What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #209
Communism: A Very Short Introduction
If now in decline since the tumultuous events of 1989, communism was without doubt the great political movement of the twentieth century--at its peak, more than a third of the world's population lived under communist rule--and it is still a powerful force in many areas of the world, most notably in the People's Republic of China. What is communism? Where did the idea come from and what attracted people to it? Is there a future for communism? This Very Short Introduction considers these questions and more in the search to explore and understand this controversial political force. Explaining the theory behind its ideology, and examining the history and mindset behind its political, economic and social structures, Leslie Holmes considers the evolution of communism from Marx's time, to its practice in the Bolshevik Revolution, to its collapse in 1989-91. Holmes highlights the inner dynamics, crises, and demise of communism as a global system, and introduces the major players in the
communist world, including Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.
About the Series : Combining authority with wit, accessibility, and style, Very Short Introductions offer an introduction to some of life's most interesting topics. Written by experts for the newcomer, they demonstrate the finest contemporary thinking about the central problems and issues in hundreds of key topics, from philosophy to Freud, quantum theory to Islam.
communist world, including Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.
About the Series : Combining authority with wit, accessibility, and style, Very Short Introductions offer an introduction to some of life's most interesting topics. Written by experts for the newcomer, they demonstrate the finest contemporary thinking about the central problems and issues in hundreds of key topics, from philosophy to Freud, quantum theory to Islam.
155 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
93 people are currently reading
1399 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews
March 19, 2018
This should have been called "A Very Short Introduction to (the history of) self-proclaimed communist regimes". I was kind of let down, since I expected an overview of the theory/idea of communism.
August 3, 2021
Torn between giving two stars and three. My preference would have been to give 2.5 but since that's not possible, I'd rather be charitable and give three. The book is what it claims to be, a very short introduction to a complex topic. As such, expecting nuance or detail would be wrong. There is also the fact that no book on politics can ever be completely neutral, so some bias is to be expected. To the book's credit, it does seem to attempt to escape bias. But there were still some problems that need to be identified.
First of all, a better title for the book would have been "Communist Countries" rather than "Communism". The latter term is used to mean both communist theory and communist practice. The book makes clear that it concerned with communist practice and not theory, explaining the latter only briefly in order to contextualize the ideological basis for communist practice. But even when it comes to communist practice, the book focuses merely on communist countries and not the communist movements that have existed in capitalist countries. It can be argued that these movements have impacted their countries significantly in many ways and understanding them is crucial to understanding communist practice.
Moving on from this, the book fails to mention the positive aspects of communist countries and when it does, it quickly brushes over them.
First, the book mentions that communist countries have stressed gender equality but largely failed to achieve it or at the very least hasn't made progress more significant than capitalist countries. To support this claim, the book ignores several facts that were worth mentioning. For example, the fact that USSR was one of the first modern nation-states to establish complete legal equality between men and women, and the very first European country to legalize abortion. Similarly, the fact that Cuba was the first Latin American country to legalize abortion, which to this day remains rare in the Latin American region. Or the fact that Women's Day was first recognized as a national holiday in communist countries decades before being recognized by the UN and adopted in the rest of the world.
The book completely fails to mention one crucially positive aspect of the USSR: that it was one of the first modern nation-states to completely decriminalize homosexuality, all the way back in the 1920s. The Soviet Union even expressed support for decriminalization on international forums.
The book also claims that communists often denounced nationalism or ignored its significance. That is true of Classical Marxism. But Lenin was a staunch advocate of the right of nations to self determination, recognizing that nationalism can be a revolutionary force. Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban and Yugoslav communists were all inspired by nationalism. The USSR also adopted a policy of supporting anti-colonial nationalist movements such as in Algeria and Palestine.
The last significant error of omission the book commits is downplaying the economic achievements of communist countries. The criticism of economic stagnation in the 1970s and 80s is well deserved, but the fact that USSR was at all able to economically advance so rapidly between 1920s and 1960s, despite civil war and famine and German invasion, is ignored. Similarly, the poverty in Cuba and North Korea is mentioned without any mention of the harsh sanctions which have been placed on these countries for decades now.
Another type of error the book commits is that of false equivalence. This is apparent in the tables which compare the performance of developing communist countries to developed capitalist countries. I fail to see how comparing the performance of Bulgaria and Cuba in metrics like literacy rate and life expectancy to that of UK and USA proves any kind of point. Would not comparisons with countries like Greece and Haiti have been more useful? The book commits this same error also when comparing the situation of gender equality, judged on metrics like prominence of women in important political positions, between countries like Cuba which are situated in highly conservative geographic regions to those like the USA.
The last significant type of error the book commits is that of contradiction. It begins by claiming that it takes communism to be the real-world practice of communism, rather than any theory or philosophy. Then it goes on to claim that countries like China and Vietnam can be called post-Communist. How and by what metric? If it is due to the fact that these countries are no long command economies then A) it is contradicting its own claim that communism is the real-world practice of self-claimed communist countries, since China and Vietnam both claim to be communist and having a market economy with central planning is their real-world practice, and B) if simply having market economies makes countries post-Communist, then should not USSR under Lenin's NEP and Yugoslavia with its relatively decentralized economy also be be described as such?
First of all, a better title for the book would have been "Communist Countries" rather than "Communism". The latter term is used to mean both communist theory and communist practice. The book makes clear that it concerned with communist practice and not theory, explaining the latter only briefly in order to contextualize the ideological basis for communist practice. But even when it comes to communist practice, the book focuses merely on communist countries and not the communist movements that have existed in capitalist countries. It can be argued that these movements have impacted their countries significantly in many ways and understanding them is crucial to understanding communist practice.
Moving on from this, the book fails to mention the positive aspects of communist countries and when it does, it quickly brushes over them.
First, the book mentions that communist countries have stressed gender equality but largely failed to achieve it or at the very least hasn't made progress more significant than capitalist countries. To support this claim, the book ignores several facts that were worth mentioning. For example, the fact that USSR was one of the first modern nation-states to establish complete legal equality between men and women, and the very first European country to legalize abortion. Similarly, the fact that Cuba was the first Latin American country to legalize abortion, which to this day remains rare in the Latin American region. Or the fact that Women's Day was first recognized as a national holiday in communist countries decades before being recognized by the UN and adopted in the rest of the world.
The book completely fails to mention one crucially positive aspect of the USSR: that it was one of the first modern nation-states to completely decriminalize homosexuality, all the way back in the 1920s. The Soviet Union even expressed support for decriminalization on international forums.
The book also claims that communists often denounced nationalism or ignored its significance. That is true of Classical Marxism. But Lenin was a staunch advocate of the right of nations to self determination, recognizing that nationalism can be a revolutionary force. Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban and Yugoslav communists were all inspired by nationalism. The USSR also adopted a policy of supporting anti-colonial nationalist movements such as in Algeria and Palestine.
The last significant error of omission the book commits is downplaying the economic achievements of communist countries. The criticism of economic stagnation in the 1970s and 80s is well deserved, but the fact that USSR was at all able to economically advance so rapidly between 1920s and 1960s, despite civil war and famine and German invasion, is ignored. Similarly, the poverty in Cuba and North Korea is mentioned without any mention of the harsh sanctions which have been placed on these countries for decades now.
Another type of error the book commits is that of false equivalence. This is apparent in the tables which compare the performance of developing communist countries to developed capitalist countries. I fail to see how comparing the performance of Bulgaria and Cuba in metrics like literacy rate and life expectancy to that of UK and USA proves any kind of point. Would not comparisons with countries like Greece and Haiti have been more useful? The book commits this same error also when comparing the situation of gender equality, judged on metrics like prominence of women in important political positions, between countries like Cuba which are situated in highly conservative geographic regions to those like the USA.
The last significant type of error the book commits is that of contradiction. It begins by claiming that it takes communism to be the real-world practice of communism, rather than any theory or philosophy. Then it goes on to claim that countries like China and Vietnam can be called post-Communist. How and by what metric? If it is due to the fact that these countries are no long command economies then A) it is contradicting its own claim that communism is the real-world practice of self-claimed communist countries, since China and Vietnam both claim to be communist and having a market economy with central planning is their real-world practice, and B) if simply having market economies makes countries post-Communist, then should not USSR under Lenin's NEP and Yugoslavia with its relatively decentralized economy also be be described as such?
April 22, 2021
The drawback of books in this series is the condensing of so much material often makes them a difficult read, but this one was fascinating from the first page. A few things I learnt:
- Before taking power, Stalin was seen as a moderate compromiser in marked contrast to Trotsky, who was seen as a brilliant but often hot-headed and ruthless intellectual.
- The Soviets invaded Afghanistan not to install communism, but to replace one Communist leader with another - specifically a LESS hardline communist. They were hoping to give communism a benign face with neighbouring countries, especially Iran.
- Crucial to the fall of communism was the Solidarity movement in Poland, especially once it was backed by Pope John-Paul II. But the most important single person was Gorbachev, whose efforts to reform soviet communism only precipitated its collapse
- The primary loyalty of the courts was to the Communist system, not to the law. People appearing before them merely had their presumed guilt confirmed.
- Keynesianism (esp. in 1930s): the government attempts to kick-start the economy by commissioning large-scale projects. Neoliberalism (Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek): the state leaves much more to the market; if the economy stumbles, the state responds not by funding major new projects, but by reducing interest rates.
- Various programs backfired, e.g. Communist educational systems generally emphasised rote-learning, not critical and creative skills; while mandated full employment discouraged efficiency and made entrepreneurship and individual creativity almost impossible, contributing to the long-term decline of most Communist economies from the 1970s.
- China supported the Khmer Rouge regime and strongly condemned Vietnam’s attempts to overthrow it. China actually invaded Vietnam in 1979, and was beaten back in a month.
- The sudden collapse of Communism took the West by surprise.
- By the early 2000s, China had abandoned key aspects of Leninist Communism and now has a hybrid system that can best be described as post-Communist economically and socially, while remaining Communist politically.
- Before taking power, Stalin was seen as a moderate compromiser in marked contrast to Trotsky, who was seen as a brilliant but often hot-headed and ruthless intellectual.
- The Soviets invaded Afghanistan not to install communism, but to replace one Communist leader with another - specifically a LESS hardline communist. They were hoping to give communism a benign face with neighbouring countries, especially Iran.
- Crucial to the fall of communism was the Solidarity movement in Poland, especially once it was backed by Pope John-Paul II. But the most important single person was Gorbachev, whose efforts to reform soviet communism only precipitated its collapse
- The primary loyalty of the courts was to the Communist system, not to the law. People appearing before them merely had their presumed guilt confirmed.
- Keynesianism (esp. in 1930s): the government attempts to kick-start the economy by commissioning large-scale projects. Neoliberalism (Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek): the state leaves much more to the market; if the economy stumbles, the state responds not by funding major new projects, but by reducing interest rates.
- Various programs backfired, e.g. Communist educational systems generally emphasised rote-learning, not critical and creative skills; while mandated full employment discouraged efficiency and made entrepreneurship and individual creativity almost impossible, contributing to the long-term decline of most Communist economies from the 1970s.
- China supported the Khmer Rouge regime and strongly condemned Vietnam’s attempts to overthrow it. China actually invaded Vietnam in 1979, and was beaten back in a month.
- The sudden collapse of Communism took the West by surprise.
- By the early 2000s, China had abandoned key aspects of Leninist Communism and now has a hybrid system that can best be described as post-Communist economically and socially, while remaining Communist politically.
August 28, 2020
This book is an unfortunate one among the very short introduction series. There are numerous errors and misleading approaches. I believe this book is not a very short introduction to anything.
In the very short introduction series, there are two types of common errors: errors by omission and errors by inclusion. Errors by omission are innocent ones. Due to the shear size of the topic and tiny size of the book, omissions are bound to happen. The authors of political books cannot really be 100% neutral on the topic they are writing on, therefore, I can't really blame authors for choosing what to omit. In this book, the biggest error by omission is Soviet progression in rights of women. The book suggests Soviets goaded, or even forced, women to employment. However, there is a unique progression of right of women in socialist countries. Soviet Union is the very first country in the world to legalise abortion and recognise marital rape. Moreover, Soviet Union is one of the first countries admitting women en masse to higher education. Nina Karlovna Bari is a very good example. She was a leading expert in trigonometric series and in the first wave of women admitted to university. Even though abortion later banned again by Stalin, these things should be mentioned in the book.
There are two severe errors by inclusion. One of them is the German Soviet non-aggression pact. It was presented as if Stalin collaborated with the Nazis, however anyone familiar with history would know that Stalin was preparing to fight against Nazis and the pact was there to gain time for war preparations. It is also argued that the USSR wanted the Europe to be conquered by the Nazis so that it can liberate it to export socialism to other countries. It is impossible to know how the history would progress if Soviets hadn't signed the non-aggression pact, but they certainly did not collaborate with the Nazis. Hitler knew that 80 million strong Nazi Germany couldn't stand against 200 million strong USSR. This is why he didn't postpone operation Barbarossa, even though he realised that it would be impossible to reach German goals before the onset of winter. The second error by inclusion is stating that no women ever became the communist party secretary. Although this is correct, no women at that time ever became either prime minister or the president in the entire world. Among the first women who run a country are Yevgenia Bosch of Ukraine SSR, Nadezhda Grekova of Belorussian SSR and several other women from China and Mongolia, all predating Thatcher, the first woman prime minister of the western world. So stressing on the fact that there never was a woman as Communist Party secretary is a very misleading inclusion to the text.
Other than these, the author is very liberal with the use of Communism. He uses communism very interchangeably with socialism just because Marx said "the road to communism is also communism." Social sciences advance in time too and this point of view is no longer respected by any scholar anymore. He also assumes everything done under the umbrella of communism can be used to explain communism. This is akin to using acts by black people to justify racism, like crime statistics etc., without studying the reasons behind this pattern. However, we know that correlation never means causation and inductive reasoning is a bit outdated. The another problem is that socialist countries, or countries ruled by a communist party are continuously compared with the best performing capitalist countries, like UK, USA or West Germany. Turkey could be a better comparison, as both Turkey and the USSR had their revolution very close to each other and they had similar demographics, i.e., they were both composed of illiterate agrarian societies. Chile might be another good comparison as it was one of the first neo-liberal country. The final problem is that the book constantly compares the resources available to middle class western people with resources available to general Eastern-bloc population. The West was not short of homeless people, people dying of hunger etc, yet acting as if the whole Western population is compromised of middle class undermines the success of socialist countries.
In the very short introduction series, there are two types of common errors: errors by omission and errors by inclusion. Errors by omission are innocent ones. Due to the shear size of the topic and tiny size of the book, omissions are bound to happen. The authors of political books cannot really be 100% neutral on the topic they are writing on, therefore, I can't really blame authors for choosing what to omit. In this book, the biggest error by omission is Soviet progression in rights of women. The book suggests Soviets goaded, or even forced, women to employment. However, there is a unique progression of right of women in socialist countries. Soviet Union is the very first country in the world to legalise abortion and recognise marital rape. Moreover, Soviet Union is one of the first countries admitting women en masse to higher education. Nina Karlovna Bari is a very good example. She was a leading expert in trigonometric series and in the first wave of women admitted to university. Even though abortion later banned again by Stalin, these things should be mentioned in the book.
There are two severe errors by inclusion. One of them is the German Soviet non-aggression pact. It was presented as if Stalin collaborated with the Nazis, however anyone familiar with history would know that Stalin was preparing to fight against Nazis and the pact was there to gain time for war preparations. It is also argued that the USSR wanted the Europe to be conquered by the Nazis so that it can liberate it to export socialism to other countries. It is impossible to know how the history would progress if Soviets hadn't signed the non-aggression pact, but they certainly did not collaborate with the Nazis. Hitler knew that 80 million strong Nazi Germany couldn't stand against 200 million strong USSR. This is why he didn't postpone operation Barbarossa, even though he realised that it would be impossible to reach German goals before the onset of winter. The second error by inclusion is stating that no women ever became the communist party secretary. Although this is correct, no women at that time ever became either prime minister or the president in the entire world. Among the first women who run a country are Yevgenia Bosch of Ukraine SSR, Nadezhda Grekova of Belorussian SSR and several other women from China and Mongolia, all predating Thatcher, the first woman prime minister of the western world. So stressing on the fact that there never was a woman as Communist Party secretary is a very misleading inclusion to the text.
Other than these, the author is very liberal with the use of Communism. He uses communism very interchangeably with socialism just because Marx said "the road to communism is also communism." Social sciences advance in time too and this point of view is no longer respected by any scholar anymore. He also assumes everything done under the umbrella of communism can be used to explain communism. This is akin to using acts by black people to justify racism, like crime statistics etc., without studying the reasons behind this pattern. However, we know that correlation never means causation and inductive reasoning is a bit outdated. The another problem is that socialist countries, or countries ruled by a communist party are continuously compared with the best performing capitalist countries, like UK, USA or West Germany. Turkey could be a better comparison, as both Turkey and the USSR had their revolution very close to each other and they had similar demographics, i.e., they were both composed of illiterate agrarian societies. Chile might be another good comparison as it was one of the first neo-liberal country. The final problem is that the book constantly compares the resources available to middle class western people with resources available to general Eastern-bloc population. The West was not short of homeless people, people dying of hunger etc, yet acting as if the whole Western population is compromised of middle class undermines the success of socialist countries.
April 11, 2023
I say the same thing every time I review a book in this series. This is a great, concise, well-structured, research-informed overview of communism. This text is heavy on the theory, but sprinkled with a wide range of ‘in practice’ case studies. It was just what I needed to start my thinking about this big idea before teaching.
May 25, 2014
A decent book that does what it says on the tin. The author makes clear that he's primarily writing about the practice of states claiming to be building communism, rather than the theory of communism. ie. it's a book about the real world rather than a theoretical tract. You should bear this in mind before deciding if that's what you want. I did, so I was happy.
Weaknesses? I would have liked to have gained more insight on the political system of Communism from the chapter with that name. I didn't feel that I understood how winners and losers emerged from the power battles at the top of Communist parties. It's almost as though, somehow, a leader establishes himself (almost always "him"...) and then everything else flows from that. But how did he establish himself? How does that work in a Communist state? What are the incentives that lead other senior party members to back the eventual leader rather than a rival? Maybe I'm asking too much - the exact same questions could be asked regarding non-Communist states and I'm not sure I'd have any better idea of the answers.
Good book, well worth a read.
June 29, 2020
I was agreeing with the author most of the way and learning new things, but then it gets annoyingly bias towards the end when it starts to compare communist economic systems to capitalisms'. How can a fact like most people in the Soviet Union only paid 3-5% of their income towards housing not get an exclamation point! (when they give !s to much stupider things) I mean think what that type of subsidized housing could do for the rampant wealth inequality in the US. Why are economics so obsessed with growth? What was sputnik but innovation? When I hear "entrepreneurialism" I hear rich people fucking over poor people. And when the author says oh it was so good Gorbachev ended the Cold War and the soviet Union [and okay maybe they're meaning mostly peaceful, but really it sounds like they're promoting such without a doubt] what about the rampant poverty and turmoil that happened following the collapse in Russia and Yugoslavia: that wasn't so great. I'm not even a communist or an apologist for authoritarian violence, but it's bs in a book about communism to have this bias skew of perpetuating stupid myths about the benefit of globalization and neo-liberalism without even backing such up. Just when it sounded like the USSR was starting to correct some of its wrongs, it collapses, and we get Putin. And our only hope? A revival of democratic socialism (more than likely strangled by neoliberalism).
November 28, 2020
A brief and dense summary of what communism was internationally. The author starts from the theoretical bases, then moves to what is called "real communism", that is, the one implemented in the various countries from an economic and social point of view above all (less cultural). Despite being brief, the analysis manages to highlight the variety of the communist movement in each country and also to explain how some of these communist states (Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam) have survived until today.
July 2, 2015
While the series is meant to be a concise introduction to the topic, this book was barely an intro. The first part is on the ideology, very small and fails to tackle the essence of the ideology. When I finished reading this, and started going through the historical part, strong anti-Communist biases emerged. This book should be rather labelled "Communism as seen by Fox News".
January 30, 2023
very informative, would not read again
July 19, 2016
A thorough and well-balanced introduction.
Chapter 1: The theory of communism
Chapter 2: A brief history of communism in power
Chapter 3: The political system of communism
Chapter 4: The economic system of communism
Chapter 5: Social policies and structures of communism
Chapter 6: Communism's international allegiances
Chapter 7: The collapse of communism - and the future
Chapter 1: The theory of communism
Chapter 2: A brief history of communism in power
Chapter 3: The political system of communism
Chapter 4: The economic system of communism
Chapter 5: Social policies and structures of communism
Chapter 6: Communism's international allegiances
Chapter 7: The collapse of communism - and the future
April 20, 2021
The Very Short Introduction books are a crapshoot, but Leslie Holmes's Communism is one of the better works in the series.
If you're looking for an introduction to communist philosophy, you're in the wrong place, because this is primarily a history book. Holmes spends one chapter tracing some early lines of thought from Marx through Lenin on to Stalin and Mao, but the vast majority of the book is about what communism looked like in practice. First comes a narrative history of so-called communist regimes in the twentieth century, then some thematic chapters explore how said countries organised themselves politically, economically and socially. It's concise but detailed and assumes little prior knowledge - or in other words is, it's exactly what a "very short introduction" should be, and to my non-expert eyes it's hard to find fault with Holmes's analysis of the things he chose to include.
My problem is with what Holmes left out. I understand the need to keep things Very Short, but there were a few things in here that really felt worthy of expansion. On page 116 we're told that Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia "had been engaging in mass genocide" - was there really no room to elaborate any further on this? (And by the way: "mass genocide"? Is there another kind?) In dozens of pages of Soviet history I'm not sure the word "gulag" appears once, which is roughly like writing a history of Nazism that doesn't say anything about concentration camps. Holmes doesn't completely ignore the massacres, executions, imprisonment, surveillance, starvation, torture, disappearances and repression that were so prevalent in the regimes he analyses, but he could have said a lot more than he did. Words like "terror", "persecution", "famine", "secret police", "personality cult" and "death toll" do pop up occasionally, but it's rarely more than a cursory mention, as if these details are incidental. Did he run out of ink?
And more importantly, might there be a deeper lesson here? Is it a coincidence that every communist takeover has been followed by mass death and deprivation, or could it be something to do with the theory? What is it about this ideology that inspires sociopaths to seize power, crown themselves "more equal than others" and commit atrocities? Is there something about the allure of communism's lofty promises that convinces ideologues that any amount of killing can be justified in the name of utopia? Why does the demand for absolute egalitarianism invariably result in everyone starving equally? Such questions are left as an exercise for the reader.
Of course if you've ever spent ten seconds talking to a Marxist, you know the retort: "real communism has never been tried". Hundreds of millions might have suffered and died under the banner of the hammer and sickle, but don't let that get you down; none of those regimes were true Scotsmen so let's have another go with the right people in charge and maybe next time it'll work out fine. It's a discussion worth having: were the "communist" regimes of yesteryear really communist? Why not? Were they even trying? Why didn't things go according to plan? How can we avoid the same mistakes if we try again? I can't speak with authority on these matters, hence why I'm reading a book aimed for beginners, and I wasn't expecting a comprehensive answer to these questions but it would have been nice if Holmes had at least acknowledged them.
But I suppose I can't get too angry about sins of omission in a book that's only 138 pages long. I still learned a lot from Communism: A Very Short Introduction and I'd definitely recommend it to someone who wants to learn more about the recent history of Russia, China, Yugoslavia, and the rest of the gang. There's a lot more to say than could ever have fit into these pages, but hey, it's only supposed to be an introduction.
If you're looking for an introduction to communist philosophy, you're in the wrong place, because this is primarily a history book. Holmes spends one chapter tracing some early lines of thought from Marx through Lenin on to Stalin and Mao, but the vast majority of the book is about what communism looked like in practice. First comes a narrative history of so-called communist regimes in the twentieth century, then some thematic chapters explore how said countries organised themselves politically, economically and socially. It's concise but detailed and assumes little prior knowledge - or in other words is, it's exactly what a "very short introduction" should be, and to my non-expert eyes it's hard to find fault with Holmes's analysis of the things he chose to include.
My problem is with what Holmes left out. I understand the need to keep things Very Short, but there were a few things in here that really felt worthy of expansion. On page 116 we're told that Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia "had been engaging in mass genocide" - was there really no room to elaborate any further on this? (And by the way: "mass genocide"? Is there another kind?) In dozens of pages of Soviet history I'm not sure the word "gulag" appears once, which is roughly like writing a history of Nazism that doesn't say anything about concentration camps. Holmes doesn't completely ignore the massacres, executions, imprisonment, surveillance, starvation, torture, disappearances and repression that were so prevalent in the regimes he analyses, but he could have said a lot more than he did. Words like "terror", "persecution", "famine", "secret police", "personality cult" and "death toll" do pop up occasionally, but it's rarely more than a cursory mention, as if these details are incidental. Did he run out of ink?
And more importantly, might there be a deeper lesson here? Is it a coincidence that every communist takeover has been followed by mass death and deprivation, or could it be something to do with the theory? What is it about this ideology that inspires sociopaths to seize power, crown themselves "more equal than others" and commit atrocities? Is there something about the allure of communism's lofty promises that convinces ideologues that any amount of killing can be justified in the name of utopia? Why does the demand for absolute egalitarianism invariably result in everyone starving equally? Such questions are left as an exercise for the reader.
Of course if you've ever spent ten seconds talking to a Marxist, you know the retort: "real communism has never been tried". Hundreds of millions might have suffered and died under the banner of the hammer and sickle, but don't let that get you down; none of those regimes were true Scotsmen so let's have another go with the right people in charge and maybe next time it'll work out fine. It's a discussion worth having: were the "communist" regimes of yesteryear really communist? Why not? Were they even trying? Why didn't things go according to plan? How can we avoid the same mistakes if we try again? I can't speak with authority on these matters, hence why I'm reading a book aimed for beginners, and I wasn't expecting a comprehensive answer to these questions but it would have been nice if Holmes had at least acknowledged them.
But I suppose I can't get too angry about sins of omission in a book that's only 138 pages long. I still learned a lot from Communism: A Very Short Introduction and I'd definitely recommend it to someone who wants to learn more about the recent history of Russia, China, Yugoslavia, and the rest of the gang. There's a lot more to say than could ever have fit into these pages, but hey, it's only supposed to be an introduction.
Read
March 4, 2023"It is worth recalling that Marx had argued that socialist revolutions will occur only in highly developed states. He also maintained that such revolutions would have to occur in a number of states – there would have to be an international revolution – if they were not to be defeated by those they were seeking to replace."
April 27, 2022
It is shameful that the Oxford University Press would allow for this book to be published in the form it was.
Mr Holmes' relationship with facts is somewhat loose, if not entirely broken down. He argued that "Like the USA, the USSR did not enter World War II until 1941 (...)", which is factually untrue and calls into question the reliability of the rest of information contained in this volume.
The fact that the USSR invaded Poland on 17th September 1939 is rather uncontroversial and should be known to a professor of history. What indeed happened in 1941, was the USSR joining the allied forces, after having been attacked by the Nazis.
No words are strong enough to express my distaste for this blatant disregard for facts, from such a renowned scholarly press
Mr Holmes' relationship with facts is somewhat loose, if not entirely broken down. He argued that "Like the USA, the USSR did not enter World War II until 1941 (...)", which is factually untrue and calls into question the reliability of the rest of information contained in this volume.
The fact that the USSR invaded Poland on 17th September 1939 is rather uncontroversial and should be known to a professor of history. What indeed happened in 1941, was the USSR joining the allied forces, after having been attacked by the Nazis.
No words are strong enough to express my distaste for this blatant disregard for facts, from such a renowned scholarly press
August 29, 2020
I was hoping for more on the theory/ideology of communism. Instead, this was a history of self-proclaimed communist states. Interesting enough, but also seems unaware of how its critiques of "communist" practices operate nearly identically in current capitalist countries, particularly the U.S.
January 9, 2026
I regret not taking history past year 11 in school, because I feel like I need to educate myself on so many topics now. This, as well as the recent communist-era bunker tour we had in Prague inspired me to read this. The nature of this series meant that it occasionally felt quite overwhelming, but the author did extremely well as even I was able to understand most of it reasonably well. Learning more about the Prague Spring, Communist political structures and how different Communist states had their own alterations of Marxist theory was great.
January 14, 2025
Just the right depth, for me -- the ideas, information, and arguments presented challenged me just enough that I did not feel frustrated but yet certainly did not breeze through this one. I was happy to fill in the gaps in my public high school (80s) knowledge, especially regarding Russia's Bolsheviks and Poland's Solidarity movement.
August 11, 2020
Did what I needed it to do.
August 9, 2024
This little book is mostly a history of communism in practice. I wish it had more on the theory.
February 15, 2012
In terms of it being "A Very Short Introduction", I feel that it was perhaps too short. Having read it, I feel I have a better idea of what Communism entails than when I started, but my knowledge is very bitty and incomplete. Perhaps for me I should have begun with something even more basic, because my knowledge of 20th Century politics is quite pathetic, and I think the book assumed I would have a bit more awareness than I did.
I can't help comparing it to the other Very Short Introduction I've read, which was on the French Revolution. Possibly not a very fair comparison, because while I think I started out knowing the same (not much!) about each topic, the French Revolution had far more of a narrative, and more chronological cause and effect to it. In comparison, the rise and partial fall of Communism spanned a much longer time period, and many different countries and cultures. However, after reading A Very Short Introduction to the French Revolution, I felt I had a much more clear and cohesive knowledge, and could carry on a conversation about it, and even explain a lot of it to somebody. After reading A Very Short Introduction to Communism, I still don't feel very confident in my knowledge, and while I could share a few facts, I don't think I could carry on much of a conversation about it.
I can't help comparing it to the other Very Short Introduction I've read, which was on the French Revolution. Possibly not a very fair comparison, because while I think I started out knowing the same (not much!) about each topic, the French Revolution had far more of a narrative, and more chronological cause and effect to it. In comparison, the rise and partial fall of Communism spanned a much longer time period, and many different countries and cultures. However, after reading A Very Short Introduction to the French Revolution, I felt I had a much more clear and cohesive knowledge, and could carry on a conversation about it, and even explain a lot of it to somebody. After reading A Very Short Introduction to Communism, I still don't feel very confident in my knowledge, and while I could share a few facts, I don't think I could carry on much of a conversation about it.
June 29, 2014
A slim and very high-level overview, as suggested by the title. (In its defense, though, the print is quite small.)
The author clearly wants to make the point that Communism as practiced in the 20th century is flawed in almost every way. Even when possible benefits could be discussed, he's clear to point out that the West did it the same way or better.
However, through his intro to Marxist thought and via comments made in various portions of the book, Holmes also emphasizes his opinion that the "Communism" of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao is not the socialism envisioned by Marx and was in many ways doomed to failure.
I did come out of the book wanting to read more about Khrushchev, Mao, and Deng Xiaoping.
The author clearly wants to make the point that Communism as practiced in the 20th century is flawed in almost every way. Even when possible benefits could be discussed, he's clear to point out that the West did it the same way or better.
However, through his intro to Marxist thought and via comments made in various portions of the book, Holmes also emphasizes his opinion that the "Communism" of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao is not the socialism envisioned by Marx and was in many ways doomed to failure.
I did come out of the book wanting to read more about Khrushchev, Mao, and Deng Xiaoping.
December 25, 2012
This is a quite light touch intro to historical communist regimes. Although the author makes his emphasis clear early on in the beginning, I would have preferred more theoretical reflection. In that sense the 'Socialism' volume in the VSI series is better.
May 21, 2015
An incisive introduction to an ideology much discredited (wrongly or rightly) but one, i predict, the world hasn't seen the last of...
November 26, 2014
A nice and concise explanation of communism, encompassing history, the economic system, etc. I enjoyed it and plan on reading more on the topic. I would recommend this book and the author.
January 7, 2026
剛剛看完頭痛的社會主義之後就繼續看共產主義，然後發現出乎意料地挺好讀的！
可能是因為共產主義是個真正有很多國家宣稱過自己是共產主義國家，而且大概因為同時有一黨專政、沒什麼言論自由的特性，對什麼是共產主義有發言權的人是很少的，所以沒有其他主義們有各式各樣的論述、十分龐雜的理論。
在第一章簡單討論理論演變（馬克斯、列寧、史達林、毛澤東）之後，就直接用各個國家的實例來概括，一個不看你說了什麼看你做了什麼的概念 XDDDD
我覺得還蠻有參考意義的。
每個國家都是一黨專政，而且馬克思的作品其實是很菁英主義的，需要一群對政治有覺悟的菁英份子帶領無知民眾，所以共產黨是先驅。
總之這本書有一些蠻有趣的觀察和分析，有空再來繼續寫。但我覺得很有意思。
作者是以一種很冷靜客觀帶著距離感的方式來分析共產主義是什麼，也指出中國的混合式共產主義也好，或是金融危機後的左派也好（本書是在2009寫作），有可能是未來的方向。對共產主義的走向沒什麼期待也沒什麼惋惜。這和寫社會主義的那個作者剛好是個對比。
他並不會說這個國家是或不是共產主義，你自己說你是，我就假設你是。
但是他會去研究和分析，你說你是遵循馬克思那一套，那你做的和馬克思說的有沒有同一件事，然後就發現有很多地方不一樣。
很妙的是，他也會把「你說你雖然明明做得不一樣但因為怎麼樣怎麼樣所以你的作為仍然符合馬克思主義的精神」的正當化敘事加進來給讀者知道。
然後他還會總結一下雖然馬克思主義是這麼說，但這些號稱自己是共產主義的國家實踐結果其實怎麼樣，然後從這裡面歸納總結出共產主義其實是有下列特性的。
所以我覺得這整個過程都還蠻有趣的。尤其看那些為了要正當化本國的作為的部分。比方說共產國際理應互相幫忙，但其實還是有大國侵略小國，美其名為大國要負擔起自己的責任。
不過他對歐陸著墨比較多，東亞和古巴都只是略提一下而已。
然後他裡面分析為何蘇聯解體，也並沒有說他自己覺得是為什麼，而是把各方人士主要歸結的理論拿出來並列，讓讀者知道有這些說法。
其中一項講到蘇聯大力推行共產主義要形成附庸，接近帝國擴張，所以也可以用帝國的崩壞來解釋 ，而中共為何可以維持政權，是因為不積極對外吸收附庸國。由於這本書是在 2009出版的，其實後來中國也大力推行一帶一路，而現在一帶一路也開始有很多問題出來，我覺得也是蠻好的參照。
不過他也的確提到現有的共產國家裡，中國和越南擁抱市場經濟，也是很難說自己還是純粹的共產主義，不如說是某種程度的混合體吧。
不過有鑒於現在中國在習近平上任之後就越來越緊縮，他這裡面的觀察主要是適用在習近平上台之前吧。
共產主義的理論：
馬克思：
他的史觀是歷史唯物主義，一個人在社會的階級會影響他如何看看待社會。推動歷史的力量是階級，而歷史是辯證的，所以有作用力就有反作用力來形成歷史進程。
由於十九世紀工業革命，最重要的階層分也變成了「資本家」和「無產階級」。這兩大階級的緊張就引爆社會主義革命，建立由大多數人民做主的政治體制。長期而言、會出現一種新型態的社會—共產主義社會，到時候不需要統治階級，不需要國家、政治，對人的管理改為物的管理。在過渡到共產主義社會之前，會有「無產階級專政」，由勞工運用權力形成新的統治階級。
有三個值得注意的地方：
1. 馬克斯清楚講明白只有先進工業社會才會發生社會主義革命，鄉村農業社會還沒準備好。
2.馬克思始終如一的國際主義者
3. 共產主義不是一個理想，而是破壞推翻現有體制的政治運動。
現在所講的馬克思主義主要是馬克思和恩格斯，不過以馬克思為主。
由於馬克思本質上是個理論家，所以其實對於社會主義革命後的國家應該如何，很多地方是很模糊的。不過也由於他不需要為自己施政正當化，主要貢獻在給共產主義奠基的理論架構，尤其是歷史進程的解析。
共產主義最為人所詬病的就是理論和實踐的矛盾，接著繼續講主要人物，就開始進入實踐的人、和他們怎麼來處理說一套做一套的正當化理論 😂🤣🤣
接著被列舉為共產主義的主要人物：列寧、史達林、毛澤東，以及他們的理論。
接著講一下列寧。他的主要貢獻⋯就是實踐啊😂🤣🤣
列寧認為外國工人階級是很難有覺悟的，所以主張先鋒政黨的理論，有些人的政治覺悟比其他人高，所以應該擔負起領導社會走向社會主義的路。這是典型的菁英主義的政黨觀，常與柏拉圖的哲學家皇帝相提並論。而此政黨的運作高度秘密。
他的帝國主義理論則大大扭轉了馬克思的看法，他主張帝國主義乃是「資本主義的最高階段」，由於主要帝國已經把世界瓜分的差不多了，所以新興帝國擴張的唯一方法就是奪取其他帝國，造成歐陸的衝突。
我覺得這段超級神奇的。
按照馬克思理論，雖然開始工業化初期但是還是農業國家的俄國，其實還沒有準備好社會主義革命。但列寧認為俄國是資本主義國家最弱的一環，所以幹掉它整個國際資本主義就會崩塌，英法德也會脫離資本主義，大家一起變成國際社會主義陣營！
...蛤？
總之呢，為了正當化布爾什維克奪權，透過修正重塑馬克思主義。資本主義雖然沒有因為帝俄落幕而崩潰，但這不重要了。😂🤣🤣
另外列寧明確主張和社會主義的不同：共產主義是「各盡其能，按需分配」而社會主義是「各盡其能，按勞分配」，以合理化共產國家內的巨大所得差異。列寧也比馬克思更強調社會主義革命後要有個強大的國家。
⋯嗯，對於這是傳說中的無產階級專政的時代？hmmmm......
總之這個神轉折我覺得也是蠻厲害的，不會太硬嗎！不過反正奪權成功說話最大聲啦。
不過我覺得共產主義相當不符合人性，所以應該很難達成理論上的目標吧。
可能是因為共產主義是個真正有很多國家宣稱過自己是共產主義國家，而且大概因為同時有一黨專政、沒什麼言論自由的特性，對什麼是共產主義有發言權的人是很少的，所以沒有其他主義們有各式各樣的論述、十分龐雜的理論。
在第一章簡單討論理論演變（馬克斯、列寧、史達林、毛澤東）之後，就直接用各個國家的實例來概括，一個不看你說了什麼看你做了什麼的概念 XDDDD
我覺得還蠻有參考意義的。
每個國家都是一黨專政，而且馬克思的作品其實是很菁英主義的，需要一群對政治有覺悟的菁英份子帶領無知民眾，所以共產黨是先驅。
總之這本書有一些蠻有趣的觀察和分析，有空再來繼續寫。但我覺得很有意思。
作者是以一種很冷靜客觀帶著距離感的方式來分析共產主義是什麼，也指出中國的混合式共產主義也好，或是金融危機後的左派也好（本書是在2009寫作），有可能是未來的方向。對共產主義的走向沒什麼期待也沒什麼惋惜。這和寫社會主義的那個作者剛好是個對比。
他並不會說這個國家是或不是共產主義，你自己說你是，我就假設你是。
但是他會去研究和分析，你說你是遵循馬克思那一套，那你做的和馬克思說的有沒有同一件事，然後就發現有很多地方不一樣。
很妙的是，他也會把「你說你雖然明明做得不一樣但因為怎麼樣怎麼樣所以你的作為仍然符合馬克思主義的精神」的正當化敘事加進來給讀者知道。
然後他還會總結一下雖然馬克思主義是這麼說，但這些號稱自己是共產主義的國家實踐結果其實怎麼樣，然後從這裡面歸納總結出共產主義其實是有下列特性的。
所以我覺得這整個過程都還蠻有趣的。尤其看那些為了要正當化本國的作為的部分。比方說共產國際理應互相幫忙，但其實還是有大國侵略小國，美其名為大國要負擔起自己的責任。
不過他對歐陸著墨比較多，東亞和古巴都只是略提一下而已。
然後他裡面分析為何蘇聯解體，也並沒有說他自己覺得是為什麼，而是把各方人士主要歸結的理論拿出來並列，讓讀者知道有這些說法。
其中一項講到蘇聯大力推行共產主義要形成附庸，接近帝國擴張，所以也可以用帝國的崩壞來解釋 ，而中共為何可以維持政權，是因為不積極對外吸收附庸國。由於這本書是在 2009出版的，其實後來中國也大力推行一帶一路，而現在一帶一路也開始有很多問題出來，我覺得也是蠻好的參照。
不過他也的確提到現有的共產國家裡，中國和越南擁抱市場經濟，也是很難說自己還是純粹的共產主義，不如說是某種程度的混合體吧。
不過有鑒於現在中國在習近平上任之後就越來越緊縮，他這裡面的觀察主要是適用在習近平上台之前吧。
共產主義的理論：
馬克思：
他的史觀是歷史唯物主義，一個人在社會的階級會影響他如何看看待社會。推動歷史的力量是階級，而歷史是辯證的，所以有作用力就有反作用力來形成歷史進程。
由於十九世紀工業革命，最重要的階層分也變成了「資本家」和「無產階級」。這兩大階級的緊張就引爆社會主義革命，建立由大多數人民做主的政治體制。長期而言、會出現一種新型態的社會—共產主義社會，到時候不需要統治階級，不需要國家、政治，對人的管理改為物的管理。在過渡到共產主義社會之前，會有「無產階級專政」，由勞工運用權力形成新的統治階級。
有三個值得注意的地方：
1. 馬克斯清楚講明白只有先進工業社會才會發生社會主義革命，鄉村農業社會還沒準備好。
2.馬克思始終如一的國際主義者
3. 共產主義不是一個理想，而是破壞推翻現有體制的政治運動。
現在所講的馬克思主義主要是馬克思和恩格斯，不過以馬克思為主。
由於馬克思本質上是個理論家，所以其實對於社會主義革命後的國家應該如何，很多地方是很模糊的。不過也由於他不需要為自己施政正當化，主要貢獻在給共產主義奠基的理論架構，尤其是歷史進程的解析。
共產主義最為人所詬病的就是理論和實踐的矛盾，接著繼續講主要人物，就開始進入實踐的人、和他們怎麼來處理說一套做一套的正當化理論 😂🤣🤣
接著被列舉為共產主義的主要人物：列寧、史達林、毛澤東，以及他們的理論。
接著講一下列寧。他的主要貢獻⋯就是實踐啊😂🤣🤣
列寧認為外國工人階級是很難有覺悟的，所以主張先鋒政黨的理論，有些人的政治覺悟比其他人高，所以應該擔負起領導社會走向社會主義的路。這是典型的菁英主義的政黨觀，常與柏拉圖的哲學家皇帝相提並論。而此政黨的運作高度秘密。
他的帝國主義理論則大大扭轉了馬克思的看法，他主張帝國主義乃是「資本主義的最高階段」，由於主要帝國已經把世界瓜分的差不多了，所以新興帝國擴張的唯一方法就是奪取其他帝國，造成歐陸的衝突。
我覺得這段超級神奇的。
按照馬克思理論，雖然開始工業化初期但是還是農業國家的俄國，其實還沒有準備好社會主義革命。但列寧認為俄國是資本主義國家最弱的一環，所以幹掉它整個國際資本主義就會崩塌，英法德也會脫離資本主義，大家一起變成國際社會主義陣營！
...蛤？
總之呢，為了正當化布爾什維克奪權，透過修正重塑馬克思主義。資本主義雖然沒有因為帝俄落幕而崩潰，但這不重要了。😂🤣🤣
另外列寧明確主張和社會主義的不同：共產主義是「各盡其能，按需分配」而社會主義是「各盡其能，按勞分配」，以合理化共產國家內的巨大所得差異。列寧也比馬克思更強調社會主義革命後要有個強大的國家。
⋯嗯，對於這是傳說中的無產階級專政的時代？hmmmm......
總之這個神轉折我覺得也是蠻厲害的，不會太硬嗎！不過反正奪權成功說話最大聲啦。
不過我覺得共產主義相當不符合人性，所以應該很難達成理論上的目標吧。
December 8, 2024
Focussed mostly on the history and practice of communism. Was very informative/interesting.
“it is important to note that - in the cases of Marx, Lenin, and Mao at least - the interest in communism was to no small extent the result of a profound alienation from the existing system and a desire for a better world.”
“These were industrialization via a centrally planned economy, and collectivization of agriculture. Although it would be stretching a point to argue that two further features of Stalinism - high levels of state terror and a personality cult - were part of communist theory, they did become salient features of Communist practice in many other countries.”
“By the 1970s, more than a third of the world's population lived in a Communist system.”
“The provision of collective goods by Communist systems - such as free education, free healthcare, heavily subsidized accommodation (Soviet citizens paid an average of only 3-5% of their income on accommodation at the end of the 1970s, while most Hungarians paid no more than 10% and public transport, and so on - was so extensive that they have been described as the ultimate 'cradle to grave', 'womb to tomb', or even 'sperm to worm' welfare states.”
“many citizens in most types of system appear to be willing to tolerate limits on their political freedoms as long as their standards of living are increasing, their security is ensured, and they are reasonably free to travel. These preconditions have pertained in China for more than two decades. But if the Chinese economy were to experience a serious crisis, there are many precedents to suggest that the political system could fail.”
“it is important to note that - in the cases of Marx, Lenin, and Mao at least - the interest in communism was to no small extent the result of a profound alienation from the existing system and a desire for a better world.”
“These were industrialization via a centrally planned economy, and collectivization of agriculture. Although it would be stretching a point to argue that two further features of Stalinism - high levels of state terror and a personality cult - were part of communist theory, they did become salient features of Communist practice in many other countries.”
“By the 1970s, more than a third of the world's population lived in a Communist system.”
“The provision of collective goods by Communist systems - such as free education, free healthcare, heavily subsidized accommodation (Soviet citizens paid an average of only 3-5% of their income on accommodation at the end of the 1970s, while most Hungarians paid no more than 10% and public transport, and so on - was so extensive that they have been described as the ultimate 'cradle to grave', 'womb to tomb', or even 'sperm to worm' welfare states.”
“many citizens in most types of system appear to be willing to tolerate limits on their political freedoms as long as their standards of living are increasing, their security is ensured, and they are reasonably free to travel. These preconditions have pertained in China for more than two decades. But if the Chinese economy were to experience a serious crisis, there are many precedents to suggest that the political system could fail.”
May 1, 2025
Does what it says it does. A very competent introduction to the Communist bloc, and the history and practice of the countries that have attempted to practice something called Communism. For one of the first times in my life, I kind of wished a book would focus less on history, and more on theory. The introductory chapter ran through the influential figures who formulated Communism, but the book was clearly a lot more interested in what happened, than in what these folks believed.
I found the historical overview very interesting. In a very short introduction, there really isn't time to differentiate the systems, and philosophies of individual countries, but the author did make an effort to be comprehensive in listing all the countries involved, and laying out some of the relations between them. That alone makes this little book very useful. It is feeling its age though. 2009 is getting to be a while ago, and all of the five remaining Communist countries have evolved in interesting ways over the past 16 years. As has the world. Perhaps it's time for an update?
I found the historical overview very interesting. In a very short introduction, there really isn't time to differentiate the systems, and philosophies of individual countries, but the author did make an effort to be comprehensive in listing all the countries involved, and laying out some of the relations between them. That alone makes this little book very useful. It is feeling its age though. 2009 is getting to be a while ago, and all of the five remaining Communist countries have evolved in interesting ways over the past 16 years. As has the world. Perhaps it's time for an update?
March 4, 2023
Terrible book written by a strongly biased author. It’s appalling to me that this should be part of the A Very Short Introduction series by Oxford. I have no question as to authors having biases especially as the subject is a debated one, however biases should be made explicit – especially because the book purports to be an introductory text (and therefore should give a broad overview of relevant arguments). And I find this omission to be its biggest fault – it provides inadequate information that brushes over successes yet expounds on failures. In contrast with the Oxford book on Socialism by Michael Newman, this book leaves one with the sense that it is futile to pursue communism or even to apply its values. In effect, I find this book misleading and dangerous as it may lead readers to believe that capitalism is the better (if not the best) system.
July 2, 2021
In light of how far to the left modern academia has moved, reading Communism: A Very Short Introduction was a pleasant surprise. I had expected a strong pro-socialist viewpoint, but author Leslie Holmes does a good job of presenting Communism warts and all, including a discussion of the monstrous failures of Stalinist Soviet Union, Maoist China, and Kampuchea under Pol Pot. This slim volume, along with Marx: A Very Short Introduction (which also clearly points out the illogicality and inconsistency of Marx’s ideas) should be required reading for all high school students, and for all college instructors who subscribe to socialist or Marxist-Leninist thinking.
April 4, 2022
I liked how it gave a simple, nonpartisan look at 20th-century communism, from its history, to its major players, to the theories behind why it collapsed. I found it really interesting how it distinguished theory from practice and gave a good overview of how these major players each had their own implementation of leadership and economics (which often did not agree entirely with Marx's vision). The book didn't shy away from critiquing communism, describing its many failures, though I got a sense also of the advantages it did have over a system like capitalism.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews