Introduction

Communism would be a type of egalitarian society with no state, no privately owned means of production
and no social class. In communism, all property is owned by the community as a whole, and all people
have equal social and economic status.

Theoretically, human need or advancement is not left unsatisfied because of poverty, and is rather solved
through distribution of property as needed. This is thus often the system proposed to solve the problem of
the poverty cycle. Perhaps the best known maxim of a communist society is "From each according to his
ability, to each according to his need." This economic model is also referred to as a gift economy.

As a political movement, communism is a branch of the broader socialist movement. The communist
movement differentiates itself from other branches of the socialist movement through various things such as, for example, the communist desire to establish a gift economy, and their commitment to
revolutionary strategies for overthrowing capitalism.

Many will tell you that socialism is a moderate form of Communism. Others claim them to be two
distinctly different and opposite theories, communism being a cruel and harsh failure and socialism being
an enlightened and successful theory. Both of these notions are false though. A better definition of
communism is a utopian plan to enforce complete economic equality and achieve this by means of forced
income redistribution and economic management. In short it is the same idea of socialism operating most
often under a smaller branch of the socialist following known strictly as the communists.

Forms of Communism

Marx, like all communists of his time, was responding to what he truly believed to be an evil philosophy
the philosophy of capitalism. Marx lived through the industrial revolution of the mid-1800s, an age filled
with every conceivable mistake that could be made in the name of capitalism. Slavery, child labor,
predatory monopolies, harmful products and lethal work places are but a few of the crimes against
humanity that Marx lived to see. In his mind, Marx truly desired to help humanity, and communism
even as brutal as he knew it would be seemed a small price to pay to escape capitalism.

Within Marxism, there are several different trends. The largest of these trends is Leninism, which was
based on the writings and actions of Vladimir Lenin. According to Lenin, capitalism can only be overthrown
by a proletarian revolution, not by parliamentary means. Furthermore, in opposition to Marx, Lenin argued
that the revolution would occur first in the less developed nations, and that it would require a "vanguard
of the proletariat" composed of a relatively small, tightly organized Communist Party of workers declassed intellectuals. Most (but by no means all) present-day communists are of the Leninist variety.

In the early 1930's, Leninism itself fractured in two distinct branches: Stalinism and Trotskyism. The
reasons for this split revolved around the controversial policies of Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union. As
such, a number of different currents of opinion formed within the Communist Party. The two most
prominent of these were headed by Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky, respectively. Stalin argued for the
consolidation of socialism in one country (even one as underdeveloped as Soviet Union was at that time)
and claimed that, due to the aggravation of class struggle along with the development of socialism, it was
necessary to enforce strict Party discipline. Trotsky argued that the fate of socialism in the Soviet Union
depended on the fate of socialist and communist revolutions around the world (therefore supporting the
thesis of Permanent Revolution), and claimed that Stalin's authoritarian practices were harmful and
dangerous (therefore calling for more democracy, both inside the Party and throughout the Soviet Union in
general). Stalin eventually succeeded in gaining full control of the Party and the Soviet government. He
went ahead with his policies, which became known as Stalinism. Trotsky and his supporters organized into
the so-called Left Opposition, and their platform became known as Trotskyism. However, their attempts to
remove Stalin from power failed. Stalin imprisoned, executed or exiled all dissenters - especially the
Trotskyists. Trotsky himself was exiled, and eventually assassinated in Mexico in 1940 when an ice pick
was driven into the back of Trotsky's head.

Communist Manifesto

Marxs most famous work on the subject of communism was his Communist Manifesto. In it, he gave
reasons why the world should reject of all other governments and economic systems (especially

capitalism), and why the entire world should become communist. He also explains how a communist
government should be started and maintained.

The best-known form of communism is Marxism and its various derivatives. Among other things, Marxism
proposes the materialist conception of history; there are stages of economic development: slavery,
feudalism, capitalism, and communism. These stages are advanced through a dialectical process,
progressing society as history progresses. This progress is driven by class struggle. Communism is the
final form of class society as it results in one class, or conversely, no classes, as those divisions cannot
exist if only one exists. Although many small communist societies have existed throughout human history,
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were the first to devise a rigorous theoretical basis for communism. The
political theory they created, namely Marxism, became the chief advocate of communism in the modern
world.

