This article is part of
the Political Philosophy
Popular sovereignty
For those who live in an alternate reality, the so-called-experts at Conservapedia have an article about Communism.

Communism (German: Kommunismus) (Russian: коммунизм) is a social-economic system based theoretically on a stateless, classless, moneyless society with common/collective ownership of the means of production. As a philosophical doctrine, it is defined by Friedrich Engels as "the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat."[1]

Communism is considered a branch of socialism that dates back to the Industrial and French Revolutions.[1][2] Communism is the opposite of Capitalism, which guarantees a class system with private ownership of the means of production. In reality in communist Countries the state can be close to an Monopoly capitalist. In a society without greed, a Communist state would not go through authoritarian regimes, Capitalism would fail because there is no demand or private ownership. Is such a society possible?

Aside from Primitive, unorganised society in which humans and other animals lived communally for hundreds of thousands of years, Communism often resulted in a one-party society with Communist officials being the ruling class. This type of Communism comes from Leninist Theory, particularly Vanguardism, which states that the most advanced theorists and the most class-conscious citizens should represent the proletariat. Marxist-Leninists argue that party officials and state officials are not a separate class from the workers as they aren't property owners.

Marxists and other Communists

Communism can be divided into two broad categories: Marxian communism/socialism and non-Marxist communism. Although the dominant forms of communism are variants of Marxism, communism and Marxism are not the same. Marxism is a branch within communism; not all communists are Marxists. There are non-Marxist versions of communism such as anarcho-communism, or Christian communism.


  • Socialism/Communism
    • Anarcho-Socialism/Anarcho-Communism
    • Christian Socialism
    • Democratic Socialism/Libertarian Socialism
    • Marxism
      • Marxism-Leninism
        • Hồ Chí Minh Thought
        • Hoxhaism
        • Juche
        • Khrushchevism
        • Maoism
        • "Patriotic" Socialism
        • Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
      • Orthodox Marxism
        • Bernsteinism
        • Menshevism
        • Trotskyism

Theory and reality

It may be possible for Marxism-Leninism to create an egalitarian society, however, it has not occurred yet. The dictatorial rule in the USSR may be a result of the rule of Stalin.

The former Soviet Union was unable to create an egalitarian society, instead, it was actually a totalitarian elite dictatorship and rather than workers owning their means of production the state did. The state-owned all the important means of production and the state exploited the people the way Monopoly Capitalists do.

Marx hypothesized the "dictatorship of the proletariat" would eventually result in a classless society. But in practice, tyrannical elite dictatorship occurred as experienced in the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, and China. Anarchist theorist Bakunin and Marx had a disagreement over this. Bakunin predicted "dictatorship of the proletariat" is impossible because the proletariat cannot rule over others, and to benefit the proletariat, the state should be abolished, but Marx did not pay attention to his suggestion. The Soviet Union was never classless, it had a bureaucracy who enjoyed greater freedom than the general population called "Nomenclatura". On the other hand, there was widespread poverty for the people. The social in socialism denoted worker control, while common ownership, in general, is a possible offshoot. State capitalism like in the Soviet Union meant the state owned all land, ran the industries, setting prices, wages, labor conditions and so on. Basically just like one huge corporation. It was a state monopoly capitalism in this case, with no internal market, although trade between states occurred. Thus Lenin's New Economic Policy in the early 1920s allowed small-scale private market capitalism, Stalin reversed this, Khrushchev started to implement that and during Brezhnev's time, it was well-established in the Soviet Union. Perestroika under Gorbachev began private market capitalism again in all sectors. The overall conditions of the working class remain the same in Tsarist Russia, the Soviet Union, and modern-day Russia.

A note on propaganda

It must be remembered that communism could have easily been tainted with capitalist propaganda. This is also true for other political systems, countries, and the leaders of them, that take an anti-American or anti-capitalist stance, such as with Hugo Chavez. In capitalist countries such as the United States, it must be remembered that the plutocrats have a strong incentive to make communism and communists look as horrible as possible. This will turn the general populace off from communism. If there were to be a communist revolution in a capitalist country such as the United States, the plutocrats would be under great threat. Presenting communism in a bad light prevents a revolution that would threaten their power from occurring.

