358350.
286. Taylor, Matt (22 February 2017). "One Recipe for a More Equal World: Mass Death". Vice.

### Explanatory footnotes

1. Communism is generally considered to be among the more radical ideologies of the political left.[13][14] Unlike far-right politics, for which there is general consensus among scholars on what it entails and its grouping (e.g. various academic handbooks studies), far-left politics have been difficult to characterize, particularly where they begin on the political spectrum, other than the general consensus of being to the left of a standard political left, and because many of their positions are not extreme,[15] or because far-left and hard left are considered to be pejoratives that imply they are marginal.[16] In regards to communism and communist parties and movements, some scholars narrow the far left to their left, while others include them by broadning it to be the left of mainstream socialist, social-democratic, and labourist parties.[17] In general, they agree that there are various subgroupings within far-left politics, such as the radical left and the extreme left.[18][19][20]
2. Earlier forms of communism (utopian socialism and some earlier forms of religious communism), shared support for a classless society and common ownership but did not necessarily advocate revolutionary politics or engage in scientific analysis; that was done by Marxist communism, which has defined mainstream, modern communism, and has influenced all modern forms of communism. Such communisms, especially new religious or utopian forms of communism, may share the Marxist analysis, while favoring evolutionary politics, localism, or reformism. By the 20th century, communism has been associated with revolutionary socialism.({{{1}}}, {{{2}}})
3. Communism is capitalized by scholars when referring to Communist party-ruling states and governments, which are considered to be proper nouns as a result.[29] Following scholar Joel Kovel, sociologist Sara Diamond wrote: "I use uppercase 'C' Communism to refer to actually existing governments and movements and lowercase 'c' communism to refer to the varied movements and political currents organized around the ideal of a classless society."[30] The Black Book of Communism also adopted such distinction, stating that communism exists since millennia, while Communism (used in reference to Leninist and Marxist–Leninist communism as applied by Communist states in the 20th century) only began in 1917.[31] Alan M. Wald wrote: "In order to tackle complex and often misunderstood political-literary relationships, I have adopted methods of capitalization in this book that may deviate from editorial norms practiced at certain journals and publishing houses. In particular, I capitalize 'Communist' and 'Communism' when referring to official parties of the Third International, but not when pertaining to other adherents of Bolshevism or revolutionary Marxism (which encompasses small-'c' communists such as Trotskyists, Bukharinists, council communists, and so forth)."[32] In 1994, Communist Party USA activist Irwin Silber wrote: "When capitalized, the International Communist Movement refers to the formal organizational structure of the pro-Soviet Communist Parties. In lower case, the international communist movement is a more generic term referring to the general movement for communism."[33]
4. While it refers to its leading ideology as Juche, which is portrayed as a development of Marxism–Leninism, the status of North Korea remains disputed. Marxism–Leninism was superseded by Juche in the 1970s and was made official in 1992 and 2009, when constitutional references to Marxism–Leninism were dropped and replaced with Juche.[37] In 2009, the constitution was quietly amended so that it removed all Marxist–Leninist references present in the first draft, and also dropped all references to communism.[38] Juche has been described by Michael Seth as a version of Korean ultranationalism,[39] which eventually developed after losing its original Marxist–Leninist elements.[40] According to North Korea: A Country Study by Robert L. Worden, Marxism–Leninism was abandoned immediately after the start of de-Stalinization in the Soviet Union and has been totally replaced by Juche since at least 1974.[41] Daniel Schwekendiek wrote that what made North Korean Marxism–Leninism distinct from that of China and the Soviet Union was that it incorporated national feelings and macro-historical elements in the socialist ideology, opting for its "own style of socialism". The major Korean elements are the emphasis on traditional Confucianism and the memory of the traumatic experience of Korea under Japanese rule, as well as a focus on autobiographical features of Kim Il-sung as a guerrilla hero.[42]
5. Scholars generally write about individual events, and make estimates of any deaths like any other historical event, favouring background context and country specificities over generalizations, ideology, and Communist grouping as done by other scholars; some events are categorized by a Communist state's particular era, such as Stalinist repression,[47][48] rather than a connection to all Communist states, which came to cover one-third the world's population by 1985.[49]

