| Revision as of 19:02, 6 October 2005 editPmanderson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers62,752 edits consensus: the last edit summary exaggerates the half-dozen footnotes← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:20, 30 April 2023 edit undoPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers286,170 editsNo edit summaryTag: 2017 wikitext editor | ||
| (717 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''Criticism of communism''' may refer to: | |||
| {{npov}} | |||
| * ], which is criticism of the practical policies implemented by 20th century governments claiming to follow the ideology of Marxism–Leninism (usually known as communist states) | |||
| {{communism}} | |||
| * ], which is criticism of the political ideology and principles most often identified with the word ''communism'' | |||
| :''Note that communism is a branch of ]. This article only discusses criticisms that are specific to communism and not other forms of socialism. See ] for a discussion of objections to socialism in general. | |||
| {{disambiguation}} | |||
| ] | |||
| '''Criticisms of ]''' can be divided in two broad categories: Those concerning themselves with the practical aspects of 20th century ]s, and those concerning themselves with communist principles and theory. The two categories are logically distinct: One may agree with communist principles but disagree with many policies adopted by Communist states (and this is quite common among communists, particularly in the case of ]), or, more rarely, one may agree with policies adopted by Communist states but disagree with communist principles. | |||
| In the ], the word ''communism'' and related terms are written with the ] "C" when they refer to a political party of that name, a member of that party, or a government led by such a party. When written as a common noun, with a lowercase "c", they refer to a future condition of ], classless and stateless community, or to the idea that such a condition is desirable and achievable. Thus, one may be a communist (an advocate of communism) without being a Communist (a member of a Communist Party or another similar organization). This distinction between ''communism'' (lowercase "c") and ''Communism'' (uppercase "C") is used throughout the present article. | |||
| == 20th century Communist states == | |||
| Communism is a social system that abolishes ], ]es, and the ] itself. As such, a "communist state" would be a ]. No country or government ever called itself a "Communist state"; however, various states gave the ] a special status in their constitution and laws , while claiming to be heading in the direction of communism. The term "Communist state" has been coined and used in ] to refer to such countries. It is these "Communist states" (]s where the ruling party officially proclaimed its adherence to ]) that are the targets of criticism presented below. | |||
| ''For related information, see the discussion regarding the ].'' | |||
| No Communist state claimed to have ''attained'' communism, the social system, but all of them planned to do so in the not unreasonably distant future; ], for example, forecast that communism would be reached in the ] by 1980, some quarter century later. The states which no longer exist never did reach communism, and none of the remaining ones seem likely to do so soon. | |||
| === Anti-communist critique of Communist states === | |||
| ====Censorship, personality cults, and foreign policy==== | |||
| The Communist states often practice ]. The level of censorship varies widely between different states and historical periods, but it nearly always exists to a greater or lesser extent. The most rigid censorship has been practiced by hardline ] and ] regimes, such as the ] under ] (1927–53), ] during the ] (1966–76), and ] during its entire existence (1948–present). This censorship takes various forms: | |||
| *Censorship of the ], for example by allowing only ]. Some Communist states have also been involved in the destruction of cultural heritage: ] (planned destruction of historical centres of most towns—partially achieved in Bucharest), ] (repression of ]an culture, destruction of cultural artifacts during the ]) and the Soviet Union (destruction, abandonment or reconversion of religious buildings) are the most cited examples. | |||
| *Censorship of ]. One example is censorship and ] of history. In the Soviet Union, between the late 1920s and early 1960s, research was suppressed in ] and ] (]), ] (]), ], ] and ], and even ]. In some Communist states it was common practice to classify internal critics of the system as having a mental disease, like ]—which was a disease only recognized in Communist states—and incarcerating them in ]. See also ]. | |||
| *Censorship of ]. Many Communist states use an extensive network of civilian ] to spy on their peers. This creates a society where no one would dare criticize the government in public (and, in extreme cases, not even in private), for fear that they might be reported to the ]. | |||
| Both anti-Communists and Communists have criticized the ]s of many leaders of Communist states, and the hereditary leadership of ]. ] and others have also argued that a powerful ] of party bureaucrats emerged under Communist Party rule, and exploited the rest of the population. A Czech proverb observed, "Under capitalism, man exploits man; under Communism, it's the other way around." (see also ]) | |||
