21 responses

  1. Paul Higgins
    August 1, 2012

    Please stop promoting the misquote “Communism is the realisation of a Stateless society where all are equal” which is often used as the biggest flaw in Marxism; the actual quote is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Not quite the same.

    It is perfectly obvious that your article is written to appear fair and unbiased, but anybody with a little intelligence can see it is a condemnation of Marxism and Communism, veiled in an ‘explanation’ of why they are the same, as you tend to keep repeating.

    Reply

    • Alexander
      February 28, 2013

      And the contradictory nature of his wording. Somehow Marxim, the “theory,” becomes the framework by which Communism is implemented though Communism is the implementation of the theory of Marxism, at least according to the author. That gave me a good chuckle.

      Reply

      • Truth teller
        January 24, 2018

        The only contradiction here is going on in your own brain. How’s that for something to chuckle about?

        You’re desperate to see fault where there is none. Your charge is so baseless that I’m left uncertain your comment is even an organic espousal of analysis, but rather a preferential misdirection of the information at hand (Marxist shill?).

        And if you sincerely are as inept as your comment suggests, I will have you know that a theory IS framework.

        Reply

      • Taylor
        May 27, 2018

        It is a narrow explanation and isn’t that factual. Keep ad hominem out of it, there are clear and obvious issues with this text — which have been explained in the comment section.

        Reply

      • Mo
        January 5, 2019

        I don’t see how the comparison is so difficult to understand, for some people. Karl Marx founded Marxism, which is the idea behind communism.

        Marxism = his vision.
        Communism = his vision put to work.

        SIMPLE…

        Reply

  2. Alexander
    February 28, 2013

    You say that Marxism is the theory while Communism is the implementation of Marxism, but then you stress that Marxism is the framework by which communism develops such that communism becomes the theory and Marxism the implementation of communism, which is obviously contradictory. As well, Marx did not create communism, but blended portions of communism, socialism, Hegelianism, Feurbachism, Engelism, and a number of other ideologies combined to create what is now known as Marxism. The difference, and yes there is one and perhaps many, between communism and Marxism is that communism far preceded Marxism historically and when it did exist, it lacked the philosophic input of Marx and was simply a community (the word from whence communism derives) of people sharing property, goods, and labour without capital or a the notion of private property. This especially obvious with the Native Americans, but also of African tribalism, and ancient Druid societies in Britain as well as other historical communal societies (i.e. communism) throughout the world and history. In fact, even the early Christians lived in a communal societies and today, monasteries are examples of functioning communism, albeit not Marxism. The great difference then is that Marxism is a philosophic ideology that goes beyond simple commune living and explain the alienation capitalism creates in a number of areas for an individual, the faults of private property, of capital, and of class, the benefits of communism over capitalism, the faults of religion and the benefits of a merger between communism and atheism, and many other things that make it quite distinct from the overall broad notion of communism which simply espouses communal living without any hierarchical structure based on property ownership or fictitious capital, though in many communist societies tribal chiefs are revered and sought for advice and wisdom creating a hierarchy based on spiritualism, which Marx would oppose. A reading of “The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” “The Communist Manifesto,” and “Capital” may help you better understand where you are wrong, which is essentially everywhere.

    Reply

    • Carole
      October 4, 2013

      The early church in Jerusalem did put all their money and goods together. Their problem: they did not do well, and all the other churches that had money sent support to Jerusalem.

      Reply

      • Bruce427
        July 19, 2014

        >> The early church in Jerusalem did put all their money and goods together.

        ** The early church in Jerusalem did put all their money and goods together. **

        It is also true that they did so voluntarily; it was not forced upon them by the State.

        I have also observed that the leaders of Communist regimes tend to exempt themselves (and their officials) from the tenet: “From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs” as most appear to be (have been) wealthy.

        When the old Communist bloc fell, it was discovered that there were State-run stores where high-ranking party officials could purchase Western goods (designer jeans, CD/DVD players, appliances, etc. not available to the common person) at government subsidized prices.

        It appears to me that Communism is just as susceptible to corruption as any other system of managing the population.

        Reply

    • Carole
      October 4, 2013

      I believe the Pilgrims or maybe the Puritans began as a socialist society and had to change because it did not work. Nobody worked very hard because they all shared everything. They changed to individual ownership and businesses, etc. (capitalism), and began to flourish. That’s the problem, if you don’t have to work to get what you need, many will work just enough to get by. Too bad, but that is how people are, generally speaking–with some exceptions.

      Reply

      • Jules
        March 19, 2018

        This is a false bit of history. The problem with your comment is you’re assigning broad labels to specific periods in history. As a matter of fact, you list the necessities of community organization for the good of all who must trade unique, individual skills to survive as socialism.

        You might try reading the Preamble to our Constitution.

        Reply

      • Tony Venuti
        September 14, 2018

        the pilgrims in fact started out as equal share….no matter the work done…it turned out to be a disaster….when William Bradford, one of their leaders determined to give all an equal amount of acreage to do as they please…

        the bounty that came from the decision was essentially the birth of capitalism…in the US of A

        Reply

  3. James Newbold
    November 13, 2013

    There is no communist country that has succeeded in bringing about equality. Karl Marx wanted equality, but Mao and Stalin destroyed lives and brought about great poverty supposedly trying to achieve this equality. Marx’s views were corrupted and manipulated, resulting in catastrophe. Marx wanted the best for everyone, not totalitarian China.

    Reply

    • Taylor
      May 27, 2018

      Marx wasn’t correct about a great deal, especially with the utopia which Communism was supposed to bring. Orthodox Marxism which seemingly draws its inspiration from the Manifesto (and not the later writing of Marx or other Marxist) is extremely problematic.

      Reform happens to every ideology and Communism in practice leads to authoritarianism, lack of human rights, and a wealth of corruption.

      Reply

    • T. Challenger
      November 28, 2018

      Marx wanted the best for everyone? Ha haaah, then why didn’t he pay his tradesmen’s bills (butcher, baker etc)? Why did he never once visit Eagle’s mills to at least talk to workers and see what they wanted? Yes, the very mills that whose dividends supported Marx, who was utterly incapable of earing anything.

      Marx, like his acolyte Stalin (the perfect Communist) cared nothing for people in reality. All theory.

      Reply

    • T. Challenger
      November 28, 2018

      Marx wanted the best for everyone? Ha haaah, then why didn’t he pay his tradesmen’s bills (butcher, baker etc)? Why did he never once visit Engle’s mills to at least talk to workers and see what they wanted? Yes, the very mills that whose dividends supported Marx, who was utterly incapable of earing anything.

      Marx, like his acolyte Stalin (the perfect Communist) cared nothing for people in reality. All theory.

      Reply

    • Mo
      January 5, 2019

      The problem is that the citizens are too selfish to implement such a strict philosophy. The people in charge usually turn into dictators, as a result of a corrupt population. A dictator is a ruling class, which goes against the nature of communism and Marxism. People are inherently corrupt. So, true communion has never and probably will never be achieved.

      Reply

  4. Jack Smythe
    August 20, 2014

    Wrong!!!!
    Communism- the state owns and dictates all!
    Marxism-the people own and dictate all!
    Suggested reading- The Communist Manifesto

    Reply

    • Logan Davis
      October 4, 2015

      False. Communism is the system where everyone works as much as they can, but (unlike capitalism) they get everything they need (because everyone is producing in their fields.), there is no state (as stated in the COMMUNIST manifesto, no countries, no nations, no social classes, and thus no exploitation. Money would become worthless. Socialism the the system where there IS social class, money, buying and selling, nations, countries, and the state. Marxism is the idea that Socialism is the bridge between communism and capitalism and that society will eventually cross that bridge.

      By the way, the USSR and the eastern bloc were State Capitalist, as socialism died during Lenin’s NEP (which Stalin kept in place.).

      Reply

      • Taylor
        May 27, 2018

        You’re both incorrect, you may want to read past the Manifesto to understand the details of Marxism and the different ideological wings of it.

        Marxism thought has brought about Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism. Even Marx walked back his thoughts on the need of violence in order for reform to occur. The Manifesto was his early work and his thoughts developed.

        Also, do not defend leaders like Stalin. He, Pol Pot, and Mao were genocidal authoritarians who were following early Marxism where the Manifesto was born.

        Reply

    • Sundar
      February 19, 2018

      Whether Marxism succeeded?
      With out a state how people dictate? To implement Marxism , need a mechanism!
      With out a leadership structure can we implement a mechanism?
      Can any one give assurance about a non corrupt practices??

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top
mobile desktop