Historians like Robert Conquest and J. Arch Getty mainly wrote and focused on the Stalin era; they wrote about people who died in the Gulag or as a result of Stalinist repression, and discussed estimates about those specific events, as part of the excess mortality debate in Joseph Stalin 's Soviet Union, without connecting them to communism as a whole. They have vigorously debated, including on the Holodomor genocide question,[50][51] but the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Revolutions of 1989, and the release of state archives put some of the heat out of the debate.[52] Some historians, among them Michael Ellman, have questioned "the very category 'victims of Stalinism'" as "a matter of political judgement" because mass deaths from famines are not a "uniquely Stalinist evil" and were widespread throughout the world in the 19th and 20th centuries.[53] There exists very little literature that compares excess deaths under "the Big Three" of Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao Zedong's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia, and that which does exist mainly enumerates the events rather than explain their ideological reasons. One such example is Crimes Against Humanity Under Communist Regimes – Research Review by Klas-Göran Karlsson and Michael Schoenhals, a review study summarizing what others have stated about it, mentioning some authors who saw the origins of the killings in Karl Marx's writings; the geographical scope is "the Big Three", and the authors state that killings were carried out as part of an unbalanced modernizing policy of rapid industrialization, asking "what marked the beginning of the unbalanced Russian modernisation process that was to have such terrible consequences?"[54]

Notable scholarly exceptions are historian Stéphane Courtois and political scientist Rudolph Rummel, who have attempted a connection between all Communist states. Rummel's analysis was done within the framework of his proposed concept of democide, which includes any direct and indirect deaths by government, and did not limit himself to Communist states, which were categorized within the framework of totalitarianism alongside other regime-types. Rummel's estimates are on the high-end of the spectrum, have been criticized and scrutinized, and are rejected by most scholars. Courtois' attempts, as in the introduction to The Black Book of Communism, which have been described by some critical observers as a crudely anti-communist and antisemitic work, are controversial; many reviewers of the book, including scholars, criticized such attempts of lumping all Communist states and different sociological movements together as part of a Communist death toll totalling more than 94 million.[55] Reviewers also distinguished the introduction from the book proper, which was better received and only presented a number of chapters on single-country studies, with no cross-cultural comparison, or discussion of mass killings; historian Andrzej Paczkowski wrote that only Courtois made the comparison between communism and Nazism, while the other sections of the book "are, in effect, narrowly focused monographs, which do not pretend to offer overarching explanations", and stated that the book is not "about communism as an ideology or even about communism as a state-building phenomenon."[56] More positive reviews found most of the criticism to be fair or warranted, with political scientist Stanley Hoffmann stating that "Courtois would have been far more effective if he had shown more restraint",[57] and Paczkowski stating that it has had two positive effects, among them stirring a debate about the implementation of totalitarian ideologies and "an exhaustive balance sheet about one aspect of the worldwide phenomenon of communism."[58]

A Soviet and communist studies example is Steven Rosefielde's Red Holocaust, which is controversial due to Holocaust trivialization; nonetheless, Rosefielde's work mainly focused on "the Big Three" (Stalin era, Mao era, and the Khmer Rouge rule of Cambodia), plus Kim Il-sung's North Korea and Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam. Rosefielde's main point is that Communism in general, although he focuses mostly on Stalinism, is less genocidal and that is a key distinction from Nazism, and did not make a connection between all Communist states or communism as an ideology. Rosefielde wrote that "the conditions for the Red Holocaust were rooted in Stalin's, Kim's, Mao's, Ho's and Pol Pot's siege-mobilized terror-command economic systems, not in Marx's utopian vision or other pragmatic communist transition mechanisms. Terror-command was chosen among other reasons because of legitimate fears about the long-term viability of terror-free command, and the ideological risks of market communism."[59]
6. Some authors, such as Stéphane Courtois in The Black Book of Communism, stated that Communism killed more than Nazism and thus was worse; several scholars have criticized this view.[60] After assessing twenty years of historical research in Eastern European archives, lower estimates by the "revisionist school" of historians have been vindicated,[61] despite the popular press continuing to use higher estimates and containing serious errors.[62] Historians such as Timothy D. Snyder stated it is taken for granted that Stalin killed more civilians than Hitler; for most scholars, excess mortality under Stalin was about 6 million, which rise to 9 million if foreseeable deaths arising from policies are taken into account. This estimate is less than those killed by Nazis, who killed more noncombatants than the Soviets did.[63]
7. While the Bolsheviks rested on hope of success of the 1917–1923 wave of proletarian revolutions in Western Europe before resulting in the socialism in one country policy after their failure, Marx's view on the mir was shared not by self-professed Russian Marxists, who were mechanistic determinists, but by the Narodniks[109] and the Socialist Revolutionary Party,[110] one of the successors to the Narodniks, alongside the Popular Socialists and the Trudoviks.[111]
8. According to their proponents, Marxist–Leninist ideologies have been adapted to the material conditions of their respective countries and include Castroism (Cuba), Ceaușism (Romania), Gonzalo Thought (Peru), Guevarism (Cuba), Ho Chi Minh Thought (Vietnam), Hoxhaism (anti-revisionist Albania), Husakism (Czechoslovakia), Juche (North Korea), Kadarism (Hungary), Khmer Rouge (Cambodia), Khrushchevism (Soviet Union), Prachanda Path (Nepal), Shining Path (Peru), and Titoism (anti-Stalinist Yugoslavia).[193][lower-alpha 4]
9. Most genocide scholars do not lump Communist states together, and do not treat genocidical events as a separate subjects, or by regime-type, and compare them to genocidical events which happened under vastly different regimes. Examples include Century of Genocide: Critical Essays and Eyewitness Accounts,[262] The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing,[263] Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide,[264] Resisting Genocide: The Multiple Forms of Rescue,[265] and Final Solutions.[266] Several of them are limited to the geographical locations of "the Big Three", or mainly the Cambodian genocide, whose culprit, the Khmer Rouge regime, was described by genocide scholar Helen Fein as following a xenophobic ideology bearing a stronger resemblance to "an almost forgotten phenomenon of national socialism", or fascism, rather than communism,[267] while historian Ben Kiernan described it as "more racist and generically totalitarian than Marxist or specifically Communist",[268] or do not discuss Communist states, other than passing mentions. Such work is mainly done in an attempt to prevent genocides but has been described by scholars as a failure.[269]
10. Genocide scholar Barbara Harff maintains a global database on mass killings, which is intended mostly for statistical analysis of mass killings in attempt to identify the best predictors for their onset and data is not necessarily the most accurate for a given country, since some sources are general genocide scholars and not experts on local history;[270] it includes anticommunist mass killings, such as the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–1966 (genocide and politicide), and some events which happened under Communist states, such as the 1959 Tibetan uprising (genocide and politicide), the Cambodian genocide (genocide and politicide), and the Cultural Revolution (politicide), but no comparative analysis or communist link is drawn, other than the events just happened to take place in some Communist states in Eastern Asia. The Harff database is the most frequently used by genocide scholars.[271] Rudolph Rummel operated a similar database, but it was not limited to Communist states, it is mainly for statistical analysis, and in a comparative analysis has been criticized by other scholars, over that of Harff,[270] for his estimates and statistical methodology, which showed some flaws.[272]
11. In their criticism of The Black Book of Communism, which popularized the topic, several scholars have questioned, in the words of Alexander Dallin, "[w]hether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss."[84] In particular, historians Jens Mecklenburg and Wolfgang Wippermann stated that a connection between the events in Joseph Stalin 's Soviet Union and Pol Pot's Cambodia are far from evident and that Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris is insufficient for connecting radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism under the same category.[274] Historian Michael David-Fox criticized the figures as well as the idea to combine loosely connected events under a single category of Communist death toll, blaming Stéphane Courtois for their manipulation and deliberate inflation which are presented to advocate the idea that communism was a greater evil than Nazism. David-Fox criticized the idea to connect the deaths with some "generic Communism" concept, defined down to the common denominator of party movements founded by intellectuals.[83] A similar criticism was made by Le Monde.[275] Allegation of a communist or red Holocaust is not popular among scholars in Germany or internationally,[276] and is considered a form of softcore antisemitism and Holocaust trivialization.[277]
12. The Cambodia case is particular because it is different from the emphasis Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China gave to heavy industry. The goal of Khmer Rouge's leaders goal was to introduce communism in an extremely short period of time through collectivization of agriculture in the effort to remove social differences and inequalities between rural and urban areas.[54] As there was not much industry in Cambodia at that time, Pol Pot's strategy to accomplish this was to increase agricultural production in order to obtain money for rapid industrialization.[283]

In analyzing the Khmer Rouge regime, scholars place it within the historical context. The Khmer Rouge came to power through the Cambodian Civil War (where unparalleled atrocities were executed on both sides) and Operation Menu, resulting in the dropping of more than half a million tonnes of bombs in the country during the civil-war period; this was mainly directed to Communist Vietnam but it gave the Khmer Rouge a justification to eliminate the pro-Vietnamese faction and other communists.[54] The Cambodian genocide, which is described by many scholars as a genocide and by others, such as Manus Midlarsky, as a politicide,[279] was stopped by Communist Vietnam, and there have been allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge. South East Asian communism was deeply divided, as China supported the Khmer Rouge, while the Soviet Union and Vietnam opposed it. The United States supported Lon Nol, who seized power in the 1970 Cambodian coup d'état, and research has shown that everything in Cambodia was seen as a legitimate target by the United States, whose verdict of its main leaders at that time (Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger) has been harsh, and bombs were gradually dropped on increasingly densely populated areas.[54]

