Mediaboss Marketing

"Anti-Marxist" and "anti-Socialist" redirect here. For opposition to Marxism, see Anti-Marxism. For opposition to socialism, see Anti-socialism. "Commie" also redirects here. For information on communist people and communism in general, see Communism.

Anti-communism is opposition to communism. Organized anti-communism developed in reaction to the rise of communism, especially after the 1917 October Revolution in Russia. It reached global dimensions during the Cold War, when America and the Soviet Union engaged in an intense rivalry.

Most modern anti-communists reject the concept of historical materialism, which is a central idea in Marxism. Anti-communists reject the Marxist belief that capitalism will be followed by socialism and communism, just as feudalism was followed by capitalism. Anti-communists question the validity of the Marxist claim that the socialist state will "wither away" when it becomes unnecessary in a true communist society. Anti-communists also accuse communists of having caused several famines that occurred in 20th-century communist states, such as the Russian Famine of 1921 and the much more severe famine in China during the Great Leap Forward.

Some anti-communists refer to both communism and fascism as totalitarianism, seeing similarity between the actions of communist and fascist governments.[1]

Opponents argue that communist parties that have come to power have tended to be rigidly intolerant of political opposition. Communist governments have also been accused of creating a new ruling class (a Nomenklatura), with powers and privileges greater than those previously enjoyed by the upper classes in the non-communist regimes.

Since the split of the Communist Parties from the socialist Second International to form the Communist Third International, democratic socialists and social democrats have been critical of Communism for its anti-democratic nature. Examples of left-wing critics of Communist states and parties are Boris Souveraine, Bayard Rustin, Irving Howe and Max Shachtman. The American Federation of Labor has always been strongly anti-Communist. The more leftist CIO purged its Communists in 1947 and has been staunchly anti-Communist ever since.[2][3] In Britain, the Labour Party strenuously resisted Communist efforts to infiltrate its ranks and take control of locals in the 1930s. The Labour Party became anti-Communist.[4]

Although some anarchists describe themselves as communists, all anarchists criticize authoritarian Communist parties and states. They argue that Marxist concepts such as dictatorship of the proletariat and state ownership of the means of production are anathema to anarchism. Some anarchists criticize communism from an individualist point of view.

The anarchist Mikhail Bakunin debated with Karl Marx in the First International, arguing that the Marxist state is another form of oppression.[5] He loathed the idea of a vanguard party ruling the masses from above. Anarchists initially participated in, and rejoiced over, the 1917 revolution as an example of workers taking power for themselves. However, after the October revolution, it became evident that the Bolsheviks and the anarchists had very different ideas. Anarchist Emma Goldman, deported from the United States to Russia in 1919, was initially enthusiastic about the revolution, but was left sorely disappointed, and began to write her book My Disillusionment in Russia. Anarchist Peter Kropotkin, proffered trenchant criticism of the emergent Bolshevik bureaucracy in letters to Vladimir Lenin, noting in 1920: "[a party dictatorship] is positively harmful for the building of a new socialist system. What is needed is local construction by local forces Russia has already become a Soviet Republic only in name."[6] Many anarchists fought against Russian, Spanish and Greek Communists; many were killed by them, such as Lev Chernyi, Camillo Berneri and Constantinos Speras.

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx lays out a 10-point plan advising the redistribution of land and production, and Ludwig von Mises argues that the initial and ongoing forms of redistribution constitute direct coercion.[7][8] Neither Marx's 10-point plan nor the rest of the manifesto say anything about who has the right to carry out the plan.[9]Milton Friedman argued that the absence of voluntary economic activity makes it too easy for repressive political leaders to grant themselves coercive powers. Friedman's view was also shared by Friedrich Hayek and John Maynard Keynes, both of whom believed that capitalism is vital for freedom to survive and thrive.[10][11]

Objectivists who follow Ayn Rand are strongly anti-Communist.[12] They argue that wealth (or any other human value) is the creation of individual minds, that human nature requires motivation by personal incentive, and therefore, that only political and economic freedom are consistent with human prosperity. This is demonstrated, they believe, by the comparative prosperity of free market and socialist economies. Objectivist Ayn Rand writes that communist leaders typically claim to work for the common good, but many or all of them have been corrupt and totalitarian.[13]

Many ex-communists have turned into anti-communists. Mikhail Gorbachev turned from a Communist into a social democrat. Milovan ilas, was a former Yugoslav Communist official, who became a prominent dissident and critic of Communism. Leszek Koakowski was a Polish Communist who became a famous anti-communist. He was best known for his critical analyses of Marxist thought, especially his acclaimed three-volume history, Main Currents of Marxism, which is "considered by some[14] to be one of the most important books on political theory of the 20th century."[15]The God That Failed is a 1949 book which collects together six essays with the testimonies of a number of famous ex-Communists, who were writers and journalists. The common theme of the essays is the authors' disillusionment with and abandonment of Communism. The promotional byline to the book is "Six famous men tell how they changed their minds about Communism." Another notable anti-communist was Whittaker Chambers, a former Soviet Union spy who testified against his fellow spies before the House Un-American Activities Committee.[16]

Other anti-communists who were once Marxists include the writers Max Eastman, John Dos Passos, James Burnham, Morrie Ryskind, Frank Meyer, Will Herberg, Sidney Hook,[17]Louis Fischer, Andr Gide, Arthur Koestler, Ignazio Silone, Stephen Spender, Peter Hitchens, Zita Seabra, Tajar Zavalani, and Richard Wright.[18] Anti-communists who were once socialists, modern liberals, or social democrats include: John Chamberlain,[19]Friedrich Hayek,[20]Raymond Moley,[21]Norman Podhoretz, and Irving Kristol.[22]

Fascism is often considered a reaction to communist and socialist uprisings in Europe.[23] Italian fascism, founded and led by Benito Mussolini, took power after years of leftist unrest led many conservatives to fear that a communist revolution was inevitable. Historians Ian Kershaw and Joachim Fest argue that in the early 1920s the Nazis were only one of many nationalist and fascist political parties contending for the leadership of Germany's anti-communist movement. The Nazis came to dominance in the Great Depression, when they organized street battles against German Communist formations. When Hitler came to power in 1933 his propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels set up the "Anti-Komintern." It generated masses of anti-Bolshevik propaganda, with the goal of demonizing Bolshevism and the Soviet Union to a worldwide audience.[24]

In Europe, numerous far right activists including some conservative intellectuals, capitalists and industrialists were vocal opponents of Communism. During the late 1930s and the 1940s, several other anti-communist regimes and groups supported fascism: the Falange in Spain; the Vichy regime and the Legion of French Volunteers against Bolshevism (Wehrmacht Infantry Regiment 638) in France; and, in South America, movements such as Brazilian Integralism.

Most exiled Russian aristocrats as well as exiled Russian liberals were actively anti-Communist in the 1920s and 1930s.[25]

In Britain anticommunism was widespread among the British foreign policy elite in the 1930s with its strong upper-class connections.[26] The upper class the Cliveden set was strongly anti-Communist in Britain.[27]

Thch Huyn Quang was a prominent Vietnamese Buddhist monk and anti-communist dissident. In 1977, Huyn Quang wrote a letter to Prime Minister Phm Vn ng detailing counts of oppression by the Communist regime.[28] For this, he and five other senior monks were arrested and detained.[28] In 1982, Huyn Quang was arrested and subsequently put into permanent house arrest for opposition to government policy after publicly denouncing the establishment of the state-controlled Vietnam Buddhist Church.[29]Thch Qung is a Vietnamese Buddhist monk and anti-communist dissident. In January 2008, the Europe-based magazine A Different View chose Ven. Thch Qung as one of the 15 Champions of World Democracy.

The Catholic Church has a history of anti-communism. The most recent Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Catholic Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modern times with 'communism'. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds [Still,] reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended."[30]

Pope John Paul II was a harsh critic of communism,[31] as was Pope Pius IX, who issued a Papal encyclical, entitled Quanta cura, in which he called "Communism and Socialism" the most fatal error.[32]

From 1945 onward the Australian Labor Party (ALP) leadership accepted the assistance of an anti-Communist Roman Catholic movement, led by B.A. Santamaria to oppose alleged communist subversion of Australian trade unions, of which Catholics were an important traditional support base. Bert Cremean, Deputy Leader of State Parliamentary Labor Party and Santamaria, met with Labor's political and industrial leaders to discuss the movements assisting their opposition to what they alleged was communist subversion of Australian trade unionism.[33] To oppose communist infiltration of unions Industrial Groups were formed. The groups were active from 1945 to 1954, with the knowledge and support of the ALP leadership.[34] until after Labor's loss of the 1954 election, when federal leader Dr H. V. Evatt, in the context of his response to the Petrov affair, blamed "subversive" activities of the "Groupers", for the defeat. After bitter public dispute many Groupers (including most members of the New South Wales and Victorian state executives and most Victorian Labor branches) were expelled from the ALP and formed the Democratic Labor Party (historical). In an attempt to force the ALP reform and remove alleged communist influence, with a view to then rejoining the "purged" ALP, the DLP preferenced (see Australian electoral system) the Liberal Party of Australia, enabling them to remain in power for over two decades. The strategy was unsuccessful, and after the Whitlam Government during the 1970s, the majority of the DLP decided to wind up the party in 1978, although a small Federal and State party continued based in Victoria (see Democratic Labour Party) with state parties reformed in NSW and Queensland in 2008.