| The Communist states also typically suppress mass dissent. Internal uprisings were forcibly suppressed in the ] and the ]. The Soviet Union intervened three times in neighboring countries to defeat popular uprisings against a Communist state: the ], the ] and the ]. These invasions have also been criticized as naked ]. | |||
| Restrictions on ] are widely seen as a mechanism for suppressing dissent. The ] was one of the most famous examples of this, but North Korea still imposes a total ban on emigration (reported on PBS's program ]) and Cuba's restrictions are routinely criticized by the ] community. | |||
| The escape valve of last resort from repressive regimes is emigration, but the communist states were notorious for violently preventing and severely punishing attempts to escape. The anti-democratic nature of these regimes is perhaps best revealed by this prevention of even allowing citizens to "vote with their feet". | |||
| ====Human rights violations==== | |||
| Large scale human rights violations occurred in Communist states. The most common of these were restrictions on ] (in the form of censorship, discussed above). Such restrictions existed, to a greater or lesser degree, in nearly all Communist states during most of their existence. Usually, newly established Communist states maintained or tightened the level of censorship that was present in those countries before the Communists came to power; indeed, the Communists themselves had most often been the targets of this previous censorship. As a result, after coming to power, they argued that they wanted to fight the former ruling class using its own weapons, either as a form of vengeance or to prevent it from staging a counter-revolution. | |||
| However, some Communist states - particularly the regimes of ] and ] - engaged in far more severe human rights violations. Most prominent were deaths due to executions, forced labor camps, genocides of certain ethnic minorities, and mass starvations caused by either government mismanagement or deliberately. The exact number of deaths caused by these regimes is somewhat disputed, but extensive historical research shows at least tens of millions (see, e.g., the estimates reached in '']'' and the references below). A feature of controversial significance of these estimates is that they far exceed the number of deaths under ] regimes during the twentieth century (including ]). Some anti-communists have used this to argue that Communist states were worse than fascist ones; others point out that Communist states were greater in number, lasted longer and ruled over a much larger population than fascist states. | |||
| Lesser violations include religious and ethnic ]s, systematic use of ] as part of police procedure, lack of ], and the fact that workers were not allowed to join free ]s. | |||
| Some advocates of Communist states find this approach simplistic, noting that executions, forced labor camps, the repression of ethnic minorities, and mass starvation were patterns in both Russian and Chinese history before their respective Communist revolutions. Critics argue that past evils in an old regime cannot be used to justify new ones, while advocates reply that they only seek to put the events into perspective, not justify them. | |||
| ====Economic and social development==== | |||
| ], the Communist states maintained a much higher level of ] than either the Western nations or the Third World, at least after 1970. Energy-intensive development may have been reasonable. The Soviet Union was an exporter of ]; China has vast supplies of ].]] | |||
| Advocates of Communist states often praise them for having leapt ahead of contemporary capitalist countries in certain areas, for example by offering guaranteed employment, health care and housing to their citizens. Critics typically condemn Communist states by the same criteria, claiming that all lag far behind the industrialized West in terms of economic development and living standards. | |||
| Central economic planning has in certain instances produced dramatic advances, including rapid development of heavy industry during the 1930s in the Soviet Union and later in their ]. Another example is the development of the pharmaceutical industry in Cuba. Early advances in the status of women were also notable, especially in Islamic areas of the Soviet Union. See Gregory J. Massell, ''The Surrogate Proletariat: Moslem Women and Revolutionary Strategies in Soviet Central Asia: 1919–1929'', Princeton University Press, 1974, hardcover, 451 pages, ISBN 069107562X. However, the Soviet Union did not achieve the same kind of development in agriculture (forcing the Soviet Union to become a net importer of cereals after the Second World War). Other Communist states, such as Laos, Vietnam or Maoist China, continued in poverty; China has only achieved high rates of growth after introducing free market economic reforms — a sign, claim the critics, of the superiority of capitalism. Another example is ], which was among world's most developed industrial countries prior to ], but fell behind the West in the post-war era. | |||
| Both critics and supporters also make comparisons between particular Communist and capitalist countries: Critics prefer to compare ] and ]; supporters prefer to compare ] to ] or Central America. All such comparisons are open to challenge, both on the comparability of the states involved and the statistic being used for comparison. No two countries are identical; the western parts of Germany were more developed and industrialized than the eastern parts long before the Cold War and the creation of two separate German states, and Cuba was likewise more developed than many of its Central American neighbors before the Cuban revolution. Comparison of Cuba to the rest of the Caribbean or Latin America has a special problem: Cuba is the only Latin American country to have been Communist for forty years; it is also the only Latin American country to have been for forty years under embargo by its largest neighbor and geographically natural trading partner. Deconfounding those two uniquenesses is beyond the reach of ''honest'' statistics. | |||
| Communist states often engaged in rapid ], and in some cases this has lead to environmental disasters. The most cited example is the disappearance of the ] in today's ] and ], which is believed to have been caused by the diversion of the waters of its two affluent rivers for cotton production. The ] has also been diminishing; in addition, there was significant pollution of the ], the ], and the unique freshwater environment of ]. In 1988 only 20% of the ] in the Soviet Union was treated properly. Established health standards for ] were exceeded by ten times or more in 103 cities in 1988. In Eastern Europe, air pollution is cited as the cause of forest die-back, damage to buildings and cultural heritages, and a rise in the occurrence of ]. According to official sources, 58 percent of the total agricultural land of the former Soviet Union was affected by ], ], ], or ]. Nuclear waste was dumped in the ], the ], and in locations in the Far East. It was revealed in 1992 that in the city of ] there were 636 radioactive toxic waste sites and 1,500 in ]. The Vistula was poisoned with mining spoil, agricultural runoff, and sewage; its fish were inedible, its waters green with algae; much of its water was unsafe to drink. | |||
| However, many of these ecological problems continued unabated after the fall of the Soviet Union and are still major issues today - which has prompted many supporters of Communist states to accuse their opponents of holding a ]. | |||
| Technological progress in the Communist states was sometimes highly uneven, in the sense that some sectors surged ahead while others lagged behind. As noted above, the Soviet space program saw remarkable progress; so did pure science (in fields not blighted by ideological pressure), mathematics, and military technology. Consumer products, on the other hand, were typically several years behind their Western counterparts. According to the ] , a number of Soviet products were in fact using Western technology, which had been either legally purchased or obtained through espionage. This situation has been largely attributed to the fact that economic planners in the Soviet Union and elsewhere were accountable to the government, but, in the absence of democracy, they were not accountable to the people. Thus, their plans tended to focus on long-term goals and scientific and military development, rather than the immediate needs of the population. | |||
| ] has increased in fits and starts in the West. The latest of these began about 1970, and largely consists of improvements in ] ]. Demographic studies (including ) have concluded that the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe did not partake of this increase, as they had in the earlier ones; male life expectancies even decreased by a year - leading to a large gap between East and West by 1990. Since a market economy was introduced, a sharp decline in life expectancy was noted in the countries of the former Soviet Union. This decline has accelerated in ] and ]; in the ] life expectancy may have started to increase. In Eastern Europe, after 1990, the decline continued most notably in ], but life expectancy eventually began to increase in many of the other countries in the region. All these developments give information on post-Soviet capitalism, especially the ], as well as on the policies of the Communist states. | |||
| Supporters of the Communist states note their social and cultural programs, sometimes administered by labor organizations. Universal education programs have been a strong point, as has the generous provision of universal health care. They point out the high levels of literacy enjoyed by Eastern Europeans (in comparison, for instance, with Southern Europe), Cubans or Chinese. Western critics charge that Communist compulsory education was replete with pro-Communist propaganda and censored opposing views. | |||
| ===Debunking=== | |||
| Despite the problems above, there has been a considerable ] literature porclaiming the communist states behave dramatically better than other states; that the Soviet Union did not behave like other Great Powers; and, in extreme cases, that some Communist state (usually the Soviet Union, but often Maoist China or Cuba) was what ] referred to as the "Infant ] among the nations": innocent, holy, and much put-upon. | |||
| Much criticism of Communism has been devoted to refuting such claims; most notably, perhaps, ]'s '']'', which ends by displaying the Soviet leadership as indistinguishable from the British ruling class; at about the same time, Orwell described the Commmunist apologetics above mentioned as instances of "transferred ]" and held they had the disagreeable qualities of direct nationalism, often with the even greater rosiness of view possible to someone writing at a distance from a system he's never actually experienced. | |||
| === Communist and Left critique of Communist states === | |||
| Communist states are nominally based on ], which is only one form of ], which is in turn only one school of the ]. Many communists themselves disagree with some or most of the actions undertaken by Communist states during the 20th century. Many of the anti-communist criticisms presented in the above section (for example, criticisms of violations of human rights) are shared by the communist critics. | |||
| Other varieties of the Left opposed Bolshevik plans before they was put into practice: The ] Marxists, such as ] and ] denied the necessity of a revolution; the ] had differed from Marx since ], and the anarchist ] under ] were at war with Lenin, forming another of the many sides of the ]. | |||
| Marx and Engels (like ]) did not believe that true ] was a ''possible'' form of government, since all states inherently give unlimited power to the ]. After the revolution, when all production was securely controlled by the proletariat, the state would eventually "wither away", since it would have no function. | |||
| Criticisms of Communist states from the ] began very soon after the creation of the first such state. ] visited Russia in 1920, and regarded the ] as intelligent, but clueless and planless. ] condemned the suppression of the ] as a 'massacre'. | |||
| One specifically communist critique, however, is the allegation that the "Communist states" of the 20th century grossly violated communist principles, and were therefore only partially communist at best or completely un-communist at worst. | |||
| Firstly, all communists agree that democracy (the rule of the people) is a key element of both socialism and communism - though they may disagree on the particular form that this democracy should take. The leaders of the Communist states themselves frequently announced their support for democracy, held regular elections and sometimes even gave their countries names such as the "]" or the "]". Supporters of Communist states have always argued that those states were democratic. However, critics point out that, in practice, one political party held an absolute monopoly on power, dissent was banned, and the elections usually featured a single candidate and were ripe with fraud (often producing implausible results of 99% in favor of the candidate). Thus, communist critics of Communist states argue that, in practice, these states were not democratic and therefore not communist or socialist. | |||
| A lack of democracy implies a lack of a mandate from the people; as such, communist critics argue that the leadership of Communist states did not represent the interests of the ], and it should therefore be no wonder that this leadership took actions that directly harmed the workers (for example Mao's ]). In particular, Communist states banned independent ]s, an act seen by many communists (and most others on the ]) as an open betrayal of the working class. | |||
| ], in particular, have argued that ] transformed the Soviet Union into a bureaucratic and repressive state, and that all subsequent Communist states ultimately turned out similar because they copied his example (]). There are various terms used by Trotskyists to define such states; see ], ] and ]. | |||
| While Trotskyists are ], there are other communists who embrace classical ] and reject Leninism entirely, arguing, for example, that the Leninist principle of ] was the source of the Soviet Union's slide away from communism. | |||
| Finally, it should be noted that many of these communist criticisms draw counter-criticisms from anti-communists, many of whom have attempted to establish a direct link between communist principles and the actions of Communist states. Ultimately, this comes down to a fundamental disagreement between communists and anti-communists as to what those 'communist principles' actually ''are''. A glaring example is the issue of democracy: Communists claim that democracy is an essential part of their principles, while anti-communists claim that it is not. | |||
| In addition to Communism, the names of several other ideologies and political systems have been used by governments or political parties whose policies are widely regarded as being contrary to the basic principles of those ideologies or systems. The ] or the ] (North Korea), for example, are universally regarded as highly undemocratic. Likewise, the ] shares virtually nothing with the ideology of ]. | |||
| == Marxist theory == | |||
| See ] for a general critique of socialism, including the arguments that the condition of communism is an impractical arrangement, contrary to human nature. The following sections of this article deal with criticisms that are specifically raised against Marxist theory. | |||
| === Historical materialism === | |||
| ] is normally considered one of the intellectual foundations of Marxism. It looks for the causes of developments and changes in human history in economic, technological, and more broadly, material factors, as well as the clashes of material interests among tribes, social classes and nations. | |||