### Quotes

1. March (2009), p. 127: "The 'communists' are a broad group. Without Moscow's pressure, 'orthodox' communism does not exist beyond a commitment to Marxism and the communist name and symbols. 'Conservative' communists define themselves as Marxist–Leninist, maintain a relatively uncritical stance towards the Soviet heritage, organize their parties through Leninist democratic centralism and still see the world through the Cold-War prism of 'imperialism,' although even these parties often appeal to nationalism and populism. 'Reform' communists, on the other hand, are more divergent and eclectic. They have discarded aspects of the Soviet model (for example, Leninism and democratic centralism), and have at least paid lip service to elements of the post-1968 'new left' agenda (a (feminism, environmentalism, grass-roots democracy, and so on)."[157]
2. Engels (1970), pp. 95–151: "But, the transformation—either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership—does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine—the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers—proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution."
3. Morgan (2015): "'Marxism–Leninism' was the formal name of the official state ideology adopted by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), its satellite states in Eastern Europe, the Asian communist regimes, and various 'scientific socialist' regimes in the Third World during the Cold War. As such, the term is simultaneously misleading and revealing. It is misleading, since neither Marx nor Lenin ever sanctioned the creation of an eponymous 'ism'; indeed, the term Marxism–Leninism was formulated only in the period of Stalin's rise to power after Lenin's death. It is revealing, because the Stalinist institutionalization of Marxism–Leninism in the 1930s did contain three identifiable, dogmatic principles that became the explicit model for all later Soviet-type regimes: dialectical materialism as the only true proletarian basis for philosophy, the leading role of the communist party as the central principle of Marxist politics, and state-led planned industrialization and agricultural collectivization as the foundation of socialist economics. The global influence of these three doctrinal and institutional innovations makes the term Marxist–Leninist a convenient label for a distinct sort of ideological order—one which, at the height of its power and influence, dominated one-third of the world's population."
4. Morgan (2001): "As communist Parties emerged around the world, encouraged both by the success of the Soviet Party in establishing Russia's independence from foreign domination and by clandestine monetary subsidies from the Soviet comrades, they became identifiable by their adherence to a common political ideology known as Marxism–Leninism. Of course from the very beginning Marxism–Leninism existed in many variants. The conditions were themselves an effort to enforce a minimal degree of uniformity on diverse conceptions of communist identity. Adherence to the ideas of 'Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky' characterized the Trotskyists who soon broke off in a 'Fourth International.'"
5. Engels (1970): "The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out."
6. Morgan (2001), p. 2332: '"Marxism–Leninism–Maoism' became the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party and of the splinter parties that broke off from national communist parties after the Chinese definitively split with the Soviets in 1963. Italian communists continued to be influenced by the ideas of Antonio Gramsci, whose independent conception of the reasons why the working class in industrial countries remained politically quiescent bore far more democratic implications than Lenin's own explanation of worker passivity. Until Stalin's death, the Soviet Party referred to its own ideology as 'Marxism–Leninism–Stalinism.'"
7. Kropotkin, Peter (1901). "Communism and Anarchy". "Communism is the one which guarantees the greatest amount of individual liberty—provided that the idea that begets the community be Liberty, Anarchy ... Communism guarantees economic freedom better than any other form of association, because it can guarantee wellbeing, even luxury, in return for a few hours of work instead of a day's work."
8. Morgan (2015): "Communist ideas have acquired a new meaning since 1918. They became equivalent to the ideas of Marxism–Leninism, that is, the interpretation of Marxism by Lenin and his successors. Endorsing the final objective, namely, the creation of a community owning means of production and providing each of its participants with consumption 'according to their needs', they put forward the recognition of the class struggle as a dominating principle of a social development. In addition, workers (i.e., the proletariat) were to carry out the mission of reconstruction of the society. Conducting a socialist revolution headed by the avant-garde of the proletariat, that is, the party, was hailed to be a historical necessity. Moreover, the introduction of the proletariat dictatorship was advocated and hostile classes were to be liquidated."