Common Ownership

One of the central ideas to communism is that the capital produced by an enterprise or company is not owned by the members of the company but invisibly. This is opposed to capitalism, wherein the members of the company do what they wish with capital. This leads to large companies collapsing suddenly, having large liquidity problems, and most or all of its members are laid off. Common ownership, however, avoids such pitfalls because it does not exploit workers at least not officially, and theoretically, commonly owned capital would be applied to good use through reason. Unfortunately, the bad side to guaranteed employment is that workers keep their jobs despite being incompetent or irresponsible. State capitalism in Communist countries did and does exploit workers whose labour provided high living standards for the party elite. The wages are not the same as the value of labor.

Common ownership historically

Common ownership has surfaced many times in civilisation before the rise of Marxism. For hundreds of thousands of years, in unorganised society, people lived communally and shared ownership of farms and utilities. The Spartacus slave revolt in ancient Rome was also based on this, and many mediaeval church systems commonly owned their land and revenue. Russia, later the Soviet Union, was the first country in modern history to adopt Communism in its politics. It should be noted that though Spartacus failed, many people did stand up for him. And churches are still around today, though only very few practice common ownership.

How far Common ownership works

Common ownership of parts of an economy works. All developed economies are mixed economies. That includes the economy of the United States; as well as Venezuela and Scandinavia (to a greater extent). Common ownership of a whole economy, with the exception of unorganised society, has never been completely achieved. Even under Stalin, private property was never fully abolished. In the German Democratic Republic, small firms could be owned privately but as they grew the government often bought and collectivised them.

Marxist schools

Note: These are social and economic theories. There is no reason to assume any of the theories below are true.


The most famous symbol of communism: the hammer and sickle

Karl Marx envisioned modern communism and his writings were adapted by Vladimir Lenin when he overthrew the Russian capitalists during the Russian Revolution. Russia operated on Marxist-Leninist communism through Stalin and up until the end of the Cold War.


Marxism is based on these tenets:

  • that capitalism exploits workers by the owners of the capital
  • that people's class consciousness is based on their relations to the means of production
  • the contradictions of capitalism will collapse it[1]
  • social classes are based on relationships to the means of production
  • that material conditions and social relations are historically malleable
  • in history, the conflicts between classes with different interests drive change and structure historical periods [3]

Marx believed that capitalism was the exploitation of one class by another. In other words, it works on the basis of paying the worker less than the full value of their labor, in an effort to turn a profit. The profit is not moderated based on risk versus reward.


Marx refers to the alienation of people from aspects of their "human nature." He believes that alienation is a systematic result of capitalism. Under capitalism, the fruits of production belong to the employers, who expropriate the surplus created by others and in so doing generate alienated labour.[4] Alienation describes the objective features of a person's situation in capitalism - it isn't necessary for them to believe or feel that they are alienated.[3]

Base and superstructure

This is the idea that all the relations among people with regard to “the social production of their existence” form the economic basis, on which arises a superstructure of political and legal institutions. To the base corresponds religion, philosophy, and other main ideas of society.[4]


Class is a concept with multiple definitions, but the Marxian definition of class is one's relation to the means of production. The bourgeoisie and proletariat are two distinct classes as the bourgeoisie privately own the means of production whereas the proletariat sells its labour power to the bourgeoisie. Proletarians differ from serfs as serfs own the land on which they work (though they have to give up most of the commodities they produce to the feudal lord), and proletarians differ from slaves as the slave is sold once and for all while the proletarian is sold daily and hourly, and the slave doesn't have to compete in a job market whereas the proletarian does.

Class consciousness

The idea that a social class must possess this awareness of itself and the world around it in order to mount a successful revolution of sociality.[citation needed] A revolution like the one Ralph Nader wants to happen to America. Marx believed that the ruling interests kept sects of the population (such as white peasants and chattel slaves in the Deep South, or kulaki and the poorest sections of the peasantry/the proletariat in feudal Russia) divided against each other in order to maintain their power, and that if these classes developed class consciousness they could spark revolutions and socialist movements across the world (though Marx believed that revolutions would first occur in the most-industrialised countries)


Because the ruling class controls the society's means of production, the superstructure of society, as well as its ruling ideas, will be determined according to what is in the ruling class's best interests.

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force."- Karl Marx, in The German Ideology[5]
Historical materialism

An idea that looks for the causes of developments and changes in human societies, in the way that humans as a whole make the means to life, giving an emphasis, through economic analysis, to everything that co-exists with the economic base of society (e.g. social classes, political structures, ideologies), like the rest of the beliefs.

Labour Theory of Value

Labour Theory of Value predates Marx and was generally accepted by most economists, even including Adam Smith. But the idea is that a commodity gains value from labour, and that the labour can be measured by the socially-necessary labour time (i.e. the social average, or how long it generally took to produce something). Counterarguments and counter-counterarguments include:

  • "The value of a commodity differs from person-to-person." Go in a store and try to buy something at what you deem is its price, and what yourself get thrown out.
  • "But what about supply and demand?" If supply and demand were equalised, the commodity would still have an intrinsic value and a cost.
  • "Natural resources are also valuable." Yeah, and you can still apply the labour theory of value to it in the sense that it takes x amount of mining to get y amount of z.
  • "Water bottle vs a diamond on an island example." The water bottle has a greater demand than the diamond on that island, so that's just supply and demand.
  • "Mudpie argument." This is a strawman of the theory. Marx doesn't say that if you put more labour into a commodity, it gains more value. He merely states that a commodity gains its intrinsic value from labour. In this case, if a mudpie made in 30 seconds that had x quality costed €2, a mudpie that was made in 30 minutes which also had x quality would have to be sold at €2 as well otherwise it would fail.
Political economy

Political economy studies the means of production, specifically capital, and how this manifests itself in economic activity.

Surplus value

Surplus value refers to the excess value produced by the labour

Marx's theory of history

Marx had a very interesting interpretation of history, past, present and yet to come (probably coming from the "when history was written, the last page will say" Bushist philosophy). He thought that all history had, has and will have a timeline based on classes. The Marxist theory of historical materialism understands society as fundamentally determined by the material conditions at any given time - this means the relationships which people enter into with one another in order to fulfill their basic needs, for instance, to feed and clothe themselves and their families.[5] In general Marx and Engels identified five (and one transitional) successive stages of the development of these material conditions in the Western Bloc.[7]

  1. Primitive Socialism: as seen in cooperative tribal societies. Primitive conservatives secretly hide fake WMDs underneath large rocks as security in case future conservatives need an emergency excuse for an invasion to protect oil imports.
  2. Slave Society: which develops when the tribe becomes a city-state. Aristocracy is born. Conservatives own slaves.
  3. Feudalism: aristocracy is the ruling class. Merchants develop into capitalists.
  4. Capitalism: capitalists are the ruling class, who create and employ the working class. The means of production are owned privately. The rise of the Liberals.
  5. Socialism: workers gain class consciousness, overthrow the capitalists and take control over the state. Neocons finally defeated!
  6. Communism: a classless and stateless society. Al Gore shall lead the liberal nation to glorious empire upon the moon!

Well, we're just a little ironical here but we're sure you're smart enough to see that.


Marxism-Leninism is an ideology developed by Vladimir Lenin (1870 - 1924) and Iosif Stalin (1878 - 1953), theoreticians and leaders of the Communist Party of the USSR. Lenin came up with the theory of imperialism, the vanguard party, monopoly, democratic centralism, etc. which gained popularity in the Marxist movement following the October Revolution.

Material Reality of Russia

By the time Socialism had been achieved in the Russian Empire, it had been at war with the Austro-Hungarian and German Empires for four years during the brutal conflict that was World War I. World War I marked the vast industrialisation of war, with rapid transportation (first on railroads, then by sea and air), telegraph and wireless communications, tanks, breech-loading rifles and artillery, chemical warfare, armoured warfare, zeppelin warfare, metal warships, mass production lines, automatic rifles and submachine guns, the Maxim gun, strategic bombing, and more.

All this development that was seen in Central, Southern, and Western Europe didn't occur under the semi-feudal, agriculturally-dependent nation of Russia. Speaking of their agriculture, it had been privitised and hoarded by Capitalists and Monarchists for centuries up until the mass collectivisation policies imposed on Ukraine by Lenin in Stalin in the 1920s-30s, well after the war had ended, meaning the Communists couldn't actually use it. By the time the Bolsheviks actually seized power, most of Russia's territory in the Balkans, Poland, the Baltics, Belarus, and Ukraine had been seized by the Central Powers or destroyed during the fighting. The Communists had to make-do with what they did have and ended up losing much of their territory due to Imperial onslaught. Oh, there was also the Armenian Genocide imposed by the Ottoman Empire but that isn't worth mentioning.

After the First World War was over, the Bolsheviks had to fight a Civil War against half of their own country supported by eighteen Capitalist and Imperialist world superpowers, including France, Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Serbia, Romania, Nationalist China, Canada, Australia, India, and South Africa, and the Tsarist White Guard, supported by Separatist movements in basically every region of Russia by both the Nationalists and the Anti-Bolshevik Left. At one point during the war, the SRs and Bolsheviks held less land in Russia than their enemies did. Prior to that war, the Cheka didn't exist. Due to the sheer capacity (or lack thereof) of the Communists, they had to give in to independence movements in Poland, the Baltics, and Scandinavia.

The Bolsheviks had to fight against the Polish in 1920, the Finnish in 1922, Romania in 1924, Afghanistan in 1925, China and Afghanistan (again) in 1929, Chechnya (a region in the Caucasus) and Japan in 1932, China (again) in 1937, the Spanish Nationalists in 1937, Poland (again), the Baltics (again), and Finland (again) in 1939, Romania (again) in 1940, and the Axis Powers and Chechnya (again), comprising most of Europe and East Asia from 1941 until 1945; where Russia bore most of the brunt during the Second World War. A total of 11 million Soviet soldiers died during the war, 3.3 million of them directly as a result of the Holocaust. 13 million Soviet citizens also died. With far more loss of agriculture and industry than the Western Allies, they fought and turned the tide on the Eastern Front years before a Western one was even opened. The Soviets were the ones who raised their banner above Berlin in 1945. Stalin saw how a lack of state and the collapse of the Red Army in 1941-42 nearly lost him the Soviet Union and he wasn't going to make that mistake twice.

After that, the Soviets had to set up satellite states in most of Eastern, Southern, and Central Europe. While simultaneously providing for those states and their militaries, they had to become an anchor to other Communist countries and movements, intervening during the Korean War, Chinese Civil War, the First and Second Indochina Wars, the Eritrean War of Independence, the Angolan Civil War, and more.

Hopefully now the reader understands why Marxist-Leninism in the Soviet Union was so authoritarian—because if it wasn't, it wouldn't have been able to maintain some level of Socialism and the Revolution would have been completely destroyed.


Theoretically, the state was supposed to be a temporary development, eventually giving way to Marxism, which would be an anarchistic social order. The term "Communist state" is a contradiction in terms as, under Communism, the state is supposed to wither away. Nations that have adopted Marxism-Leninism as the official ideology of said nations like the Soviet Union can be called Marxist-Leninist states.

In practice, the state didn't disappear; it instead became totalitarian and enforced inefficient rigid Command economies. Communist Russia adopted a secret police organisation known as the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission (Russian: Всеросси́йская чрезвыча́йная коми́ссия), otherwise known as the Cheka; it later established police organisations such as the NKVD and KGB. Gulags were established. Figures such as Stalin, Khrushchev, and Gorbachev ramped up total GDP spent on the military.

The Anti-Communist Left, Neoliberals, Social Democrats, "Centrists", and Conservatives often use this to argue that communism doesn't work the way it suggests. Communists argue that this fails to understand the [2]materiel reality of these countries before Communism arrived.

Communists also argue that as the Soviet Union developed, the authoritarian-ness of the USSR decreased. For instance, the Gulag camps that were hailed earlier were closed by Khrushchev.

Marxist-Leninists believe in a Libleft society ideally, but that practically they would have to adopt authoritarian measures during the developmental and transitional phase in order to become a stateless and moneyless society.

In the short writing On Authority, Friedrich Engels states that, to a certain extent, authority can never be abolished, citing the cotton spinning mill and the railway as examples.

"Let us take by way of example a cotton spinning mill. The cotton must pass through at least six successive operations before it is reduced to the state of thread, and these operations take place for the most part in different rooms. Furthermore, keeping the machines going requires an engineer to look after the steam engine, mechanics to make the current repairs, and many other labourers whose business it is to transfer the products from one room to another, and so forth. All these workers, men, women and children, are obliged to begin and finish their work at the hours fixed by the authority of the steam, which cares nothing for individual autonomy. The workers must, therefore, first come to an understanding on the hours of work; and these hours, once they are fixed, must be observed by all, without any exception. Thereafter particular questions arise in each room and at every moment concerning the mode of production, distribution of material, etc., which must be settled by decision of a delegate placed at the head of each branch of labour or, if possible, by a majority vote, the will of the single individual will always have to subordinate itself, which means that questions are settled in an authoritarian way. The automatic machinery of the big factory is much more despotic than the small capitalists who employ workers ever have been. At least with regard to the hours of work one may write upon the portals of these factories [...] Let us take another example — the railway. Here too the co-operation of an infinite number of individuals is absolutely necessary, and this co-operation must be practised during precisely fixed hours so that no accidents may happen. Here, too, the first condition of the job is a dominant will that settles all subordinate questions, whether this will is represented by a single delegate or a committee charged with the execution of the resolutions of the majority of persona interested. In either case there is a very pronounced authority. Moreover, what would happen to the first train dispatched if the authority of the railway employees over the Hon. passengers were abolished?"[2]


Maoism, also known as Mao Zedong Thought, is a variant of Marxist-Leninism derived from the teachings of the late Chinese leader Mao Zedong. China is currently a form of capitalistic economy authoritarian government. Mao believed that the materiel conditions of China at the time (Second Sino-Japanese War, European Zones of Influence, droughts and lack of food security, civil war, etc.) prevented China from immediately transitioning to a centrally-planned economy; rather China (as well as other underdeveloped, third-world countries) would have to endure a developmental phase of Social Democracy under strict Communist leadership before transitioning.

"Marxism consists of thousands of truths, but they all boil down to one: It's right to rebel against reactionaries."- Mao Zedong[8]

Mao Zedong Thought has always been the preferred term by the Communist Party of China and the word Maoism has rarely been used in the English language except pejoratively. Likewise, Maoist groups outside China only began to call themselves Maoist after the death of the man himself, a reflection of Mao's view that he did not change, but only developed, Marxism-Leninism. Contemporary Maoist groups, believing Mao's theories to have been sufficiently substantial additions to the basics of Marxism, have since the 1980s called themselves "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist," "Revolutionary Communist" or simply "Maoist." According to Glenn Beck, President Barack Obama is a Maoist. ATTENTION!!! The Person who added this article above may be Conservative (Or someone with a really bad sense of humor).

In China

Since the death of Mao Zedong in 1976, and the reforms of Deng Xiaoping starting in 1978, the role of Mao's ideology within China has radically changed.[9] Although Mao Zedong Thought nominally remains the state ideology, Deng's admonition to seek truth from facts means that state policies are judged on their practical consequences and the role of ideology in determining policy has been considerably reduced. Deng also separated Mao from Maoism, making it clear that Mao was fallible and hence that the supposed truth of Maoism comes from observing social consequences rather than by using Mao's quotations as holy writ, as was done in Mao's lifetime.

In Cuba

Fidel Castro led a revolution in Cuba and installed himself as a dictator, and banished the nation to communism. However, like the Russians before him, he became a fascist and started abusing human rights. No pattern can be discerned at this time.


One of the symbols of Trotskyism: the Fourth International

Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by Leon Trotsky. Trotsky considered himself an orthodox Marxist. His politics differed sharply from those of Josef Stalin, most importantly in declaring the need for an international revolution (rather than socialism in one country) and unwavering support for a true dictatorship of the working class based on democratic principles. See Neocons? Trotsky thought Communism can work with Democracy!

Trotsky was, together with Vladimir Lenin, the most important and well-known leader of the Russian Revolution and the international Communist movement in 1917 and the following years. Nowadays, numerous groups around the world continue to describe themselves as Trotskyist, although they have developed Trotsky's ideas in different ways. A follower of Trotskyist ideas is usually called a "Trotskyist." [10]

Although Trotsky is generally portrayed positively, he suppressed the Kronstadt rebellion. This action was criticized by anarchist philosopher Emma Goldman who later wrote a book My Disillusionment with Russia.

Trotskyists in Capitalist countries frequently set out to make growing demands for workers to the level that the state fails.


Trotskyism can be distinguished from other Marxist theories by four key elements:

  • Support for the strategy of permanent revolution[11]
  • Criticism of the post-1924 leadership of the Soviet Union,[12] analysis of its features and after 1933, support for political revolution in the Soviet Union and in what Trotskyists term the deformed workers' states;
  • Support for social revolution in the advanced capitalist countries through working-class mass action;
  • support for working-class internationalism.
  • democracy, theory.[13]


In 1938, Trotsky and the organisations that supported his outlook established the Fourth International. He said that only the Fourth International, basing itself on Lenin's theory of the vanguard party, could lead the world revolution and that it would need to be built in opposition to both the capitalists and the Marxist-Leninists. Trotskyists want people to join them. They believe they will accomplish revolution and overthrow fat rich white supremacist capitalist Republican conservative fascist statist imperialist Stalinist neocon warmongering rights-violating hatemongering fearmongering racist prodigal antisocialist scaremongering toadish McCarthyist ruling class that is leading the world to the cliff of oblivion! Yes, they believe all that.

Marxism-Leninism and the Soviet Union

More on this topic in the article on "Josef Stalin, section "Stalinist repressions"

After Lenin, the leader was Josef Stalin, who sought to fulfill his predecessor's principles of Marxism and started massive collectivization and industrialization programs in the Soviet Union. As he said in 1931,

We are 50 or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in 10 years. Either we do it, or they will crush us.[3]

(Ten years later, in 1941, Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union, starting the part of World War II known as the "Great Patriotic War".) These programs, as a result, led to a great famine in the 1930s which affected many regions, especially Ukraine. Nowadays Ukrainians consider it to be an engineered genocide; while this is not recognized among historians, many countries recognize the events as genocide.

There are different estimates of how many people were otherwise repressed by Josef Stalin, mostly differing on what exactly is being "repressed". Depending on the definition, one can put the amount at 4 million people or 40 million.

Stalin is the reason why a lot of people are afraid of communism today. It had only begun with Lenin, but when Stalin took over, well, he built walls around the edge of the Empire with armed guards ordered to shoot anyone trying to escape. And people still tried to escape.

Conservapedia's view on Marxism-Leninism

According to Conservapedia, Ronald Reagan personally slew Stalin.[14] With his bare hands.[15] (In one of his movies)


Eurocommunism is the word that describes more moderate, reformist communist parties in Europe. These parties did not support the Soviet Union and denounced its inhumane policies. Such parties were politically active and significant in Italy, France, Spain, and the Scandinavian countries.[6]

Non-Marxist schools of thought

Non-Marxist versions of communism are anarchist communism and Christian communism. The collapse of the Soviet Union gave the opportunity for the non-Marxist version of communism to grow and becoming influential. They do not agree with Marxists. Anarchist communism rejects the Marxists theory of "Directorship of Proletariat" as authoritarian and oppressive.

Equal Pay?

A common misconception about Communism is that everyone would be paid the same.

"The kind of socialism under which everybody would receive the same pay, an equal quantity of meat, an equal quantity, of bread, would wear the same kind of clothes and would receive the same kind of goods and in equal quantities—such a kind of socialism is unknown to Marxism. All that Marxism declares is that until classes have been completely abolished, and until work has been transformed from being a means of maintaining existence, into a prime necessity of life, into voluntary labour performed for the benefit of society, people will continue to be paid for their labour in accordance with the amount of labour performed. 'From each according to his capacity, to each according to the work he performs,' such is the Marxian formula of socialism, i.e., the first stage of communism, the first stage of a communist society. Only in the highest phase of communism will people, working in accordance with their capacity, receive recompense therefor in accordance with their needs: “From each according to his capacity, to each according to his needs.” -Ioseb Stalin, Interview with Emil Ludwig on 13 December 1931[4]

Results of communism

As of now, the largest Communist nations have either ceased to exist or performed market reforms, turning to capitalism. While those in West Europe or America mostly associated communism with the ruthless totalitarian regimes of Mao or Stalin, or the constant fear of them striking against the West during the Cold War -- and there is certainly a lot of truth to that -- those who actually lived in the Communist nations still (mostly) remember these as the "good times" -- and for some good reasons, too. Those living in Communist nations (at least those who weren't persecuted) enjoyed a much better economical and social stability,unemployment and poverty were near zero, and everyone had a right to receive a free quality education and health care.

After the communist nations crumbled, their economies weren't prepared for a sudden switch to a free market system -- which resulted in salaries dropping, unemployment rates skyrocketing and many social programs getting canceled. While most of these nations have successfully recovered from that, smaller ones (for example, Ukraine) haven't yet reached the GDP per capita from the Communist era.


Is a system wherein the country is divided into regions, based on population density. Each region is then tasked with supplying adequate food to each citizen. All extra food (or any other basic essential items) are then either; A.) Stored for future use, or B.) Given to other regions in need. Each citizen performs a task of their choosing, and for every hour worked, regardless of position, achieves one "token" that can be used to purchase an item. Citizens can also start a "company" that serves no monetary purpose, as "tokens" are one use only- after buying an item, they are recycled for paper. This system thus eliminates all chance for corruption (well, mostly) by creating a "closed circuit economy", meaning that the government doesn't take from the people, but rather it (the economy) is contained entirely within the government. (Government positions [the best jobs, by the way] require several years of manual labor {gitty jobs}).

See also

External Links