essay on communism

ENCYCLOPEDIC ENTRY

Communism is a form of government most closely associated with the ideas of Karl Marx, which he outlined in The Communist Manifesto . Communism is based on the goal of eliminating socioeconomic class struggles by creating a classless society in which everyone shares the benefits of labor and the state controls all property and wealth.

Social Studies, Civics, Economics

Soldiers Marching in Beijing

China is one of just five proclaimed communist nations left. There were many more communist countries in 1973 when this photograph of Chinese soldiers was taken.

Photograph by J. Cuinieres/Roger Viollet via Getty Images

Communism is a form of government most frequently associated with the ideas of Karl Marx, a German philosopher who outlined his ideas for a utopian society in The Communist Manifesto , written in 1848. Marx believed that capitalism , with its emphasis on profit and private ownership, led to inequality among citizens. Thus, his goal was to encourage a system that promoted a classless society in which everyone shared the benefits of labor and the state government controlled all property and wealth. No one would strive to rise above others, and people would no longer be motivated by greed. Then, communism would close the gap between rich and poor, end the exploitation of workers, and free the poor from oppression. The basic ideas of communism did not originate with Marx, however. Plato and Aristotle discussed them in ancient times, but Marx developed them into a popular doctrine , which was later propelled into practice. Marx’s ideal society ensured economic equality and fairness. Marx believed that private ownership of property promoted greed, and he blamed capitalism for society’s problems. The problems, he claimed, stemmed from the Industrial  Revolution . The rise of factories, the reliance on machines, and the capability of mass production created conditions that promoted oppression and encouraged the development of a proletariat, or a working class. Simply put, in a capitalist system, the factories fueled the economy, and a wealthy few owned the factories. This created the need for a large number of people to work for the factory owners. In this environment, the wealthy few exploited the laborers, who had to labor in order to live. So, Marx outlined his plan to liberate the proletariat, or to free them of the burden of labor. His idea of utopia was a land where people labored as they were able, and everyone shared the wealth. If the government controlled the economy and the people relinquished their property to the state, no single group of people could rise above another. Marx described this ideal in his Manifesto , but the practice of communism fell far short of the ideal. For a large part of the 20th century, about one-third of the world lived in communist countries—countries ruled by dictatorial leaders who controlled the lives of everyone else. The communist leaders set the wages, they set the prices, and they distributed the wealth. Western capitalist nations fought hard against communism , and eventually, most communist countries collapsed. Marx’s utopia was never achieved, as it required revolution on a global scale, which never came to pass. However, as of 2020, five proclaimed communist countries continue to exist: North Korea, Vietnam, China, Cuba, and Laos.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

In the Cold War climate of the 1950s and 1960s, the threat of communism galvanized public attention. In 1953 Martin Luther King called communism “one of the most important issues of our day” ( Papers  6:146 ). As King rose to prominence he frequently had to defend himself against allegations of being a Communist, though his view that “Communism and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible” did not change (King,  Strength , 93). Although sympathetic to communism’s core concern with social justice, King complained that with its “cold atheism wrapped in the garments of materialism, communism provides no place for God or Christ” ( Strength , 94).

King first studied communism on his own while a student at  Crozer Theological Seminary  in 1949. In his 1958 memoir, he reported that although he rejected communism’s central tenets, he was sympathetic to Marx’s critique of capitalism, finding the “gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty” that existed in the United States morally wrong ( Stride , 94). Writing his future wife, Coretta Scott, during the first summer of their relationship, he told her that he was “more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic. And yet I am not so opposed to capitalism that I have failed to see its relative merits” ( Papers  6:123; 125 ).

King began preaching on “Communism’s Challenge to Christianity” in 1952, repeating sermons on the same theme throughout his career and including one as a chapter in his 1963 volume of sermons,  Strength to Love . Communism’s presence demanded “sober discussion,” he preached, because “Communism is the only serious rival to Christianity” ( Strength , 93). King critiqued communism’s ethical relativism, which allowed evil and destructive means to justify an idealistic end. Communism, wrote King, “robs man of that quality which makes him man,” that is, being a “child of God” ( Strength , 95).

Despite King’s consistent rejection of communism, in 1962 his associations with a few alleged Communists prompted the  Federal Bureau of Investigation  (FBI) to launch an investigation into his alleged links with the Communist Party. In 1976 the U.S. Senate committee reviewing the FBI’s investigation of King noted: “We have seen no evidence establishing that either of those Advisers attempted to exploit the civil rights movement to carry out the plans of the Communist Party” (Senate Select Committee,  Book III , 85). From wiretaps initiated in 1963, the FBI fed controversial information to the White House and offered it to “friendly” reporters in an effort to discredit King. In 1964 King told an audience in Jackson, Mississippi, he was “sick and tired of people saying this movement has been infiltrated by Communists … There are as many Communists in this freedom movement as there are Eskimos in Florida” (Herbers, “Rights Workers”).

In 1963 King bowed to the wishes of the  Kennedy  administration and fired SCLC employee Jack  O’Dell  after the FBI alleged that he was a Communist. King also agreed to cease direct communication with his friend and closest white advisor, Stanley  Levison , although he eventually resumed contact with him in March 1965. FBI surveillance and bugs tracked King’s political associations and produced evidence of King’s extramarital sexual activities—information that was later leaked to some reporters.

In 1965 King faced questions from journalists on  Meet the Press  about his association with Tennessee’s  Highlander Folk School , which had been branded a “Communist training school” on billboards that appeared throughout Alabama during the  Selma to Montgomery March  and showed King attending a Highlander workshop. King defended the school, saying that it was not Communist and noted that “great Americans such as Eleanor Roosevelt, Reinhold Niebuhr, Harry Golden, and many others” had supported the school (King, 28 March 1965).

King’s position on the war against Communists in northern Vietnam, like his overall position on communism, was rooted in his Christian belief in brotherhood. Indeed, in the summer of 1965 the press reported King’s off-the-cuff remarks to a  Southern Christian Leadership Conference  rally in Virginia: “We’re not going to defeat Communism with bombs and guns and gases … We must work this out in the framework of our democracy” (“Dr. King Declares”). In his 1967 book,  Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?  King decried America’s “morbid fear of Communism,” arguing that it prevented people from embracing a “revolutionary spirit and … declaring eternal opposition to poverty, racism, and militarism” (King,  Where , 190).

Branch,  At Canaan’s Edge , 2006.

“Dr. King Declares U.S. Must Negotiate in Asia,”  New York Times , 3 July 1965.

John Herbers, “Rights Workers Report Attacks,”  New York Times , 27 July 1964.

King, “Communism’s Challenge to Christianity,” 9 August 1953, in  Papers  6:146–150 .

King, Interview on Meet the Press, 28 March 1965,  MLKJP-GAMK .

King, “Let Us Be Dissatisfied,”  Gandhi Marg 12  (July 1968): 218–229.

King,  Strength to Love , 1963.

King,  Stride Toward Freedom , 1958.

King,  Where Do We Go from Here , 1967.

King to Coretta Scott, 18 July 1952, in  Papers  6:123–126 .

Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities,  Book III: Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans , 94th Cong., 2d sess., 1976, S. Rep. 82-86; 94–755.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

The Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism – review

W riting the history of communism – an ideology that has been described as "the most ambitious attempt to create a world organisation since the expansion of the Roman Catholic church" – demands a global perspective. Until now, many Anglophone accounts of communism have rooted themselves chiefly in the Soviet Union and Europe; Asian, African and Latin American experiences have tended to figure as little more than byproducts of a Eurocentric story.

But contemporary geopolitics requires the reorientation of these older approaches. A quarter of a century since communism collapsed in Europe and then in the USSR, China's Communist party – seemingly – continues to flourish. Under its direction, China has become a global economic and political force. The CCP has, with quite extraordinary success, recast itself as a champion of the market economy, while remaining an essentially secretive, Leninist organisation.

Within 10 years, the Chinese communist revolution will have exceeded the 74-year lifespan of its Soviet older brother. China's leaders feel a jittery pride at this prospect: the causes of the Soviet collapse in 1991 remain a subject of horrified fascination to past and present members of the politburo. If the CCP survives much beyond this point, historians may come to see October 1949, rather than October 1917, as the game-changing revolution of the 20th century.

The Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism embraces this new imperative to understand world communism as a polycentric (indeed, often terminally fractious) phenomenon. It's editor SA Smith is himself impressively cosmopolitan, an expert on both Soviet and Chinese communism , and almost all of the book's 36 essays – written by an international cast of scholars – are comparative in some way.

The collection is enlightening not only about the German and Bolshevik origins of communist politics, but its leaders; about everyday and elite life in communist states; about the experiences of intellectuals, artists, workers and farmers; and about its global rise and fall.Smith and his fellow authors maintain a calm, dispassionate tone on the tragic complexities of the communist experiment: one that seeks "to avoid moralising condemnation, on the one hand, and credulous apologetics, on the other". Communism , Smith rightly observes, committed some of the most heinous atrocities of the 20th century's "age of catastrophe": "Stalin's terror, the famine in China of 1959–62 … Pol Pot's laying waste to Cambodia." He writes that "communist states made relentless demands on their citizens … they cynically exploited the idealism and courage of millions across the world who struggled to create a better future." But some communist parties, he argues, also introduced welfare, healthcare and educational benefits not available in other parts of the developing world; they helped defeat fascism in Europe and Asia, and inspired anti-colonial movements and campaigns against racism. In France, the women's liberation movement sprang in part from one of the country's several noisy Maoist groupuscules.

The Handbook 's essays take on many of the puzzles of communist history. One major conundrum in the evolution of communist states is the contradiction between their rigid, centralising doctrines, and the contingent way in which their politics and government often evolved. For all the rhetorical confidence of their Manifesto , Marx and Engels were famously vague about the actual form that a future communist polity would take. It was the unexpectedly sudden success of the Bolsheviks that installed Lenin's conspiratorial, militarised party as the model for other aspiring revolutionaries to follow. Yet the Soviet communist party was surprised by many of the realities of power: by the USSR's dire international political and domestic economic situation in the early 1920s, and by the rapid emergence of new bureaucracies and hierarchies in revolutionary society. In his lively piece on communist leadership cults, Daniel Leese contrasts Marx's dislike for worship of individuals ("lickspitting … intolerable") with the sanctification of Stalin, Mao and the Kim dynasty. And despite CIA fears to the contrary, there was never a workable Soviet programme for world domination; most of the foreign party leaders involved in the Comintern could not even speak Russian, the organisation's lingua franca.

Five fascinating essays focus on "global moments" in 20th-century communism: 1919, 1936, 1956, 1968 and 1989. We witness the waning of international optimism as the Russian revolution petered out into monolithic Bolshevik power; the savagery of Stalin's Terror and international anti-fascism's legitimisation of violence; the shockwaves that de-Stalinisation sent through the rest of the communist world; the utopian, anti-authoritarian Marxism of the 68ers; the victory of global consumerism in 1989 and the impact of that year's events far beyond the communist world. The apartheid government of South Africa had partly defended its repressiveness by citing the menace of global communism; the lifting of the ban on the ANC and release of Nelson Mandela soon after 1989 would resonate throughout Africa and beyond.

China's contemporary resurgence poses one of the most intriguing questions about global communism: how to explain the ability of China's Communist party to prosper after the domestic and international crises of 1989. There is also a pressing need to evaluate the global power and appeal of Maoism beyond China, for (long after the death of Mao himself) it has enjoyed a potent afterlife in desperate revolutionary movements in South America, India and Nepal based on theories of class struggle and guerrilla warfare. In India, the resurgent Maoist Naxalite movement is currently considered the country's "gravest internal security threat".

The Handbook suggests several possible answers. Sergey Radchenko traces the contemporary vitality of the CCP back to 1956: to de-Stalinisation and China's assertion of its ideological independence from the Soviet Union. With Stalin's fall from grace, Mao could step forward to become the philosopher-king of international communism. Mark Harrison provides a no-nonsense economic explanation for the CCP's success. After Mao's death, the party struck a bargain with entrepreneurs and the poorest farmers, allowing them greater economic freedoms while withholding major political gains. And throughout this process of partial liberalisation, "the government retained the senior stake by maintaining a large public sector and withholding secure private property rights".

Timothy Cheek lucidly analyses the distinctive features of Maoism: its (theoretically) populist championing of the "mass line" in politics; its focus on the peasantry (even while high Maoism exploited China's rural populations to finance industrial and nuclear development – arguably even more ruthlessly than Stalin did in the USSR); its promotion of guerrilla struggle. "Those who have found themselves in intolerable social circumstances where local governments violently repress opposition have found Maoist military strategy compelling – from the Vietcong to the Naxalites." For this reason, perhaps, contemporary leftwing thinkers – in China, in the west and in the developing world – still "seek in Mao's writings and life tools for fighting injustice today".

Yet the book is no paean to CCP achievement. China has shown remarkable economic agility in the last few decades; and in their private lives, many ordinary Chinese citizens now enjoy freedoms unimagined by their Soviet counterparts even in the heyday of perestroika. But China's mass political campaigns were more mercilessly waged even than those of the USSR. Maoist censorship of the arts politicised virtually every creative endeavour: revolutionary puritans compared the piano to a coffin in which "notes rattled about like the bones of the bourgeoisie". Even silence or withdrawal into classical painting or calligraphy could be condemned as counter-revolutionary.

But the Soviet Union may have had the edge over communist China in the quality and quantity of its political jokes. In his essay on Soviet privilege, Donald Filtzer tells a terrific story about Brezhnev desperately trying to impress his mother by showing off his limousine, his helicopter and his three palatial residences: "Tell me, Mama," he pleads, "What do you think?" "Well," she hesitates, "it's good, Leonid. But what if the Reds come back?"

• Politics books
• History books
• Politics past

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

What’s Wrong With Communism?

• Daily Economy
• Economic Education
• Authoritarianism

“What’s wrong with communism?” It’s a question I heard recently, and while “pretty much everything” is accurate, it deserves a bit of additional elaboration. Here are a few thoughts on what’s wrong with communism. 

As Bryan Caplan points out in his article on communism for the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics , “Communism” and “socialism” were basically synonyms until the Bolshevik Revolution. After that, “communism” came to be more closely associated with the revolutionary philosophy of Vladimir Lenin. The two terms can be used interchangeably, and they basically mean “ a centrally planned economy in which the government controls the means of production .” In the Communist Manifesto , Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels write “the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

Later, Ludwig von Mises would write that “socialism is the abolition of rational economy.” Means of production that are not privately owned cannot be exchanged. Therefore, no market prices can emerge. Without market prices, we don’t get profits and losses. Without profits and losses, we don’t learn whether or not we are using resources wisely (producing things consumers want more urgently and thereby earning profits) or wastefully (producing things consumers want less urgently and thereby earning losses). 

Profits and losses are informative, not decisive: there are a lot of things that might be financially profitable that you might find morally unacceptable. Maybe you could earn a handsome side income writing college term papers on behalf of cheaters for an online essay mill (and note that, as Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski argue in their 2016 book Markets Without Limits , this would be wrong not because profits are involved but because cheating is involved). 

Furthermore, there might be a lot of things that aren’t profitable that you might find obligatory. There are very few people who would say that a market test is an appropriate way for me to determine whether or not I should feed, clothe, and shelter my family.

This, I think, is where a lot of people get tripped up. Families are little socialist enterprises governed by the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” The rules and norms that make families or tribes work well don’t map very well onto an extended order populated by strangers. In a family, tribe, or club, people know one another intimately and see one another regularly. The farther people get from one another geographically and genetically, the less well they are likely to know one another that well or see one another that often. Add several millennia, widely varying conditions, and a lot of historical accidents and you have almost eight billion people with different tastes and talents. As I explained last summer , markets and market prices make rational economic calculation possible in such a setting.

A lot of self-described communists and socialists are motivated by enthusiasm for communists’ and socialists’ stated goals like equality, plenty, and dignity. They ask us to imagine a brotherhood of man in which everyone has abundant food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care, and other opportunities for flourishing. To oppose communism and socialism is not to question the desirability of equality, plenty, and dignity However, just as opposing subsidies isn’t opposing what’s subsidized , opposing communism isn’t opposing equality, plenty, and dignity. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, we regularly find ourselves talking past one another, with one group speaking in terms of hoped-for results and the other group speaking in terms of the characteristics of social processes. In the view of Sowell and a lot of his intellectual allies, the social question is not “what specific policies could we enact that might make the world a better place?” Rather, it is “which institutions best facilitate cooperation among strangers?” 

It’s a question of utmost importance in light of our species’ distressing habit of slaughtering one another. That’s one of the places where communism’s failures are most conspicuous. Experiments with communism have a distressing tendency to descend into mass murder. As Kristian Niemietz explains in his excellent book Socialism: The failed idea that never dies , intellectuals have a three-stage relationship with socialism. A socialist regime emerges and maybe has some successes. During this honeymoon phase, socialism’s defenders point out that the naysayers are wrong and this time is different. The honeymoon transitions into an “excuses-and-whataboutery” period where a regime’s defenders try to explain away the trouble in the workers’ paradise. During this phase, we might learn that bad weather or something like deliberate CIA sabotage, not central planning, is to blame for economic failure. Finally, once the experiment’s failures become too obvious to ignore or explain away, we enter the third stage, the “not-real-socialism” stage. The Soviet Union? Not real socialism. China under Mao? Not real socialism. Venezuela? Not real socialism. And so on.

Weren’t these idealistic–if naive–crusades to better the lives of the downtrodden? In his foreword to Eugene Richter’s excellent Pictures of the Socialistic Future , Bryan Caplan explains three theses: there is Lord Acton’s thesis, which is that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” People meant well when they got started, but having so much power derailed them. A second thesis is Friedrich Hayek’s explanation for “why the worst get on top.” Power will attract people who crave it, and hence ambitious, bad people will end up in positions of power. Hence, you might hear that the USSR would have avoided the horrors of the Stalinist regime had only Leon Trotsky and not Stalin ascended to power.

Caplan tells a darker story, however, for why communist regimes move so quickly into oppression and mass murder: communism is “born bad” in that “the early socialists were indeed ‘idealists’” but “their ideal was totalitarianism.” At a fundamental level, communist revolutions have not been about merely producing things more efficiently or ensuring that output is shared equitably. Communist experiments have been efforts to fundamentally re-engineer humanity. They have been projects of social transformation, and their brutality has sometimes been excused as an unfortunate historical necessity. The historian Eric Hobsbawm, for example, agreed without hesitation that millions of deaths would be an acceptable price to pay for a communist society. After all, Lenin famously said “you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” 

Alas, communist experiments have come and gone. They have left us with no omelets, only millions and millions of broken eggs.

Art Carden is a Senior Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research. He is also an Associate Professor of Economics at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama and a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute.

Related Articles – Authoritarianism, Economic Education, History

Biden’s ‘Strike Force’ Recalls Nixon’s Economic Plan

To Remain Free, Make the Ordinary Meaningful

Dynamic Pricing Puts the “Fast” Back in Fast Food

Commoditizing Excess Capacity

250 Division Street | PO Box 1000 Great Barrington, MA 01230-1000

Press and other media outlets contact 888-528-1216 [email protected]

Editorial Policy

AIS is a fully owned subsidiary of AIER

This work is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where copyright is otherwise reserved.

© 2021 American Institute for Economic Research Privacy Policy

AIER is a 501(c)(3) Nonprofit registered in the US under EIN: 04-2121305

Communism and Capitalism Through the History Essay

Introduction, revolution of social darwinism.

During the modern history, there existed two main economic systems, namely: communism and capitalism. Their ideologies are intrinsically divergent and often unreceptive to each other. All over the hostilities defame and institutional propaganda has become extensive known creating worry and hatred between communist and capitalist.

Capitalism is defined as the economic system based on free trade where private sectors are allowed to do businesses with another individual or group of private citizens. In this system, the means of product and service production is mainly carried out and owned by the individuals instead of the government while communism also known as fascism is contrary to this where production and distribution of products is carried out by the state as non-profit organization.

The book “The Time Machine” is mainly a social appraisal of H.G. Wells who was a Victorian England predicted into a far future. The largest part of his life he remained a socialist with communist background and he argued in most of his books that capitalism was a major challenge to the post-modern future.

Fast development in technology, social life, education and other capitals had commenced the industrial Revolution in during 17 th and 18 th century. Additionally, he argued that by the late 19 th century of “The Time Traveler” the UK was most powerful with the economy whereas industrialists were enjoying their absolute wealth.

The capitalists during this era overworked men, women and even young children who were forced to work overtime with penny wages in dirty, smoke-filled industries. After observing all this as it took place, Wells decided to incorporate various scientific, natural and social ideologies in his arguments against capitalism and he majored on the citizens who were selective, discriminatory for their personal gain as they continued to exploit the poor and vulnerable members of the society (Wells 47 ).

First of all, Wells characterized capitalism as a revolution of social Darwinism. In this theory “Origin of Species”, the author Charles Darwin argued that nature allowed the reproduction of species that their characters fitted for best survival.

Therefore, social Darwinism was formulated by the British Philosopher Herbert Spencer whom regularly misrepresented this idea of natural fitness to validate 19th century social stratification among wealthy and unfortunate people. Wells contradicted with this philosopher where he argued that it did not imply that surviving species on an environment and the best but simply fit for their precise environment (Wells 83).

It is therefore concluded that evolution does not guide into perfectibility but to the maximum adaptability of a species. Communism was therefore aggravated mainly by the pessimistic impact of the industrial revolution on poor industrial employees. It was aimed at creating a social class of public common ownership where they believed that the society in general was more important than personal rights liberty and individual’s freedom.

On the other hand, as the communist fought hard against the capitalist, there were negative impacts that were associated with it where most dictators erupted as the results of communism for they were overall decision makers. For communism to work out, it relies on human nature where they need to be completely humane and ready to work for gaining of their neighbors (Wells 94).

Capitalism has the major economic system which takes control of the world economy and it has proved to be perfect enough comparing to the other economies such as socialism. It is characterized by its mode of production where prime resources such as capital and land are owned by the individuals.

Trade activities are fully controlled by the interaction between customers and sellers in the market and the owners here is free to make maximum profit from their resources. The main objective of a capitalist state is to secure concurrent high employment and stable prices (Wells 58).

During late 19 th century, wars uprising and economic despair has acted against capitalism. The great depression period has acted as the most challenging moment within the capitalism history where shares in the stock market depreciated at an alarming rate. Capitalism on its sides is referred to as the best economic friend for it freely allows for global competitive market and capitalist contributes a lot to the economy of a nation.

There are two types of capitalism which are commonly known, of which one of them is the proprietary capitalism. During this period of capitalism, there were only some corporations and no one could relate them to the modern society. The other form of capitalism is progressive capitalist economy.

In this type of capitalism, business outputs are present as inputs of the future. Even though capitalism has gone through transitional changes all over the years, capitalistic economy structure has remained to be most influential economy as well as the political structure in the world.

Finally, communism and capitalism has acted towards the economic development but several challenges have affected both economies. The communism has greatly affected it people where personal growth has been affected by national ideology of togetherness dragging back both economic and infrastructure development. On the other hand, capitalism has lead to emergence of life standards where it exists rich and the poor resulting to the exploitation of the vulnerable members of the society.

Wells, H. George. The Time Machine. Penguin Classics, 2007. Print.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, April 13). Communism and Capitalism Through the History. https://ivypanda.com/essays/communism-and-capitalism-essay/

"Communism and Capitalism Through the History." IvyPanda , 13 Apr. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/communism-and-capitalism-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Communism and Capitalism Through the History'. 13 April.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Communism and Capitalism Through the History." April 13, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/communism-and-capitalism-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Communism and Capitalism Through the History." April 13, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/communism-and-capitalism-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Communism and Capitalism Through the History." April 13, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/communism-and-capitalism-essay/.

• Social Darwinism Through the History
• Why Did the Ideas of Social Darwinism Appeal to Many Americans in the Late 19th Century?
• Social Darwinism and Nazi Genocide Ideology
• Social Darwinism in European Imperialism
• Scientific Racism: the Eugenics of Social Darwinism
• Social Darwinism: Evolutionary Explanations in Sociology
• The Darwinism theory in the text The Island of Dr Moreau
• Social Darwinism and the Mixing of the Races
• Darwinism and Creationism in "Evolution" Documentary
• Social Darwinism and the Success or Failures of Individuals in the Society
• Issues that Affected the History of Australia and the Aborigines
• Contribution of Empiricism and Rationalism to the Emergence of the Scientific Perspective in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries
• History of Empires in Past and Modern World
• Short-Term and Long-Term Consequences of Removals for the Indigenous Children
• The Role of the Cold War in Shaping Transatlantic Relations in the Period 1945 to 1970

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Communism — Communism And Fascism Similarities

Communism and Fascism Similarities

• Categories: Communism

About this sample

Words: 615 |

Published: Mar 14, 2024

Words: 615 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Government & Politics

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1447 words

3 pages / 1532 words

4 pages / 1817 words

3 pages / 1372 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Communism

Communism was a dominant ideological force during the Cold War, a period of heightened tension and rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. The roots of communism can be traced back to the works of Karl Marx and [...]

Communism, as an ideological and economic system, has been the subject of extensive debate and experimentation throughout the 20th century. Advocates of communism argue for a classless society with shared resources, but history [...]

Marx’s and Engels’ book talks extensively from the Conflict perspective, which deals with the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie. The purpose of it is to expose the viewpoint and workings of the Communist Party. The Proletariat is [...]

Some claim the domino theory was the key reason for the US intervention in Asia as it halted communist progress, The Domino Theory was the belief that communism was spread from one nation to its neighbours and so on. It was [...]

Capitalism and communism have long been at the center of political and economic debates, with proponents of each system arguing for its superiority. While both systems have their merits, capitalism has proven to be the most [...]

According to Tom Christiano’s democracy, democracy is defined as a system of government where its citizens exercise the power of voting through group decision making, characterized by equality among the participants. Citizens [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Modern Love

Tiny Love Stories: ‘My Family Owned Your House’

Modern Love in miniature, featuring reader-submitted stories of no more than 100 words.

‘Good Yezha’

Yezha, my dad’s old dog, was missing one leg and all her teeth. Weeks before my son and I visited them in Warsaw, she stopped eating. My dad never let my childhood dog in the house. Yet, for Yezha, he’d fry naleśniki crêpes in butter and feed her the cheese filling when it cooled. He’d buy cabbage rolls at the grocery store, and we’d cheer when bites of meat stuffing made it past her gums. “Good Yezha,” we’d coo. My dad, twice divorced, grew up poor under communism. Wasting food was unthinkable. But he’d do anything to keep her alive. — Milena Nigam

Passing the Mantle

It was an endearing detail when we bought our Los Angeles home: “Jack,” “Eva” and “1977” carved into the mantle above the fireplace. Years later, an email arrived: “My family owned your house. I had a few questions,” wrote Carl, who wanted to surprise his wife, Iris, with the mantle her grandfather carved. (Her grandparents, Jack and Eva, would host friends in the den, now our living room.) As a romance author, I was wooed by the grand gesture. We arranged an exchange. The mantle now hangs in their Florida home, ready for Iris and Carl to add their names. — Jennifer Chen

Disappearing Without Explanation

Did I want her, or did I want to be her? My evangelical upbringing demanded the latter. We met in college. She was brilliant, beautiful, a patient chemistry tutor and instant friend. When she graduated, I visited her at her new apartment. We shared a bed. She slept; I fidgeted as the truth sank into my bones. Terrified, I disappeared from her life without explanation. Years later, I apologized but withheld any reason. She forgave quickly, gently — knowingly? Now a proud queer woman, I wish I could tell her I’m grateful for the role she played in my self-discovery. — Abbey Driscoll

Diamonds in the Gravel

When she was 4, my daughter experienced the death of her grandfather, babysitter and dog. Life, she quickly learned, could be heartbreaking. Soon after, she began collecting rocks, hiding them in her shoes at daycare to show me later. She thought she’d found diamonds, but it was only gravel. Maybe I shouldn’t have done this, but I bought a bag of tumbled stones to plant around the yard. She found every tiger’s eye, green agate and red jasper. With each, she’d rush inside, sweaty-palmed, offering it to me. And I’d confirm, repeatedly, what she had discovered: Life is also beautiful. — Charlotte Pence

See more Tiny Love Stories at nytimes.com/modernlove . Submit yours at nytimes.com/tinylovestories .

Want more from Modern Love? Watch the TV series ; sign up for the newsletter ; or listen to the podcast on iTunes , Spotify or Google Play . We also have swag at the NYT Store and two books, “ Modern Love: True Stories of Love, Loss, and Redemption ” and “ Tiny Love Stories: True Tales of Love in 100 Words or Less .”

Tales About Love to Nourish Your Soul

The Cost of the American Dream:   A physical relationship is nearly impossible  for a hard-working Bangladeshi taxi driver and his wife, who longed for each other.

Who Is Trusted to Have a Child?:  A married gay man and emergency pediatrician wrestle with expectations of having a “traditional” family life .

A Fetish for a Second Skin: As a gay Korean American, he yearned for the privilege of being heterosexual or white. So he began wearing latex , a new skin.

The Slap That Changed Everything: She kept trying to laugh off and normalize sexual aggression by men. Eventually, it all caught up to her .

Seeking a Lover, Not a Nurse: Disability shouldn’t make someone undesirable  or impractical as a romantic partner.

Two Kisses We Never Talked About: Sometimes you really have to show up for your ex. This was one of those times .