Best books about communism

[playeru]

So, I read "1984" and "Animal Farm" from the mighty Orwell, and recently "Darkness at Noon" by Arthur Koestler. Any other good ones you know dealing with this subject?

[Virgil]

Try Anthony Burgess's The Wanting Seed.

[manolia]

Are you interested in literature dealing with the idea of communism or do you care to read some books dealing with the theory itself?

For the second case: You can read Engel's origin of family (a very interesting analysis) or one of Lenin's books.

[metal134]

While it isn't about communism perse, "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley paints a picture of a futurtisic dystopian society with a social structure that can be described as very much reminiscent of communism

[amalia1985]

"We, the living" by Ayn Rand is a must.

[Idril]

I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for but We by Yevgeny Zamyatin is a great dystopian novel along the lines of 1984 and it's by a Soviet author. A couple of books that show the organization and running of communist collective farms is Virgin Soil Upturned which includes Seeds of Tomorrow and Harvest on the Don by Mikhail Sholokhov, they can both come off a tad bit propagandist at times but it really does give you a taste of what that adjustment was like for the Cossacks. A book I'm reading right now, Those Who Seek by Daniil Granin is about engineers and mechanics and the politics of laboratory work in Soviet Russia. Again, it's a bit like propaganda but it really is fascinating in a historical and sociological sense.

[Return Journey]

Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Cancer Ward, set in 1950's Communist Russia. Something of what Communism was like from the inside.
As you learn a little about each character you get to see something of the hardship of life in Russia at that time. The camps, exile, families torn apart, shortages of everything. People having to decide whether to make a stand on what they know to be true or compromise to save their families.
It's a brilliant book and well worth reading.

[lilbrattyteen]

Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Cancer Ward, set in 1950's Communist Russia. Something of what Communism was like from the inside.
As you learn a little about each character you get to see something of the hardship of life in Russia at that time. The camps, exile, families torn apart, shortages of everything. People having to decide whether to make a stand on what they know to be true or compromise to save their families.
It's a brilliant book and well worth reading.

This *IS* a wonderful book! The end will surprise you for sure. Look out for the political allegory! After reading this I wanted to devour more Solzhenitsyn.

It goes almost without saying that reading The Communist Manifesto would tell you what Marxism was about. But remember that Stalin and Mao both put their own spins on Marxism, and after Stalin died, Communism in Russia evolved more.

[Noisms]

I'm not sure what you're after either, but yeah, Solzhenitsyn - especially The Gulag Archipelago.

A People's Tragedy by Orlando Figes is a history of Russia from 1891-1924, and is a great account of how Bolshevism developed until the day it managed to hijack an entire country - and what of what it resulted in.

I don't recommend Ayn Rand, who somebody mentioned. She wrote political propaganda which was thinly disguised as 'novels', with ridiculous one-dimensional mouthpiece characters and turgid prose. Well worth giving a miss.

[Idril]

I'm not sure what you're after either, but yeah, Solzhenitsyn - especially The Gulag Archipelago.


Oh yeah, I had forgotten about that one...that's a really good look at the downside of communisim. I learned a lot of things reading that book, a few I wish I hadn't but still, history is uncomfortable sometimes and this book definitely doesn't sugarcoat anything.

[Aiculík]

Spiritus by Ismail Kadare. As this novel is not that known, I'll write a short summary.

It contains some SPOILERS, so proceed at your own responsibility!

********************

An international committee for communists crimes, after visiting many other East European countries, comes to the Albania. But they find out that they can't use their standard methods for investigation - much of written material is missing and witnesses remain quiet, even the regime fell down few years ago.

The head of the committee wants to understand locals' way of thinking, so he begins to learn the albanian language - and he discovers terrible possibilities of manipulation through the archaic forms of language, and, at the same time, the resistance of the language to the knowing of underscribable terrors. In the district town, he find out that the stage Chekhov's The Seagull was forbidden. He also finds three tapes: on one is just some gibberish of a man who sounds as if his tongue was cut out, on the second, woman's groans during sex, and on the third one, bugged phone calls of some high officier of the secret police.

From this chaos, slowly arise the stories of few common people in the district town, who were used as "lab mice" in the new police activity, aimed at spying the citizens - the small bugs, imported from China, were sewn into their clothes. But we also find out about intriuges of the boss of the secret police, and last years of albanian dictator. And at some point, these motives connect into one whole, and they explain the everyday reality in Albania - withh all the following, bugging, bullying, humiliation, torturing and murders.

[amalia1985]

I don't recommend Ayn Rand, who somebody mentioned. She wrote political propaganda which was thinly disguised as 'novels', with ridiculous one-dimensional mouthpiece characters and turgid prose. Well worth giving a miss.


"Ridiculous" is not a very kind word, is it? Respect other people's choices.We had lectures about the book in my university,so I know a few things, right? "Propaganda" is something very subjective.I wasn't rude, so do not be rude yourself.Thank you.

[bazarov]

One day in a life of Ivan Denisovich - Solzhenitsyn got Nobel prize for that; maybe Pasternak's Doctor Zhivago (maybe very maybe) and theory of communism in Dostoevsky's Demons (right Idril :) ), probably the first who wrote about communism, 50 years before revolutions in Russia.

[Mark F.]

Depends if you want to read about communist ideology or totalitarian regimes. Describing 1984 as a novel about communism is absurd.

[Noisms]

"Ridiculous" is not a very kind word, is it? Respect other people's choices.We had lectures about the book in my university,so I know a few things, right? "Propaganda" is something very subjective.I wasn't rude, so do not be rude yourself.Thank you.

I wasn't calling you ridiculous, or in fact speaking about you at all. I was talking about characters in a book. I might have been being rude about Ayn Rand, but she's not around to get offended.

Don't take things personally, eh? I think Ayn Rand is an awful writer and said so, but that has nothing to do with what I think about you. You're free to read her books and like them; and good luck to you.

[playeru]

Depends if you want to read about communist ideology or totalitarian regimes. Describing 1984 as a novel about communism is absurd.

Well, Orwell would say it's not at all absurd. He wrote the book with communism in mind.

[Noisms]

Well, Orwell would say it's not at all absurd. He wrote the book with communism in mind.

1984 wasn't really about Communism, which I think is what the previous poster was getting at. It was about totalitarianism in general, so anything it has to say about Communism is incidental to that.

Animal Farm was a specific allegory for the October Revolution, though.

[amalia1985]

I wasn't calling you ridiculous, or in fact speaking about you at all. I was talking about characters in a book. I might have been being rude about Ayn Rand, but she's not around to get offended.

Don't take things personally, eh? I think Ayn Rand is an awful writer and said so, but that has nothing to do with what I think about you. You're free to read her books and like them; and good luck to you.



I don't need luck, my friend. I have my education to guide me, thank you.

[Idril]

... theory of communism in Dostoevsky's Demons (right Idril :) ), probably the first who wrote about communism, 50 years before revolutions in Russia.

That's very true. You see the seeds of rebellion in a lot of the 19th century Russian Lit but it is much more pronounced in Dostoevsky's work and especially, in Demons. And I think understanding how the seeds of communisim were sewn, their political and social origin is vitally important to the big picture. It would be a great progression to read Dostoevsky's Demons to give you an idea of that 19th Century unrest, then move on to either Pasternak's Doctor Zhivago or Mikhail Sholokhov's Quiet Flows the Don to get a picture of the Revolution and Civil War, then move a few years ahead to Sholokhov's Virgin Soil Upturned...or you could go with Konstantin Fedin's trilogy Early Joys, No Ordinary Summer and The Conflagoration which covers the same time frame and, for the most part, the same events but it's more from the Red Point of view...then you can move on a few more years to books about the 40's or 50's when communisim was firmly established. Then to top it all off, read Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago to see it from a completely different point of view.

[*Classic*Charm*]

1984 wasn't really about Communism, which I think is what the previous poster was getting at. It was about totalitarianism in general, so anything it has to say about Communism is incidental to that.

Animal Farm was a specific allegory for the October Revolution, though.

I agree. Orwell himself said that the pig Napoleon represented Stalin. 1984 is not so much a satire about communism as it had already been experienced, but as Orwell predicted the world would become if a regime of totalitarianism was implimented again in the future.

[manolia]

Animal Farm was a specific allegory for the October Revolution, though.

:thumbs_up Agreed.

Back to the OP. I have recently bought "The master and Margarita"..judging by the small review i have read maybe this book should be added to your list ;)

[Mark F.]

Well, Orwell would say it's not at all absurd. He wrote the book with communism in mind.

Don't confuse communism and Stalinism. Read Marx's Communist Manifesto.

[playeru]

Don't confuse communism and Stalinism. Read Marx's Communist Manifesto.

Yeh, I know Orwell was actually a leftist. Animal Farm portrais Lenin in a positive way.

[04jwinfield]

I cannot understand why Zamyatin's 'We' of the 1920s is overlooked by so many interested in political literature, especially those focused on Russian and Soviet influenced pieces. The novel creates a structural future that has been taken by several other, more recent authors who are held in higher regard than the Russian. Huxley and Orwell's futures are both influenced heavily by the dystopian future described in 'We', Orwell even incorperating aspects of characters and storyline into '1984'. For such an influential and inspiring peice of work, Zamyatin receives very little praise and positive following. I highly reconmend 'We' espeically if, as I had, you have works such as 'BNW' and '1984' previously. Aspects of communism are apparent as living fears of Zamyatin's imagination as he wrote just after the events of the Russian Revolution, although the whole novel is more of an analysis of absolute totalitarianism at work, beyond the steadily bulding society (or anti-society) of Orwell's Air Strip One.

[Trekker114]

The Captive Mind by Czesław Miłosz is a great (non-fiction) work on communism.

I agree with the post above that We is essential if you like 1984 and Darkness at Noon.

[Emil Miller]

The Captive Mind by Czesław Miłosz is a great (non-fiction) work on communism.

I agree with the post above that We is essential if you like 1984 and Darkness at Noon.

Like many a young man I thought that communism was the answer to the world's problems. But extensive study of this pseudo religion taught me otherwise. One of the milestones along the way was the British (what else ?) Polish writer, Isaac Deutscher whose monumental biography of Trotsky I read with increasing concern that I had been lead up the garden path by, not only Marx and his acolytes Lenin and Stalin, but by Trotsky himself. The whole idea of universal brotherhood is a total fantasy that, quite naturally, appeals to the ingenuous. Nature decides the pecking order, not man.

[Trekker114]

I think the writer of The Captive Mind bears your point out. He starts out loyal to the Polish Communists, but later defects to the West and speaks of Stalinism as "enslavement through consciousness."

[dfloyd]

And I don't feel he was rude. Ayn Rand has been castigated many time on this forum, and I don't think her many detractors were saying anything derogatory about one of Rand's admirer's, but about the false philosophy and poor writing of Rand herself.

[OrphanPip]

Yeh, I know Orwell was actually a leftist. Animal Farm portrais Lenin in a positive way.

He was more than a leftist, he was a self-avowed supporter of socialist democracy, his problem was always with the totalitarianism of Stalinist regimes, not with the concept of communism.

Distancing ourselves from the label of Russian and Chinese Communism is always the major hurdle socialism has to overcome.

"The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them." - Upton Sinclair

Anyway, some more pro-socialist authors would include George Bernard Shaw and Upton Sinclair. There's a common misconception that all socialism is Communist gulags, when we owe things like minimum wage protection and basic humane work conditions to the efforts of socialist parties and unions.

[Emil Miller]

There's a common misconception that all socialism is Communist gulags, when we owe things like minimum wage protection and basic humane work conditions to the efforts of socialist parties and unions.

There is also a common misconception that the dividing line between Orwell and Stalin, or Rousseau and Robespierre is a lot wider than is actually the case.

[Taliesin]

For a somewhat different perspective, you could try the article There Is No Communism in Russia
(http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/63/227.html) by Emma Goldman, first published in 1935.

[applepie]

This *IS* a wonderful book! The end will surprise you for sure. Look out for the political allegory! After reading this I wanted to devour more Solzhenitsyn.

It goes almost without saying that reading The Communist Manifesto would tell you what Marxism was about. But remember that Stalin and Mao both put their own spins on Marxism, and after Stalin died, Communism in Russia evolved more.

That's basically the one that came to mind for me. Straight from the horses mouth and all that bit when reading the theory;)

[Isla]

[QUOTE=OrphanPip;932075]He was more than a leftist, he was a self-avowed supporter of socialist democracy, his problem was always with the totalitarianism of Stalinist regimes, not with the concept of communism.

:cheers2:

Indeed! He fought with the Anti-Stalinist POUM in the Spanish Civil War, and miraculously lived to write a memoir about it, Homage to Catalonia. It is a fascinating snapshot of the Spanish Civil War, although Arturo Barea's beautifully written autobiography, The Forging of a Rebel is by far the best personal record of this devastating conflict out there (A view shared by Orwell!).

[Leland Gaunt]

Now I'm not sure what you want out of reading about communism, but I assume that it is to form an opinion on communism. If this is the case, then do not read fiction. Though I enjoyed Animal Farm, it is not a valid reason to oppose communism. I would suggest that you first read books on communist theory (Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital etc...) and then hit the history books. Let the facts speak for themselves.

[Emil Miller]

Now I'm not sure what you want out of reading about communism, but I assume that it is to form an opinion on communism. If this is the case, then do not read fiction. Though I enjoyed Animal Farm, it is not a valid reason to oppose communism. I would suggest that you first read books on communist theory (Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital etc...) and then hit the history books. Let the facts speak for themselves.

When you hit the history books, it is a good idea to find out something about the author first.

[Leland Gaunt]

Eh, I suppose that's true enough (especially with Texas running the show). I was thinking something more along the line with statistical information more than anything. Besides that most textbooks don't muddle subjects with personal bias, and once you utilize multiple sources, those that do become obvious.

[Emil Miller]

Eh, I suppose that's true enough (especially with Texas running the show). I was thinking something more along the line with statistical information more than anything. Besides that most textbooks don't muddle subjects with personal bias, and once you utilize multiple sources, those that do become obvious.

Well I am thinking of Eric Hobsbawm's historical works which are by an avowed Marxist but still recognised as major historical texts on the subject.

[Leland Gaunt]

Honestly, I haven't heard of those before. Should it be considered a legitimate historical source?

[Emil Miller]

Honestly, I haven't heard of those before. Should it be considered a legitimate historical source?

It seems as though the answer is 'yes', judging from the honours that he has received right up until recently. It is worth checking him out on Wickipedia (the other items are less than impartial) to see what appears to be a strain of crypto communism in academic circles that still give credence to his writings.

[Pryderi Agni]

Try Maxim Gorky; he's a great propagandist for the cause. You could also try The Rise and Fall of Communism (http://www.bodleyhead.co.uk/book.asp?ean=9780224078795); it's a great study on why communism failed.

[Isla]

Though I enjoyed Animal Farm, it is not a valid reason to oppose communism

I agree... because Animal Farm isn't so much an opposition to Communism as it is an allegory of the Russian Revolution. The novel portrays how the chief error of the Revolution was the tyranny of its leaders (not the ideology of communism or even the revolt itself) who had usurped the rebellion, centralizing power and executing policies that were contrary to the original principles of Marx (or Old Major). Orwell is also weary of revolution itself (again, not so much of communist ideology) and portrays how ignorance, intolerance and selfishness ultimately produced the atrocities on the Animal Farm, and the destruction of the revolution itself. In reality Orwell was very critical of Stalinism, but he himself was a Democratic Socialist and fought with the Anti-Stalinist, Marxist faction POUM during the Spanish Civil War.

As for specifically “anti-communist” novels or books critical of socialism I would try anything by Ayn Rand (although I abhor her books and her neo-libertarian philosophies!), Lois Lowry’s The Giver and A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle. If you're more interested in totalitarian or dystopian societies in general, there is a vaster array of literature.

Side note: Three great non-fiction books on the Spanish Civil War are Burnett Bolloten’s Revolution and Counterrevolution, Arturo Barea’s The Forging of A Rebel and Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia. They all include analysis on the major problems within the Spanish Revolution, including how tyrannical leaders from Moscow infiltrated the left, creating or exacerbating severe factionalism within Spanish Republic, crushing their solidarity. They also illustrate the ignorance and factionalism that went on amongst individuals and various groups and organizations that had differing beliefs or values, which indeed led to many of the atrocities which had taken place. Of course these books also explain the history of the extreme right; the wealthy, militarily backed fascists, who had long dark history of oppressing their citizenry, and had initialized the revolution by trying to overthrow the Spanish Republic, with the financial and military support of Hitler.


For a somewhat different perspective, you could try the article There Is No Communism in Russia
(http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/63/227.html) by Emma Goldman, first published in 1935.

:thumbs_up

This is a Great article by Emma Goldman.

[Leland Gaunt]

I agree... because Animal Farm isn't so much an opposition to Communism as it is an allegory of the Russian Revolution. The novel portrays how the chief error of the Revolution was the tyranny of its leaders (not the ideology of communism or even the revolt itself) who had usurped the rebellion, centralizing power and executing policies that were contrary to the original principles of Marx (or Old Major). Orwell is also weary of revolution itself (again, not so much of communist ideology) and portrays how ignorance, intolerance and selfishness ultimately produced the atrocities on the Animal Farm, and the destruction of the revolution itself. In reality Orwell was very critical of Stalinism, but he himself was a Democratic Socialist and fought with the Anti-Stalinist, Marxist faction POUM during the Spanish Civil War.
Which happens to be one of the best criticisms of communism (or more accurately, the attempted implentation of communism). A dictator is needed in the early transitionary periods towards communism, and dictators are prone to certain shortcomings, such as being human and having human traits.

Side note: Three great non-fiction books on the Spanish Civil War are Burnett Bolloten’s Revolution and Counterrevolution, Arturo Barea’s The Forging of A Rebel and Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia. They all include analysis on the major problems within the Spanish Revolution, including how tyrannical leaders from Moscow infiltrated the left, creating or exacerbating severe factionalism within Spanish Republic, crushing their solidarity. They also illustrate the ignorance and factionalism that went on amongst individuals and various groups and organizations that had differing beliefs or values, which indeed led to many of the atrocities which had taken place. Of course these books also explain the history of the extreme right; the wealthy, militarily backed fascists, who had long dark history of oppressing their citizenry, and had initialized the revolution by trying to overthrow the Spanish Republic, with the financial and military support of Hitler.
Thanks, I will have to look into these. As well as the history works mentioned by Brian.:thumbs_up

[Modest Proposal]

I wasn't calling you ridiculous, or in fact speaking about you at all. I was talking about characters in a book. I might have been being rude about Ayn Rand, but she's not around to get offended.

Don't take things personally, eh? I think Ayn Rand is an awful writer and said so, but that has nothing to do with what I think about you. You're free to read her books and like them; and good luck to you.

Rand's work is always so divisive in these discussions.

As far as books concerning communism, I will recommend 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being' by Kundera. It's not so directly concerned with communism, most of those that I'm familiar with have been mentioned, but it has a lot to do with communist occupations which Kundera experienced.

[Isla]

(Just as a side note: I am not advocating Communism)


A dictator is needed in the early transitionary periods towards communism, and dictators are prone to certain shortcomings, such as being human and having human traits.

I understand why it may seem that way when looking at the delineation of recent history, but it is just not true that a dictator is "required", at any stages, to implement communism. At their foundation, ideologies— any ideology, is a social construction, and can be implemented in numerous ways--ways we have not even begun to envisage. Communism may very well be a Utopian idea, an impractical idea or even an impossible idea, but then again it could also very well be developed, in one form or another. Such as empowering forces of direct democracy or through democratic socialism if people wanted--or whatever, these ideas are not exclusive of one another.

According to Karl Marx, Communism aims at abolishing unjustified hierarchies and the State--or centralized government and power, and creating the communal ownership of natural resources and property, with its core vales lying with the use of direct democracy. That could be developed through coercion or through cooperation, the "idea" itself is neutral. There have been elements of all of these ideas in various cultures and societies throughout history in the world, although not necessary under the Marxist doctrine of Communism.

Karl Marx never was not a Stalinist for example, and believed that Communism should evolve--and would one day evolve, naturally. He argued that history has progressed incrementally; that Socialism was a step up from Capitalism, that Capitalism was a vast improvement from Mercantilism, that Mercantilism was far freer than feudalism and so one and so forth. Additional we see societies with mixed ideas. Countries that blend elements of Socialism and Capitalism like in Western Europe, or State Capitalism and State Communism like in China, or State Capitalism and Republicanism, like in the United States. And all of these societies are continually evolving.

Neo-Libertarians (Pro-Capitalists, Anti-State) have serious differences with traditional Libertarians, (Anti-Capitalists, Anti-State) but they have spring boarded off the same ground. Some Capitalists, like Adam Smith "advocated markets only on the grounds that under perfect liberty will lead to perfect equality" (Chomsky). This was quite different from modern ideas of Capitalism, like those of Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand.

I just don’t think we can nor should pigeon hole ideas like that.

But I agree with you that "dictators are prone to certain shortcomings." I have yet to see a benevolent dictator! :)


Hello Leland, nice to meet you! :cheers2:

Noam Chomsky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkXhF2DJ7fc

[bpearson]

Communism has never been properly created in modern times. The Paris Commune came very close, but Stalinist Russia, Cuba, North Korea and China are nowhere near true communism. If you want an opinion on communism, then read the writings of Karl Marx. Communism is a just and beautiful thing. If you want to read about dictatorship and oppression, pick up any history book. I can guarantee you that ninety percent of them are all wrong. If you think I'm just saying that, try actually studying the work of Karl Marx. His communism is one of freedom and equality, none of which occur in the falsely named communist "states" (which you will find is itself a contradiction against true Marxist theory).

1984 and Brave New world are both brilliant books in their own right, but I believe they at this moment give us a view which is more relevant to the future of the capitalistic West.

[Emil Miller]

Communism has never been properly created in modern times. The Paris Commune came very close, but Stalinist Russia, Cuba, North Korea and China are nowhere near true communism. If you want an opinion on communism, then read the writings of Karl Marx. Communism is a just and beautiful thing. If you want to read about dictatorship and oppression, pick up any history book. I can guarantee you that ninety percent of them are all wrong. If you think I'm just saying that, try actually studying the work of Karl Marx. His communism is one of freedom and equality, none of which occur in the falsely named communist "states" (which you will find is itself a contradiction against true Marxist theory).

1984 and Brave New world are both brilliant books in their own right, but I believe they at this moment give us a view which is more relevant to the future of the capitalistic West.

Of course communism is a beautiful idea, but it has to be accepted by everybody for it to work and those that wont accept it have to be forced to.
That's when the dictators come in and it all falls apart.

[bpearson]

those that wont accept it have to be forced to.
That's when the dictators come in and it all falls apart.

Those who don't want to accept capitalism are forced to as well, with similar, albeit generally more veiled results. What you have said would imply that the current "communist" dictators are trying to establish a real communistic society, which could not be further from the truth... With the kind of oppressive means they use, I'm sure they could have forced nearly anyone to follow their cause... but it's not communism. Note the repression of democratic values and the existence of rich upper classes, especially in China.

To establish communism, people will have to be forced. The same goes for any other idea that has or will have a global following. The issue is how these people will be forced. That period is called a revolution, specifically "the dictatorship of the proletariat" which should not be confused with a totalitarian or even authoritarian state. What Americans, the English, Canadians, and much of the west currently live under is the complete opposite of the proletariat dictatorship. We live in a dictatorship of the capitalist class, in which the rich hold much of the political clout and the voice of the poor is generally muted (Especially for the Americans, who have two parties that both represent selfish capitalistic ideologies. With no hope of the common working man ever running for election, unless he wins the lottery. Say what you will.).

[Emil Miller]

Those who don't want to accept capitalism are forced to as well, with similar, albeit generally more veiled results. What you have said would imply that the current "communist" dictators are trying to establish a real communistic society, which could not be further from the truth... With the kind of oppressive means they use, I'm sure they could have forced nearly anyone to follow their cause... but it's not communism. Note the repression of democratic values and the existence of rich upper classes, especially in China.

To establish communism, people will have to be forced. The same goes for any other idea that has or will have a global following. The issue is how these people will be forced. That period is called a revolution, specifically "the dictatorship of the proletariat" which should not be confused with a totalitarian or even authoritarian state. What Americans, the English, Canadians, and much of the west currently live under is the complete opposite of the proletariat dictatorship. We live in a dictatorship of the capitalist class, in which the rich hold much of the political clout and the voice of the poor is generally muted (Especially for the Americans, who have two parties that both represent selfish capitalistic ideologies. With no hope of the common working man ever running for election, unless he wins the lottery. Say what you will.).

The problem with the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is that once the proletariat elects a party to represent it, it soon becomes a 'dictatorship of the party' and when the most ruthless of the party leaders has eliminated his rivals it becomes simply a dictatorship.
As for the failings of democracy, I have published a book on that very subject but, although those failings are there for anyone to see who cares to take notice, individuals can still support parties outside of the governmental system if they choose; something that isn't or wouldn't be allowed under communism whatever form it took.

[bpearson]

Communism is meant to be true democracy, in which everybody has a voice in things, therefore political parties are no longer necessary. I do agree with you in that most "communistic" parties that have succeeded in achieving power usually end up assuming complete dictatorial control of the state, but once they assume that power they no longer are bearing the interests of the proletariat in mind, and can no longer be called communists. "Orthodox" marxist-leninism is the line of marxism which most commonly ends in dictatorship, as it did in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. I believe that you might remember (seeing that you are apparently a writer, and must have done some research... congratulations on your book by the way) that Karl Marx himself denied being a "marxist", and while I do not know if I am quoting this in the right context, it applies to the so called "marxist" ruling parties. They are not communistic, a modern communistic "state" has never existed. Communism must be a world wide system, as a communist "state" could not properly survive without becoming isolationist, which generally encroaches upon the freedoms of its population.

I believe in true communism, as it was conceived by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. I will fight for a true communistic society, and if that society became a dictatorship, I would fight to destroy it.

And that's the problem with the modern communist movement, too many idiots who don't know what they're talking about..

[qimissung]

That makes me think of "Reds" annd the scene where Warren Beatty leaps out of the train.

[goatlips]

The standard work is Main Currents of Marxism (comprising "The Founders", "The Golden Age", and "The Breakdown") by Leszek Kolakowski.

[Heteronym]

The most beautiful novel about communism that I've read was written, unsurprisingly, by the staunch communist José Saramago. But good luck in ever reading it, becauseLevantado do Chão is not available in English.

It's almost an historical novel, depicting peasant life in Alentejo, a poor, desert-like region in Portugal's heartland, in the span of a century, from the time of the monarchy to the years after the fall of the dictatorship in '74. It traces the lives of several generations of a family and the peasants' growing millitancy in their struggle for better working conditions, rights and more pay. Especially vivid is the oppression during the dictatorship years, when bosses and the police had a close relationship in keeping the working masses in their proper place through fear and ignorance. The novel, however, ends in a positive note, showing the occupation of the land by the peasants and their fight to retain it so they could live off it, as free men and not as slaves.

Very heartbreaking and optimistic, and throughout communism plays an important role because in those years being a communist in Portugal was a serious thing, it was an act of rebellion, a crime, and communists often were the only people fighting the dictatorship and organising the masses. So the novel shows them in a very noble light.

[Abras]

Two great black authors who had strong Communist leanings: Ralph Ellison and Richard Wright. They were obviously both mainly concerned with social injustice, racism in particular. Definitely check out Invisible Man by Ellison, and Black Boy or Native Son by Wright. Also, although perhaps they are not strictly literature, you may be interested in the various woodcut novels of the early twentieth century, most of which were created by leftward-leaning men. They are not the easiest things to find, but it is getting easier: Library of America recently released a two-volume set of Lynd Ward's six novels, and there was also a collection published back in 2007 called Graphic Witness, that featured four stories by four different artists. Very interesting stuff indeed!

[BienvenuJDC]

I would lean toward the Orwellian literature to best describe the destructive nature of Communism. The State will never have the people's interest in mind....only its own power and control.

[kumintang]

I recommend Isabel Allende's The House of the Spirits, Alex La Guma's In the Fog of Season's End, Ignazio Silone's Fontamara, Ninotchka Rosca's State of War... beyond Communism per se, these novels, I believe, painted a portrait of a man/woman as a Communist... what do I mean by that? Communism is more than a theory, and seemingly, many of those who posted their own opinions were looking at Communism as a pure theory and/or philosophy. Communism is a practice.

The authors I mentioned did not romanticized Communism but, in fact, debunked all the misconceptions about it. Being a Communist is beyond knowing all the Marxist theory of surplus value, mode of production, etc.; and Leninist theory of imperialism, etc... it takes 'attitude,' which we, the bourgeois, would never realize unless we take a step to go to the countryside/industry, witness and experience the toils of the workers and the peasants.

The endings of these novels did not show that Communism or the Revolution triumph over Fascism or the Apartheid, but they left a promise... which the readers themselves shall realize.

Revisionism is not Communism. It is not.

[stlukesguild]

The main problem with Communism or any such communal form of economics was and remains the question of motivation. Sir Thomas More raised the issue in his Utopia... querying how one motivates individuals into putting forth a far greater degree of labor or study when there is no "reward". More, however, simply sidesteps the issue suggesting something along the lines of "just trust me, it works."

Why should one put forth the extra labor demanded for becoming a surgeon, a physicist, an engineer, a professor, etc... knowing that the return is no greater than if one were to simply work as a stock boy or flipping burgers. Indeed, it might be less, considering that the surgeon, etc... puts off a career... and often a life... until after a great many years of study. If I were assure a standard of living no mater what my career choice were, I surely wouldn't be trudging in to work everyday. I'd be a full-time artist.

[mal4mac]

Why should one put forth the extra labor demanded for becoming a surgeon, a physicist, an engineer, a professor, etc... knowing that the return is no greater than if one were to simply work as a stock boy or flipping burgers. Indeed, it might be less, considering that the surgeon, etc... puts off a career... and often a life... until after a great many years of study. If I were assure a standard of living no mater what my career choice were, I surely wouldn't be trudging in to work everyday. I'd be a full-time artist.

I worked as a physicist for a few years because I was interested in it, I wasn't interested in being an artist. I did so even though I could have gone to work in "the city" for a lot more money.

If you read the literature on "work satisfaction", then surgery always scores highly because it's a varied job in which "flow" is easy to reach. All that complex cutting and sewing must be great fun for those with great hand-eye co-ordination! A bit like sculpting, but with human life at stake. What could be more exciting than that?

Don't full-time artists have to trudge into the studio every day, if they are at all serious?

[stlukesguild]

The vast majority of students do not elect to major in medicine, computer science, law, engineering, or business administration because they imagine it will be fun and fulfilling. I assume that at the same time, those working jobs flipping burgers, working in nursing homes, and doing manual labor would be far more likely to find their job far more satisfying if they were well-paid.