Communism... opinions?

Friedrich Hayek in The Road to Serfdom, argued that the more even distribution of wealth through the nationalization of the means of production advocated by certain socialists cannot be achieved without a loss of political, economic, and human rights. According to Hayek, to achieve control over means of production and distribution of wealth it is necessary for such socialists to acquire significant powers of coercion. Hayek argued that the road to socialism leads society to totalitarianism, and argued that fascism and Nazism were the inevitable outcome of socialist trends in Italy and Germany during the preceding period.[30]

Hayek was critical of the bias shown by university teachers and intellectuals towards socialist ideals. He argued that socialism is not a working class movement as socialists contend, but rather "the construction of theorists, deriving from certain tendencies of abstract thought with which for a long time only the intellectuals were familiar; and it required long efforts by the intellectuals before the working classes could be persuaded to adopt it as their program."[31]

Winston Churchill argued that socialism inevitably evolves into a totalitarian regime:

A socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.[32]

Several theorists have shown that bad economic theory leads directly to bad practice, and the two cannot be separated. For example, Milton Friedman argued that the absence of voluntary economic activity makes it too easy for repressive political leaders to grant themselves coercive powers. Friedman's view was also shared by Friedrich Hayek and John Maynard Keynes, both of whom believed that capitalism is vital for freedom to survive and thrive.[33][34]

Peter Self criticizes the traditional socialist planned economy and argues against pursuing "extreme equality" because he believes it requires "strong coercion" and does not allow for "reasonable recognition [for] different individual needs, tastes (for work or leisure) and talents." He recommends market socialism instead.[35]

Objectivists criticize socialism as devaluing the individual, and making people incapable of choosing their own values, as decisions are made centrally. They also reject socialism's indifference to property rights.[36]

See also: Anti-Stalinist left

Communist countries, states, areas and local communities have been based on the rule of parties proclaiming a basis in Marxism-Leninism, an ideology which is not supported by all Marxists and leftists. Many communists disagree with many the actions undertaken by ruling Communist parties during the 20th century.

Elements of the left opposed to Bolshevik plans before they were put into practice included the revisionist Marxists, such as Eduard Bernstein, who denied the necessity of a revolution. Anarchists (who had differed from Marx and his followers since the split in the First International), many of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and the Marxist Mensheviks supported the overthrow of the Tsar, but vigorously opposed the seizure of power by Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

Criticisms of Communist rule from the left continued after the creation of the Soviet state. The anarchist Nestor Makhno led an insurrection against the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War and the Socialist-Revolutionary Fanya Kaplan tried to assassinate Lenin. Bertrand Russell visited Russia in 1920, and regarded the Bolsheviks as intelligent, but clueless and planless. In her book about Soviet Russia after the revolution, My Further Disillusionment in Russia, Emma Goldman condemned the suppression of the Kronstadt rebellion as a 'massacre.' Eventually, also the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries broke with the Bolsheviks. By anti-revisionists

Anti-revisionists (which includes Marxist Leninists, Hoxhaists and Maoists) criticise the rule of the communist states by claiming that they were state capitalist states ruled by revisionists.[71][72] Though the periods and countries defined as state capitalist or revisionist varies among different ideologies and parties, all of them accept that the Soviet Union was socialist during Stalin's time. Maoists believe that the Peoples Republic of China became state capitalist after Mao's death. Hoxhaists believe that the Peoples Republic of China was always state capitalist and uphold Socialist Albania as the only socialist state after the Soviet Union under Stalin.[73] By left communists

Left communists[74][75] claim that the "communist" or "socialist" states or "people's states" were actually state capitalist and thus cannot be called "socialist". Some of the earliest critics of Leninism were the German-Dutch left communists, including Herman Gorter, Anton Pannekoek and Paul Mattick. Though most left communists see the October Revolution positively, their analysis concludes that by the time of the Kronstadt Revolt, the revolution had degenerated due to various historical factors.[74] Rosa Luxemburg was another communist who disagreed with Lenin's organizational methods that eventually led to the creation of the Soviet Union. By Trotskyists

After the split between Leon Trotsky and Stalin, Trotskyists have argued that Stalin transformed the Soviet Union into a bureaucratic and repressive one-party state, and that all subsequent Communist states ultimately followed a similar path because they copied Stalinism. There are various terms used by Trotskyists to define such states, such as "degenerated workers' state" and "deformed workers' state", "state capitalist" or "bureaucratic collectivist". While Trotskyists are Leninists, there are other Marxists who reject Leninism entirely, arguing, for example, that the Leninist principle of democratic centralism was the source of the Soviet Union's slide away from communism. Maoists view the Soviet Union and most of its satellites as "state capitalist" as a result of destalinization, some also view modern China in this light. By Anarchists This section may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help by adding relevant internal links, or by improving the article's layout. (April 2011) Click [show] on right for more details.[show]

• Please replace HTML markup with wiki markup where appropriate.
• Add wikilinks. Where appropriate, make links to other articles by putting "[[" and "]]" on either side of relevant words (see WP:LINK for more information). Please do not link terms that most readers are familiar with, such as common occupations, well-known geographical terms, and everyday items.
• Format the lead. Create or improve the lead paragraph.
• Arrange section headers as described at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
• Add an infobox if it is appropriate for the article.
• Remove this tag.

Anarchists have been among the most vocal critics of contemporary and historical Communist party rule. The Irish anarchist organization, Workers Solidarity Movement, states:

In the case of Russia all property/means of production belongs to the Russian State so all surplus value accrues to it. Absence of internal markets in the USSR and other Stalinist countries does not mean that the Capitalist mode of production is not in force. Surplus value is incorporated into goods at the point of production under Capitalism. In the West this surplus value is realised as money profits by selling them. But the surplus labour is incorporated into goods whether or not they are sold. This can be used directly providing use values for the Capitalist such as weapons or extra plant and machinery. This is the way state Capitalism works. Goods are also sold on the international market and the money is shared out among the bureaucracy as bribes, wages and awards. But internally surplus value is realised directly as use values such as plant and weapons which i) keeps the system ticking over and ii) maintains the bureaucracy in its privileged class position.

In any Capitalist system profit is extracted at the point of production by undervaluing labour power. Whether or not this profit is realised as cash money at the market is not of primary importance. A system which feeds most of its surplus value back into itself as means of production is possible in theory. Indeed all Capitalist systems tend towards this with more and more profit going into plant and machinery and less and less labour from which to extract a profit. Western style Capitalism is now in this very degenerate phase with larger and larger corporations and more and more investment in plant, machinery and technology.

The Soviet Union is a nightmare form of Capitalism where weapons systems and heavy machinery proliferate but basic consumer needs cannot be met.

Absence of private property in the Soviet Union is often put forward as evidence that Stalinist countries are not Capitalist but some new "Post-Capitalist " property form. However property forms (who owns what in law) can be a convenient legal fiction concealing the essential relations of production. The so called Asiatic Mode of Production. This was a description of the system pertaining in China and many parts of the Far East up to late feudal times. In theory property was collective but in practice it was held "for the people" by a small Oligarchy and passed from father to son. So all rents and profits (beyond what was needed to keep body and soul together) passed to them. State Capitalism employs a similar rouse to conceal its exploitative nature.[76]

Friedrich Hayek in The Road to Serfdom, argued that the more even distribution of wealth through the nationalization of the means of production advocated by certain socialists cannot be achieved without a loss of political, economic, and human rights. According to Hayek, to achieve control over means of production and distribution of wealth it is necessary for such socialists to acquire significant powers of coercion. Hayek argued that the road to socialism leads society to totalitarianism, and argued that fascism and Nazism were the inevitable outcome of socialist trends in Italy and Germany during the preceding period.[30]

Hayek was critical of the bias shown by university teachers and intellectuals towards socialist ideals. He argued that socialism is not a working class movement as socialists contend, but rather "the construction of theorists, deriving from certain tendencies of abstract thought with which for a long time only the intellectuals were familiar; and it required long efforts by the intellectuals before the working classes could be persuaded to adopt it as their program."[31]

Winston Churchill argued that socialism inevitably evolves into a totalitarian regime:

A socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.[32]

Several theorists have shown that bad economic theory leads directly to bad practice, and the two cannot be separated. For example, Milton Friedman argued that the absence of voluntary economic activity makes it too easy for repressive political leaders to grant themselves coercive powers. Friedman's view was also shared by Friedrich Hayek and John Maynard Keynes, both of whom believed that capitalism is vital for freedom to survive and thrive.[33][34]

Peter Self criticizes the traditional socialist planned economy and argues against pursuing "extreme equality" because he believes it requires "strong coercion" and does not allow for "reasonable recognition [for] different individual needs, tastes (for work or leisure) and talents." He recommends market socialism instead.[35]

Objectivists criticize socialism as devaluing the individual, and making people incapable of choosing their own values, as decisions are made centrally. They also reject socialism's indifference to property rights.[36]

Any step toward socialism is a step toward economic irrationality.

Objectivists argue that wealth (or any other human value) is the creation of individual minds, that human nature requires motivation by personal incentive, and therefore, that only political and economic freedom are consistent with human prosperity. This is demonstrated, they believe, by the comparative prosperity of free market and socialist economies. Objectivist Ayn Rand writes that communist leaders typically claim to work for the common good, but many or all of them have been corrupt and totalitarian.[7]