American politicians have used, and abused, political labels, for generations, but, never, have we witnessed, anything like, what we are currently witnessing. Whenever, anyone, automatically, groups many people, together, because of convenience, personal / political agenda, and / or, self – interest, the best interests of the nation, and citizens, is rarely served, effectively! Some terms and labels, often, misused, include: communism; socialism; liberal; progressive, far – left; conservative; neo – con ; fascist; White Supremacist; far – right. Many politicians, do so, in order to articulate, a message, which conjures – up, a less – than – flattering, image, for their political advantage, etc. Unfortunately, many voters, either, do not know, what these labels mean, or don't care, and, thus, there is far, too little, legitimate discussion, and issues are often over – simplified, instead of explored, as they should be! With that in mind, this article will attempt to, briefly, consider, examine, discuss, and review, some of these labels, what they really mean, and how they are manipulated.

1. Communism; socialism: When Karl Marx, used the term, Communism, to describe, his concept, of the ideal economic system, he never envisioned, it would, be transformed, and manipulated, to be considered, a political one! The concept of communism, was, to work together, for the worker's common good, sharing costs, expenses, revenues, and the so – called, fruits of their labor! The closest, there is, today, to this concept, is the Israeli Kibbutz. The Soviet system is more, a totalitarian one, than a Communist ideology. Similarly, Socialism was meant to seek a system, where the weakest, and, most, at – risk, individuals, would be taken care of, by the rest of society. This would be done, by government absorbing the responsibility to absorb the costs and responsibilities of these programs. In the United States, we have, for generations, seen several socialist – style programs, including Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, Medicaid, etc, as well as road maintenance, airport security, police, fire, and emergency care. When President Trump, and his supporters, continuously, call things, Socialist, in a derogatory, threatening manner, in order to scare voters, to vote for them, and equate socialists, and communists, in a scary way, genuine discussion is often curtailed , by this over – simplification!

2. Liberal; progressive; far – left: The philosophies of liberal, versus conservative, were the traditional ones, where liberals were free – spenders, and conservatives, sought a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility! More recently, many liberals have re – labeled, themselves, as progressives, and lumped together, issues, such as health care, human rights, affordable education, women's rights, etc, as core ingredients / components. However, when some, who disagree with this approach, begin, calling those, who do, names such as, Liberal Weanies, Snowflakes, etc, how does that help?

3. Conservative; neo – con ; fascist; White Supremacist; far – right: Traditional conservatives, believed, in responsible spending, and fiscal responsibility! However, the GOP – controlled, Congress, and President Trump, have overseen the largest increase in our federal deficit, in memory! Those, who are referred to, as a neo – con , justify their views, by stating, they are emphasizing certain, so – called, American principles, and the economic / financial realities, involved. We often, use labels, such as fascism, whenever, we witness, a system, where governing, seems to focus on oppression, and limiting rights. Using this label, reminds many of the atrocities, in Italy, under Mussolini. Similarly, equating hate groups, such as White Supremacists, etc, to Nazis (even using the term, neo – Nazi ), focuses on labeling, rather than the inherent challenges, and dangers, any hate groups, present, to others! Extremists, on either end of the political spectrum, are often, referred to, as far – right, or far – left.

Wake up, America, and focus, on what should be, and the freedoms, liberties, and rights, which the nation, and Constitution, were based on, and seek to create a meeting – of – the – minds, for the common good , instead of resorting to labels! If you remember, when we tried to help each other, instead of the self – interests of a minority, and overuse of rhetoric, vitriol, and empty promises, act now, before it's too late!

Americans have no concept of what it means to be persecuted for Christ. We live in a world of superficial Christianity that promotes shallow religious convictions. Thus we lack the courage to be counted. Our political leaders, even those who profess Christianity, promote tolerance to the point of excluding the heart and soul of Christianity. They focus on a world that blends communism, democracy, and religion into a single dull-minded society of political failure.

Personal comfort is the promised Holy Grail. Yet where is the comfort in gasoline that hovers around four dollars per gallon? Where are your jobs? Why is the nation consumed by its own debts? Why do we continue to follow the financial, social, and spiritual advise of failed leaders and failed concepts?

Our grandparents experience a time of social collapse. In the depths of it, they found strength and determination. They set themselves to follow the God of scriptures, and they lived with the expectation of His provisions. They believed and depended upon Jesus Christ as the only living God.

Our parents experienced the beginnings of easy prosperity. They grew selfish and soft. In a very short time, they permitted the foolishness of lost men to strip them of the right to pray in school. They surrendered the right to speak with Christian authority.

We are more timid even than they were. We do not even uphold Christian truths, values, and principles within the sanctuary of our own services. Wickedness rather than scripture regulates the concept of right and wrong. And we are proud of our sins.

Perhaps you do not believe that men should have the right to pray in school. Perhaps you feel that the bible is outdated and irrelevant to modern life. Maybe for you, Christ should make no demands upon His subjects. As to prayer: even the Romans understood the value of permitting a conquered county full access to their existing religious practices. As to relevance: the bible plainly addresses and provides a solution to every financial, political, and moral ill that is currently choking this nation. As to His subjects: they know who He is, and they obey.

Though it poses under the disguise of democracy and tolerance, Communism has moved upon this nation. And the Christians remain silent. We have become so self-centered that we will rejoice over another's loss of freedom – even when it has become clear that that freedom is but a falsely perceived threat to our own pleasures.

We claim ourselves righteous, but we resist the truth. We act in falsehood and self-deceit, daily sinking deeper into our woes. Fear piles against us. Depress sweeps our homes and our nation. We ignore the wisdom in God's holy word, and we call the voice of reason insanity.

In his book, " Tortured For Christ ," Pastor Richard Wurmbrand speaks of how the Communists came into his country, and of how so-called men of God chose Joseph Stalin as an honorary president of the Christian body. "At the same time," wrote Pastor Wurmbrand, "he was president of the World Movement of the Godless and a mass murder of Christians."

Pastor Wurmbrand wrote of bishops and pastors rising one behind the other to declare that communism and Christianity were fundamentally the same and could co-exist. He spoke concerning a nation that was being consumed by the same faulty political viewpoints as are now common in America.

Perhaps your eyes are buried in the sand. Perhaps you cannot see the pattern of communist behavior that drives our current government. Maybe the sales pitch is too smooth for your comfortable lifestyle. After all: we do live in a nation where even the best Christian churches are more concerned about maintaining their tax status than about speaking the truth. Persecution for Christ is the last thing that we are willing to endure.

I am not advocating rebellion against authority. Neither am I suggesting that Christians march against abortion clinics. I am talking about living as a public witness for Jesus Christ, of daring to preach on a public street corner, of crying out for lost souls, and of speaking against sin and wickedness in positions of authority.

Concerning the meeting and the acceptance of Joseph Stalin as a political and religious figure, Pastor Wurmbrand wrote these words:

"My wife and I were present at this congress. Sabina told me, 'Richard, stand up and wash away this shame from the face of Christ! They are spitting in His face.' I said to her, 'If I do so, you will lose your husband.' She replied, 'I don't wish to have a coward as a husband.' "

Are you a coward, a salesman, or a Christian?

Without that we chose now the truths of scripture, there shall come a time in this nation when we too must hide in homes, in basements, and in the woods, when as Christian witnesses we may be called upon to endure the ultimate price of our faith.

George Orwell the Nobel Laureate is famous for his novels like ‘Animal Farm’ and 1984. Most of the novels of Orwell are dissolving the sugar and spice of Communist Regimes. His writing has fertilized us with the imagination that a communist idol is a fish gone stale.

The protagonist of the Novel is Winston is a bored lethargic character. All his life, his inner consciousness, he exhibits frustration with the Communist regime. The country portrayed in the Novel is a hidden allegory portraying the dead USSR. All the ministries are under the control of the Communist party.

Orwell makes a satire of the entertainment industry. The industry propagandizes State Ideals. It shows democratic ideals are decadent and defunct. The industry is a thorough brain washing of personal likes and shifts people’s attitudes and consumerism into propaganda..

The Novel 1984 describes a situation whereby anyone not loyal to the State gets punished to death. There’s no freedom to cast opinions. Communism is a beast that jeopardizes freedom.

The protagonist Winston is portrayed as slave who is trapped in the fangs of communism and yet wanting to break free. Government offices are bureaus of a monster wanting to desecrate life.

The slogans of the party: Freedom is Slavery: War is peace: Ignorance is Strength are oxymorons making a satire on Communism and expresses the autocracy of the Communist junta. All theses slogans point out a psychological narcissism, a mirror stage of Lacan, a gaze of a Private-is-a -Public -business and reduces individual into a morass of mental poverty. The people of the communist country are regimented automatons.

The Communist Party tyrannizes consumerism. The shops are owned by the government and many a time they are unable to supply things needed by the public.

There’s no freedom to think and explore thoughts. Out of two citizens one is a spy and belongs to the secret police. It’s an irony that there’s no family relationship and in a family the wife or the husband can betray you.

The protagonist Winston is nostalgic of Catherine from whom he was separated for 17 years. Winston is a creative intellectual trapped in the gulag of Communism and he expresses his freedom writing journals.

The novel describes the purges carried out by Stalin. Stalin the killing of innocents for the sake of ideology.

The Communist Party uses subversive tactics to demoralize and dethrone the earlier regimes and tries to promote Communism as a God. The wretch of ideology plays with information and seduces individuals into myopia of becoming.

Zuhruf / 32
Is it they who would portion out the Mercy of thy Lord? It is We Who portion out between them their livelihood in the life of this world: and We raise some of them above others in ranks, so that some may command work from others. But the Mercy of thy Lord is better than the (wealth) which they amass.

I do not know whether you realized this verse before. If you did, have you ever thought about what is actually referred to in this verse?

The verse begins by referring to those who try / attempt to allocate the mercy of the God and clearly states that some people are rendered superior to the others by means of ranks and then gives the reason of this. When evaluated a little deeper, it is easily understood that the verse has a nature of being a response to the idea of ​​"equal sharing" or "company in property". I cannot know whether this idea came familiar to you but I know such an idea: Communism!

Surely, it should not be inferred based upon this verse that the Koran suggests "wild capitalism" to human being. Because, the orders of "alms" and "feeding and protecting the poor / voyager / orphan" also exist in the book in which this verse takes place … The meaning of this verse is much deeper than this … I would like to attract your attention to this part of the verse … "We raise some of them above others in ranks, so that some may command work from others".

I will not attempt to pontify about the fallacy of communism. Some people may think it is a true idea and the failure of Soviets stemmed from the mistakes in the practice, not in the system itself. This is not so much important. The important thing is to elaborate a little about how it became possible for human being to establish civilization … Only then it can be realized that this simple and robust idea expressed in the verse is the fact that underlies all the achievements of the civilization of human being. Isn't this fact also the reason that lies behind the failure of Communism? Surely, someone can make them a matter of dispute. Therefore, it is not necessary to attempt to make deep analyzes in this matter. Let everyone believes in what they want.

However, the true point which should be focused here is as follows: such an idea is referred in the Koran! Did followers of such an idea exist during the time of the Prophet? So, what people this verse addresses to? If you think exactly what I think, what is it if not a miracle?

As stated by the Koran, sometimes a "favor" may exist in the things which seem "evil".

Our argument that the lofty God has an aim, such as humans establish civilization, develop technology, is supported by some verses in the Koran. I quote these verses below:

Muminun / 14 (Shakir)
Then We made the seed a clot, then We made the clot a lump of flesh, then We made (in) the lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, then We caused it to grow into another creation, so blessed be Allah, the best of the creators.