According to Marx, social classes - and therefore class struggle - have not always existed. They were
created at the dawn of human civilization, when nomadic tribes first settled down and started practicing
agriculture. Before that, human beings lived in a kind of classless society that can be described as
primitive communism. Primitive communism ended when agriculture created the conditions for private
ownership of the means of production (which, at that time, simply meant private ownership of cultivated
land). This differentiated people into land owners and those who needed to work other people's land for a
living, and this in turn resulted in the slavery-based system of the ancient world. That system eventually
gave way to feudalism, which eventually gave way to capitalism.

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

Analysis of communist Manifesto

The Communist Manifesto still finds favor among many political groups and its tenets and ideas are worthy
of study because there are economic and historical truths embedded within it. It has also proved to be the
foundation of one of the most prominent economic and political movements of the 20th Century.

The real problem with the Marxian ideas imbued in the manifesto might be that Marx misunderstood which
class would ultimately subsume all the others. He was under the impression that laborers must ultimately
take over the means of production and so destroy the capitalist system. What he could not understand
was that the means of production would become less and less expensive all the time due to efficiencies in
production. Workers would themselves become entrepreneurs in free and republican societies. The advent
of computers, and inexpensive access to the tools of a service industry would make small business a
dominant and driving force.

The brewing industry is a perfect example of this. Where there used to be only one or two large brewers,
now micro-breweries have become the rage. Where only a few networks dominated the airwaves now
hundred of channels proliferate. The internet has opened publishing up to any person who has a few
dollars to rent a server. The cost for entry into many, though not all, markets has become comparatively
cheap. In essence Marx was wrong not because there was no class struggle. There was indeed class
struggle throughout most of history. He was wrong because he could not see that the dialectic process
would work to elevate the working class to the entrepreneur class and not pull all of society down to the
lowest common denominator.

On religion

Marxs most famous quote is not about his hatred of capitalism, but about his hatred of religion. Religion
is the opiate of the people, he said, equating religion with the most addictive and deadly drugs of his
time. Marx wanted religion abolished, and he made forced atheism a formal part of communism.

Some experts argue that all people have an inherent need for spirituality, and without the option of
religion, they may become desperate for a belief in something greater than themselves. Communism has
rejected religion, but has still tried to tap into the human need for spirituality. In a way, they have created
a new religion called Deification of the State. Infamous communists like Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong
used this new kind of religion to make people believe they were virtual gods. The people of their countries
were encourage (or forced, in some cases) to worship them. Ironically, by rejecting religion, communism
has become a kind of theocracy.

Internal Conflict

What Marx has accidentally created would seem to be his worst nightmare. Everything he most hated
about capitalism is also a part of practical communism. When Marx criticized capitalism, he especially
liked to point out that capitalism was supposed put an end to the elite classes and abuses of the previous
system (feudalism), and yet it had created a new elite class and allowed the same abuses to continue.
Marx called this an Internal Conflict. Marx did not live to see this term applied to his own system of
government, but it most definitely does apply.

It was Confucius who said "What all men speak well of, look critically into; what all men condemn,
examine first before you decide". Today it seems that even China is going as far it can towards criticising
the policies of its eastern neighbour and Communist compatriot, this in spite the country's official policy of
non-interference. It is unclear how many North-Koreans have starved to death during the last couple of
years, but estimates run from a couple of hundred thousand to more than a million. While the army, which
with a standing capacity of more than a million men remains one of the world's biggest, is relatively well
fed, children and other weak groups are the ones that suffer. One of the initial explanations for the demise
of The Soviet Union is how the empire was unable to keep pace economically with the industrial states of
the West. Still did the economic problems never reach the point where the state was not able to feed its
own population, and neither is North Korea in any way burdened by having to subsidy various political
allies in other parts of the world. Examining the political government of North Korea though, raises serious
doubts if Communism can be said to have any influence at all as a political theory. Indeed, if it is correct
to categories the form of government as Communist, then one might reach the conclusion that NorthKoreans came up with the idea many years before Karl Marx.

Communism in Korea: The Korean War (1950-53) certainly also played a central role in the shaping of
North Korea's awkward form of Communism, and without the division of Korea it is less likely we would
have seen the extreme North Korean closure witnessed today. Today the war is considered to have been
the first main test of strength in the Cold War. The Soviet Union decided not to take part in the fighting,
while the Chinese were willing to assist the North Koreans, but this only down to the middle of the
peninsula. Mao did during the Chinese civil war receive substantial support from North Korean Communist
guerrillas, and did therefore consider China obliged in entering to war to protect North Korea's borders. It
has later been discovered that the Americans seriously considered the use of the atomic bomb during
especially difficult phases of the war, which made the crisis as serious as that of the Cuban missile crisis.
Officially the war never really ended, and 37 000 American soldiers are still stationed in South Korea to
scare of any possible violations of the world's heaviest defended border (Economist, "Gunboat
Diplomacy"). This year alone there have been several serious border clashes and sea battles, and the
suspicion and distrust so well known exist in the same manner as it did during the cold war. The situation
has sometimes been compared to that of the formerly divided Germany, but differs on important aspects
as for instance the fact that the two German states never were or wanted to be at war with each other. It
should now be clear that the historic background of the two Koreas is very different from that of Germany,
and that the only significant similarity was the existence of a border splitting a nation into two. Towards
the end of this paper, the possibilities of a reunification between the two Koreas will be discussed. Such a
solution would certainly put an end to Communism, and is therefore highly relevant in this context. First
the background of the worlds most populous country will have to be assessed, this to try answering why
Communism is enjoying such longevity in a cultured society as China.

North Korea has only on a very limited scale made attempts to reform its economic system. Visas are only
rarely handed out to foreigners, this in contrast to China which the last couple of years even have opened
up for independent travellers. The fact that foreign news reporters are not allowed to move around freely
inside North Korea, and that they in other ways are hindered in giving objective reports on the domestic
situation makes it possible to estimate the strength of the Communist leadership. One is actually also
uncertain concerning who is actually in charge, this even though initial reports claiming Kim Jong Il to be
nothing but a mere puppet have been contradicted. Still there are not any top political figures of the
Western world that have had the honour of meeting the North Korean leader, who officially only took
power a few months ago, this after having mourned his father for several years.

China is much more open, and foreign reporters can immediately report home of anything happening in
for example the Chinese capital. This is another tremendous change from the days of the cold war, when
access to China was very limited. It can be discussed if freedom of press can not possibly coexist with the
presence a Communist political system, but the existence of the former has historically meant the absence
of the latter. Yet this is not the only aspect that makes an estimation of China's political system difficult.

Communism in China: Back when Communism reached its influential peak, regimes inspired by the
nineteenth-century creed of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels dominated vast territories and about one-third
of the world's population. Within this group, China and the Soviet Union represented two different brands
of Communism. The understanding of the origins of Communism in China has usually been based on
studies that can be divided into two categories. One emphasises the unfolding of Communism in the
1920's and the Soviet involvement in China. In contrast to this does the second group focus more on the
indigenous roots of Chinese Communism, and draws a picture of a movement under Mao Zedong's
leadership which was categorised by an anti-imperialistic nationalism. Still there is agreement on that the
1917 October Revolution in Russia provided Chinese radicals with a new strategy of revolution, but later
studies have indicated support for the claim that the Chinese later would develop their own form of
Communism. Theoretical quarrels were also a main characteristic of the Sino-Russian relationship, and
accusations would be flung from both sides when signs of withering from the political and economic ideals
of Marxism could be seen. A difference in policy of the above character has often been used to explain why
China today remains united and Communist, while the Soviet Union is split up and most of its former
republics have either become or are in the process of becoming stable democratic societies.

The Chinese government is currently implementing radical reforms transforming the country's economic
system. In many ways this can be seen to be following up the goals of the father of perestroika, Mikhail
Gorbachev, but they have no intention of abandoning Marxism as a state ideology or the omnipotence of
the Communist Party. Thus they are implementing the ideals of perestroika without the political reforms of
glasnost, perhaps fearing the latter would bring with it the tragic fate experienced by Gorbachev. The last
Soviet president believed that his perestroika would be able to preserve the empire as a confederation of
autonomous republics with a pluralistic but socialist democracy for its political system, this in addition to a
socialist market economy. As one republic after another declared its independence, Gorbachev ended up
as a president without a country and was relieved of his office. The prospect of anything similar makes
Beijing officials wary of political reform, this as independence movements in Tibet and many Muslim
dominated areas of China are gaining momentum. As the Portuguese later this year will hand Macao back
to China, a reunification with Taiwan is the only main obstacle remaining before the ancient goal of a
united China is reached. Currently being so close to achieving it, hoping for the right of self-determination
for Tibet and other Chinese provinces seems overly optimistic.