After the Soviet occupation of Hungary during the final stages of the Second World War, many clerics were arrested. The case of the Archbishop Jzsef Mindszenty of Esztergom, head of the Catholic Church in Hungary was the most known. He was accused of treason to the communist ideas and was sent to trials and tortured during several years between 1949 and 1956. During the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 against communism he was set free and after the failure of the movement he was forced to move to the United States' embassy on Budapest. There he lived until 1971 when the Vatican and the communist government of Hungary pacted his way out to Austria. In the following years Mindszenty travelled all over the world visiting the Hungarian colonies in Canada, United States, Germany, Austria, South Africa and Venezuela. He led a high critical campaign against the communist regime denouncing the atrocities committed by them against him and the Hungarian people. The communist government accused him and demanded that the Vatican remove him the title of Archbishop of Esztergom and forbid him to make public speeches against communism. The Vatican eventually annulled the excommunication imposed on his political opponents, and stripped him of his titles. The Pope, who declared the Archdiocese of Esztergom officially vacated, refused to fill the seat while Mindszenty was still alive.[35]

Falun Gong practitioners are against the Communist Party of China's persecution of Falun Gong. In April 1999, over ten thousand Falun Gong practitioners gathered at Communist Party of China headquarters, Zhongnanhai, in a silent protest following an incident in Tianjin.[36][37][38] Two months later the communist party banned the practice, initiated a security crackdown, and began a propaganda campaign against it.[39][40][41] Since 1999, Falun Gong practitioners in China have been subject to torture,[39] arbitrary imprisonment,[42] beatings, forced labor, organ harvesting,[43] and psychiatric abuses.[44][45] Falun Gong responded with their own media campaign, and have emerged as a notable voice of dissent against the Communist Party of China, by founding organizations such as the Epoch Times, NTDTV and others that criticize the communist party.[46]

In 2006, allegations emerged that a large number of Falun Gong practitioners had been killed to supply China's organ transplant industry.[43][47] The Kilgour-Matas report found that "the source of 41,500 transplants for the six year period 2000 to 2005 is unexplained" and concluded that "there has been and continues today to be large scale organ seizures from unwilling Falun Gong practitioners".[43]Ethan Gutmann estimated that 65,000 Falun Gong practitioners were killed for their organs from 2000 to 2008.[48][49][50]

In 2009, courts in Spain and Argentina indicted senior Chinese officials for genocide and crimes against humanity for their role in orchestrating the suppression of Falun Gong.[51][52][53]

George Orwell, a democratic socialist, wrote two of the most widely read and influential anti-totalitarian novels: Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm, both of which featured allusions to the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin.

Also on the left wing, Arthur Koestlera former member of the Communist Partyexplored the ethics of revolution from an anti-communist perspective in a variety of works. His trilogy of early novels testified to Koestler's growing conviction that utopian ends do not justify the means often used by revolutionary governments. These novels are: The Gladiators (which explores the slave uprising led by Spartacus in the Roman Empire as an allegory for the Russian Revolution), Darkness at Noon (based on the Moscow Trials, this was a very widely read novel that made Koestler one of the most prominent anti-communist intellectuals of the period), The Yogi And The Commissar, and Arrival and Departure.

Whittaker Chambersan American ex-communist who became famous for his cooperation with the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), where he implicated Alger Hisspublished an influential anti-communist memoir, Witness, in 1952.

Boris Pasternak, a Russian writer, rose to international fame after his anti-communist novel Doctor Zhivago was smuggled out of the Soviet Union (where it was banned) and published in the West in 1957. He received the Nobel Prize for Literature, much to the chagrin of the Soviet authorities.

Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn was a Russian novelist, dramatist and historian. Through his writingsparticularly The Gulag Archipelago and One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, his two best-known workshe made the world aware of the Gulag, the Soviet Union's forced labor camp system. For these efforts, Solzhenitsyn was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1970, and was exiled from the Soviet Union in 1974.

Herta Mller is a Romanian-born German novelist, poet and essayist noted for her works depicting the harsh conditions of life in Communist Romania under the repressive Nicolae Ceauescu regime, the history of the Germans in the Banat (and more broadly, Transylvania), and the persecution of Romanian ethnic Germans by Stalinist Soviet occupying forces in Romania and the Soviet-imposed Communist regime of Romania. Mller has been an internationally-known author since the early 1990s, and her works have been translated into more than 20 languages.[54][55] She has received over 20 awards, including the 1994 Kleist Prize, the 1995 Aristeion Prize, the 1998 International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award, the 2009 Franz Werfel Human Rights Award and the 2009 Nobel Prize in Literature.

Ayn Rand was a Russian-American 20th century writer who was an enthusiastic supporter of laissez-faire capitalism. She wrote We the Living about the effects of Communism in Russia.

Richard Wurmbrand wrote about his experiences being tortured for his faith in Communist Romania. He ascribed Communism to a satanic conspiracy, and alluded to Karl Marx being demon-possessed.

Samizdat was a key form of dissident activity across the Soviet-bloc; individuals reproduced censored publications by hand and passed the documents from reader to reader, thus building a foundation for the successful resistance of the 1980s. This grassroots practice to evade officially imposed censorship was fraught with danger as harsh punishments were meted out to people caught possessing or copying censored materials. Vladimir Bukovsky defined it as follows: "I myself create it, edit it, censor it, publish it, distribute it, and get imprisoned for it."

During the Cold War, Western countries invested heavily in powerful transmitters which enabled broadcasters to be heard in the Eastern Bloc, despite attempts by authorities to jam such signals. In 1947, VOA started broadcasting in Russian with the intent to counter Soviet propaganda directed against American leaders and policies.[56] These included Radio Free Europe (RFE), RIAS (Berlin) the Voice of America (VOA), Deutsche Welle, Radio France International and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).[57] The Soviet Union responded by attempting aggressive, electronic jamming of VOA (and some other Western) broadcasts in 1949.[56] The BBC World Service similarly broadcast language-specific programming to countries behind the Iron Curtain.

In the People's Republic of China, people have to bypass the Chinese Internet censorship and other forms of censorship.

Resolution 1481/2006 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), issued on January 25, 2006 during its winter session, "strongly condemns crimes of totalitarian communist regimes".

The European Parliament has proposed making 23 August a Europe-wide day of remembrance for 20th-century Nazi and communist crimes.[58]

In the early years of the cold war, Midhat Frashri tried to patch together a coalition of anti-communist opposition forces in Britain and the United States.[59] The "Free Albania" National Committee was officially formed on 26 August 1949 in Paris. Mithat Frashri was its chairman, with other members of the Directing Board: Nui Kotta, Albaz Kupi, Said Kryeziu, and Zef Pali.[60] It was supported by the CIA, placed as member of National Committee for a Free Europe.[61][62]

Albania has enacted the Law on Communist Genocide with the purpose[63] of expediting the prosecution of the violations of the basic human rights and freedoms by the former communist governments of the Socialist People's Republic of Albania. The law has also been referred to in English as the "Genocide Law"[64][65][66] and the "Law on Communist Genocide".[67][68]

In February 1921 the left-wing nationalist Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun) staged an uprising against the Bolshevik authorities of Armenia just three months after the disestablishment of the First Republic of Armenia and its Sovietization. The nationalists temporarily took power. Subsequently, the anti-communist rebels, led by the prominent nationalist leader Garegin Nzhdeh retreated to the mountainous region of Zangezur (Syunik) and established the Republic of Mountainous Armenia, which lasted until mid-1921.

Since before the World War II, there were some anti-communism organizations such as the Union Civique Belge and the "Socit d'Etudes Politiques, Economiques et Sociales" (SEPES).

The uprising in Plze was an anti-communist revolt by Czechoslovakian workers in 1953.

The Velvet Revolution or Gentle Revolution was a non-violent revolution in Czechoslovakia that saw the overthrow of the Communist government.[69] It is seen as one of the most important of the Revolutions of 1989.

On November 17, 1989, a Friday, riot police suppressed a peaceful student demonstration in Prague. That event sparked a series of popular demonstrations from November 19 to late December. By November 20 the number of peaceful protesters assembled in Prague had swollen from 200,000 the previous day to an estimated half-million. A two-hour general strike, involving all citizens of Czechoslovakia, was held on November 27. In June 1990 Czechoslovakia held its first democratic elections since 1946.

In 1933, Franois de Boisjolin organized Ligue Internationale Anti-Communiste. In 1939, the Law on the Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1881 was amended and Franois de Boisjolin and others were arrested.

Before 1997, most of the anti-communists were supporters of Kuomintang. They opposed the Communist Party of China ruled in mainland China, and its Single party dictatorships.

Hong Kong has had numerous anti-communist protests, supported by political parties of the Pan-democracy camp. Memorials for the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 are held every year in Hong Kong. Tens of thousands people have attended the candlelight vigil.[70]

The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 was a revolt against the government of the Hungarian People's Republic and its Stalinist policies, lasting from 23 October until 10 November 1956. The revolt began as a student demonstration which attracted thousands as it marched through central Budapest to the Parliament building. A student delegation entering the radio building in an attempt to broadcast its demands was detained. When the delegation's release was demanded by the demonstrators outside, they were fired upon by the State Security Police (VH) from within the building. The news spread quickly and disorder and violence erupted throughout the capital. The revolt spread quickly across Hungary, and the government fell. After announcing a willingness to negotiate a withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union changed its mind and moved to crush the revolution.

From October 1965 to the early months of 1966, an estimated 500,000-3,000,000 people were killed[71] by the Indonesian military and allied militia in anti-communist purges which targeted members of the Communist Party of Indonesia and alleged sympathizers. Western governments colluded in the massacres, in particular the United States, which provided the Indonesian military weapons, money, equipment and lists containing the names of thousands of suspected communists.[72][73][74]

Under the Russian Civil War, Japan supported White movements such as White movement in Transbaikal and Occupation of Mongolia but the movements failed and the White Army defected to China.

After the Sino-Soviet conflict, defeated China concluded the Khabarovsk Protocol(zh) which includes the suppression clause of White Army but Kuomintang regime disturbed the conclusion of the treaty based on the protocol. In 1932, Japan established Manchukuo in Northeast China and then the Manchukuo founded the Bureau of Russian immigrants(ru) to protect the White Russians in 1934.

In 1933, Japan participated in the ninth conference of the International Entente Against the Third International and founded "The Association for the Study of International Socialistic Ideas and Movements" (Japanese: ).[75]

After the concluding of Anti-Comintern Pact, International Anti-communist League(ja) was founded in 1937 and the organization held the National Commemoration Ceremony of the Anti-Comintern Pact(ja) in 1938.

In 19481951, in the period of American occupation, a "red purge" occurred in Japan, in which over 20,000 people accused of being Communists were purged from their places of employment.[76]

Before the founding of the People's Republic of China, the Kuomintang was ruling China and strongly opposed the Communist Party of China, causing the Chinese Civil War. Kuomintang lost the war and exiled in Taiwan, while the rest of China became communist in 1949.

The Chinese democracy movement is a loosely organized anti-communist movement in the People's Republic of China. The movement began during Beijing Spring in 1978 and played an important role in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. The 1959 Tibetan Rebellion had some anti-communist leanings.[77] In the 1990s, the movement underwent a decline both within China and overseas; it is currently fragmented and most analysts do not consider it a serious threat to communist rule.

Charter 08 is a manifesto signed by over 303 Chinese intellectuals and human rights activists to promote political reform and democratization in the People's Republic of China.[78]

It declares a calling for greater freedom of expression and for free elections. It was published on 10 December 2008, the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and its name is a reference to Charter 77, issued by dissidents in Czechoslovakia.[79]

Since its release, more than 8,100 people inside and outside the PRC have signed the charter.[80][81]

Lenin saw Poland as the bridge which the Red Army would have to cross in order to assist the other communist movements and help bring about other European revolutions. Poland was the first country which successfully stopped a communist military advance. Between February 1919 and March 1921, Poland's successful defence of its independence was known as the PolishSoviet War. According to American sociologist Alexander Gella, "the Polish victory had gained twenty years of independence not only for Poland, but at least for an entire central part of Europe."[82]

After the German and Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939, the first Polish uprising during World War II was against the Soviets. The Czortkw Uprising occurred during January 2122, 1940, in the Soviet-occupied Podolia. Teenagers from local high schools stormed the local Red Army barracks and a prison, in order to release Polish soldiers who had been imprisoned there.[83]

In the latter years of the war, there were increasing conflicts between Polish and Soviet partisans, and some groups continued to oppose the Soviets long after the war.[84] Between 1944 and 1946, soldiers of the anti-communist armed groups, known as the cursed soldiers, made a series of attacks on communist prisons immediately following the end of World War II in Poland.[85] The last of the cursed soldiers, members of the militant anti-communist resistance in Poland, was Jzef Franczak, who was killed with a pistol in his hand by ZOMO in 1963.[86]

Pozna 1956 protests were massive anti-communist protests in the People's Republic of Poland. Protesters were repressed by the regime.

The Polish 1970 protests (Polish: Grudzie 1970) were anti-Comintern protests which occurred in northern Poland in December 1970. The protests were sparked by a sudden increase in the prices of food and other everyday items. As a result of the riots, brutally put down by the Polish People's Army and the Citizen's Militia, at least 42 people were killed and more than 1,000 were wounded.

Solidarity was an anti-communist trade union in a Warsaw Pact country. In the 1980s, it constituted a broad anti-communist movement. The government attempted to destroy the union during the period of martial law in the early 1980s, and several years of repression, however, in the end, it had to start negotiating with the union. The Round Table Talks between the government and the Solidarity-led opposition led to semi-free elections in 1989. By the end of August, a Solidarity-led coalition government was formed, and in December 1990, Wasa was elected President of Poland. Since then, it has become a more traditional trade union.

The Romanian anti-communist resistance movement lasted between 1948 and the early 1960s. Armed resistance was the first and most structured form of resistance against the communist regime. It was not until the overthrow of Nicolae Ceauescu in late 1989 that details about what was called "anti-communist armed resistance" were made public. It was only then that the public learned about the numerous small groups of "haiducs" who had taken refuge in the Carpathian Mountains, where some resisted for ten years against the troops of the Securitate. The last "haiduc" was killed in the mountains of Banat in 1962. The Romanian resistance was one of the longest lasting armed movement in the former Soviet bloc.[87]

The Romanian Revolution of 1989 was a week-long series of increasingly violent riots and fighting in late December 1989 that overthrew the Government of Nicolae Ceauescu. After a trial, Ceauescu and his wife Elena were executed. Romania was the only Eastern Bloc country to overthrow its government violently or to execute its leaders.

The Moldovan anti-communist social movement emerged on April 7, 2009, in major cities of Moldova after the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova (PCRM) had allegedly rigged elections.

The anti-communists organized themselves using an online social network service, Twitter, hence its moniker used by the media, the Twitter Revolution[89] or Grape revolution.

During the 1970s, the right-wing military juntas of South America implemented Operation Condor, a campaign of political repression involving tens of thousands of political assassinations, illegal detentions, and tortures of communist sympathizers. The campaign was aimed at eradicating alleged communist and socialist influences in their respective countries, and control opposition against the government, which resulted in a large number of deaths.[90] Participatory governments include Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay, with limited support from the United States.[91][92]

Choi ji-ryong is an outspoken anti-communist cartoonist in South Korea. His editorial cartoons have been critical of Korean Presidents Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo Hyun.

Accin Anticomunista(es) was organized in 1932.

The first major manifestation of anti-communism in the United States occurred in 1919 and 1920, during the First Red Scare, led by Attorney General Alexander Mitchell Palmer. During the Red Scare, the Lusk Committee investigated those suspected of sedition, and many laws were passed in the US that sanctioned the firings of Communists. First came the Hatch Act of 1939 which was sponsored by Carl Hatch of New Mexico. This law attempted to drive Communism out of public work places. The Hatch Act outlawed the hiring of federal workers who advocated the "overthrow of our Constitutional form of government". This phrase was specifically directed at the Communist Party. Later in the spring of 1941 another anti-communist law, Public Law 135, was passed. This law sanctioned the investigation of any federal worker suspected of being communist and the firing of any communist worker.[93]

Catholics often took the lead in fighting Communism in America.[94] Pat Scanlan (1894-1983) was the managing editor (1917-1968) of the Brooklyn Tablet, the official paper of the Brooklyn diocese. He was a leader in the fight against the Ku Klux Klan, and in favor of the work of the National Legion of Decency in minimizing sexuality in Hollywood films.[95] Historian Richard Powers says Scanlan emerged in the 1920s:

Following World War II and the rise of the Soviet Union, many anti-communists in the United States feared that Communism would triumph throughout the entire world and eventually be a direct threat to the U.S. There were fears that the Soviet Union and its allies such as People's Republic of China were using their power to forcibly take countries into Communist rule. Eastern Europe, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Malaya and Indonesia were seen as evidence of this. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization NATO was a military alliance of Western Europe, led by the United States, to halt further Communist expansion in terms of the containment strategy.

The deepening of the Cold War in the 1950s saw a dramatic increase in anti-communism in the United States, including the anti-communist campaign known as McCarthyism. Thousands of Americans, such as the filmmaker Charlie Chaplin, were accused of being Communists or sympathizers, and many became the subject of aggressive investigations by government committees such as the House Committee on Un-American Activities. As a result of sometimes vastly exaggerated accusations, many of the accused lost their jobs and became blacklisted, although most of these verdicts were later overturned. This was also the period of the McCarran Internal Security Act and the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg trial. After the collapse of the Soviet Union many records were made public that in fact verified that many of those thought to be falsely accused for political purposes were in fact Communist spies or sympathizers (see Venona Project).

During the 1980s, the Ronald Reagan administration pursued an aggressive policy against the Soviet Union and its allies by building up weapons programs, including the Strategic Defense Initiative. The Reagan Doctrine was implemented to reduce the influence of the Soviet Union worldwide by providing aid to anti-Soviet resistance movements, including the Contras in Nicaragua and the Mujahideens in Afghanistan. The accidental downing of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 near Moneron Island by the Soviets on Sept. 1, 1983 contributed to the anti-communism sentiment of the 1980s. KAL 007 had been carrying 269 people, including a sitting U.S. Congressman, Larry McDonald.

