Communism
Sub-Ideologies
| sub-Ideology (Name and Icon) | Description | Followers |
|---|---|---|
 |
Bolshevism is a term referring to former General Secretary and de facto leader of the Soviet Union Nikolai Bukharin's codification of his version of Leninism. While still calling for the violent overthrow of capitalism and a revolutionary dictatorship, it stresses freedom of socialist thought and political pluralism within the vanguard party itself, a pluralistic cultural sphere with minimal state interference, and an overall cautious, measured, and pedagogical attitude towards the construction of a communist society, holding that the people should learn to support socialism on their terms and that coercive or militaristic methods to accomplish such will be both inhumane and counterproductive. In the Soviet Union itself, this led Bukharin and his faction of the Communist Party to controversially back the continuation of the NEP and independent peasant agriculture, believing that forced collectivization as hardline figures advocated would be tantamount to "waging war on the population. With the overthrow of Bukharin by Joseph Stalin in 1942, and the subsequent total disintegration of the Union over the next three years, Bolshevism stands in an unclear position. A cadre of fringe figures associated with Stalin, and the various remnant warlords claiming his legacy, blame its relative liberalism for the devastating defeat of the Union in the war and the apocalyptic consequences thereof, an argument widely rejected by historians of the subject. Most communist parties internationally still adhere to Bolshevism's principles, although with many different directions ranging from electoralist quasi-reformism to radical left-communist positions that still value pluralism. | Stanisław Radkiewicz |
 |
Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin was one of many contenders to succeed Lenin as leader of the Soviet Union. While agreeing with Bukharin on the principle of "Socialism in One Country", he rejected the market-driven development of the New Economic Policy. Instead, he believed that the State should exercise total control over the economy to spur on rapid development of industrial and agricultural production. Private enterprise could never be trusted to develop a fully socialist state, and therefore all industry and agriculture ought to be collectivized and directed by Communist Party central planners to achieve the Union's goals. A key corollary to this policy is that, far from withering away after the revolution as the old Leninists believed, the State must indeed be strengthened a thousandfold to implement a full transition to a communist society. This was heresy to the likes of Bukharin, who would triumph over Stalin in the succession struggle. Yet, perhaps surprisingly, Stalin gradually returned to prominence - first in the flesh, when he played a critical role in the last years of the USSR, and then with his ideas. His rump government may have proven no more successful than Bukharin's, but its state-oriented and exportable doctrines have allowed its grasp to spread around the world, even eclipsing Bukharinite Bolshevism in certain areas. Just as the Soviet Union fell to internal strife, its very ideology is now split in twain, and defined by mutual disdain. | Pietro Secchia |
 |
Espousing what they claim to be the most purely Marxist doctrine, Left Communists reject nearly all major political developments that have occurred since the death of Lenin, and even some during his life. This isn't of course to say that they are entirely bound to doctrines as described in the writings of Marx and Engels, but they do seek to remain as close to its spirit as possible, even at the expense of effectiveness in the moment. A rejection of parliamentary politics entirely, a defiance of vanguard party organization and its democratic pretenses, and a firm belief in the revolution as a historical inevitability characterize the Left Communism movement. This adherence to anti-populist attitudes and a focus on theory over praxis inspires no small degree of ridicule from their fellow leftists, but given how well history has treated them so far, Left Communists rarely feel threatened by these "opportunists" as they are often called.Despite stereotypes and criticisms to that effect, Left Communists are not simply idle or lazy, awaiting for an "organic" revolution that will never come. But rather, their preparation involves planning rather than giving grand speeches, learning and studying rather than waving guns and standing on soapboxes. If knowing is half the battle, then the Left Communists have already won. It is, after all, simply a matter of time. | Onorato Damen |
 |
Stratocratic Communism arises from both circumstance and ideological drive. Despite loathing of conventional armies being common in the far-left, that sentiment typically dies out once a military apparatus is secured, and nothing has ever barred military men from adhering to that side of politics to begin with. Some men of that sort even indulge in the time-honored tradition of 'theorizing' - and where the ethos of their chosen profession meets Marxist theory, it fuses to create a new mode of thought that few other radical leftists endorse, for reasons which become quite apparent once its tenets are elaborated upon. Foremost of those tenets is stated clearly in its name: the establishment of a revolutionary socialist government composed entirely of military officers and personnel. Detractors call this a cynical power-grab to hijack the revolution, little more than a revisionist junta. Those detractors (prior to their summary execution) would be met by the argument that the armed forces, being assembled from the conscripted proletariat, are the vanguard of the revolution by necessity. Moreover, the regime asserts that perpetual supremacy of the military is paramount to the ultimate triumph of socialism, for if the bourgeoisie cannot be defeated from within, it is the armed workers of the nation who must liberate their oppressed comrades by force. Cries of "Revisionist!" aside, a regime of this type is still ideologically-driven and cannot simply be described as 'apolitical' or a 'junta'. It is committed to communist principles, chief among them absolute control of state, society, and economy by the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. Still, even by the standards of a revolutionary government, Stratocratic Communism is extremely hardline, tolerating no dissent and displaying shameless aggression. Civilian leadership has no place here; only the Revolutionary Army, composed of class-conscious worker-soldiers, can ensure the propagation of the world revolution and the destruction of bourgeois imperialism. | Dmitry Medvedev |
 |
While the Communists may have been defeated in the Second Sino-Japanese War, the ideas of one of their founders, Mao Zedong, have however not disappeared: hiding until the imperial threat falters, waiting for the right moment to strike. Based on the writings Mao wrote during the Long March and his time in the Yan'an Base Area, Mao Zedong Thought borrows elements from a heavily rural-centric form of socialism, but to reduce it as a mere deviation upon it would be a mistake. Following in the footsteps of such figures as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Bukharin, Mao Zedong Thought relies on a doctrine of internationalism and anti-imperialism, but differs from traditional Bolshevism by placing an emphasis on the rural populace instead of the urban proletariat. In its fight against capitalist domination in countries where ruralism is still prevalent, it calls for revolutionary land reform and for the establishment of a system of New Democracy, adapted to conditions of the country, it also deems guerilla warfare as the best way to conduct the revolutionary struggle, under the form of a "protracted people's war". Mao Zedong Thought is seen by its supporters as the natural continuation of Marxist thought, and thus as the next stage of Bolshevism: its fundamentally anti-imperialist principles have seen it adopted around the world, as oppressed peoples of all stripes begin take up arm against their oppressors. This new, revolutionary deviation of traditional Marxist thought has begun to make its mark throughout world history. | Trường Chinh |
 |
"Among the five pillars of Islam stands the Zakat, the duty of almsgiving. The responsibility to donate a part of one's income to society's less fortunate, it ensures that even the poorest of the poor can live a decent life. After the beginning of the 20th century, such an altruistic worldview was remarked by some thinkers to be quite close to the ideals of socialism, and one thing led to another as Islamic socialism began to take inspiration from Marx's theses to become Islamic Marxism.
Theorized by such thinkers as Ali Shariati, it applies the economical and political systems of marxism into the framework of the Sharia, and tries to enact economic and social equality for all under the guidance of an Islamic state. This means that, unlike more "traditional" socialist ideologies such as Bolshevism, the goals of Islamic Marxism are twofold: materialistic, of course, but also religious. Mostly popular in countries with a majority Muslim population, Islamic Marxism has been making waves in recent years, most notably in Asia and in the Middle East. One could have thought, given the somewhat antireligious nature of Marx's writings, that such an ideology would have already collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions; but for now it shows no signs of decline, and seems poised to live on under the guidance of Allah." |
Fayzulla Khodzhayev |
 |
A split in the Brazilian Communist Party was all it took for a new revolutionary idea to form, and its birth led to a major shift in Latin American socialism. While many communist parties in the continent turn to electoralism, João Amazonas, the chief ideologue of the PCdoB, posits that communists must seek to violently overthrow the capitalist system in a drawn-out "people's war", involving rural guerilla warfare of the masses away from population centers. Officially named "Marxism-Leninism-Amazonism", this movement has its roots in the ideological chaos established after the fall of the Soviet Union, being partially inspired by the failed Chinese revolutionary experience. Amazonism firmly rejects any association with capitalist powers, seeing it as a sign of betrayal of its anti-imperialist ideals, though the movements that follow this line should often collaborate with other revolutionary groups to topple the forces of imperialism. However, Amazonism is usually regarded with distrust by other factions, especially for its disposition towards economic autarky and isolationism in foreign policy. Amazonas claims that only the vanguard party can awaken the masses and raise their consciousness towards revolutionary zeal, rejecting the Guevarist line of decentralized insurgency. While Amazonist groups focus on building rural guerrillas, they do not shy away from integrating themselves into the general labor movements and union structure, sometimes being at the head of many unions' bureaucracy. This bureaucratic aspect may represent a contradiction to Amazonas' fiercest zealots, but this dualism is integral in their fight against right-wing tyranny. | Máximo Antonio López |
 |
Communism has a history in the Middle East that goes back to the days of the Russian Revolution, an ideology adopted and advanced by intelligentsia, workers and the disaffected of the region as early as 1917. The Middle East is an area of the world that has suffered under the heel of European imperialist capitalism in very direct ways starting in the early 20th century, beginning with the carving up of the Ottoman Empire by the victorious Entente after the First World War, and then being upheaved once again by the fascistic Axis after the Second. The attraction to communism in particular is informed by this recent history, and for many, communism forms the crux of resistance against imperialism itself. Much like other regions of the world that have suffered under the thumb of empires, communism in the Middle East began to take on a life and distinction of its own as both grassroots movements and the Arabic intelligentsia put their own spin on traditionally Marxist messaging and ideology specific to their region of the world. For many Arabic Communists, the simple changing of the mode of production was not enough. Arabic Communism not only needs to contend with foreign imperialism, but also with more conservative local leadership with a nationalist bent. To this end, the urban laborers and thinkers of the Middle East often demand change to the social fabric of the Arab World itself, with a particular emphasis on popular movement and social justice alongside political and economic change. The exact degree and character of these demanded reforms varies sharply from country to country, party to party, and even ideologue to ideologue, with Arab Communism encompassing a wide variety of movements and thoughts, from socialistic nationalists who simply want independence and socialism, to some who dream of a united pan-Arab nation to better resist outside interference and imperialist ambitions. | Layla Fakhro |
 |
When Karl Marx penned his fateful works, he imagined a global communist utopia, where workers all over the world would be free, and where the oppression of nationalism would be a distant memory, if that. This mantra was preached over and over again, organizations like the various Internationales grew and grew, and the left began to embrace the whole world in its mission. And it failed. Nikolai Bukharin championed the idea of "Socialism in One Country" when he led the Soviet Union, where a single socialist nation - the USSR - would focus on strengthening itself against reaction before liberating the world. And it failed. But internationalism was never the sole destiny of communism. Another wing had followed it - National Communism, that had posed an answer to the national question - that communism was not the enemy of nationalism. That communism is true nationalism. It is the key to liberation from the twin devils of imperialism and capitalism, who seek to suck nations dry and leave them for dead. National Communists are as diverse as the different nations that host them, from Ukraine to Central Asia to Africa. Some support a loose union of communist states, others are more isolationist, yet they are all united by a common belief in national self-determination, communism, and anti-imperialism. For the oppressed, for the enslaved, for all who suffer under the tyranny of imperialism and capitalism, National Communism is a beacon of hope in a dark, cruel world. And unlike other communist experiments, it may just succeed. | Oleksandr Shumskyi |
 |
Workerism, also known as Marxist Autonomism, is a term used to describe a network of interlinked movements and individuals emerging in the early 1960s in Italy. The original core of Workerism was a group of Marxist intellectuals who engaged in a critical revision of the interpretations of Marx's thought which had been en vogue among communists since Lenin's time. The key idea of workerism is that the traditional communist idea, preaching that the working class struggles are a reaction to capitalist development, is in fact backwards: capitalist development, according to workerists, is a reaction to the struggle of the exploited workers. The working class is thus the "negative engine" of development, and accordingly, all revolutionary strategies must come from and be driven by the working class itself, with no interference from bourgeouis collaborationist unions and certainly not from exploitative vanguard parties. Indeed, the working class should reject any alliance with "progressive" or "empathetic" bourgeoisie. The working class must stand on its own, rely upon itself to seize power, with an emphasis on revolutionary violence and grassroots organization in order to achieve such ends. This dynamic, fresh-faced take on communist ideology has a great deal of pull among younger students and workers, for whom the fires of political and ideological enthusiasm have yet to dim." | |
 |
"Since its foundation, the Ba'athist Movement proclaimed the necessity of popular revolution led by a guiding vanguard party to cleanse the Arab nation of the wretched influence of reactionaries and feudalists and usher in an Arab renaissance and, with it, a new, revolutionary, socialist society. Despite this emphasis on revolution, many among the Ba'ath still view the party's stance as simply too moderate and advocate a more radical synthesis of Ba'athism and Marxist concepts. These aptly named "Revolutionary Ba'athists" critique Michel Aflaq and Salah al-Din al-Bitar's works from a leftist perspective, as opposed to the rightist perspective that would traditionally level criticism and slander against the Ba'ath. In a reversal of traditional Ba'athist perspectives, the Revolutionary Ba'ath would abandon the view that socialism is a method to be utilised in fulfilment of Arab unity. They would instead adopt the position of Arab unity being a method utilised to achieve socialism, declaring an affinity between the Arab revolution and the class struggle, and rejecting the class collaboration espoused by mainstream Ba'athists. Seeing the enactment of quasi-Leninist policy to be essential to the rebirth of the Arab nation in the zealous flames of revolutionary fire, they decry the founding duo's abandonment of Marxist dialectics and instead profess a vision strongly influenced by the theories of Marx, Lenin, Bukharin and other militant revolutionaries from across the spectrum of radical leftist politics. This deviant radicalism is seen most clearly in their frequent clashes with the intellectual orthodoxy of the party over the topic of class and the very definition of socialism." | Salah Jadid |
 |
Ted Grant |