Communisms failure

Communism's main failure in practice comes from the failure of a centralized economy to function. Though
socialists often attribute it to problems elsewhere, the simple reason behind this occurrence is the
mathematic and physical impossibility of managing an economy from a centralized form. One of
communism's main ideals is complete control over industries. In order to efficiently plan industries,
communism must simultaneously account for all industries (there are billions of different industries) and
their relationship with each other at the same time. Within each specific industry certain goods are
internally consumed to produce more of a certain product.

An example of this occurrence, which is true in any economic system, is the market for oil. For instance,
to drill more oil requires the use of gasoline for transportation, generators, machinery operation, refinery
operation, and a dozen other things. Therefore to get more gasoline and drill more oil wells, some existing
gasoline must be used up in the process, or internally consumed. This occurrence exists in every industry
to varying extents resulting in a massive structure of interlining and constantly changing relationships
between all industries. Further, if production in one industry changes, this change effects all other
industries in one way or another due to inter linking relationships and internal consumption. On top of
these complex internal relations exists a tendency of change relating to substitute and complementary
goods effecting related markets and further entangling the complex relationship between industries of a
large economy.

Communism strives for the complete equality of all incomes, and therefore, everything. As income
approaches complete equality, productivity disappears. For example: people work so they can make
money to support themselves. They work driven by the incentive of making more money and
succeeding. In capitalist systems, he who chooses not to work suffers the consequences while he who
works receives the incentives, money, which he is working for. Human nature includes a desire to "do
better" and, therefore, make more money or advance in a job. In an attempt to make more money,
people are driven naturally work harder and longer, seek further education for themselves, and develop
skills which distinguish them as rare talents among that labor which is available as supply.

Under true communism, income is completely equal. When there is nothing to achieve by working harder
or longer, people begin to become idle. People begin to work less or not work at all because there is no
longer the incentive of making more money or advancing in job. When there are no workers, production
drops to nothing. It will then be true that all incomes are equal but this equal income will be zero.

Fortunately there is a system where all factors are accounted for by natural forces and are adjusted for by
the forces of self interest working in check to each other requiring no mathematical relationships to be
established. The capitalist free market automatically does what socialist managing attempts and fails at
doing mathematically. Natural forces of self interest drive a natural and efficient use of resources and
natural compensatory adjustment when a change in one industry spreads through all others. The Soviet
Union and other socialist countries failed due to the physical impossibility of managing the complex
relationships of industry and resources yet capitalism has survived and thrived by naturally carrying out
these tasks for they form the very root of the capitalist system.

The unforeseen middle class: Communism's original and most basic principles deal with the rich owners
and the workers or proletariats. Unfortunately for Marx's cause, a third order was coming to power and it
would prove to be the larger and more powerful than either the proletariat or the capitalist aristocracy.
This third middle grounds was completely misjudged by Marx and incorrectly lumped in with the bourgeois
rich. Marx's entire theory was based on class struggle and a difference in these classes forcing a revolution
to be followed by an "equality" of all classes (the irony: Marx and Engels were factory owners when they
published the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital!). The petit-bourgeois, Marx's term for the middle
class, was only to further divide the upper and working classes by an irreconcilable rift. In reality, the
opposite happened and the middle class actually bridged any "rift," that is to say if there was one in the
first place! The arrival of the middle class practically ruins any chance for this revolution as well as any
need for it.

Free will: Communism attempts the impossible: to control human individualism by making a society of
inherently individual people uniform. Thought is free and independent and, no matter how hard anyone
tries, can never be fully controlled. Communism and socialism depend upon ideological compliance with
their theories, yet human nature prompts inevitable dissention from such theories. As a result,
communism and socialism may achieve full compliance only through coercion, which in turn translates into
communism and socialism's great failure. This failure led to the disastrous massacres of communism
which were often attempts to combat opinions different from the communist governments. Try as it may,
socialism and communism has never been able to destroy dissenting free thought and form a universal
thought: one accepting of the communist/socialist theory necessary for such a theory to be implemented
and succeed. It is simply human nature to ask questions and to look for the new and the alternative!

Bad always on top: Due to the fact that free will exists even under the strictest attempts to oppress it
simply due to human nature, compliance with socialism and communism becomes a major problem in a
communist or socialist state. In order to combat this free will, noncompliance, disagreement, and
dissension it often becomes necessary for an inherently unequal elite to assume authority and power in a
communist state in effort to combat this problem. A concentration of widespread power arises at the top
among those elite as a natural result of there existing a superior few. Just as Lord Acton noticed "absolute
power corrupts absolutely," large amounts of power intensified in a small area tend to attract those
hungry for power while corrupting those in power

Bloody revolution:
Communists and socialists will often tell you that capitalism "kills" the poor.
Statistically, though, it is communism that is the cause of the greatest massacre in the history of the
world. This results from starvation due to failed central economies, political killings of those defiant of the
system, and killings due to the abuse of power and tyranny inherent and encouraged by an unchecked
system. Approximately 100 MILLION deaths by direct murder worldwide can be traced to communism.

China: Mao Tse-Tung's "Great Step Forward" is widely known as the greatest disaster in attempt of a
centralized economy. Countless millions were murdered and starved to death in China during this period.
China also established a series of gulag concentration camps under Mao, complete with slave labor
employing over 10 million people on numerous occasions. In fact, China still employs widespread forced
labor today. Estimates on China suggest the total to be about 40 million dead.

Cambodia: Under the Kmehr Rouge and regime of Pol Pot in the 1970's, one of the most extreme forms
of communism ever was attempted. 2 million were massacred in killing fields in attempts to move toward
this "equal form of communism." The reason behind these massacres came from an attempt to build an
"equal" society though the only equality which resulted was death. Those who had distinguishing
differences from the government's planned economy of farmers were murdered. Scientists, doctors,
laborers, and teachers with non-agricultural professions were targeted and murdered because they
differed from the agricultural profession and created inequalities in jobs. Pol Pot murdered an estimated
one fourth of the population of Cambodia.

Soviet Union: between 20 and 50 million were put to death at the hands of this evil empire. (some
estimates exceed upward of 50 million. As people were sent to camps, the Soviets often deleted all

records of that persons existence making exact totals hard to find) Intentional starvings and man made
famines were a major killer in the USSR. The majority of these killings took place under Stalin's regime,
often referred to as a "reign of terror." Stalin is estimated to have put 20% of Russia's population to
death.

The answer to all this?

Capitalism and communism are both obviously flawed systems. Somehow, we need to take the best parts
of both systems and careful avoid the worst parts. Many countries, including the USA, have decided that
we can find a compromise between the systems. We can have the freedom of democracy and capitalism,
but we give the government a little more power to keep people safe and make businesses act fairly. This
compromise between democracy/capitalism and communism is called socialism.

Socialism can be difficult to explain, because many kinds of socialism exist. Communist countries, like
China, often call themselves socialist countries. True enough, China has added a tiny bit of capitalism to
its communist system, so it is considered an extreme form of socialism. The only people who can start
businesses in China, however, have to receive special permission from the government. This means that
people who are good friends with government officials, or who know the right person to bribe, are able to
start businesses, but the average person cannot. The government of China can also choose to nationalize
a business (take it away from the owner) at any time, for any reason.

The USA has a form of socialism that is mostly capitalistic and democratic. Government control is limited
by the Constitution, so America is considered to have a very mild form of socialism. In America, anyone
can get a business license and start a business. The government insists that businesses pay taxes, pay
workers a minimum wage, and maintain safe products and work-places, but few other restrictions exist.
The government cannot take the business away from the owner unless it has an extreme reason to do so,
and even then it must prove in court that it has acted constitutionally.

In an imperfect world, there can never be a perfect government of any type, not even a perfect balance of
socialism. Corporations and businesses often find new ways to abuse the freedoms in this country, and
yet we have to find ways to fix these problems without sacrificing too much of our freedom. Our solutions
need to be careful and limited, so that our government does not become even more abusive than our
corporations.