Criticism of communism: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:03, 22 August 2005 editUltramarine (talk \| contribs)33,507 edits 2V← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:48, 22 August 2005 edit undoPmanderson (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers62,752 edits rv: from advocacy versionNext edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{npov}}		{{npov}}
			{{communism}}
	{{twoversions\|21532451}}
			:''Note that communism is a branch of ]. This article only discusses criticisms that are specific to communism and not other forms of socialism. See ] for a discussion of objections to socialism in general.
	{{Template:Communism}}
	:''Note that communism is a branch of ]. This article only discusses criticisms that are specific to communism and not other forms of socialism. See ] for a discussion of objections to socialism in general. Note also that communism and related words are written with the ] "C" when they refer to a political party of that name, a member of that party, or a government led by such a party.''
	Criticisms of ] can be divided in two broad categories: One is those concerning themselves with the real-world results of the 20th century ]s. Such critics include both pro and anti communists. Another is those concerning themselves with ], the claimed ] of the Communist states. A central question is the implications of the real-world results of the Communist states for Marxist theory.

			:''Note also that communism and related words are written with the ] "C" when they refer to a political party of that name, a member of that party, or a government led by such a party. When written as a common noun, with a lowercase "c", they refer to a future condition of classless stateless community, or to the doctrine that such a condition is desirable and achievable.''
	== Criticisms of 20th century Communist states ==
	=== Arts, science, technology, and environment ===

			Criticisms of ] can be divided in two broad categories: Those concerning themselves with the practical aspects of 20th century ]s, and those concerning themselves with communist principles and theory. The two categories are almost entirely distinct: One may agree with communist principles but disagree with many policies adopted by Communist states (and this is quite common among communists, particularly in the case of ]), or, more rarely, one may agree with policies adopted by Communist states but disagree with communist principles.
	The Communist states censored the ], usually only allowing ]. Some Communist states have been involved in the destruction of cultural heritage: ] (planned destruction of historical centers of most towns — partially achieved in Bucharest), ] (repression of ]an culture, destructions during the ]) and the Soviet Union (destruction, abandon or reconversion of religious buildings) are the most cited examples .

			== 20th century Communist states ==
	]. Ukraine states tbat it was a deliberate act of genocide against the Ukrainian nation.]]
			Strictly speaking, the term "Communist state" is an ], since the communists themselves define communism as a social system that has abolished ], ]es, and the ] itself. No country or government ever called itself a "Communist state"; however, various states gave the ] a special status in their constitution and laws. During the ], the term was current in ] to refer to ]s where the ruling party officially proclaimed its adherence to ]. It is these "Communist states" that are the targets of criticism presented below.
	The Communist states also censored ]. One example is ] and ] of history. Research was suppressed in ] and ] (see ]), ] (see ]), ], ] and ], and even ]. See also ]. In some Communist states it was common practice to classify internal critics of the system as having a mental disease, like ] - which was only recognized in Communist states - and incarcerating them in ]. Although the Communist states often emphasized the importance of the "]", comparatively few advances were made in them. For example, there were very few ] winners from Communist states .

			''For related information, see the discussion regarding the ].''
	Soviet technology generally lagged Western technology by many years. Exceptions include areas like the ] and military technology where occasionally the Communist technology was more advanced due to a massive concentration of research resources. According to the ], much of the technology in the Communist states consisted simply of copies of Western products that had been legally purchased or gained through a massive espionage program. Stricter Western control of the export of technology through ] contributed to the fall of Communism .

			No Communist state claimed to have ''attained'' communism, the social system, but all of them planned to do so in the not unreasonably distant future; ], for example, forecast that communism would be reached in 1980, some quarter century later. The states which no longer exist never did reach communism, and none of the remaining ones seem likely to do so soon.
	Also pointed out is the environmental disasters. One is the gradual disappearance of the ] and a similar diminishing of the ] because of the diversion of the rivers that fed them. Another the pollution of the ], the ], and the unique freshwater environment of ]. Many of the rivers were polluted; several, like the ] and ] rivers in Poland, were virtually ecologically dead. In 1988 only 30% of the ] in the Soviet Union was treated properly. Established health standards for ] was exceeded by ten times or more in 103 cities in the Soviet Union in 1988. The air pollution problem was even more severe in Eastern Europe. It caused ], forest die-back, and damage to buildings and cultural heritages. According to official sources, 58 percent of total agricultural land of the former Soviet Union was affected by ], ], ], or ]. Nuclear waste was dumped in the ], the ], and in locations in the Far East. It was revealed in 1992 that in the city of ] there were 636 radioactive toxic waste sites and 1,500 in ]. . The environmental situation has continued to be poor in some post-Communist states, like Russia, but has improved in others, like in many of the Eastern European and the Baltic states .

			=== Anti-communist critique of Communist states ===
	===Human rights violations===
			====Censorship, personality cults, and foreign policy====
	(See references below)
			The Communist states often practice ]. The level of censorship varies widely between different states and historical periods, but it nearly always exists to a greater or lesser extent. The most rigid censorship has been practiced by hardline ] and ] regimes, such as the ] under ] (1927–53), ] during the ] (1966–76), and ] during its entire existence (1948–present). This censorship takes various forms:

			*Censorship of the ], for example by allowing only ]. Some Communist states have also been involved in the destruction of cultural heritage: ] (planned destruction of historical centres of most towns—partially achieved in Bucharest), ] (repression of ]an culture, destruction of cultural artifacts during the ]) and the Soviet Union (destruction, abandonment or reconversion of religious buildings) are the most cited examples.
	Extensive historical research, especially after the fall of Communism opened the achieves of many of the former Communist states, has documented large scale human rights violations that occurred in these states, particularly during the regimes of ] and ], but shown to have started immediately after the ] during the regime of ]. Most prominent being deaths due to executions, forced labor camps, genocides of certain ethnic minorities, and mass starvations caused by either government mismanagement or deliberately. The exact number of deaths caused by these regimes is somewhat disputed, but the historical research shows at least tens of millions and several overviews give a number close to one hundred million deaths . Other widespread criticism concern the documented lack of ] in Communist Party regimes, religious and ethnic ]s, and systematic use of ].
			*Censorship of ]. One example is censorship and ] of history. In the Soviet Union, between the late 1920s and early 1960s, research was suppressed in ] and ] (]), ] (]), ], ] and ], and even ]. In some Communist states it was common practice to classify internal critics of the system as having a mental disease, like ]—which was a disease only recognized in Communist states—and incarcerating them in ]. See also ].
			*Censorship of ]. Many of Communist states use an extensive network of civilian ] to spy on their peers. This creates a society where no one would dare criticize the government in public (and, in extreme cases, not even in private), for fear that they might be reported to the ].

			Both anti-Communists and Communists have criticized the ]s of many leaders of Communist states, and the hereditary leadership of ]. ] and others have also argued that a powerful ] of party bureaucrats emerged under Communist Party rule, and exploited the rest of the population. A Czech proverb observed, "Under capitalism, man exploits man; under Communism, it's the other way around." (See also ].)
	Many of the Communist states used an extensive network of civilian ] to spy on their own population. This created a society where no one could trust other citizens, who might report real or fabricated criticism of the Communist system to the ].

			The Communist states also typically suppress mass dissent. Internal uprisings were forcibly suppressed in the ] and the ]. There is widespread agreement that the Soviet Union intervened three times in neighboring countries to crush popular uprisings against a Communist state: the ], the ] and the ]. These invasions have also been criticized as naked ].
	The ], the ], and the ] can be seen as ] wars where military force crushed popular uprisings against the Communist system. There were also many internal uprisings suppressed by military force, like the ] and the ].

			Restrictions on ] are also widely seen as a mechanism for suppressing dissent. The ] was one of the most famous examples of this, but North Korea still imposes a total ban on emigration (reported on PBS's program ]) and Cuba's restrictions are routinely criticized by the ] community.
	The Communist states had strict restrictions on ], the most prominent example being the ].

			====Human rights violations====
	Many of the leaders of Communist states cultivated an extensive ]. In some cases the leadership of the state has become inherited. Critics have also argued that a new powerful class of party bureaucrats emerged which exploited the rest of the population. This ] is usually called the ].
			Large scale human rights violations occurred in Communist states. The most common of these were restrictions on ] (in the form of censorship, discussed above). Such restrictions existed, to a greater or lesser degree, in nearly all Communist states during most of their existence. Usually, newly established Communist states maintained or tightened the level of censorship that was present in those countries before the Communists came to power; indeed, the Communists themselves had most often been the targets of this previous censorship. As a result, after coming to power, they argued that they wanted to fight the former ruling class using its own weapons, either as a form of vengeance or to prevent it from staging a counter-revolution.

			However, some Communist states - particularly the regimes of ] and ] - engaged in far more severe human rights violations. Most prominent were deaths due to executions, forced labor camps, genocides of certain ethnic minorities, and mass starvations caused by either government mismanagement or deliberately. The exact number of deaths caused by these regimes is somewhat disputed, but extensive historical research shows at least tens of millions (see, e.g., the estimates reached in '']'' and the references below). It is interesting to note that this figure far exceeds the number of deaths under ] regimes during the twentieth century (including ]).
	Several of the Communist states directly supported claimed ]s with money, training and safe bases. Examples include the ], the ], and the ] .

			Lesser violations include religious and ethnic ]s, systematic use of ] as part of police procedure, lack of ], and the fact that workers were not allowed to join free ]s.
	The leaders of the Communist states themselves frequently announced their support for democracy, held regular elections and sometimes even gave their countries names such as the "]" or the "]". Some supporters of the Communist states have argued that those states were democratic. However, critics point out that, in practice, one political party held an absolute monopoly on power, dissent was banned, and the elections usually featured a single candidate and were ripe with fraud (often producing implausible results of 99% in favor of the candidate).

	Some ~~supporters~~ of ~~communism~~ find this approach simplistic, noting that ~~humans rights violations such as~~ executions, forced labor camps, the repression of ethnic minorities, and mass starvation were patterns in both ~~non-democratic~~ Russian and Chinese history before their respective Communist ~~takeovers~~. ~~However,~~ past evils in an old regime ~~can hardly~~ be used to justify new ones; ~~otherwise supporters of ] could justify his deeds by pointing to past human rights crimes by the ] in Africa.~~ ~~Advocates~~ reply that they only seek to put the events into perspective, not justify them. However, this defense can also be criticized. ] argues in his book ] that the living conditions and death rates of the inmates in the Soviet era ] were much worse than those of the Tsarist era ]s. The worst crop failure of late Tsarist Russia, in 1892, caused 375,000 to 400,000 deaths, while famines under both Lenin and Stalin caused many millions of deaths .		Some advocates of Communist states find this approach simplistic, noting that executions, forced labor camps, the repression of ethnic minorities, and mass starvation were patterns in both Russian and Chinese history before their respective Communist revolutions. Critics argue that past evils in an old regime cannot be used to justify new ones, while advocates reply that they only seek to put the events into perspective, not justify them.

			====Economic and social development====
	''See also: ]
			], the Communist states maintained a much higher level of ] than either the Western nations or the Third World, at least after 1970. Energy-intensive development may have been reasonable. The Soviet Union was an exporter of ]; China has vast supplies of ].]]
			Advocates of Communist states often praise them for having leapt ahead of contemporary capitalist countries in certain areas, for example by offering guaranteed employment, health care and housing to their citizens. Critics typically condemn Communist states by the same criteria, claiming that all lag far behind the industrialized West in terms of economic development and living standards.

			Central economic planning has in certain instances produced dramatic advances, including rapid development of heavy industry during the 1930s in the Soviet Union and later in their ]. Another example is the development of the pharmaceutical industry in Cuba. Early advances in the status of women were also notable, especially in Islamic areas of the Soviet Union. See Gregory J. Massell, ''The Surrogate Proletariat: Moslem Women and Revolutionary Strategies in Soviet Central Asia: 1919–1929'', Princeton University Press, 1974, hardcover, 451 pages, ISBN 069107562X. However, the Soviet Union did not achieve the same kind of development in agriculture (forcing the Soviet Union to become a net importer of cereals after the Second World War). Other Communist states, such as Laos, Vietnam or Maoist China, continued in poverty; China has only achieved high rates of growth after introducing free market economic reforms — a sign, claim the critics, of the superiority of capitalism. Another example is ], which was among world's most developed industrial countries prior to ], but fell behind the West in the post-war era.
	===Economic and social development===
	Advocates of communism praise Communist parties for running countries that have sometimes leapt ahead of contemporary "capitalist" countries, offering guaranteed employment, health care and housing to their citizens. Critics of communism typically condemn Communist states by the same criteria, claiming that all lag far behind the industrialized West in terms of economic development and living standards.

			Both critics and supporters also make comparisons between particular Communist and capitalist countries: Critics prefer to compare ] and ]; supporters prefer to compare ] to ] or Central America. All such comparisons are open to challenge, both on the comparability of the states involved and the statistic being used for comparison. No two countries are identical; the western parts of Germany were more developed and industrialized than the eastern parts long before the Cold War and the creation of two separate German states, and Cuba was likewise more developed than many of its Central American neighbors before the Cuban revolution. Comparison of Cuba to the rest of the Caribbean or Latin America has a special problem: Cuba is the only Latin American country to have been Communist for forty years; it is also the only Latin American country to have been for forty years under embargo by its largest neighbor and geographically natural trading partner. Deconfounding those two uniquenesses is beyond the reach of ''honest'' statistics.
	Supporters of the Communist states note the social and cultural programs, sometimes administered by labor organizations. They include guaranteed employment, subsidized food and clothing, free health care, child care, and education. They point out to the high levels of literacy enjoyed by Eastern Europeans (in comparison, for instance, with Southern Europe), Cubans or Chinese. However, education was full of propaganda and censored opposing views. Workers were not allowed to join free ]s. There were often great scarcity and ] even of basic products like food, forcing ordinary workers had to spend much of their time waiting in queues, hoping to get one of the rationed products. Some of these benefits can also be found in nations with market economies, like ]. The Communist states do not compare favorable when comparing states with similar culture and economic development before the Communist takeover. Examples include ] vs. ]; ] vs. ] and ]; and ] vs. ].
	]

			Communist states often engaged in rapid ], and in some cases this has lead to environmental disasters. The most cited example is the disappearance of the ] in today's ] and ], which is believed to have been caused by the diversion of the waters of its two affluent rivers for cotton production. The ] has also been diminishing; in addition, there was significant pollution of the ], the ], and the unique freshwater environment of ]. In 1988 only 20% of the ] in the Soviet Union was treated properly. Established health standards for ] were exceeded by ten times or more in 103 cities in 1988. In Eastern Europe, air pollution is cited as the cause of forest die-back, damage to buildings and cultural heritages, and a rise in the occurence of ]. According to official sources, 58 percent of the total agricultural land of the former Soviet Union was affected by ], ], ], or ]. Nuclear waste was dumped in the ], the ], and in locations in the Far East. It was revealed in 1992 that in the city of ] there were 636 radioactive toxic waste sites and 1,500 in ]. However, many of these ecological problems continued unabated after the fall of the Soviet Union and are still major issues today - which has prompted many supporters of communist states to accuse their opponents of holding a ].
	In the Soviet Union in 1989 there was rationing of meat and sugar. The average intake of red meat for a Soviet citizen was half of what it had been for a subject of the Czar in 1913. Blacks in apartheid South Africa owned more cars per capita. The only area of consumption in which the Soviets excelled was the ingestion of hard liquor. Two-thirds of the households had no hot water, and a third had no running water at all. According to the government paper, Izvestia, a typical working class family of four was forced to live for 8 years in a single 8x8 foot room, before marginally better accommodation became available. The housing shortage was so acute that at all times 17% of Soviet families had to be physically separated for want of adequate space. A third of the hospitals had no running water and the bribery of doctors and nurses to get decent medical attention and even amenities like blankets in Soviet hospitals was not only common, but routine. The average welfare mother in the United States received more income in a month, than the average Soviet worker could earn in a year .

			Technological progress in the Communist states was sometimes highly uneven, in the sense that some sectors surged ahead while others lagged behind. As noted above, the Soviet space program saw remarkable progress; so did pure science (in fields not blighted by ideological pressure), mathematics, and military technology. Consumer products, on the other hand, were typically several years behind their Western counterparts. According to the ] , a number of Soviet products were in fact using Western technology, which had been either legally purchased or obtained through espionage. This situation has been largely attributed to the fact that economic planners in the Soviet Union and elsewhere were accountable to the government, but, in the absence of democracy, they were not accountable to the people. Thus, their plans tended to focus on long-term goals and scientific and military development, rather than the immediate needs of the population.
	After 1965, life expectancy began to plateau or even decreased, especially for males, in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe while it continued to increase in Western Europe. This divergence between two parts of Europe went on during three decades leading to a profound gap in the mid 90s. The life expectancy sharply declined after the change to market economy in several of the states of the former Soviet Union but may now have started to increase in the Baltic states. In several Eastern European nations, life expectancy started to increase immediately after the fall of Communism in several states. The previous decline for males continued for a time in some like Romania before starting to increase .

			] has increased in fits and starts in the West. The latest of these began about 1970, and largely consists of improvements in ] ]. Demographic studies (including ) have concluded that the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe did not partake of this increase, as they had in the earlier ones; male life expectancies even decreased by a year - leading to a large gap between East and West by 1990. Since a market economy was introduced, a sharp decline in life expectancy was noted in the countries of the former Soviet Union. This decline has accelerated in ] and ]; in the ] life expectancy may have started to increase. In Eastern Europe, after 1990, the decline continued most notably in ], but life expectancy eventually began to increase in many of the other countries in the region. All these developments give information on post-Soviet capitalism, especially the ], as well as on the policies of the Communist states.
	Central economic planning has in certain instances produced dramatic advances, including rapid development of heavy industry during the 1930s in the Soviet Union. Another example is the development of the pharmaceutical industry in Cuba. Early advances in the status of women were also notable, especially in Islamic areas of the Soviet Union.. However, these examples are anecdotal and there are counter-examples: the failure of the Soviet Union to achieve the same kind of development in agriculture (forcing the Soviet Union to become a net importer of cereals after the Second World War), as well as the continued poverty of other Communist states such as Laos, Vietnam or Maoist China. China only achieved high rates of growth after introducing Capitalist economic reforms. Another example is ], which was among world's most developed industrial countries prior to ], but fell far behind the Western nations under the Communist rule.

			Supporters of the Communist states note their social and cultural programs, sometimes administered by labor organizations. Universal education programs have been a strong point, as has the generous provision of universal health care. They point out the high levels of literacy enjoyed by Eastern Europeans (in comparison, for instance, with Southern Europe), Cubans or Chinese. Western critics charge that Communist compulsory education was replete with pro-Communist propaganda and censored opposing views.
	Cuba is often cited as a successful example of by communists. However, Cuba was one of most developed nations in Latin America before Castro. Other Latin American nations have seen greater increases in literacy than Cuba. Calories per person has declined in Cuba while it has increased in most other Latin American nations. Cubans eat less cereals and meat than before Castro . On the other hand, there is a ].

	===~~Marxist~~ ~~criticisms~~ of Communist states===		=== Communist and Left critique of Communist states ===
			Not all those who criticize Communist states are anti-communists. Some are communists themselves, who disagree with some or most of the actions undertaken by communist states during the 20th century. Many of the anti-communist criticisms presented in the above section (for example, criticisms of violations of human rights) are shared by the communist critics. Criticisms of Communist states from the ] began very soon after the creation of the first such state. ] visited Russia in 1920, and regarded the ] as intelligent, but clueless and planless. ] condemned the suppression of the ] as a 'massacre'.
	There were early Marxist critics of the first Communist states, like ] and ]. However, most foreign communists and Communist parties at first supported the Communist states and accepted the leadership of the Soviet Union (see ]). Criticisms gradually increased, especially after Stalin was denounced in the 1956 speech ], after the ], and after the fall of Communism in 1989-91.

			One specifically communist critique, however, is the allegation that the "Communist states" of the 20th century grossly violated communist principles, and were therefore only partially communist at best or completely un-communist at worst.
	== Criticisms of Marxist theory ==
	See ] for a discussion of objections to socialism in general. There are also some specific criticisms of Marxist theory.

			Firstly, all communists agree that democracy (the rule of the people) is a key element of both socialism and communism - though they may disagree on the particular form that this democracy should take. The leaders of the Communist states themselves frequently announced their support for democracy, held regular elections and sometimes even gave their countries names such as the "]" or the "]". Supporters of communist states have always argued that those states were democratic. However, critics point out that, in practice, one political party held an absolute monopoly on power, dissent was banned, and the elections usually featured a single candidate and were ripe with fraud (often producing implausible results of 99% in favor of the candidate). Thus, communist critics of Communist states argue that, in practice, these states were not democratic and therefore not communist or socialist.
	===Relevance of the Communist states for Marxist theory===
	Marxist critics of the Communist states argue that the problems in the Communist states cannot be used to criticize Marxist theory and the communist society. One argument is that a "Communist state" is an impossibility according to Marxist theory. The communist society itself is stateless in theory and thus cannot be 20th century states. However, Marx’s theory included a transitory state phase known as the ]. Later, Marx reasoned, the state would "whither away" and the dictatorship of the proletariat would be replaced by the communist society. The Communist states claimed to be this dictatorship of the proletariat and to be "working towards communism". If they did follow Marxist theory, then the theory failed to work in the real world.

			A lack of democracy implies a lack of a mandate from the people; as such, communist critics argue that the leadership of Communist states did not represent the interests of the ], and it should therefore be no wonder that this leadership took actions that directly harmed the workers (for example Mao's ]). In particular, Communist states banned independent ]s, an act seen by many communists (and most others on the ]) as an open betrayal of the working class.
	Trotskyites and other ]s explain this by arguing that the Communist states after Lenin's death did not actually adhere to Marxism but rather were perversions heavily influenced by ]. Lenin's ] and ] were in many ways different from Stalinism. On the other hand, all of the states themselves claimed to be following Marxism. In many ways their institutions often differed from those under Stalin. Examples include the profit-sharing in ], the extreme self-reliance in ], and the reforms in ], and ]. ] is a broad concept that includes episodes such as the self-sufficient ] during the ], the anti-intellectualism during the ], and the almost ] ]s. A response is that all later Communist states may have differed in some ways but that all had common problematic institutions created by Stalin and that this explains problems such as systematic human rights violations.

			], in particular, have argued that ] transformed the Soviet Union into a bureaucratic and repressive state, and that all subsequent communist states ultimately turned out similar because they copied his example (]). There are various terms used by Trotskyists to define such states; see ], ] and ].
	However, recent historical research has revealed the harsh repressions during Lenin's regime. They include summary executions of hundreds of thousands of "class enemies", the creation of the system that later become the ], and a policy of food requisitioning during the ] that was partially responsible for a famine causing 3-10 million deaths (see also references below).

			While Trotskyists are ], there are other communists who embrace classical ] and reject Leninism entirely, arguing, for example, that the Leninist principle of ] was the source of the Soviet Union's slide away from communism.
	Some Marxist supporters instead argue that no Communist state was Marxist since no Communist state was democratic. However, Marx and Engels rejected the concept of ]. They gave few hints and had no explicit requirements regarding how the dictatorship of the proletariat or the later communist society should be implemented. Some argue that Marx and Engels may have supported the claimed ] of the ] as a model for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Others dispute this and there were human rights violations even during the few months the Commune existed . Engels stated that "A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?" and "the proletariat needs the state, not in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries". Lenin later used cited these and other statements by Marx and Engels as support for using the authoritarian principles of ] and "]" during the dictatorship of the proletariat in Communist states. This excluded democracy even in theory outside the ruling Communist party . When the Marxists only gained a minority vote in the democratic ], Lenin dispersed the Constituent Assembly at the end of its first day's session and overturned the election. All the Communist states became and remained totalitarian as long as the Communists remained in power, justifying this by referring to Marxist theory.

			Finally, it should be noted that many of these communist criticisms draw counter-criticisms from anti-communists, many of whom have attempted to establish a direct link between communist principles and the actions of Communist states. Ultimately, this comes down to a fundamental disagreement between communists and anti-communists as to what those 'communist principles' actually ''are''. A glaring example is the issue of democracy: Communists claim that democracy is an essential part of their principles, while anti-communists claim that it is not.
	On the other hand, some democratic states have been ruled by parties calling themselves Communist without becoming totalitarian. One example is ]. Whether these parties and similar parties without power are Marxist is disputed, because, while they aim for a socialist society, they reject Marxist cornerstones like a ] and at least for now accept a market economy (see also ] and ]).

			In addition to Communism, the names of several other ideologies and political systems have been used by governments or political parties whose policies are widely regarded as being contrary to the basic principles of those ideologies or systems. The ] or the ] (North Korea), for example, are universally regarded as highly undemocratic. Likewise, the ] shares virtually nothing with the ideology of ].
	Another argument is that true communism can only develop as a response to the contradictions of bourgeois capitalism; therefore, the failure of those experiments in communism to date can be attributed to the fact they did not emerge in this manner. In short, they argue that, in order for a successful socialist revolution to occur, capitalism must first dominate the globe. The Soviet Union is a case in point - Tsarist Russia was quasi-feudal, not capitalist, and was overthrown by a small cadre rather than by a mass revolution. So it is argued by that the failure of Soviet socialism to sustain itself is actually an affirmation of Marxist theory.

			== Marxist theory ==
			See ] for a general critique of socialism. The following sections of this article deal with criticisms that are specifically raised against Marxist theory.

	=== Historical materialism ===		=== Historical materialism ===
	] is normally considered the intellectual ~~basis~~ of Marxism. It looks for the causes of developments and changes in human history in economic, technological, and more broadly, material factors, as well as the clashes of material interests among tribes, social classes and nations.		] is normally considered one of the intellectual foundations of Marxism. It looks for the causes of developments and changes in human history in economic, technological, and more broadly, material factors, as well as the clashes of material interests among tribes, social classes and nations.

	~~However,~~ it ignores other causes of historical and social change, like biology, genetics, philosophy, art, religion, or other causes that are not "materialist" according to Marxists.		Critics argue that it ignores other causes of historical and social change, like biology, genetics, philosophy, art, religion, or other causes that are not "materialist" according to Marxists. Some, such as ] and others, have also argued that Historical materialism is a ] because it is not ]. Marxists respond that ]s in general are largely not falsifiable, since it is often difficult or outright impossible to test them via ]s (in the way ] can be tested).

			Based on historical materialism, Marx made numerous predictions. For example, he argued that the workers would become poorer and poorer as the capitalists exploited them more and more; that differences between the members within each class would become smaller and smaller and the classes would thus become more homogeneous; that the skilled workers would be replaced by unskilled workers doing assembly line work; that relations between the working class and the capitalists would get worse and worse; and that the capitalists would become fewer and fewer due to an increasing number of monopolies. (The capitalist economists of his time, such as ] and ], would have agreed with most of these predictions, at least as the most likely forecast of events; although they deduced the ] from ]'s forecast of population increasing to the point of subsistence, rather than the ] of the ].
	=== Labor theory of value ===

			Some of these are debatable, while others have been clearly proven wrong. This is often cited by critics as evidence that historical materialism is a flawed theory. Communists reply with two arguments: The first is that there were a number of major events and trends over the past century and a half which Marx could not have predicted: ], ], the rise of ] and ] in the West (that introduced the concept of ], thereby narrowing the gap between rich and poor), ] and finally the ]. In response, critics maintain that if so many unpredictable events have happened in the past, then an equal number could happen in the future, and therefore historical materialism is not a reliable method of making predictions.
	Fundamental to Marxist theory is the ]. It claims that the value (or, to be more exact, ]) of an item is determined by the ] required to produce it. In other words, the greater the amount of work necessary to produce an object, the greater the value of that object. This implies that value is ], and that it may not be reflected by the ] of the object in question (since price is determined by ], and is not linked to the amount of necessary work that must be expended to produce the object). The labor theory of value was first fully stated by ], from suggestions by ], and later adopted by ].

			The second communist argument is a specifically ] one. Lenin, in his book '''', argued that capitalism must be viewed as a global phenomenon, and different capitalist countries must not be treated as if they are fully independent entities. Instead, one must look at capitalism worldwide. From this point of view, Lenin goes on to argue that rich, developed capitalist countries "export" their poverty to poorer countries, by turning those countries into colonies (hence 'imperialism') and exploiting them as sources of cheap unskilled labor and resources. Part of the spoils from this exploitation are then shared with the workers from the developed countries, in order to keep their standard of living high and thus avoid revolution at home.
	By contrast, most capitalist economists now use the ], which implies that the only value of an object on which different observers can agree is its price on the market (which is based on the subjective utilities of the participants). Critics of communism hold that the qualifier "socially necessary" in the labor theory of value is not well-defined, and conceals a subjective judgment of necessity.

			The European colonial empires of Lenin's time all dissolved between ] and ] in the ] of the world. Communists maintain that economic exploitation of poor countries continues even in the absence of direct political control (see ] and ]).
	===Marx's predictions===
	Marx made numerous predictions. He thought that the workers would become poorer and poorer as the capitalists exploited them more and more; that differences between the members within each class would become smaller and smaller and the classes would thus become more homogeneous; that the skilled workers would be replaced by unskilled workers doing assembly line work; that relations between the working class and the capitalists would get worse and worse; that the capitalists would become fewer and fewer due to an increasing number of ]; that the capitalist states would become increasingly ]; and that the proletarian revolution would occur first in the most industrialized nations.

			=== Labor theory of value ===
	Some of these are debatable, while others have been clearly proven wrong. This is often cited by critics as evidence that historical materialism is a flawed theory. Communists reply with two arguments: The first is that there were a number of major events and trends over the past century and a half which Marx could not have predicted: ], ], the rise of ] and ] in the West (that introduced the concept of ], thereby narrowing the gap between rich and poor), ] and finally the ]. In response, critics maintain that if so many unpredictable events have happened in the past, then an equal number could happen in the future, and therefore Marxist theory is not a reliable method of making predictions.

			Fundamental to Marxist theory is the ]. It claims that the value (or, to be more exact, ]) of an item is determined by the ] required to produce it. In other words, the greater the amount of work necessary to produce an object, the greater the value of that object. This implies that value is ], and that it may not be reflected by the ] of the object in question (since price is determined by ], and is not linked to the amount of necessary work that must be expended to produce the object). The labor theory of value was first fully stated by ], from suggestions by ], and later adopted by ].
	Lenin noted that the predicted increasing class polarization and communist revolution had failed to occur in the developed world. He then attempted to explain this by stating that ] is the highest stage of capitalism, and that developed countries had created a ] content with capitalism by exploiting the developing world.

			By contrast, most capitalist economists now use the ], which implies that the only value of an object on which different observers can agree is its price on the market (which is based on the subjective utilities of the participants).
	After the Western nations voluntarily gave up their colonies, supporters of communism have attempted to explain this with still another stage, sometimes called ], arguing that the Third World is exploited even without formal empires. For criticism of this, see ].

			Critics of communism hold that the qualifier "socially necessary" in the labor theory of value is not well-defined, and conceals a subjective judgment of necessity.
	=== Pseudoscience ===
	Marxism does not claim be to a ]. However, historical materialism does. ] and others have argued that historical materialism is a ] because it is not ]. Marxists respond that some ]s are not falsifiable, since it is often difficult or outright impossible to test them via ]s (in the way ] can be tested). This is especially true when many people and a long time is involved. Popper agreed on this, but instead used it as an argument against central planning and all ideologies that claim to know the future.
	<!--
	=== Useful idiots ===
	The phrase ] is claimed to have been coined by Vladimir Lenin to describe a person in the West who would endorse the Communist states and their policies in the West. The implication of this was that the person in question was naive, and that he or she was being cynically used by the Communist states. However, Lenin never wrote it in any published document.

	Lenin did state the following:
	:"The so-called cultural element of Western Europe and America are incapable of comprehending the present state of affairs and the actual balance of forces; these elements must be regarded as deaf-mutes and treated accordingly....

	:"A revolution never develops along a direct line, by continuous expansion, but from a chain of outbursts and withdrawals, attacks and lulls, during which the revolutionary forces gain strength in preparation for their final victory....

	:"We must:

	:"(a) In order to placate the deaf-mutes, proclaim the fictional separation of our government ... from the Comintern, declaring this agency to be an independent political group. The deaf- mutes will believe it.

	:"(b) Express a desire for the immediate resumption of diplomatic relations with capitalist countries on the basis of complete non-interference in their internal affairs. Again, the deaf- mutes will believe it. They will even be delighted and fling wide-open their doors through which the emissaries of the Comintern and Party Intelligence agencies will quickly infiltrate into these countries disguised as our diplomatic, cultural, and trade representatives.

	:"Capitalists the world over and their governments will, in their desire to win Soviet market, shut their eyes to the above- mentioned activities and thus be turned into blind deaf-mutes. They will furnish credits, which will serve as a means of supporting the Communist parties in their countries, and, by supplying us, will rebuild our war industry, which is essential for our future attacks on our suppliers. In other words, they will be laboring to prepare their own suicide."(''Stalin : The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives'', 1997, Edvard Radzinsky)(The Lufkin News, King Featurers Syndicate, Inc., 31 July 1962, p. 4, as quoted by the Freeman Report, 30 Sept. 1973, p. 8). .

	According to ] and ], writing in their book ''In Denial: Historians, Communism & Espionage'', many ] studies in the field of ], especially in the area of ] have generally taken a benign view of the Party while minimizing ] atrocities and the ] nature of the movement. Haynes and Klehr attribute the biased stance of these historians, many of whom entered academia during the Vietnam War era, to anti-American and anti-capitalist sentiments. Haynes and Klehr characterize them as ]. There have also been similar criticisms of other fields in academia .
	-->

	== See also ==		== See also ==
	*]		*]
			*]
	*]
	*]

	== References and further reading ==		== References and further reading ==
			===Anti-communist books===
	=== Scholarly references on human rights violations by Communist states ===
	*Applebaum, ~~Anne (2003) ''~~Gulag: A History~~''.~~ Broadway Books. ISBN 0767900561		*Anne Applebaum, <cite>Gulag: A History</cite>, Broadway Books, 2003, hardcover, 720 pages, ISBN 0767900561
	*Becker, Jasper (1998) ''Hungry Ghosts : Mao's Secret Famine''. Owl Books. ISBN 0805056688.		*Becker, Jasper (1998) ''Hungry Ghosts : Mao's Secret Famine''. Owl Books. ISBN 0805056688.
	*Conquest, Robert (1991) ''The Great Terror: A Reassessment''. Oxford University Press ISBN 0195071328.		*Conquest, Robert (1991) ''The Great Terror: A Reassessment''. Oxford University Press ISBN 0195071328.
	*Conquest, Robert (1987) ''The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine''. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195051807.		*Conquest, Robert (1987) ''The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine''. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195051807.
	*Courtois,Stephane; Werth, Nicolas; Panne, Jean-Louis; Paczkowski, Andrzej; Bartosek, Karel; Margolin, Jean-Louis & Kramer, Mark (1999). ''The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression''. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674076087.		*Courtois,Stephane; Werth, Nicolas; Panne, Jean-Louis; Paczkowski, Andrzej; Bartosek, Karel; Margolin, Jean-Louis & Kramer, Mark (1999). ''The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression''. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674076087.
	*Hamilton-Merritt, Jane (1999) ''Tragic Mountains: The Hmong, the Americans, and the Secret Wars for Laos, 1942-1992'' Indiana University Press. ISBN 0253207568.		*Hamilton-Merritt, Jane (1999) ''Tragic Mountains: The Hmong, the Americans, and the Secret Wars for Laos, 1942-1992'' Indiana University Press. ISBN 0253207568.
	*Jackson, Karl D. (1992) ''Cambodia, 1975–1978'' Princeton University Press ISBN 069102541X.		*Jackson, Karl D. (1992) ''Cambodia, 1975–1978'' Princeton University Press ISBN 069102541X.
	*Kakar, M. Hassan (1997)'' Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979-1982'' University of California Press. ISBN 0520208935.		*Kakar, M. Hassan (1997)''Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979-1982'' University of California Press. ISBN 0520208935.
	*Khlevniuk, Oleg & Kozlov, Vladimir (2004) ''The History of the Gulag : From Collectivization to the Great Terror (Annals of Communism Series)'' Yale University Pres. ISBN 0300092849.		*Khlevniuk, Oleg & Kozlov, Vladimir (2004) ''The History of the Gulag : From Collectivization to the Great Terror (Annals of Communism Series)'' Yale University Pres. ISBN 0300092849.
	*Natsios, Andrew S. (2002) ''The Great North Korean Famine''. Institute of Peace Press. ISBN 1929223331.		*Natsios, Andrew S. (2002) ''The Great North Korean Famine''. Institute of Peace Press. ISBN 1929223331.
	*Nghia M. Vo (2004) ''The Bamboo Gulag: Political Imprisonment in Communist Vietnam'' McFarland & Company ISBN 0786417145.		*Nghia M. Vo (2004) ''The Bamboo Gulag: Political Imprisonment in Communist Vietnam'' McFarland & Company ISBN 0786417145.
	*Pipes, Richard (1995) ''Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime''. Vintage. ISBN 0679761845.		*Pipes, Richard (1995) ''Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime''. Vintage. ISBN 0679761845.
	*~~Pipes~~, ~~Richard~~ (~~1991~~) ''~~The~~ ~~Russian~~ ~~Revolution~~''. ~~Vintage~~. ISBN ~~0679736603~~.		*Rummel, R.J. (1997). ''Death by Government.'' Transaction Publishers. ISBN 1560009276.
	*Rummel, R.J. (1996). ''Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917.'' Transaction Publishers ISBN 1560008873.		*Rummel, R.J. (1996). ''Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917.'' Transaction Publishers ISBN 1560008873.
	*~~Todorov~~, ~~Tzvetan~~ & ~~Zaretsky~~, ~~Robert~~ (1999). ''~~Voices~~ ~~from~~ ~~the Gulag~~: ~~Life~~ and ~~Death~~ in ~~Communist~~ ~~Bulgaria~~''. ~~Pennsylvania State University Press.~~ ISBN ~~0271019611~~.		*Rummel, R.J. & Rummel, Rudolph J. (1999). ''Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900.'' Lit Verlag ISBN 3825840107.
			*Todorov, Tzvetan & Zaretsky, Robert (1999). ''Voices from the Gulag: Life and Death in Communist Bulgaria''. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0271019611
	*Van Canh, Nyuyen (1985) ''Vietnam Under Communism, 1975-1982.'' Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 0817978526.
	*Yakovlev, Alexander (2004). ''A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia.'' Yale University Press. ISBN 0300103220.		*Yakovlev, Alexander (2004). ''A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia.'' Yale University Press. ISBN 0300103220.

	== External links ==		== External links ==
			*Anti-communist links:
	=== Criticisms of the Communist states and Marxism ===
			** A Cato institute article, from a Capitalist point of view.
	====Directories====
			** Chinese and general communism analysis
	*
	*		**
			**
	*
	*		**
			**

			*Communists opposed to the 'communist states':
	====Articles====
			**
	*
			***
	*
	*		***
			*** An analysis of ], from a ] point of view.
			**

			*Support for the 'communist states':
	====Online estimates of Communist democide====
			**
	* Note that only some of numbers are totals for the Communist states.
			**

			*Neutral:
	**		**
	**		**
	*
	**
	**
	**
	**

	=== Support for Marxism ===
	====Support for the Communist states====
	*
	*

	====Marxists opposed to the Communist states====
	*
	**
	**
	** An analysis of ], from a ] point of view.
	*

	]		]

Revision as of 15:48, 22 August 2005

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

v t e Communism
Concepts	Anti-capitalism Class conflict Class consciousness Classless society Collective leadership Communist party Communist revolution Communist state Commune Communist society Critique of political economy Free association "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" Market abolitionism Proletarian internationalism Labour movement Social revolution Stateless society Wage slavery Workers' self-management World communism World revolution Dictatorship of the proletariat
Economics	Planned economy Gift economy Common ownership Socialization (Marxism) Economic democracy Use value
Variants	Anarchist Marxism Leninist Libertarian Pre-Marxist Utopian Primitive Religious Christian
History	Communist League First International Second International Third International Fourth International
Organisations	Communist Parties WPC WFTU WFDY IUS WIDF WFSW IOR
People	Mazdak More Meslier Babeuf Marx Engels Morris Kropotkin Malatesta Pannekoek Du Bois Lenin Luxemburg Kollontai Stalin Trotsky Lukács Thälmann Makhno Bukharin Ho Gramsci Tito Togliatti Benjamin Khrushchev Mao Pot Zhou James Padmore Sartre Hoxha Beauvoir Nkrumah Kim Hobsbawm Althusser Freire Pasolini Mandel Aidit Raja Fanon Castro Berger Guevara Guattari Debord Amin Berlinguer Negri Guzmán Badiou Sison Newton Ali Davis Holloway Hampton Zizek Sankara Öcalan Gordillo Gilmore Marcos Hardt Dean Graeber Lordon Kelley Fisher Prashad Hatherley Moufawad-Paul Saito
By region	Brazil Britain Cambodia Colombia France India Kerala Korea Nepal Peru Philippines Poland Soviet Union Sumatra Vietnam
Symbols	Hammer and sickle Red flag (politics) Red star "The Internationale" "Workers of the world, unite!"
Criticism	Anti-communism Communist propaganda Criticism of communist party rule Criticism of Marxism
Related topics	21st-century communist theorists Anti anti-communism Anti-communist mass killings Anti-fascism Communitarianism Crimes against humanity Genocide Mass killings under communist regimes Internationalism Intentional community Left-wing politics Old Left New Left LGBTQ rights Marx's theory of alienation National communism Romania Red Scare Revolutionary socialism Socialist economics Socialist mode of production Trade union War communism Worker cooperative
Communism portal Socialism portal

Note that communism is a branch of socialism. This article only discusses criticisms that are specific to communism and not other forms of socialism. See criticisms of socialism for a discussion of objections to socialism in general.

Note also that communism and related words are written with the uppercase "C" when they refer to a political party of that name, a member of that party, or a government led by such a party. When written as a common noun, with a lowercase "c", they refer to a future condition of classless stateless community, or to the doctrine that such a condition is desirable and achievable.

Criticisms of Communism can be divided in two broad categories: Those concerning themselves with the practical aspects of 20th century Communist states, and those concerning themselves with communist principles and theory. The two categories are almost entirely distinct: One may agree with communist principles but disagree with many policies adopted by Communist states (and this is quite common among communists, particularly in the case of Trotskyists), or, more rarely, one may agree with policies adopted by Communist states but disagree with communist principles.

20th century Communist states

Strictly speaking, the term "Communist state" is an oxymoron, since the communists themselves define communism as a social system that has abolished private property, social classes, and the state itself. No country or government ever called itself a "Communist state"; however, various states gave the Communist Party a special status in their constitution and laws. During the Cold War, the term was current in the West to refer to single-party states where the ruling party officially proclaimed its adherence to Marxism-Leninism. It is these "Communist states" that are the targets of criticism presented below.

For related information, see the discussion regarding the definition of a Communist state.

No Communist state claimed to have attained communism, the social system, but all of them planned to do so in the not unreasonably distant future; Khrushchev, for example, forecast that communism would be reached in 1980, some quarter century later. The states which no longer exist never did reach communism, and none of the remaining ones seem likely to do so soon.

Anti-communist critique of Communist states

Censorship, personality cults, and foreign policy

The Communist states often practice censorship. The level of censorship varies widely between different states and historical periods, but it nearly always exists to a greater or lesser extent. The most rigid censorship has been practiced by hardline Stalinist and Maoist regimes, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin (1927–53), China during the Cultural Revolution (1966–76), and North Korea during its entire existence (1948–present). This censorship takes various forms:

Censorship of the arts, for example by allowing only Socialist realism. Some Communist states have also been involved in the destruction of cultural heritage: Romania (planned destruction of historical centres of most towns—partially achieved in Bucharest), China (repression of Tibetan culture, destruction of cultural artifacts during the Cultural Revolution) and the Soviet Union (destruction, abandonment or reconversion of religious buildings) are the most cited examples.
Censorship of science. One example is censorship and revisionism of history. In the Soviet Union, between the late 1920s and early 1960s, research was suppressed in biology and genetics (Lysenkoism), linguistics (Japhetic theory), cybernetics, psychology and psychiatry, and even organic chemistry. In some Communist states it was common practice to classify internal critics of the system as having a mental disease, like sluggishly progressing schizophrenia—which was a disease only recognized in Communist states—and incarcerating them in mental hospitals. See also Suppressed research in the Soviet Union.
Censorship of dissent. Many of Communist states use an extensive network of civilian informants to spy on their peers. This creates a society where no one would dare criticize the government in public (and, in extreme cases, not even in private), for fear that they might be reported to the secret police.

Both anti-Communists and Communists have criticized the personality cults of many leaders of Communist states, and the hereditary leadership of North Korea. Milovan Djilas and others have also argued that a powerful new class of party bureaucrats emerged under Communist Party rule, and exploited the rest of the population. A Czech proverb observed, "Under capitalism, man exploits man; under Communism, it's the other way around." (See also nomenklatura.)

The Communist states also typically suppress mass dissent. Internal uprisings were forcibly suppressed in the Kronstadt rebellion and the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. There is widespread agreement that the Soviet Union intervened three times in neighboring countries to crush popular uprisings against a Communist state: the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Prague spring and the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. These invasions have also been criticized as naked imperialism.

Restrictions on emigration are also widely seen as a mechanism for suppressing dissent. The Berlin wall was one of the most famous examples of this, but North Korea still imposes a total ban on emigration (reported on PBS's program Frontline) and Cuba's restrictions are routinely criticized by the Cuban-American community.

Human rights violations

Large scale human rights violations occurred in Communist states. The most common of these were restrictions on freedom of speech (in the form of censorship, discussed above). Such restrictions existed, to a greater or lesser degree, in nearly all Communist states during most of their existence. Usually, newly established Communist states maintained or tightened the level of censorship that was present in those countries before the Communists came to power; indeed, the Communists themselves had most often been the targets of this previous censorship. As a result, after coming to power, they argued that they wanted to fight the former ruling class using its own weapons, either as a form of vengeance or to prevent it from staging a counter-revolution.

However, some Communist states - particularly the regimes of Stalin and Mao - engaged in far more severe human rights violations. Most prominent were deaths due to executions, forced labor camps, genocides of certain ethnic minorities, and mass starvations caused by either government mismanagement or deliberately. The exact number of deaths caused by these regimes is somewhat disputed, but extensive historical research shows at least tens of millions (see, e.g., the estimates reached in The Black Book of Communism and the references below). It is interesting to note that this figure far exceeds the number of deaths under fascist regimes during the twentieth century (including Nazi Germany).

Lesser violations include religious and ethnic persecutions, systematic use of torture as part of police procedure, lack of democracy, and the fact that workers were not allowed to join free labor unions.

Some advocates of Communist states find this approach simplistic, noting that executions, forced labor camps, the repression of ethnic minorities, and mass starvation were patterns in both Russian and Chinese history before their respective Communist revolutions. Critics argue that past evils in an old regime cannot be used to justify new ones, while advocates reply that they only seek to put the events into perspective, not justify them.

Economic and social development

Advocates of Communist states often praise them for having leapt ahead of contemporary capitalist countries in certain areas, for example by offering guaranteed employment, health care and housing to their citizens. Critics typically condemn Communist states by the same criteria, claiming that all lag far behind the industrialized West in terms of economic development and living standards.

Central economic planning has in certain instances produced dramatic advances, including rapid development of heavy industry during the 1930s in the Soviet Union and later in their space program. Another example is the development of the pharmaceutical industry in Cuba. Early advances in the status of women were also notable, especially in Islamic areas of the Soviet Union. See Gregory J. Massell, The Surrogate Proletariat: Moslem Women and Revolutionary Strategies in Soviet Central Asia: 1919–1929, Princeton University Press, 1974, hardcover, 451 pages, ISBN 069107562X. However, the Soviet Union did not achieve the same kind of development in agriculture (forcing the Soviet Union to become a net importer of cereals after the Second World War). Other Communist states, such as Laos, Vietnam or Maoist China, continued in poverty; China has only achieved high rates of growth after introducing free market economic reforms — a sign, claim the critics, of the superiority of capitalism. Another example is Czechoslovakia, which was among world's most developed industrial countries prior to World War II, but fell behind the West in the post-war era.

Both critics and supporters also make comparisons between particular Communist and capitalist countries: Critics prefer to compare East and West Germany; supporters prefer to compare Cuba to Jamaica or Central America. All such comparisons are open to challenge, both on the comparability of the states involved and the statistic being used for comparison. No two countries are identical; the western parts of Germany were more developed and industrialized than the eastern parts long before the Cold War and the creation of two separate German states, and Cuba was likewise more developed than many of its Central American neighbors before the Cuban revolution. Comparison of Cuba to the rest of the Caribbean or Latin America has a special problem: Cuba is the only Latin American country to have been Communist for forty years; it is also the only Latin American country to have been for forty years under embargo by its largest neighbor and geographically natural trading partner. Deconfounding those two uniquenesses is beyond the reach of honest statistics.

Communist states often engaged in rapid industrialization, and in some cases this has lead to environmental disasters. The most cited example is the disappearance of the Aral Sea in today's Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, which is believed to have been caused by the diversion of the waters of its two affluent rivers for cotton production. The Caspian Sea has also been diminishing; in addition, there was significant pollution of the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea, and the unique freshwater environment of Lake Baikal. In 1988 only 20% of the sewage in the Soviet Union was treated properly. Established health standards for air pollution were exceeded by ten times or more in 103 cities in 1988. In Eastern Europe, air pollution is cited as the cause of forest die-back, damage to buildings and cultural heritages, and a rise in the occurence of lung cancer. According to official sources, 58 percent of the total agricultural land of the former Soviet Union was affected by salinization, erosion, acidity, or waterlogging. Nuclear waste was dumped in the Sea of Japan, the Arctic Ocean, and in locations in the Far East. It was revealed in 1992 that in the city of Moscow there were 636 radioactive toxic waste sites and 1,500 in St. Petersburg. However, many of these ecological problems continued unabated after the fall of the Soviet Union and are still major issues today - which has prompted many supporters of communist states to accuse their opponents of holding a double standard.

Technological progress in the Communist states was sometimes highly uneven, in the sense that some sectors surged ahead while others lagged behind. As noted above, the Soviet space program saw remarkable progress; so did pure science (in fields not blighted by ideological pressure), mathematics, and military technology. Consumer products, on the other hand, were typically several years behind their Western counterparts. According to the CIA , a number of Soviet products were in fact using Western technology, which had been either legally purchased or obtained through espionage. This situation has been largely attributed to the fact that economic planners in the Soviet Union and elsewhere were accountable to the government, but, in the absence of democracy, they were not accountable to the people. Thus, their plans tended to focus on long-term goals and scientific and military development, rather than the immediate needs of the population.

Life expectancy has increased in fits and starts in the West. The latest of these began about 1970, and largely consists of improvements in cardiovascular medicine. Demographic studies (including this one) have concluded that the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe did not partake of this increase, as they had in the earlier ones; male life expectancies even decreased by a year - leading to a large gap between East and West by 1990. Since a market economy was introduced, a sharp decline in life expectancy was noted in the countries of the former Soviet Union. This decline has accelerated in Russia and Ukraine; in the Baltic republics life expectancy may have started to increase. In Eastern Europe, after 1990, the decline continued most notably in Romania, but life expectancy eventually began to increase in many of the other countries in the region. All these developments give information on post-Soviet capitalism, especially the economy of Russia, as well as on the policies of the Communist states.

Supporters of the Communist states note their social and cultural programs, sometimes administered by labor organizations. Universal education programs have been a strong point, as has the generous provision of universal health care. They point out the high levels of literacy enjoyed by Eastern Europeans (in comparison, for instance, with Southern Europe), Cubans or Chinese. Western critics charge that Communist compulsory education was replete with pro-Communist propaganda and censored opposing views.

Communist and Left critique of Communist states

Not all those who criticize Communist states are anti-communists. Some are communists themselves, who disagree with some or most of the actions undertaken by communist states during the 20th century. Many of the anti-communist criticisms presented in the above section (for example, criticisms of violations of human rights) are shared by the communist critics. Criticisms of Communist states from the Left began very soon after the creation of the first such state. Bertrand Russell visited Russia in 1920, and regarded the Bolsheviks as intelligent, but clueless and planless. Emma Goldman condemned the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion as a 'massacre'.

One specifically communist critique, however, is the allegation that the "Communist states" of the 20th century grossly violated communist principles, and were therefore only partially communist at best or completely un-communist at worst.

Firstly, all communists agree that democracy (the rule of the people) is a key element of both socialism and communism - though they may disagree on the particular form that this democracy should take. The leaders of the Communist states themselves frequently announced their support for democracy, held regular elections and sometimes even gave their countries names such as the "German Democratic Republic" or the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Supporters of communist states have always argued that those states were democratic. However, critics point out that, in practice, one political party held an absolute monopoly on power, dissent was banned, and the elections usually featured a single candidate and were ripe with fraud (often producing implausible results of 99% in favor of the candidate). Thus, communist critics of Communist states argue that, in practice, these states were not democratic and therefore not communist or socialist.

A lack of democracy implies a lack of a mandate from the people; as such, communist critics argue that the leadership of Communist states did not represent the interests of the working class, and it should therefore be no wonder that this leadership took actions that directly harmed the workers (for example Mao's Great Leap Forward). In particular, Communist states banned independent labor unions, an act seen by many communists (and most others on the political left) as an open betrayal of the working class.

Trotskyists, in particular, have argued that Stalin transformed the Soviet Union into a bureaucratic and repressive state, and that all subsequent communist states ultimately turned out similar because they copied his example (Stalinism). There are various terms used by Trotskyists to define such states; see state capitalism, degenerated workers' state and deformed workers' state.

While Trotskyists are Leninists, there are other communists who embrace classical Marxism and reject Leninism entirely, arguing, for example, that the Leninist principle of democratic centralism was the source of the Soviet Union's slide away from communism.

Finally, it should be noted that many of these communist criticisms draw counter-criticisms from anti-communists, many of whom have attempted to establish a direct link between communist principles and the actions of Communist states. Ultimately, this comes down to a fundamental disagreement between communists and anti-communists as to what those 'communist principles' actually are. A glaring example is the issue of democracy: Communists claim that democracy is an essential part of their principles, while anti-communists claim that it is not.

In addition to Communism, the names of several other ideologies and political systems have been used by governments or political parties whose policies are widely regarded as being contrary to the basic principles of those ideologies or systems. The Democratic Republic of the Congo or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), for example, are universally regarded as highly undemocratic. Likewise, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia shares virtually nothing with the ideology of liberalism.

Marxist theory

See Criticisms of socialism for a general critique of socialism. The following sections of this article deal with criticisms that are specifically raised against Marxist theory.

Historical materialism

Historical materialism is normally considered one of the intellectual foundations of Marxism. It looks for the causes of developments and changes in human history in economic, technological, and more broadly, material factors, as well as the clashes of material interests among tribes, social classes and nations.

Critics argue that it ignores other causes of historical and social change, like biology, genetics, philosophy, art, religion, or other causes that are not "materialist" according to Marxists. Some, such as Karl Popper and others, have also argued that Historical materialism is a pseudoscience because it is not falsifiable. Marxists respond that social sciences in general are largely not falsifiable, since it is often difficult or outright impossible to test them via experiments (in the way hard science can be tested).

Based on historical materialism, Marx made numerous predictions. For example, he argued that the workers would become poorer and poorer as the capitalists exploited them more and more; that differences between the members within each class would become smaller and smaller and the classes would thus become more homogeneous; that the skilled workers would be replaced by unskilled workers doing assembly line work; that relations between the working class and the capitalists would get worse and worse; and that the capitalists would become fewer and fewer due to an increasing number of monopolies. (The capitalist economists of his time, such as David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, would have agreed with most of these predictions, at least as the most likely forecast of events; although they deduced the iron law of wages from Malthus's forecast of population increasing to the point of subsistence, rather than the exploitation of the capitalist system.

Some of these are debatable, while others have been clearly proven wrong. This is often cited by critics as evidence that historical materialism is a flawed theory. Communists reply with two arguments: The first is that there were a number of major events and trends over the past century and a half which Marx could not have predicted: imperialism, World War I, the rise of social democracy and Keynesian economics in the West (that introduced the concept of redistribution of wealth, thereby narrowing the gap between rich and poor), World War II and finally the Cold War. In response, critics maintain that if so many unpredictable events have happened in the past, then an equal number could happen in the future, and therefore historical materialism is not a reliable method of making predictions.

The second communist argument is a specifically Leninist one. Lenin, in his book Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, argued that capitalism must be viewed as a global phenomenon, and different capitalist countries must not be treated as if they are fully independent entities. Instead, one must look at capitalism worldwide. From this point of view, Lenin goes on to argue that rich, developed capitalist countries "export" their poverty to poorer countries, by turning those countries into colonies (hence 'imperialism') and exploiting them as sources of cheap unskilled labor and resources. Part of the spoils from this exploitation are then shared with the workers from the developed countries, in order to keep their standard of living high and thus avoid revolution at home.

The European colonial empires of Lenin's time all dissolved between 1947 and 1998 in the decolonization of the world. Communists maintain that economic exploitation of poor countries continues even in the absence of direct political control (see globalization and anti-globalization).

Labor theory of value

Fundamental to Marxist theory is the labor theory of value. It claims that the value (or, to be more exact, use-value) of an item is determined by the socially necessary labour time required to produce it. In other words, the greater the amount of work necessary to produce an object, the greater the value of that object. This implies that value is objective, and that it may not be reflected by the price of the object in question (since price is determined by supply and demand, and is not linked to the amount of necessary work that must be expended to produce the object). The labor theory of value was first fully stated by David Ricardo, from suggestions by Adam Smith, and later adopted by Karl Marx.

By contrast, most capitalist economists now use the utility theory of value, which implies that the only value of an object on which different observers can agree is its price on the market (which is based on the subjective utilities of the participants).

Critics of communism hold that the qualifier "socially necessary" in the labor theory of value is not well-defined, and conceals a subjective judgment of necessity.

References and further reading

Anti-communist books

Anne Applebaum, Gulag: A History, Broadway Books, 2003, hardcover, 720 pages, ISBN 0767900561
Becker, Jasper (1998) Hungry Ghosts : Mao's Secret Famine. Owl Books. ISBN 0805056688.
Conquest, Robert (1991) The Great Terror: A Reassessment. Oxford University Press ISBN 0195071328.
Conquest, Robert (1987) The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195051807.
Courtois,Stephane; Werth, Nicolas; Panne, Jean-Louis; Paczkowski, Andrzej; Bartosek, Karel; Margolin, Jean-Louis & Kramer, Mark (1999). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674076087.
Hamilton-Merritt, Jane (1999) Tragic Mountains: The Hmong, the Americans, and the Secret Wars for Laos, 1942-1992 Indiana University Press. ISBN 0253207568.
Jackson, Karl D. (1992) Cambodia, 1975–1978 Princeton University Press ISBN 069102541X.
Kakar, M. Hassan (1997)Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979-1982 University of California Press. ISBN 0520208935.
Khlevniuk, Oleg & Kozlov, Vladimir (2004) The History of the Gulag : From Collectivization to the Great Terror (Annals of Communism Series) Yale University Pres. ISBN 0300092849.
Natsios, Andrew S. (2002) The Great North Korean Famine. Institute of Peace Press. ISBN 1929223331.
Nghia M. Vo (2004) The Bamboo Gulag: Political Imprisonment in Communist Vietnam McFarland & Company ISBN 0786417145.
Pipes, Richard (1995) Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime. Vintage. ISBN 0679761845.
Rummel, R.J. (1997). Death by Government. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 1560009276.
Rummel, R.J. (1996). Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917. Transaction Publishers ISBN 1560008873.
Rummel, R.J. & Rummel, Rudolph J. (1999). Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900. Lit Verlag ISBN 3825840107.
Todorov, Tzvetan & Zaretsky, Robert (1999). Voices from the Gulag: Life and Death in Communist Bulgaria. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0271019611
Yakovlev, Alexander (2004). A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia. Yale University Press. ISBN 0300103220.

External links

Anti-communist links:
- Capitalism and Human Nature A Cato institute article, from a Capitalist point of view.
- The Epoch Times | Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party Chinese and general communism analysis
- Museum of Communism
- How many did the Communist regimes murder?
- The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation
- End Communism now!

Communists opposed to the 'communist states':
- Marxists Internet Archive
  - History Archive
  - Leon Trotsky Internet Archive
  - The Revolution Betrayed An analysis of Stalinism, from a Trotskyist communist point of view.
- Capitalism versus socialism: The great debate revisited

Support for the 'communist states':
- Another view of Stalin
- From Marx to Mao

Neutral:
- 30 Worst Atrocities of the 20th Century
- Who was the Bloodiest Tyrant of the 20th Century?

Categories: