Definition of Communism

Communism is the strictly theoretical system imagined by Karl Marx in which all of society, all of economics and all politics are combined into one, perfect, classless, automatic, government-less system based on common ownership of all economic means of production, and social sameness. To achieve this utopian dream, Karl Marx and Frederich Engels wrote the "Communist Manifesto" to inspire violent revolution everywhere.

Marxist theory requires this process to involve revolutionary overthrow of the Bourgeoisie, followed by a preparatory stage of Socialism alternatively called "The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat." Pure Communism, the end goal of Marxist Socialism, would be the theoretical state of "statelessness" in which an un-governed, classless society lives in perfect order, and all history has stopped.

Communism, as such, does not exist, has never existed, and cannot exist. However, in common usage, the word Communism has come to be near synonymous with the ongoing movements of Marxism and Socialism that seek to establish it.

Throughout history all nations that ever called themselves Communist were in fact Socialist, and Socialism is the antithesis of representative government and a free citizenry. No people who ever came under Socialism via war, revolution or other violence ever got out from under it by their own actions.

While Communism does not in fact exist, Socialism does exist. All governments that have ever called themselves Communist are (or were) in reality Socialist.

"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." -Ronald Reagan

In the Thinking Catholic Strategic Center's view of Communism, the most remarkable thing about it is that the whole notion is immediately seen to be so clearly and obviously stupid as to call into question the cognitive abilities of all of the so-called intelligentsia who have embraced it in the past and who embrace it today.

Reference Material

Return to Web Site Log (Blog) page

Return to HOME PAGE

Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)

Date: Wed Dec 16 13:20:32 2009
From: Carl
Email: muhcarl@gmail.com
Location: San Diego CA
Comment:

Communism is based in part on the study of ancient societal structures which were stateless and classless. Engels' Origins of Family, Private Property and State was a study of ancient African, Native American and Greek social structure , all three representing varying stages of communal structure. There are still tribes in the world today who remain stateless and classless.

Revolutionaries understand that revolution is inevitable because Marx showed us that society is NOT static, that it is ever evolving. Eventually, humanity will revolve to communism and egalitarianism again, irregardless of the efforts of revolutionaries.

Date: Wed Dec 16 17:51:12 2009
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Carl:

None of those ancient (or still existing) societal structures were completely government-less or classless. All had some chief or patriarch or elder to whom others turned for important decisions. Pure democracy is quite impossible except for very, very small organizations, such as might fit around a conference table. An example of a larger workable pure democracy would be a lynch mob. Let’s take a vote on it; the ayes have it; get the rope.

Marx “showed us” nothing. Marx waxed on about many things, but he showed us nothing. See the argument refuting Marxism page. What Marx wrote was a populist description of egalitarianism and redistributionism that became a immediately popular sensation and an ongoing elitist fad.

I find it intriguing how Marxism touts itself as a natural evolutionary and therefore inevitable social trend, and simultaneously calls for revolution and needs and enlists revolutionaries to carry out this “natural” social evolution. I don’t know whether to call it revolutionary evolution or evolutionary revolution.

But I do know this: Perfection is not of this world, but the next.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Wed Nov 10 18:42:06 2010
From: Peter Jhon
Email: peterjhon65@yahoo.com
Location: Baguio city Philippines
Comment:

Nice theory.

Date: Tue Aug 16 06:15:13 2011
From: TommyHolly
Email:
Location: Chicago IL USA
Comment:

I find it strange that people no longer identify Communism with the actual Marxist ideology and instead regard it as merely an insult?

Since there are so many variants and terms out there like Marxist, Socialist, Statist, Populist, Authoritarian ... I prefer to talk about them under the all-encompassing "Collectivist" label.

Date: Wed Aug 17 05:55:08 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

TommyHolly:

Very good point; the most interesting thing about it is how the Collectivist followers feign injury or insult whenever they are called what they are. Which is to say, whenever they are identified with the ideology they espouse.

Collectivist covers all the Leftist bases, whether Communist, Socialist, Fascist or Communist. The opposite of collectivist would be Capitalist. None of us, to my knowledge, are particularly insulted when someone calls us a Capitalist. So why do the Democrats and the Journalists and the Celebritwits get all upset when we call Comrade Obama, peace be upon him, any variety of Collectivist, when that is precisely what he is? It’s not an insult, but a description of his personal ideology, made clear by his own written and spoken words, and by his actions.

Another very good point you bring up involves the term Authoritarian. That term, publicly demonized by Collectivists, actually describes Collectivists perfectly. In so-called Public Education, the Collectivist indoctrinators who teach teachers how to teach first set up the straw-villain Authoritarian Man to represent the evil authority of Church, State, Parent, Cop, Corporation, etc., and then they teach the teachers how to create the opposite among their future pupils, which would be Revolutionary Man, described as follows:

”The revolutionary is the man who has emancipated himself from ties of blood and soil, from his mother and his father, from special loyalties to state, class, race, party, or religion.”

And yet, no governing system on earth, with the possible exception of Islam, is more rigidly Authoritarian than Collectivism. Who, in Western Civilization, was ever more Authoritarian than Hitler? Stalin? Mao? In pretending to oppose Authoritarianism, they establish pure Authoritarianism where it previously did not exist.

One more point: Capitalism cannot properly operate in the absence of citizen liberty. Capitalism needs only the restraint of reasonable civil law to keep it working properly. Collectivism, on the other hand, is diametrically opposed to citizen liberty, and cannot operate at all if the citizenry is free. Collectivism, in its highest forms, needs to force Collectivism upon the population with a larger and larger hammer.

Very good and thought provoking submission.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Sun Sep 11 07:35:19 2011
From: Mark Smith
Email: jacobj_soccerfreak@hotmail.com
Location: Texas
Comment:

After reading The Communist Manifesto I must say I am a huge fan of Marx and Engels and I believe that literal interpretations shown in previous comments are irrelevant. Pure, classless communism is very unlikely to ever occur however, naively or not, I believe that there is hope for a society that is not based on greed and competition much like capitalism is. That is why Marx appealed to me so much, society today is ruled by corporations which are supposed to be 'socially responsible' for its people however in reality are soulless and money hungry entities. I understand that capitalism thrives on ingenuity and allows for development but isn't there a point that we can see that we have come far enough? Can we satisfy our hunger, our greed? Most critics say no and that's why they are critics, what I say is why can't our hunger be sated? We are civilized beings surely, slowly and gradually we can learn to be content. I concede that it may be to late, according to the monks 'in our search for wealth and prosperity, we created a thing that's going to destroy us'. Many things man has created whilst thriving under capitalism has benefited mankind in the short term, however in the long term irreversibly damaged our society and our planet. There are many examples of both damaging social inventions like the conveyor belt now being used to run sweatshops in third world countries, manipulating fellow man to almost slave labor. There is also the damaging factors to the environment such as the simple invention of plastic which is still being washed up on beaches in Hawaii and other areas of the world. The first plastic creations ever made still have not decomposed completely and are right now damaging marine life. I may have gone on a rant here but I see 'collectivism', socialism and eventually communism as a solution to a power hungry and greedy race we are slowly becoming. Many may argue that capitalism allows the ability so solve these problems with new ideas, however I am not one to wait around for a miracle cure, I say we salvage what we have left and build a better future.

Oh and one last thing Stalin never really implemented communism, I believe it was a horrible branch of the left-wing ideology he invented, Stalinism. I do not in anyway see what Stalin has done agreeable and with that Hitler’s socialism was also different, these men did not have the right intentions or wide understandings to achieve egalitarianism and that is why I still firmly believe, that put to the right kind of men or women we can see a change that will benefit us, the people or as Marx would have put it, the proletariat.

Date: Sun Sep 11 13:47:59 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Mark:

So, you would replace a system you think is based on greed and competition with one that is based solely on envy and forced redistribution. You would replace a system you think is ruled by “soulless and money hungry” corporations with one that is ruled by a “socially responsible” dictator. You seek a world in which, heavens to Bettsy, no horrible plastic thing will ever wash up on shore. And no one will ever be hungry, and no one will ever be in want.

I’m afraid your education (formal indoctrination?) is showing.

Keep waiting for that perfect socially responsible dictator. I’m sure it will surprise you to learn that Capitalism is not a “system” designed by man, or a method, or any construct of any of the evil corporations you have been taught to hate.

Suggest you read Refuting Marx to find out what Marx was really after.

You’ve been duped, my friend.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Tue May 08 14:12:15 2012
From: Anthony
Email: Floobjugalo26@hotmail.com
Location:
Comment:

Vic: You obviously enjoy ignore social facts, capitalism as it is today, is man made. It is based on greed. This is a religious website and I'd assume you at least hold on to some of the morals of Christianity. What people in general are doing today is living for money, not for the betterment of each other (especially Americans). The bible says something to the effect of "don't worship materials" Well this is the definition of worship: 1.treat somebody or something as deity: to treat somebody or something as divine and show respect by engaging in acts of prayer and devotion That something is money, and people probably you as well are devoting their lives to it. You are being duped if you think the average working class is in control of things or even cared about fully. Whatever Marx said, whether he is exactly right or wrong there are truths we can learn from his philosophy. This page seems more driven to simply refute this man and downplay his ideas than to find the truth.

Date: Tue May 08 21:45:39 2012
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Anthony:

Capitalism is not man made, or man-contolled; it is natural. When capitalism or any part of it is controlled, it is no longer capitalism, which is, by definition, uncontrolled. Planned or controlled economic systems are usually some form or variant of Socialism, but certainly not capitalism. What this means is that what we have in America today is not capitalism. We are becoming more and more Socialist.

Capitalism naturally “happens” or comes into being when and where men enjoy the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which means that men are free to pursue their own interests, work in their own interest and to prosper by the work of their own hands. As this liberty and this freedom to pursue happiness diminishes or is controlled, capitalism dies along with them.

See the American Founding Principles for the details.

There are no “truths” we can learn from Marxism. Marx was no philosopher; he was a fraud. See the Refuting Marx page for the details.

Regards,

Vic

Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.