The US government usually argued its anti-communist policies by citing the human rights record of communist states, most notably the Soviet Union during the Joseph Stalin era, Maoist China, North Korea, and the Pol Pot-led Khmer Rouge government and the pro-Hanoi People's Republic of Kampuchea in Cambodia. During the 1980s, the Kirkpatrick Doctrine was particularly influential in American politics; it advocated US support of anti-communist governments around the world, including authoritarian regimes. In support of the Reagan Doctrine and other anti-communist foreign and defense policies, prominent U.S. and Western anti-communists warned that the U.S. needed to avoid repeating the West's perceived mistakes of appeasement of Nazi Germany.[97]

In one of the most prominent anti-communist speeches of any U.S. President, Reagan labeled the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and anti-communist intellectuals prominently defended the label. In 1987, for instance, in commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, Michael Johns of the Heritage Foundation cited 208 perceived acts of evil by the Soviets since the revolution.[98][99]

Anti-communism became significantly muted after the fall of the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc Communist governments in Europe between 1989 and 1991; the fear of a worldwide Communist takeover was no longer a serious concern. Remnants of anti-communism remain, however, in US foreign policy toward Cuba and North Korea. In the case of Cuba, the US only recently began to terminate its economic sanctions against the country. Tensions with North Korea have heightened as the result of reports that it is stockpiling nuclear weapons, and the assertion that it is willing to sell its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology to any group willing to pay a high enough price. Ideological restrictions on naturalization in U.S. law remain in effect, affecting prospective immigrants who were at one time members of a Communist party.

Since the September 11 attacks on the US and the subsequent Patriot Act, overwhelmingly passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law and strongly supported by President George W. Bush, some communist groups in the US have faced renewed anti-communism by the government. On September 24, 2010, over 70 FBI agents simultaneously raided homes and served subpoenas to prominent antiwar and international solidarity activists thought to be members of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) in Minneapolis, MN, Chicago, IL, and Grand Rapids, MI, and visited and attempted to question activists in Milwaukee, WI, Durham, NC, and San Jose, CA. The search warrants and subpoenas indicated that the FBI was looking for evidence related to the "material support of terrorism".[100] In the process of raiding an activist's home, FBI agents accidentally left behind a file of secret FBI documents showing that the raids were aimed at people who were or were suspected of being members of the FRSO. The documents revealed a series of questions that agents would ask activists regarding their involvement in the FRSO and their international solidarity work related to Colombia and Palestine.[101] Later, members of the newly formed Committee to Stop FBI Repression held a press conference in Minnesota revealing that the FBI had placed an informant inside the FRSO to gather information prior to the raids.[102]

Anti-Communist organizations that are located outside Vietnam but also hold demonstrations in Vietnam are Khmers Kampuchea-Krom Federation, Viet Tan, People's Action Party of Vietnam, Government of Free Vietnam, Montagnard Foundation, Inc., Vietnamese Constitutional Monarchist League and Nationalist Party of Greater Vietnam.

The events in Indonesia of 1965 and 1966, described as "one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century",[103] constituted a long period of state-supported anti-communist massacres in Indonesia. Perhaps over a million people were savagely killed, hundreds of thousands ended up in jails or were exiled, and the PKI (Indonesian communist party) was effectively eliminated. No one was ever prosecuted.[104]

Follow this link:
Anti-communism - Wikipedia

by Ken Ammi

For many other articles on this topic, see Atheism, agnosticism and humanism: godless religionsQuestions and Answers

Some atheists apparently dont like this video, A Fool's Heart, but you can view it here. It recaps some of the effects of anti-Christian atheistic/evolutionary thinking in recent times, beginning with Robespierre, a leader of the French Revolution.

There is confusion and debate about the term atheism and its definition.

The term atheism finds its etymology in the Greek combination of a and theos. What atheos means is, as with any term, subject to context (and perhaps personal interpretation). Note that if an atheist states, I do not believe in God, this is technically not a statement about Gods existence or lack thereof. Does atheos mean no God, without God, lack God belief or God does not exist?

Early Christians were referred to as atheists because they did not believe in the Greek or Roman gods. Yet, while they positively affirmed the non-existence of those gods they likely believed that those gods were deceptive demons whom they did believe existed (1 Corinthians 8:46).

Let us consider other Greek-derived a words:

Generally, as popularized by the New Atheist movement, atheists prefer the definition of atheism as lacking belief in god(s). Thus, by applying the term atheist to themselves, such atheists are not technically making a statement about Gods existence or lack thereof.

This definition has been popularized, at least, since Charles Bradlaugh (circa 1876). It appears to be preferred so as to escape the philosophic difficulty of proving a negativeGod does not existand in order to shift the burden of proof to the theist, since the theist is making the positive affirmation that God exists.

On a polemical note there are two things to consider:

In reference to the above mentioned term agnostic, note that Thomas Henry Huxley coined this term in 1869.1 He explained that he noted two extremes: one was the atheist who positively affirmed Gods non-existence (claiming to know that God did not exist) and the other was the theists who positively affirmed Gods existence (claiming to know that God exists). Huxley said that he did not possess enough evidence to affirm positively either position. Thus, he coined a term which he saw as a middle position, which was that of lacking knowledge to decide either way (whether such knowledge actually exists outside of his personal knowledge or may someday be discovered is another issue).

As we will see next, there are various sects of atheism. There is a vast difference between the friendly atheist next door and the activists. Generally, even the activist types who are typified by the New Atheist movement will define atheism as a mere lack of belief in God. However, it is important to note that their activism demonstrates that their atheism is anything but mere lack: it is an anti-religion, anti-faith and anti-God movement.

1.1 Variations of Atheism

Atheists may be categorized under various technical terms as well as sociopolitical and cultural ones, which may overlap depending on the individual atheists preferences:

Some atheists claim that atheism is a religion3 and others have attempted to establish secular/civic/atheistic religions which we will elucidate below.

Michael Shermer, editor of The Skeptic magazine, draws a distinction between the atheist who claims, there is no God and the non-theist who claims to have no belief in God.4

As to the sociopolitical and/or cultural terms, these abound and some are: Brights, Freethinkers, Humanists, Naturalists, Rationalists, Skeptics, Secular Humanists and Materialists.

Some atheists squabble about terminology. For example, American Atheists webmaster wrote, Atheists are NOT secular humanists, freethinkers, rationalists or ethical culturalists Often, people who are Atheists find it useful to masquerade behind such labels5 while the Freedom from Religion Foundation, claims that, Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists.6

Return to top

By nature worship and neo-paganism I refer to the atheists tendency to replace a sense of awe of God and seeking transcendence by relating to God with seeking awe and transcendence in nature. This natural high, as it were, is not merely enjoyed but it is enjoined and said to be holier than theism.

Referring to our ability to step off the Earth and look back at ourselves, as was done in Voyager 2, Carl Sagan stated,

The very first episode of his televised series entitled Cosmos, began with Carl Sagan stating,

Presupposing a God-free reality, why atheists seek transcendent experiences remains unanswered.

Michael Shermer stated that his study of evolution was, far more enlightening and transcendent, spiritual, than anything I had experienced in seven years of being a born again Christian.8

Michael Shermer made reference to the spiritual side of science, which he referred to as sciensuality:

Michael Ruse; philosophy professor (University of Guelph), ardent evolutionist and professedly an ex-Christian who has argued for the ACLU against the balanced treatment (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in the USA, wrote:

Addressing fellow atheist Jonathan Miller, Richard Dawkins stated:

you and I probably do have feelings that may very well be akin to a kind of mystical wonder when we contemplate the stars, when we contemplate the galaxies, when we contemplate life, the sheer expanse of geological time. I experience, and I expect you experience, internal feelings which sound pretty much like um, what mystics feel, and they call it God. Ifand Ive been called a very religious person for that reasonif I am called a religious person, then my retort to that is, Well, youre playing with words, because what the vast majority of people mean by religious is something utterly different from this sort of transcendent, mystical experience [ ]

The transcendent sense the transcendent, mystic sense, that people who are both religious and non-religious in my usage of the term, is something very very different. In that sense, I probably am a religious person. You probably are a religious person. But that doesnt mean we think that there is a supernatural being that interferes with the world, that does anything, that manipulates anything, or by the way, that its worth praying to or asking forgiveness of sins from, etc. [ ]

I prefer to use words like religion, like God, in the way that the vast majority of people in the world would understand them, and to reserve a different kind of language for the feeling that we share with possibly your clergyman [ ] the sense of wonder that one gets as a scientist contemplating the cosmos, or contemplating mitochondria is actually much grander than anything that you will get by contemplating the traditional objects of religious mysticism.11 [the un-bracketed ellipses appear in the original transcript denoting Richard Dawkins halting way of speaking, the bracketed ones were added]

Richard Dawkins, in Is Science a Religion? said,

Stephen S. Hall, in Darwins Rottweiler Sir Richard Dawkins: Evolutions Fiercest Champion, Far Too Fierce, said:

Such sentiments appear to be fulfillments of the Apostle Pauls reference to:

Return to top

2.1 Atheist religion

Let us consider the atheists from the 18th to the 21st centuries who express desires to establish an atheistic religion. Perhaps we should begin with Jean-Jacques Rousseau (17121778), who conceived of a civil religion:

Two other notable 18th century attempts are Claude Henri de Rouvroy, Comte de Saint-Simon (17601825) who conceived of a new Christianity which would be founded upon Humanism and scientific socialism. The secular priesthood would consist of scientists, philosophers and engineers. Lastly, Auguste Comte (17981857) conceived of a religion of humanity.

In atheism, when we die we end up as mere fertilizer; plant food. Human life has no particular meaning or purpose and there is no real basis for ethics, love or even logical thought. Atheism provides no footing for a just, caring and secure society.

Forwarding to the 21st century we will consider Gary Wolfs interview with Sam Harris:

Gary Wolfs interview with Daniel Dennett:

Sam Harris, Selfless Consciousness without Faith:

Sam Harris, A Contemplative Science:

ABC Radio National, Stephen Crittenden interviews Sam Harris:

Sam Harris, Science Must Destroy Religion:

Sam Harris, Rational Mysticism:

Humanist Manifesto I (1933) states,

Return to top

There may be as many reasons that people choose atheism as there are individuals who make that choice. These range from philosophy or science to emotion or rebellion and various combinations of such factors.

Prominent Argentinean hyperrealism artist, Helmut Ditsch, retells part of his upbringing:

Joe Orso, writing on the origin of beliefs, interviewed atheist Ira Glass, who said:

Note carefully the words of Thomas Nagel (B.Phil., Oxford; Ph.D., Harvard), Professor of Philosophy and Law, University Professor, and Fiorello La Guardia Professor of Law. He specializes in Political Philosophy, Ethics, Epistemology, and Philosophy of Mind. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a Fellow of the British Academy, and has held fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation, the National Science Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Humanities:

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believersThomas Nagel

Consider the following words of Isaac Asimov, one of the most prolific scientific writers of the last century:

Gary Wolf , contributing editor to Wired magazine, includes himself in the following description: we lax agnostics, we noncommittal nonbelievers, we vague deists who would be embarrassed to defend antique absurdities like the Virgin Birth or the notion that Mary rose into heaven without dying, or any other blatant myth. He wrote:

At dinner parties or over drinks, I ask people to declare themselves. Who here is an atheist? I ask. Usually, the first response is silence, accompanied by glances all around in the hope that somebody else will speak first. Then, after a moment, somebody does, almost always a man, almost always with a defiant smile and a tone of enthusiasm. He says happily, I am!

But it is the next comment that is telling. Somebody turns to him and says: You would be.

Why? Because you enjoy [irritating] people .... Well, thats true.

This type of conversation takes place not in central Ohio, where I was born, or in Utah, where I was a teenager, but on the West Coast, among technical and scientific people, possibly the social group that is least likely among all Americans to be religious.13

Thus, we find various motivating factors which lead to atheism and have absolutely nothing to do with science or intellect.

Thus, we find various motivating factors which lead to atheism and have absolutely nothing to do with science or intellect.

Paul Vitz, Professor of Psychology at New York University, made a fascinating study of the lives of some of the most influential atheists. In his book Faith of the Fatherless: the Psychology of Atheism he concluded that these persons rejected God because they rejected their own fathers. This was due to their poor relationships with their fathers, or due to their fathers absence, or due to their rebellion against their fathers.20 Along this line of research, it would be interesting to consider the effect that the death of friends and family has had on the rejection of God. From Charles Darwin to Ted Turner the death of friends and family has played a part.

Gary Wolf noted,

The Associated Press reported on an interview with Ted Turner published in The New Yorker: 22

Tony Snow, who was the White House Press Secretary in 2006/2007, and was a Christian, died of cancer in July 2008. He wrote an essay entitled, Cancers Unexpected Blessings.23 Consider, in contrast, how a God-centered person dealt with his own impending death:

In contrast, consider the words of atheist William Provine, professor of the history of science at Cornell University:

With regards to his own cancer, a brain tumor, Provine has stated that he would shoot himself in the head if his brain tumor returned.25 Apparently, one less bio-organism is irrelevant in an absolutely materialistic world.

3.1 Natural born Atheist

Another reason for rejecting God (choosing atheism), is a willing acceptance of satanic deception.

The angel Lucifer (luminous one) fell and became Satan (adversary) due to his desire to supplant God. This was Lucifers single-minded obsession.

He not only rejected God by attempting to supplant Him, but he urged humans to do likewise. Satan urged Eve to choose against God for her own self-fulfilment:

He said to the woman, Did God actually say, You shall not eat of any tree in the garden? And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die. But the serpent said to the woman, You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3:1-5 ESV).

The tactic is clear: firstly, question Gods statements, then, contradict Gods statements and, finally, urge rebellion in seeking equality with God.

This manifests in atheists as

This satanic deception appeals strongly to atheists as it bolsters two of their desired delusions: 1) absolute autonomybeing free to do as they please, and 2) the lack of ultimate accountabilitythere are no eternal consequences for doing as they please.

A subset of the question of why some people choose atheism is the atheist claim that we are all natural born atheists. In part this is incumbent upon which definition of atheism we are employing. Obviously, we are not born positively asserting Gods non-existence. Thus, the claim is that we are all born lacking a belief in God. Logically, this claim is accurate only at this point and is actually not successfully applicable beyond this point.

Atheists who make this argument claim that this argument demonstrates that man is not God-made but that God is man-made. In other words, they claim that we only believe in God because someone taught us to believe in God, often during childhood before we were able to consider the claim rationally. Yet, this claim is faulty on many levels, for example:

We are born knowing nothing at all and must be taught, and later take it upon ourselves to learn, anything and everything that we will ever know or believe, including atheism.

We are natural-born bed wetters but that does not mean that we should remain that way.

This is ultimately a form of the logically fallacious ad hominem (to the man). This fallacy occurs when what is supposed to be a counterargument attacks the person, the source of the original argument, while leaving the argument unanswered. Thus, just because belief in God is something that is taught does not discredit belief in God. It would be fallacious to claim that God does not exist because human beings invented the idea of Gods existenceGod wants us to discover His existence: you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart (Jeremiah 29:13).

Furthermore, this claim does not consider that many people came to believe in God in adulthood and having come from a completely secular (atheistic) upbringing.

Although, perhaps we could grant the claim: if atheists want to argue that atheism requires no more intellect than that which an infant can muster, why should we argue?

Return to top

Here is a video debate between an atheist and the author of this article: Morality: natural or supernatural?

Technically, ethics refers to what should be and morals to what is or; prescription and description. Atheists differ on the issue of ethics and morality; some claim that there are absolutes and some do not. As to the question of whether atheists can make absolute moral statements, this is tantamount to the first year theology student who, when asked, Do you believe in infant baptism? responded, Sure I do; Ive seen it done. Yes, atheists can make any statements about anything at allthe question is: are the statements viable?

Atheists make epistemic statements about morality but do not provide an ontological premise for ethics.26 That is to say that they can muse upon issues of morality and come to any conclusion that they please. However, these turn out to be arbitrary personal preferences that are expressed as dogmatic assertions.

Some atheists do make attempts at providing an ontological basis for ethics. These range quite widelyfrom considering the behavior of apes to Game Theory.

In the first case, it is, of course, being presupposed that we share a common evolutionary lineage with apes and that their behavior tells us something about ours. Even when such observations successfully correlate their behaviors to ours, it is merely a description. Moreover, from such correlations it is inferred that morality is part of our overall evolution. This amounts to intuition or urges which we are free to act upon or disregard.

In the second case investigators concoct games that they claim dissect human behavior. With regards to Game Theory, Benjamin Wiker notes,

Another supposed basis for ethics is that an action is unethical/immoral if it causes harm to others. Thus, it is the nature of the consequence caused by the action that determines whether an action is ethical or unethical. The fundamental problem with this definition of ethical behavior is that an action ceases to be unethical if no adverse consequences are experienced. As such, nothing is inherently wrong; an action is only wrong if it causes harm to another.

Consider the example of adulterous behavior: under the do no harm definition of ethical behavior, adultery is wrong because it harms the other party in the marriage (i.e., the faithful spouse). This harm can include mental anguish, the spread of disease to the faithful party and the loss of affection from the adulterous party. An additional adverse consequence includes unwanted pregnancies outside of the marriage. However, what if an adulterous act did not lead to those outcomes (e.g., a husband, who has had a vasectomy, occasionally has sexual relations with women free from sexually transmitted diseases while on trips to foreign cities)? In such an instance would adultery cease being unethical? Would the husbands behavior turn from ethically neutral to unethical only if he were to confess his adultery to his wife, or if he was otherwise caught, thus causing her mental anguish?

It seems that there is something else behind, or beyond, the consideration of causing harm. In fact, there must be something else. Why must there be something else? Because it is precisely by knowing that which causes others harm that I may come to know how to push their buttons, how to manipulate them, how to take advantage of them, how to suppress them, etc. I may find that I can assist my survival by causing such harm to others and so, on this view, their harm is for my benefit. There must be something beyond that which makes causing harm itself unethical.

An ethical code based on God is determined by Gods communication to man of what is ethical and unethical. This is because Gods ethical code to us is derived from Gods very triune, relational, ethical nature. This nature is ethical and relational as it is unified by virtue of God consisting of one in being and yet, diverse as it is experienced and enjoyed amongst the three persons of the Trinity. Under such an ethical code, and in contrast to any Godless moral code, a given action such as adultery is still wrong even in absence of adverse consequences to another party. Thus, under a God-authored ethical code some actions are inherently wrong.

Furthermore, the atheist has no basis for saying that it is wrong to harm others anyway. Why should it be wrong to harm others? This supposed basis for ethics fails at this very point.

Let us consider some atheists statements about morality:

Dan Barker, co-founder of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, claims that, Darwin has bequeathed what is good and refers to Jesus as a moral monster.28 He includes the following within his understanding of Darwinian goodness,

This appears to be in keeping with his general view on human worth, value and dignity, a fetus thats the size of a thumb that haswhat? What? Would you put it in a little locket and hang it around your neck?30

Dan Barker has also stated, There is no moral interpreter in the cosmos, nothing cares and nobody cares and he bases his humanistic morality upon his reasoning whether, it will ultimately matter what happens to us or a vegetable: what happens to me or a piece of broccoli, it wont. The Sun is going to explode, were all gonna be gone. No ones gonna care.31

He does not seem to consider that the fact that the concept which holds that There is no moral interpreter in the cosmos, nothing cares and nobody cares were all gonna be gone. No ones gonna care, quite logically and easily, leads to inhumane immorality.

Dan Barker has further stated:

Dan Barker has also offered motivating factors for moral actions that are quite common within atheist thoughtthese are self-serving motivations, whereby one should be good not for goodness sake but in order to benefit oneself, for example,

Continued here:
Atheism and Communism - creation.com

QUESTION: What is Communism?

ANSWER:

Before we answer the question, What is Communism? it may be good to first compare it to communism with a small c. The system of thought called communism is an ideology summarized in the neat-sounding maxim, From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. A study of communism could lead one into the fascinating and divergent attempts throughout history by groups to walk in the light of the above principle -- attempts both secular and religious, some benign and some malignant.

Like the big elephant examined by the group of blind men in the old Indian story, our understanding of communism would vary greatly depending on which portion of the beast we touch. But if we think of communism as that bulky beast of the jungle with many strange parts, Communism with a capital C would be the tusk- perceived as a sharp and dangerous spear by its fearful examiner.

Modern day Communism is based on the writings of two German economists, Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels, who answered the question What is Communism? in their collaboration, The Communist Manifesto published in 1848. In it they declare that many problems in society are due to the unequal distribution of wealth. To bring about happiness and prosperity for all, the distinctions between the rich and poor of society must be eliminated. And since the rich will never give up their goods or status voluntarily, a rebellion of the poor -- the working class -- is necessary.

Thus, Communism is a distinct socio-political philosophy that is willing to use violent means to attain its goal of a classless society. If capitalism is defined as a social system based on individual rights (and individual wealth), then communism is its direct opposite. Communism believes in equality through force. In its system, individual rights are ground to powder and used to build its idol of absolute government control. It is indeed like the tusk of the elephant. It is sharp. It is dangerous. And it has gored millions of men in its rage through history.

Communism embraces atheism and dismisses religion as the opiate of the masses, a system designed by the rich and powerful to keep the poor in their place.

But Communisms quest for a classless society is bound to fail. As Frank Zappa, 60s rock star, succinctly said, Communism doesnt work because people like to own stuff. Furthermore, someone has to hold the money bag even in a communist-style society. And whoever holds the bag becomes not only a target for those looking on but for the subtle interior demons of pride, avarice, and self-preservation.

If there will always be the poor, then there will always be the rich. There will always be division, the haves and the have-nots, and any attempt to establish a classless society this side of heaven, particularly through the violent and godless ways of Communism, is destined to frustration and failure.

Follow this link:
What Is Communism - Philosophy - AllAboutPhilosophy.org

In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]

Communism includes a variety of schools of thought, which broadly include Marxism, anarchism (anarchist communism), and the political ideologies grouped around both. All these hold in common the analysis that the current order of society stems from its economic system, capitalism, that in this system, there are two major social classes: the working class who must work to survive, and who make up a majority of society and the capitalist class a minority who derive profit from employing the proletariat, through private ownership of the means of production (the physical and institutional means with which commodities are produced and distributed), and that political, social and economic conflict between these two classes will trigger a fundamental change in the economic system, and by extension a wide-ranging transformation of society. The primary element which will enable this transformation, according to this analysis, is the social ownership of the means of production.

The origins of communism are debatable, and there are various historical groups, as well as theorists, whose beliefs have subsequently been described as communist. German philosopher Karl Marx saw primitive communism as the original, hunter-gatherer state of humankind from which it arose. For Marx, only after humanity was capable of producing surplus, did private property develop. The idea of a classless, egalitarian society first emerged in Ancient Greece.[7]

In the history of Western thought, certain elements of the idea of a society based on common ownership of property can be traced back to ancient times. Examples include the Spartacus slave revolt in Rome.[8] Although the goal of the revolt was to end slavery, not to build a communist society, it inspired communist movements throughout history and even unto our own time. However, Spartacuss revolt was not a real communist movement, but rather a fight for human rights. Similar clashes took place in many countries without leading to an establishment of socialist or communist governments. The Civil War against slavery in America is a good example. The first real communist movement took place in 490-520 CE, in territories that comprise present-day Iran. It was organized by a religious activist named Mazdak, for whom the movement was named.[9] The 5th-century Mazdak movement in Persia (Iran) has been described as "communistic" for challenging the enormous privileges of the noble classes and the clergy, criticizing the institution of private property and for striving for an egalitarian society.[10]

At one time or another, various small communist communities existed, generally under the inspiration of Scripture.[11] In the medieval Christian church, for example, some monastic communities and religious orders shared their land and other property (see Religious and Christian communism).

Communist thought has also been traced back to the work of the 16th-century English writer Thomas More. In his treatise Utopia (1516), More portrayed a society based on common ownership of property, whose rulers administered it through the application of reason. In the 17th century, communist thought surfaced again in England, where a Puritan religious group known as the "Diggers" advocated the abolition of private ownership of land.[12]Eduard Bernstein, in his 1895 Cromwell and Communism argued that several groupings in the English Civil War, especially the Diggers, espoused clear communistic, agrarian ideals, and that Oliver Cromwell's attitude to these groups was at best ambivalent and often hostile. Criticism of the idea of private property continued into the Age of Enlightenment of the 18th century, through such thinkers as Jean Jacques Rousseau in France. Later, following the upheaval of the French Revolution, communism emerged as a political doctrine.[14]

Various social reformers in the early 19th century founded communities based on common ownership. But unlike many previous communist communities, they replaced the religious emphasis with a rational and philanthropic basis.[15] Notable among them were Robert Owen, who founded New Harmony in Indiana (1825), and Charles Fourier, whose followers organized other settlements in the United States such as Brook Farm (184147).[15] Later in the 19th century, Karl Marx described these social reformers as "utopian socialists" to contrast them with his program of "scientific socialism" (a term coined by Friedrich Engels). Other writers described by Marx as "utopian socialists" included Saint-Simon.

In its modern form, communism grew out of the socialist movement of 19th-century Europe. As the Industrial Revolution advanced, socialist critics blamed capitalism for the misery of the proletariata new class of urban factory workers who labored under often-hazardous conditions. Foremost among these critics were Marx and his associate Friedrich Engels. In 1848, Marx and Engels offered a new definition of communism and popularized the term in their famous pamphlet The Communist Manifesto.[15]

The 1917 October Revolution in Russia set the conditions for the rise to state power of Lenin's Bolsheviks, which was the first time any avowedly communist party reached that position. The revolution transferred power to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets,[16][17][18] in which the Bolsheviks had a majority. The event generated a great deal of practical and theoretical debate within the Marxist movement. Marx predicted that socialism and communism would be built upon foundations laid by the most advanced capitalist development. Russia, however, was one of the poorest countries in Europe with an enormous, largely illiterate peasantry and a minority of industrial workers. Marx had explicitly stated that Russia might be able to skip the stage of bourgeois rule.[19] Other socialists also believed that a Russian revolution could be the precursor of workers' revolutions in the West.

The moderate Mensheviks (minority) opposed Lenin's Bolshevik (majority) plan for socialist revolution before capitalism was more fully developed. The Bolsheviks' successful rise to power was based upon the slogans such as "Peace, bread, and land" which tapped the massive public desire for an end to Russian involvement in the First World War, the peasants' demand for land reform, and popular support for the Soviets.[20]

The Second International had dissolved in 1916 over national divisions, as the separate national parties that composed it did not maintain a unified front against the war, instead generally supporting their respective nation's role. Lenin thus created the Third International (Comintern) in 1919 and sent the Twenty-one Conditions, which included democratic centralism, to all European socialist parties willing to adhere. In France, for example, the majority of the French Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) party split in 1921 to form the French Section of the Communist International (SFIC). Henceforth, the term "Communism" was applied to the objective of the parties founded under the umbrella of the Comintern. Their program called for the uniting of workers of the world for revolution, which would be followed by the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat as well as the development of a socialist economy.

During the Russian Civil War (19181922), the Bolsheviks nationalized all productive property and imposed a policy named war communism, which put factories and railroads under strict government control, collected and rationed food, and introduced some bourgeois management of industry. After three years of war and the 1921 Kronstadt rebellion, Lenin declared the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921, which was to give a "limited place for a limited time to capitalism." The NEP lasted until 1928, when Joseph Stalin achieved party leadership, and the introduction of the Five Year Plans spelled the end of it. Following the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks, in 1922, formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), or Soviet Union, from the former Russian Empire.

Following Lenin's democratic centralism, the Leninist parties were organized on a hierarchical basis, with active cells of members as the broad base; they were made up only of elite cadres approved by higher members of the party as being reliable and completely subject to party discipline.[21] The Great Purge of 19371938 was Stalin's attempt to destroy any possible opposition within the Communist Party. In the Moscow Trials many old Bolsheviks who had played prominent roles during the Russian Revolution of 1917, or in Lenin's Soviet government afterwards, including Kamenev, Zinoviev, Rykov, and Bukharin, were accused, pleaded guilty, and executed.[22]

Its leading role in the Second World War saw the emergence of the Soviet Union as a superpower, with strong influence over Eastern Europe and parts of Asia. The European and Japanese empires were shattered and Communist parties played a leading role in many independence movements. MarxistLeninist governments modeled on the Soviet Union took power with Soviet assistance in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Poland, Hungary and Romania. A MarxistLeninist government was also created under Marshal Tito in Yugoslavia, but Tito's independent policies led to the expulsion of Yugoslavia from the Cominform, which had replaced the Comintern, and Titoism was branded "deviationist". Albania also became an independent MarxistLeninist state after World War II.[23]

By 1950, the Chinese MarxistLeninists had taken over all of mainland China. In the Korean War and Vietnam War, communists fought for power in their countries against the United States and its allies. With varying degrees of success, communists attempted to unite with nationalist and socialist forces against perceived Western imperialism in these poor countries.

Communism was seen as a rival of and a threat to western capitalism for most of the 20th century.[24] This rivalry peaked during the Cold War, as the world's two remaining superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, polarized most of the world into two camps of nations. They supported the spread of their respective economic and political systems. As a result, the camps expanded their military capacity, stockpiled nuclear weapons, and competed in space exploration.

In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev became leader of the Soviet Union and relaxed central control, in accordance with reform policies of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring). The Soviet Union did not intervene as Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary all abandoned MarxistLeninist rule by 1990. In 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved.

At present, states controlled by MarxistLeninist parties under a single-party system include the People's Republic of China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam. North Korea currently refers to its leading ideology as Juche, which is portrayed as a development of MarxismLeninism. Communist parties, or their descendant parties, remain politically important in a number of other countries. The South African Communist Party is a partner in the African National Congress-led government. In India, communists lead the governments of three states, with a combined population of more than 115 million. In Nepal, communists hold a majority in the parliament.[25] The Communist Party of Brazil is a part of the parliamentary coalition led by the ruling democratic socialist Workers' Party and is represented in the executive cabinet of Dilma Rousseff.

The People's Republic of China has reassessed many aspects of the Maoist legacy; it, along with Laos, Vietnam, and, to a lesser degree Cuba, has reduced state control of the economy in order to stimulate growth. Chinese economic reforms were started in 1978 under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping; since then, China has managed to bring down the poverty rate from 53% in the Mao era to just 6% in 2001.[26] The People's Republic of China runs Special Economic Zones dedicated to market-oriented enterprise, free from central government control. Several other states run by self-proclaimed MarxistLeninist parties have also attempted to implement market-based reforms, including Vietnam.

The ruling stratum of the Soviet Union was, according to Trotskyism, held to be a bureaucratic caste, but not a new ruling class, despite its political control.

Marxism, first developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, has been the foremost ideology of the communist movement. Marxism considers itself to be the embodiment of scientific socialism; rather than model an "ideal society" based on intellectuals' design, it is a non-idealist attempt at the understanding of society and history, through an analysis based in real life. Marxism does not see communism as a "state of affairs" to be established, but rather as the expression of a real movement, with parameters which are derived completely from real life and not based on any intelligent design.[27] Marxism, therefore, does no blueprinting of a communist society; it only makes an analysis which concludes what will trigger its implementation, and discovers its fundamental characteristics based on the derivation of real life conditions.

At the root of Marxism is the materialist conception of history, known as historical materialism for short. It holds that the key characteristic of economic systems through history has been the mode of production, and that the change between modes of production has been triggered by class struggle. According to this analysis, the Industrial Revolution ushered the world into a new mode of production: capitalism. Before capitalism, certain working classes had ownership of instruments utilized in production. But because machinery was much more efficient, this property became worthless, and the mass majority of workers could only survive by selling their labor, working through making use of someone else's machinery, and therefore making someone else profit. Thus with capitalism, the world was divided between two major classes: the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.[28] These classes are directly antagonistic: the bourgeoisie has private ownership of the means of production and earns a profit off surplus value, which is generated by the proletariat, which has no ownership of the means of production and therefore no option but to sell its labor to the bourgeoisie.

Historical materialism goes on and says: the rising bourgeoisie within feudalism, through the furtherance of its own material interests, captured power and abolished, of all relations of private property, only the feudal privileges, and with this took out of existence the feudal ruling class. This was another of the keys behind the consolidation of capitalism as the new mode of production, which is the final expression of class and property relations, and also has led into a massive expansion of production. It is, therefore, only in capitalism that private property in itself can be abolished.[29] The proletariat, similarly, will capture political power, abolish bourgeois property through the common ownership of the means of production, therefore abolishing the bourgeoisie, and ultimately abolishing the proletariat itself, and ushering the world into a new mode of production: communism. In between capitalism and communism there is the dictatorship of the proletariat, a democratic state where the whole of the public authority is elected and recallable under the basis of universal suffrage;[30] it is the defeat of the bourgeois state, but not yet of the capitalist mode of production, and at the same time the only element which places into the realm of possibility moving on from this mode of production.

An important concept in Marxism is socialization vs. nationalization. Nationalization is merely state ownership of property, whereas socialization is actual control and management of property by society. Marxism considers socialization its goal, and considers nationalization a tactical issue, with state ownership still being in the realm of the capitalist mode of production. In the words of Engels: "the transformation [...] into State-ownership does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. [...] State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution".[31] This has led some Marxist groups and tendencies to label states such as the Soviet Union, based on nationalization, as state capitalist.[32]

"We want to achieve a new and better order of society: in this new and better society there must be neither rich nor poor; all will have to work. Not a handful of rich people, but all the working people must enjoy the fruits of their common labour. Machines and other improvements must serve to ease the work of all and not to enable a few to grow rich at the expense of millions and tens of millions of people. This new and better society is called socialist society. The teachings about this society are called 'socialism'." -Vladimir Lenin, "To the Rural Poor" (1903); Collected Works, Vol 6, p. 366

Leninism is the body of political theory, developed by and named after the Russian revolutionary and later Soviet premier Vladimir Lenin, for the democratic organisation of a revolutionary vanguard party and the achievement of a dictatorship of the proletariat, as political prelude to the establishment of socialism. Leninism comprises socialist political and economic theories, developed from Marxism, as well as Lenins interpretations of Marxist theory for practical application to the socio-political conditions of the agrarian early-twentieth-century Russian Empire. In February 1917, for five years, Leninism was the Russian application of Marxist economics and political philosophy, effected and realised by the Bolsheviks, the vanguard party who led the fight for the political independence of the working class.

MarxismLeninism is a political ideology developed by Stalin,[33] which according to its proponents is based in Marxism and Leninism. The term describes the specific political ideology which Stalin implemented in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and, in a global scale, in the Comintern. There is no definite agreement between historians of about whether Stalin actually followed the principles of Marx and Lenin.[34] It also contains aspects which, according to some, are deviations from Marxism, such as "socialism in one country".[35][36] MarxismLeninism was the ideology of the most clearly visible communist movement. As such, it is the most prominent ideology associated with communism.

MarxismLeninism refers to the socioeconomic system and political ideology implemented by Stalin in the Soviet Union and later copied by other states based on the Soviet model (central planning, single-party state, etc.), whereas Stalinism refers to Stalin's style of governance (political repression, cult of personality, etc.); MarxismLeninism stayed after de-Stalinization, Stalinism did not. However, the term "Stalinism" is sometimes used to refer to MarxismLeninism, sometimes to avoid implying MarxismLeninism is related to Marxism and Leninism.

Maoism is a form of MarxismLeninism associated with Chinese leader Mao Zedong. After de-Stalinization, MarxismLeninism was kept in the Soviet Union but certain anti-revisionist tendencies, such as Hoxhaism and Maoism, argued that it was deviated from. Therefore, different policies were applied in Albania and China, which became more distanced from the Soviet Union.

MarxismLeninism has been criticized by other communist and Marxist tendencies. They argue that MarxistLeninist states did not establish socialism but rather state capitalism.[32] The dictatorship of the proletariat, according to Marxism, represents the rule of the majority (democracy) rather than of one party, to the extent that co-founder of Marxism Friedrich Engels described its "specific form" as the democratic republic.[37] Additionally, according to Engels, state property by itself is private property of capitalist nature[38] unless the proletariat has control of political power, in which case it forms public property.[39] Whether the proletariat was actually in control of the MarxistLeninist states is a matter of debate between MarxismLeninism and other communist tendencies. To these tendencies, MarxismLeninism is neither Marxism nor Leninism nor the union of both, but rather an artificial term created to justify Stalin's ideological distortion,[40] forced into the CPSU and Comintern. In the Soviet Union, this struggle against MarxismLeninism was represented by Trotskyism, which describes itself as a Marxist and Leninist tendency.

Trotskyism is a Marxist and Leninist tendency that was developed by Leon Trotsky, opposed to MarxismLeninism. It supports the theory of permanent revolution and world revolution instead of the two stage theory and socialism in one country. It supported proletarian internationalism and another Communist revolution in the Soviet Union, which Trotsky claimed had become a "degenerated worker's state" under the leadership of Stalin, rather than the dictatorship of the proletariat, in which class relations had re-emerged in a new form.

Trotsky and his supporters, struggling against Stalin for power in the Soviet Union, organized into the Left Opposition and their platform became known as Trotskyism. Stalin eventually succeeded in gaining control of the Soviet regime and Trotskyist attempts to remove Stalin from power resulted in Trotsky's exile from the Soviet Union in 1929. Trotsky later founded the Fourth International, a Trotskyist rival to the Comintern, in 1938.

Trotsky's politics differed sharply from those of Stalin and Mao, most importantly in declaring the need for an international proletarian revolution (rather than socialism in one country) and support for a true dictatorship of the proletariat based on democratic principles.

Libertarian Marxism refers to a broad scope of economic and political philosophies that emphasize the anti-authoritarian aspects of Marxism. Early currents of libertarian Marxism, known as left communism,[41] emerged in opposition to MarxismLeninism[42] and its derivatives, such as Stalinism, Maoism, and Trotskyism.[43] Libertarian Marxism is also critical of reformist positions, such as those held by social democrats.[44] Libertarian Marxist currents often draw from Marx and Engels' later works, specifically the Grundrisse and The Civil War in France;[45] emphasizing the Marxist belief in the ability of the working class to forge its own destiny without the need for a revolutionary party or state to mediate or aid its liberation.[46] Along with anarchism, Libertarian Marxism is one of the main currents of libertarian socialism.[47]

Libertarian Marxism includes such currents as Luxemburgism, council communism, left communism, Socialisme ou Barbarie, the Johnson-Forest tendency, world socialism, Lettrism/Situationism and operaismo/autonomism, and New Left.[48] Libertarian Marxism has often had a strong influence on both post-left and social anarchists. Notable theorists of libertarian Marxism have included Anton Pannekoek, Raya Dunayevskaya, CLR James, Antonio Negri, Cornelius Castoriadis, Maurice Brinton, Guy Debord, Daniel Gurin, Ernesto Screpanti and Raoul Vaneigem.

Council communism is a far-left movement originating in Germany and the Netherlands in the 1920s. Its primary organization was the Communist Workers Party of Germany (KAPD). Council communism continues today as a theoretical and activist position within both left-wing Marxism and libertarian socialism.

The central argument of council communism, in contrast to those of social democracy and Leninist communism, is that democratic workers' councils arising in the factories and municipalities are the natural form of working class organization and governmental power. This view is opposed to both the reformist and the Leninist ideologies, with their stress on, respectively, parliaments and institutional government (i.e., by applying social reforms, on the one hand, and vanguard parties and participative democratic centralism on the other).

The core principle of council communism is that the government and the economy should be managed by workers' councils composed of delegates elected at workplaces and recallable at any moment. As such, council communists oppose state-run authoritarian "State socialism"/"State capitalism". They also oppose the idea of a "revolutionary party", since council communists believe that a revolution led by a party will necessarily produce a party dictatorship. Council communists support a worker's democracy, which they want to produce through a federation of workers' councils.

Left communism is the range of communist viewpoints held by the communist left, which criticizes the political ideas and practices espousedparticularly following the series of revolutions which brought the First World War to an endby Bolsheviks and by social democrats. Left communists assert positions which they regard as more authentically Marxist and proletarian than the views of MarxismLeninism espoused by the Communist International after its first congress (March 1919) and during its second congress (JulyAugust 1920).[49]

Left communists represent a range of political movements distinct from MarxistLeninists (whom they largely view as merely the left-wing of capital), from anarchist communists (some of whom they consider internationalist socialists) as well as from various other revolutionary socialist tendencies (for example De Leonists, whom they tend to see as being internationalist socialists only in limited instances).[50]

The dominant forms of communism are based on Marxism, but non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism and anarchist communism) also exist.

Anarchist communism (also known as libertarian communism) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, private property, and capitalism in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[51][52]direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".[53][54]

Anarcho-communism differs from Marxism rejecting its view about the need for a State Socialism phase before building communism. The main anarcho-communist theorist Peter Kropotkin argued "that a revolutionary society should "transform itself immediately into a communist society,", that is, should go immediately into what Marx had regarded as the "more advanced," completed, phase of communism."[55] In this way it tries to avoid the reappearance of "class divisions and the need for a state to oversee everything".[55]

Some forms of anarchist communism such as insurrectionary anarchism are egoist and strongly influenced by radical individualism,[56][57][58] believing that anarchist communism does not require a communitarian nature at all. Most anarcho-communists view anarcho-communism as a way of reconciling the opposition between the individual and society.[59][60][61]

To date in human history, the best known examples of an anarchist communist society, established around the ideas as they exist today, that received worldwide attention and knowledge in the historical canon, are the anarchist territories during the Spanish Revolution and the Free Territory during the Russian Revolution. Through the efforts and influence of the Spanish Anarchists during the Spanish Revolution within the Spanish Civil War, starting in 1936 anarchist communism existed in most of Aragon, parts of the Levante and Andalusia, as well as in the stronghold of Anarchist Catalonia before being brutally crushed by the combined forces of the authoritarian regime that won the war, Hitler, Mussolini, Spanish Communist Party repression (backed by the USSR) as well as economic and armaments blockades from the capitalist countries and the Spanish Republic itself. During the Russian Revolution, anarchists such as Nestor Makhno worked to create and defendthrough the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraineanarchist communism in the Free Territory of the Ukraine from 1919 before being conquered by the Bolsheviks in 1921.

Christian communism is a form of religious communism based on Christianity. It is a theological and political theory based upon the view that the teachings of Jesus Christ compel Christians to support communism as the ideal social system. Although there is no universal agreement on the exact date when Christian communism was founded, many Christian communists assert that evidence from the Bible suggests that the first Christians, including the Apostles, established their own small communist society in the years following Jesus' death and resurrection. As such, many advocates of Christian communism argue that it was taught by Jesus and practiced by the Apostles themselves.

Christian communism can be seen as a radical form of Christian socialism. Christian communists may or may not agree with various parts of Marxism. They do not agree with the atheist and antireligious views held by secular Marxists, but do agree with many of the economic and existential aspects of Marxist theory, such as the idea that capitalism exploits the working class by extracting surplus value from the workers in the form of profits and that wage labor is a tool of human alienation that promotes arbitrary and unjust authority. Christian communism, like Marxism, also holds that capitalism encourages the negative aspects of human nature, supplanting values such as mercy, kindness, justice and compassion in favor of greed, selfishness and blind ambition.

Criticism of communism can be divided into two broad categories: those concerning themselves with the practical aspects of 20th-century Communist states,[62] and those concerning themselves with communist principles and theory.[63]

Notes

Bibliography

Further reading

View original post here:
Communism - Wikipedia

The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, citing survey results released on Monday, blames widespread ignorance for the relatively positive views millennials have toward socialism and communism.

Of the 2,300 Americans polled by YouGov, 80% of baby boomers and 91% of the elderly agree with the statement that communism was and still is a problem in the world today. Millennials? Only 55%.

Furthermore, almost half of Americans between the ages of 16 and 20 said they would vote for a socialist, while 21% would go so far as to back a communist.

Capitalism, on the other hand, is viewed favorably by 64% of those over the age of 65, compared with only 42% of millennials.

In fact, more than half of millennials say the economic system works against them, while four out of 10 call for a complete change to ensure that the highest earners pay their fair share.

Read: If socialism is incompatible with markets, how can Nordic stocks perform this well?

Theres a lack of historical perspective, according to the foundation, that the survey showed among a big chunk of the younger generation. For instance, a third of millennials say they believe more people were killed under George W. Bush than Joseph Stalin.

As far as familiarity with historical figures, this chart sums it up:

One of the concerns [the foundation] has had since its establishment is that an emerging generation of Americans has little understanding of the collectivist system and its dark history, said Marion Smith, executive director of the organization. Unfortunately, this report, which we intend to release on an annual basis, confirms this worrisome impression.

Follow MarketWatch on Facebook

Go here to see the original:
Poll: Millennials desperately need to bone up on the history ...