Bakara / 30 (Shakir)
And when your Lord said to the angels, I am going to place in the earth a khalif, they said: What! wilt Thou place in it such as shall make mischief in it and shed blood, and we celebrate Thy praise and extol Thy holiness? He said: Surely I know what you do not know.

In the first verse, after mentioning about the phases regarding the creation of human, the God describes itself as "the most beautiful of the creators". Regarding this verse, some people asks if there are other creators than the God. The creature the God includes in the category of "creator" like itself is human. Human cannot create from nothing, but, we would better understand what is intended in the verse if we consider the products developed by the use of existing. The God "is the most beautiful of the creators". Because, The God created a creature that can create. We can infer from this that the purpose of the lofty God is to reveal the creative aspect of human. This verse is the indicator of the fact that the lofty God aims that human establishes civilization and develop technology / arts / science.

In the second verse stated that human is the "caliph of the God". The most important reason of this should be the creative aspect of the human being …

As can be understood from these statements, verses of the Koran have a structure which complements the meaning of each other and something expressed in one verse is explained in another. In a verse, the Koran obviously refers to and unfavorably criticize Communism (for those who know how to review the verses), and clearly demonstrates in both this verse and others all the reasons that lie behind this criticism.

Now largely discredited after it inspired – or some say was manipulated by – the murderous, brutal regime of Leninist / Stalinist Soviet Russia, The Communist Manifesto contains great insight into the limitations and superficiality of a Capitalist society; both the instability of the economic structure, and the shallow philosophical implications of consumerism inherent in a capitalist system. It predicts the overthrow of the elites in society by the workers, known as the bourgeois and the proletariat respectively, and the eventual abolition of all social, economic classes.

Marx saw a consistent pattern in history; that there has always been one minority ruling class exploiting the larger, workers class; his view of history is summarized in his assertion that 'All history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. He implored all the various communist groups scattered around Europe to incite revolution, in order to overthrow the self-interested, apathetic ruling classes and establish a society where class did not exist: where material would be evenly distributed to prevent inequality.

"A specter is haunting Europe – the specter of Communism"

Published in 1848, The Communist Manifesto was penned mostly by Marx at the request of various communist groups in Europe. The stated aim of this enterprise was to create a document that clarified and illuminated the beliefs and doctrines of communism in the face of a concerted campaign from opposing political parties who were sabotaging communism by spreading a wave of malicious falsities. The book contains a highly moralistic message of despair at the exploitation of the many by the few; the large disproportionate between the value of an individuals work, and the amount of wage they receive for it. Marx witnessed in his day the consequences of the Industrial Revolution: the squalor, the poverty and the unrest, and felt indignation at such blatant exploitation.

Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution

What shrouds this work in infamy is the application of it's principles and repute in subsequent years. Lenin, and then Stalin, ran an increasingly violent and cruel state under the guise of communist principles. Collectivization was utilized, as well as centralizing the means of production, yet Stalin embarked on genocidal campaigns, and brutally neglected a criminal amount of Russian people. It is not right to associate Stalinist Russia with The Communist Manifesto. The manifesto challenges both previous and current economic, and the consequent social, systems; and it further encourages us to review and reconsider our conceptions about the world. It is by no means the manual to violent dictatorships that it is often misconceived as, and even if you strongly believe in capitalism, it remains an interesting discourse on economics and human nature.

The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of the world, unite!

1) Soviet brutality and violence are often blamed on very difficult conditions in Russia. Yes, conditions were very difficult. But this was a consequence, at least in part, of mistakes made by communists. Russia was a monarchy before WWI. The first post-tsarist government, with its duma, etc., was a promising democratic initiative, resulting from the 1917 February Revolution. But several months later the new social structure was crushed by communists, led by Lenin. That was a big mistake; the ensuing civil war would probably not have taken place without the October Revolution.

2) And what was Stalin’s biggest mistake, after Lenin’s death? It was the policy of forced collectivization of agriculture, resulting in millions of deaths. I am not an economist but I worked in several Soviet collective farms (as a hired 12-year-old worker, during WWII). For every basket of potatoes, collected behind the plow, they paid us with one basket to take home. Here is what I remember about this problem.

a) As in other European countries, peasants in Russia were serfs, until the feudal system was abolished. In the 19th century they became rural proletariat (working for landlords).

b) Peasants supported Lenin’s revolution because it promised redistribution of land. After the revolution they became land owners.

c) The revolution, the civil war that followed, and nationalization of factories created a deplorable food situation in towns. The policy known as “War Communism” was established at that time. It consisted of military-like assaults on peasants (large scale confiscation of grain and farm animals).

d) Disastrous consequences of War Communism were recognized by Bolsheviks. The New Economic Policy (NEP), introduced by Lenin, saved the country from immediate collapse. It was a state-controlled market economy. Differentiation among peasants developed, some of them becoming more productive than others. Prosperous peasants were called kulaks. Some city dwellers also benefitted from the NEP trade; they were called Nepmen.

e) Stalin decided to eliminate NEP. The policy of rapid industrialization (the first 5-year plan) was introduced at essentially the same time as forced collectivization of agriculture.

Collective farms were not sufficiently productive. I think that Soviet economy would have been in much better shape without forced collectivization, and without sending kulaks to gulag camps. Let me repeat, forced collectivization, resulting in millions of deaths, was one of Stalin’s doctrinal mistakes. Even in 1979 about 28% of the Soviet agricultural production was from small private plots of private citizens. These plots represented less than 1% of the cultivated land.

Communism Misunderstood in America

A Perfect Democracy Though Utopian

Communism the Ultimate Objective (Part IV)

Marx’s theoretical work along with his empirical inquiries led him to the discovery of “scientific laws of development” illuminating stages beyond capitalism. His theory relied on the concept of historical materialism involving the analysis of the past as well as future developments. His findings toward the future indicated that as industrialization advances, continually better educated and more conscious working class will rise and eliminate the capitalist class structure replacing it by a mono-class society of proletariat. Further advancement in technology and means of production will bring an abundance of goods which would be equitably distributed based on individual needs. After all remnants of capitalism are eliminated by the ruling proletariat, this working class will also disappear, since there will be no need for government, and humanity will reach its ultimate stage of freedom and democracy — a stateless and classless namely a communist society.

For Marx, communism differed from all previous movements because it overturns the basis of all earlier relations of production and intercourse, and for the first time consciously treats all natural premises as the creatures of men, strips them all of their natural character and subjugates them to the power of individuals united. Its organization is, therefore, essentially economic, the material production of the conditions of this unity, it turns existing conditions into conditions of unity. The reality which communism is creating is precisely the real basis for rendering it impossible that anything should exist independently of individuals, is so far as things are only a product of the preceding intercourse of individuals themselves.

Only in community with others has each individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions: only in community, therefore, is personal freedom possible. In previous substitutes for the community, such as the state or government, personal freedom has existed only for the individuals who developed within the relationships of the ruling class. The illusory community, in which individuals up to now have been combined, always took on an independent existence in relation to them, and was at the same time, since it was the combination of one class never against another, not only completely illusory community, but a new fetter as well. In the real community the individuals obtain their freedom in and through their association.

Marx visualized that communism will not materialized immediately after the proletarian revolution because of defects of the capitalist society with its inequalities and injustices which will persist for a while. He understood that these defects would be inevitable in the first phase of communist society. Right can never be higher than economic structure of society and its cultural development thereby. In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antitheses between mental and physical labor has vanished, labor has become a means of life as well as life’s prime want with full commitment to the principle of “from each according his ability, to each according his needs.”

Regarding the ultimate disappearance of the state and government, Marx vision was that in the course of development, class distinctions will disappear, and all production will be concentrated in the hands of vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, and as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production then it will, along with those conditions, sweeps away the conditions for the existence of class antagonism and of classes generally, and will thereby abolish its own supremacy as a class.

As it has been noticed by now, Marx’s theory of communism, including its start with the proletarian revolution, is possible only in a highly advanced industrial capitalist society. This is the very outcome of his theory of dialectical-historical materialism. Accordingly, Marx’s proletarian revolution could not have occurred in any society except in that advanced technological capitalism. Certainly, then, it could not have happened in an underdeveloped feudalistic society such as that of Tsarist Russia.

The Concept of Marxism-Leninism

The Russian revolution was not proletarian but something more like that of French Revolution of the late eighteenth century. The difference was that the system was taken over by a group of Marxists headed by Lenin through organized uprisings of the workers and peasants.

Vladimir Ilv ich Ulianov, known later as Nikolai Lenin (1870-1924), was born in the small town of Simbirsk located in the central Volga Basin.His father was the regional superintendent of schools. Among his five brothers and sisters, Lenin was particularly fund of his oldest brother, Alexander, who was arrested as a revolutionary by the Tsar’s secret police, tried and executed in 1887. Profoundly affected by this tragic event, Lenin turned into a dedicated activist.

After graduating from high school, he was admitted to the University of Kazan from which he was soon expelled because of becoming increasingly involved in radical activities. However, he continued to study law and political science on his own, and in 1892 he took and passed the law examinations at the University of St. Petersburg. He continued his revolutionary activities which caused him to be arrested in 1895. He Was imprisoned for fourteen months and then exiled to a Siberian village on the Lena river. While in exile he encountered and married Nadezhda Krupskaya, a fellow radical in exile.

As a radical from the upper class noble intelligentsia, Lenin was not subjected to the savagery and harsh torture used on the exiled revolutionaries and other offenders from the lower class. Like other aristocratic intelligentsia in exile, with a great deal of leisure time, Lenin asked and received books to read. From 1897 to 1900 in exile, Lenin devoted his time to an excessive study of Marxism as well as developing his own revolutionary thoughts. It was during this period that Lenin prepared himself for the future years and produced his first important work, The Development of Capitalism in Russia.

In!900 Lenin left Siberia and went to Switzerland to join other Russian Marxists including Georgi Plekhanov (1857-1918) known as the father of Russian Marxism. Ideological debates between these two most brilliant Marxists polarized the followers, leading to the Balshevic-Menshevik split. Mensheviks followed Plekhanov’s Two-Stage Theory and insisted that the dialectic had to run its course. This meant that the socialist revolution could not occur in Russia until Russia passed from the feudal stage to the bourgeois stage which could only cause the development and bring it to power. The Bolsheviks challenged this view arguing that under certain circumstances the working class and peasant forces could be brought together to take control of the system and transform it into socialism. Thus the former view required the final revolution to be one of the masses involving the whole society. The latter suggested an elitist coup to seize power by organizing the labor and peasant forces together.

Unlike Marx who devoted most of his time and energy to analyzing capitalism, Lenin attempted to develop a revolutionary doctrine by applying Marxism to a real situation. Accordingly Lenin, in the first place, restored the revolutionary spirit of the early Marx; then modified the theory significantly, attempting to answer question arising from realm situations which contradicted Marx’s theories; and amended Marxism to apply to developing countries; and finally, adjusted it in a way that it would be practical in its application in a real situation. Thus, in reality, by these substantial changes, Lenin transformed Marx’s original theories into a new ideology known as Marxist-Leninism.

Also unlike Marx, who thought that revolution would erupt automatically after the working class had developed consciousness, ending the bourgeois state, Lenin believed that violent revolution was the only action that would bring about transformation. Rejecting Marx’s conviction he argued that the proletariat could not develop class consciousness without the help of a revolutionary group which would stimulate revolution.

Thus, for Lenin it was the test of the vanguard revolutionary group to overthrow the regime and establish a socialist state even before the working class’s self-consciousness. Here lies the significant disparity between Marx and Lenin. Marx had concluded that proletariat should rise only after it was clearly aware of itself as a class when it had become an overwhelming majority in society. On this ground, he believed that the dictatorship of proletariat would be for a brief period needed primarily to re=educate or eliminate the small group of non-proletarians necessary for the establishment of a classless society.

Contrary to this theory, Lenin argued that a small intellectual revolutionary group would bring about a revolution long before the self-awareness of the working class and then would impose a socialistic system which would embark in proletarianization of the masses. Accordingly, the dictatorship of this elite may last for quite a long time.

Lenin described the required characteristic of this group as small, highly disciplined, and totally dedicated to the cause of revolution. From this viewpoint, Lenin’s elitist approach was substantially different from Marx’s more democratic approach. The outcome of this strict approach was the victory of 1917 and the collective dictatorship of the Bolsheviks in Russia since then until its disintegration in late 1980s. After nearly seven decades of dictatorship there was no indication as to when the Soviet society would be prepared to enter the utopian stage of Marx’s theory — a classless and stateless democratic and communistic society.

Lenin specifically prescribed the governing procedures for this small Bolshevik elite group which he named the Communist Party. He called the system “democratic centralism” based on three functional processes. Two of them were to be democratic and the third centrist. First, the election of the party leadership had to be carried out by membership from the bottom up; second, issues requiring a decision were to be placed before the membership and subject to open debate; third, after viewpoints of the membership were clarified during the debate, the policy decision for the party had to be made by the leadership alone and be accepted and executed by the membership without question. Even though democratic centralism did not work in practice as it was intended, it was applied with certain integrity under Lenin’s leadership. Its democratic aspects for all practical purposes disappeared under Stalin. The Idea continued to be an important part of the operational concept in the Soviet Union until the concepts of Perestroika and Glasnost were put into operation in the late 1980s under the leadership of President Gorbachev.

Communism: The Dominant Societal Ideology Today

Marxist Communism continually receives devoted followers every day in most countries of the world. It is already the dominant ideological force affecting all aspects of daily life — Economic, social, political, and cultural. Outstanding Marxist scientist have been working on different version of it for years all tending to make it applicable to real situations of life through democratic process and cultural compatibility. It has been an arduous and painful effort to give a new life to this marvelous ideology of individual freedom, equality and true democracy. Some from many Marxist scientists capable of causing change in their society are: Victorio Codovilla (1894-1970) an Italian-Argentinian, a member of Italian Socialist Party and Argentine Communist Party, caused Marxist influence in Italy, Spain, and Argentine through political process. Alfredo Palacios, first socialist elected to the legislative body in Latin America working hard, seven days a week for realizing his Marxist aims. Salvador Allende (1908-1973),a physician and politician, helped the founding of Chilean Socialist Party and the first democratically elected communist president of Chile; Fidel Castro, a lawyer, (1926- ) promoter of many theories supportive of development of Marxist theories under new circumstances known as Castroism. Ernesto ( Che ) Guevara (1927-1967) a physician well known through his activities and scientific writings in Marxism and humanity.

Communism and a communistic society as developed and visualized by Marx is the basic goal of these Marxist scientists and the nations in the process of transition toward that goal; Within these nations generally there is a total public ownership of the means of production controlled by the government on behalf of the people. It is aimed to develop self-consciousness in population toward realizing people’s power and by leading and preparing them for taking over the ystem for forming and sustaining a democratic Marxist society. The process by which they intend to reach this goal is not Marxism but takes its roots from the concepts developed by Lenin though labeled differently in nearly all socialist systems prevailing over one-thirds of world population and substantially influencing the rest of the Third World.