| Critics argue that it ignores other causes of historical and social change, like biology, genetics, philosophy, art, religion, or other causes that are not "materialist" according to Marxists. Some, such as ] and others, have also argued that Historical materialism is a ] because it is not ]. Marxists respond that ]s in general are largely not falsifiable, since it is often difficult or outright impossible to test them via ]s (in the way ] can be tested). | |||
| Based on historical materialism, Marx made numerous predictions. For example, he argued that the workers would become poorer and poorer as the capitalists exploited them more and more; that differences between the members within each class would become smaller and smaller and the classes would thus become more homogeneous; that the skilled workers would be replaced by unskilled workers doing assembly line work; that relations between the working class and the capitalists would get worse and worse; and that the capitalists would become fewer and fewer due to an increasing number of monopolies. (The capitalist economists of his time, such as ] and ], would have agreed with most of these predictions, at least as the most likely forecast of events; although they deduced the ] from ]'s forecast of population increasing to the point of subsistence, rather than the ] of the ].) | |||
| Some of these are debatable, while others have been clearly proven wrong. This is often cited by critics as evidence that historical materialism is a flawed theory. Communists reply with two arguments: The first is that there were a number of major events and trends over the past century and a half which Marx could not have predicted: ], ], the rise of ] and ] in the West (that introduced the concept of ], thereby narrowing the gap between rich and poor), ] and finally the ]. In response, critics maintain that if so many unpredictable events have happened in the past, then an equal number could happen in the future, and therefore historical materialism is not a reliable method of making predictions. | |||
| The second communist argument is a specifically ] one. Lenin, in his book '''', argued that capitalism must be viewed as a global phenomenon, and different capitalist countries must not be treated as if they are fully independent entities. Instead, one must look at capitalism worldwide. From this point of view, Lenin goes on to argue that rich, developed capitalist countries "export" their poverty to poorer countries, by turning those countries into colonies (hence 'imperialism') and exploiting them as sources of cheap unskilled labor and resources. Part of the spoils from this exploitation are then shared with the workers from the developed countries, in order to keep their standard of living high and thus avoid revolution at home. | |||
| The European colonial empires of Lenin's time all dissolved between ] and ] in the ] of the world. Communists maintain that economic exploitation of poor countries continues even in the absence of direct political control (see ] and ]). | |||
| === Labor theory of value === | |||
| Fundamental to Marxist theory is the ]. It claims that the value (or, to be more exact, ]) of an item is determined by the ] required to produce it. In other words, the greater the amount of work necessary to produce an object, the greater the value of that object. This implies that value is ], and that it may not be reflected by the ] of the object in question (since price is determined by ], and is not linked to the amount of necessary work that must be expended to produce the object). The labor theory of value was fully stated by ], from suggestions by ], and later adopted by ]. ] derives it, through ], from the ] ''justum pretium''. | |||
| ] and the classical capitalist economists later abandoned the labor theory for the ], which implies that the only value of an object on which different observers can agree is its price on the market (which is based on the subjective utilities of the participants). | |||
| Critics of communism hold that the qualifier "socially necessary" in the labor theory of value is not well-defined, and conceals a subjective judgment of necessity. ] claims that the unit of the labor theory is itself ill-defined; that the problem of measuring the increased return of the skilled laborer (or of the laborer with advanced equipment) in manual man-hours was never solved. | |||
| ] holds that the labor theory, while a reasonable approximation to an ] society, is neither accurate nor normative for an advanced industrialism, whatever its economic arrangements. According to Russell, the labor theory provides a useful ] as an ] against a "predatory" group, like moneylenders or capitalists; but it does not indicate any fair proportion between the earnings of two workers at different stands on the same assembly line. | |||
| Marxists have replied to these criticisms by refining the labor theory of value in various ways, for example by measuring the increased return of the skilled laborer according to the amount of labor that was necessary to teach that laborer his new skills. The qualifier "socially necessary" usually refers to the ''minimum'' amount of labor necessary to produce a given result; thus, if labor is wasted (the production process utilizes more labor than necessary), the end product does not gain any additional value. | |||
| ===The behaviour of Marxists=== | |||
| A number of criticisms of Marxism are based on the perceived behaviour of its adherents. ] describes Marxism as a 'closed system', comparing it to the ] or orthodox ]. In his view, such a 'closed system' has three peculiarities: | |||
| *It claims to represent a universal truth, which explains everything, and can cure every ill. | |||
| *It can automatically process and reinterpret all potentially damaging data by methods of ], emotionally appealling and beyond common logic: "a kind of ] croquet, played with mobile hoops." | |||
| *It invalidates criticism by deducing what the subjective motivation of the critic must be, and arguing about that. | |||
| ] uses Communism as one of the chief examples of the ] which offers ] (a technical, and pejorative term) a glorious, if imaginary, future to compensate for the frustrations of his present. (This is not a criticism of Communist tenets specifically; Hoffer's other chief examples are ], ], and the first members of ]s, such as the early ]). He further holds that one of the characteristics of the True Believer is his ability to switch from one True Belief to another.) ]'s account of the young Communists of ] in 1948 tells of a similar Dionysiac enthusiasm. | |||
| Marxists respond to such allegations by arguing that they are ] (deliberate misrepresentations of Marxist theory) or ] attacks. For example, they may hold that Marxism does ''not'', in fact, claim to "explain everything and cure every ill"; that it merely recommends certain political and social policies, just as all other ideologies do. On the issue of the True Believer, Marxists may concede the point that ''some'' "True Believers" exist in their midst, but argue that not ''all'' of them are "True Believers", and that, in any case, the behaviour of individual Marxists says nothing about the validity of Marxism itself. | |||
| == See also == | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| == References and further reading == | |||
| ===Anti-communist books=== | |||
| *Anne Applebaum, <cite>Gulag: A History</cite>, Broadway Books, 2003, hardcover, 720 pages, ISBN 0767900561 | |||
| *Becker, Jasper (1998) ''Hungry Ghosts : Mao's Secret Famine''. Owl Books. ISBN 0805056688. | |||
| *Conquest, Robert (1991) ''The Great Terror: A Reassessment''. Oxford University Press ISBN 0195071328. | |||
| *Conquest, Robert (1987) ''The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine''. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195051807. | |||
| *Courtois,Stephane; Werth, Nicolas; Panne, Jean-Louis; Paczkowski, Andrzej; Bartosek, Karel; Margolin, Jean-Louis & Kramer, Mark (1999). ''The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression''. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674076087. | |||
| *Hamilton-Merritt, Jane (1999) ''Tragic Mountains: The Hmong, the Americans, and the Secret Wars for Laos, 1942-1992'' Indiana University Press. ISBN 0253207568. | |||
| *Jackson, Karl D. (1992) ''Cambodia, 1975–1978'' Princeton University Press ISBN 069102541X. | |||
| *Kakar, M. Hassan (1997)''Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979-1982'' University of California Press. ISBN 0520208935. | |||
| *Khlevniuk, Oleg & Kozlov, Vladimir (2004) ''The History of the Gulag : From Collectivization to the Great Terror (Annals of Communism Series)'' Yale University Pres. ISBN 0300092849. | |||
| *Natsios, Andrew S. (2002) ''The Great North Korean Famine''. Institute of Peace Press. ISBN 1929223331. | |||
| *Nghia M. Vo (2004) ''The Bamboo Gulag: Political Imprisonment in Communist Vietnam'' McFarland & Company ISBN 0786417145. | |||
| *Pipes, Richard (1995) ''Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime''. Vintage. ISBN 0679761845. | |||
| *Rummel, R.J. (1997). ''Death by Government.'' Transaction Publishers. ISBN 1560009276. | |||
| *Rummel, R.J. (1996). ''Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917.'' Transaction Publishers ISBN 1560008873. | |||
| *Rummel, R.J. & Rummel, Rudolph J. (1999). ''Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900.'' Lit Verlag ISBN 3825840107. | |||
| *Todorov, Tzvetan & Zaretsky, Robert (1999). ''Voices from the Gulag: Life and Death in Communist Bulgaria''. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0271019611 | |||
| *Yakovlev, Alexander (2004). ''A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia.'' Yale University Press. ISBN 0300103220. | |||
| == External links == | |||
| *Anti-communist links: | |||
| ** A Cato institute article, from a Capitalist point of view. | |||
| ** Chinese and general communism analysis | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| *Communists opposed to the 'communist states': | |||
| ** | |||
| *** | |||
| *** | |||
| *** An analysis of ], from a ] point of view. | |||
| ** | |||
| *Support for the 'communist states': | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| *Neutral: | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 03:20, 30 April 2023
Criticism of communism may refer to:
- Criticism of communist party rule, which is criticism of the practical policies implemented by 20th century governments claiming to follow the ideology of Marxism–Leninism (usually known as communist states)
- Criticism of Marxism, which is criticism of the political ideology and principles most often identified with the word communism
This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Criticism of communism.If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article. Categories: