This would explain why many discussions about communism are fruitless.
If ‘communism’ is ambiguous, so is ‘socialism,’ and the relationship between the two.
Surveying the many possible definitions of ‘communism,’ one sees that most of them fall easily into one of three categories: economic, political, or a mixture of the two.
An economic definition of communism usually includes the communal ownership of the means of production and prohibition of inheritance. A political definition often centers around a command economy and the dictatorship of the proletariat. A mixture of these two approaches includes the power of the state used to enforce the economic doctrines of communism and state ownership as the practical expression of communal ownership.
Amplifying the ambiguities of communism are the adjectives which often precede the noun ‘communism’ — consider: Marxist communism, Stalinist communism, Leninist communism, Maoist communism, and many others.
So far, this survey has considered only modern political communism, of which Karl Marx is usually considered to be the father. The confusion multiplies if one includes ancient and non-political forms of communism.
Hoping to lend clarity, historian Gary Allen writes:
In keeping with the fact that almost everybody seems to have his own definition of Communism, we are going to give you ours.
In most discussions of communism, the tension between “communism in theory” and “communism in practice” is mentioned. While the tension is real, it may not be as significant as is sometimes alleged. Most concrete situations and conditions were anticipated by communist theorists.
Those who advocate communism are aware that resistance will inevitably arise when a doctrine like the abolition of private property is implemented. They are aware that, in order for communism to have even a chance at succeeding, force will need to be directed against such resistance.
Herein lies the question: If force is a necessity in the implementation of communism, then are those who are tasked with applying such force doing so out of an ideological loyalty to communist doctrine, or are they doing so because they see for themselves a chance to gain some amount of power? Gary Allen proposes:
Communism: an international, conspiratorial drive for power on the part of men in high places willing to use any means to bring about their desired aim — global conquest.
Pointing to both the economic and political mechanisms associated with communism, Gary Allen argues that they are the instruments which communism uses, but that they themselves are not communism. He dismisses attention to the details of communist economics as “Gus Hall communism,” in reference to the American communist leader who spent much of his time and energy working with labor unions.
To understand Allen’s point, it is necessary to conclude that the word ‘communism’ itself is a misleading misnomer.
The origin of the word is ‘common,’ as in ‘to have things in common.’ In words like ‘communal’ the same root is obvious.
If, however, the word is a deception, then the reader will see that the leaders of modern political communism use its ideology and nomenclature as camouflage to hide their purpose. Their goal is to obtain and maintain power. Any ostensible concern for people or for ideology merely serves as the justification for their seizure of power.
While there are sincere and good-hearted people who may follow communism out of a desire to make a better or more just world, those who lead the movement demonstrate their motives by their actions.
At this point it is good to emphasize the distinction between communism and movements which claim to be communist. Isolated individuals who read political and economic texts and are willing to consider that the systems proposed in them might be beneficial to humanity are, if those texts are the texts of Marx and his followers, communists.
But the leaders of political parties, nation-states, and revolutions show their lack of belief in communism, even as they constantly and loudly proclaim that they are the representatives of true communism, as Gary Allen explains:
You will notice that we did not mention Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, bourgeois, proletariat or dialectical materialism. We said nothing of the pseudo-economics or political philosophy of the Communists. These are the techniques of Communism and should not be confused with the Communist conspiracy itself. We did call it an international conspiratorial drive for power. Unless we understand the conspiratorial nature of Communism, we don’t understand it at all. We will be eternally fixated at the Gus Hall level of Communism. And that’s not where it’s at, baby!
To explicate, one might note the historical examples of Lenin and Stalin. In these examples, the tension between “communism in theory” and “communism in practice” shows itself to be a necessary and inevitable conflict. Lenin, whose detailed writings reveal his mastery of communist economics, abandoned those ideals in his “New Economic Policy.”
After leading a communist revolution, Lenin implemented communist policies in the Soviet Union. The result was misery and hardship for the lower and middle classes. Lenin saw that communist economic thought, when applied, was driving the Soviet Union into deeper and deeper poverty. The only way to save the country, he wrote, was his New Economic Policy, in which “a free market and capitalism” are “permitted and are developing.” Further, he announced that “socialized state enterprises are being put on what is called a profit basis, i.e., they are being reorganized on commercial lines.”
In sum, Lenin, while still claiming to be the leader of a communist movement, and while still claiming to be an expert on communist ideology, took actions which were clearly and diametrically opposed to any concept of communism.
Likewise, Stalin at first implemented communist thought by closing churches, imprisoning or executing Christians, forbidding study of the New Testament, and using propaganda and indoctrination to work toward the goal of statist atheism. Yet by 1942, it was clear that a general demoralization of the people in the Soviet Union was underway: a loss of confidence and hope. This was seen, e.g., in the early days of the Battle of Stalingrad. Needing to find a source of encouragement for the people, Stalin abruptly reversed his policies and acted directly against communist doctrine by releasing Christians from work camps, reopening churches, and urging the people to find reassurance in spiritual faith.
So Stalin, like Lenin, pragmatically acted against communist theory.
The actions of Lenin and Stalin reveal both that they did not fully trust or believe in communist theory, and that they were driven to act in ways which would secure their hold on power rather than ways which would fulfill communist theory.
In the first decades of the twenty-first century, there are leaders of movements, political parties, and nations who declare themselves to be true representatives of authentic communism. If circumstances arise in which their hold on power is threatened, will they also depart from communist orthodoxy, thereby revealing that they, too, value their own power more than communist ideology?
Communism and those who sincerely embrace it as a way to improve the world may unwittingly provide a facade behind which lies nothing other than a desire for power and control.
