Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Define communism
Executive summary
Communism is broadly defined as a political and economic ideology seeking a classless society based on common ownership of the means of production and distribution [1] [2]. Dictionaries and encyclopedias emphasize its roots in Marx and Engels and note that modern states often call themselves “socialist” while few or no countries have achieved the theoretical, stateless form of communism described by Marx [1] [2] [3].
1. What communism claims to be: classless, common ownership, distribution by need
Encyclopedic and dictionary definitions agree that communism’s core goal is to abolish class divisions by replacing private ownership of major productive resources—factories, land, mines—with public or common ownership and to organize production and distribution so goods are allocated according to need rather than market exchange [1] [2] [4]. Britannica summarizes this as a political and economic system that “seeks to create a classless society” with the major means of production owned and controlled by the public [1]. Wikipedia similarly frames communism as an ideology aiming for a socioeconomic order centered on common ownership and allocation based on need [2].
2. Intellectual origins: Marx, Engels, and the 19th‑century socialist movement
Modern communism grew out of 19th‑century socialist critiques of capitalist industrialization; Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels codified a version of the theory in The Communist Manifesto [5], making Marxism the most widely identified current of communist thought [1] [2]. Over time Marxist theory diversified into multiple schools, and contemporary definitions note there is no single, universally accepted Marxist program [2].
3. Theory vs. practice: the “communist state” paradox
Major scholarly and reference sources stress a distinction between Marx’s ideal of a stateless, classless communism and the states that have used the communist label. In Marxist theory, communism presupposes the end of the state; consequently, self‑described “communist” or “socialist” states typically claim to be in a transitional phase rather than having achieved communism [3]. Wikipedia and the article on “Communist state” note that such states generally identify themselves as socialist and that describing a functioning state as fully communist is, strictly speaking, a contradiction with Marxist ends [2] [3].
4. Varied definitions across dictionaries and commentators
Dictionaries emphasize different angles: Merriam‑Webster highlights communism as a doctrine rooted in Marxian socialism and Marxism‑Leninism and sometimes associates it with a single‑party, state‑controlled system [6]. Cambridge and Collins focus on belief in a society without classes and workers’ control of production [7] [4]. These lexical sources show consensus on broad goals but diverge on how much to fold in historical practice or authoritarian tendencies into the definition [6] [7] [4].
5. Contemporary political uses and disputes over meaning
Recent political discourse illustrates that “communism” functions as both an ideological label and a political attack line. For example, a U.S. presidential proclamation declaring an “Anti‑Communism Week” links the term to historical atrocities and mass deaths—language some critics and left‑wing outlets call politically motivated and historically contested [8] [9] [10]. The World Socialist Web Site describes the White House proclamation as using a disputed death‑toll figure and framing intended to counter contemporary left‑of‑center political movements [9]. These reactions show competing interpretations: official proclamations equate communism with historical regimes’ crimes [8] [10], whereas critics challenge those historical framings and the political intent behind them [9].
6. Alternative, broader or ecological readings
Beyond classical and state‑centered definitions, some commentators offer broader or metaphorical reinterpretations—e.g., describing communism as interdependence within Earth’s systems or a humane ethic of shared resources [11]. Such redefinitions are not mainstream academic definitions but indicate that the term is deployed in cultural and ecological arguments as well as in formal political theory [11].
7. What sources don’t settle and where to look next
Available sources establish the core definitions, historical roots, and contemporary contestation, but they do not provide a single authoritative answer on how to measure responsibility for specific historical outcomes or settle debates about particular death‑toll figures referenced in political statements [8] [9]. For deeper historical quantification or primary‑source Marxist theory, consult academic histories and primary texts—works by Marx and Engels and peer‑reviewed studies on 20th‑century regimes—which are not included in the materials cited here (not found in current reporting).
In short: reference works converge on communism as an ideology aiming for a classless, common‑ownership society [1] [2], dictionaries add nuance about doctrine and real‑world connotations [6] [7] [4], and recent political usage shows the term remains highly contested and weaponized in public debate [8] [9] [10].