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.
Communism
Executive summary
Communism is an umbrella political and economic doctrine that seeks common ownership of the means of production and a classless society; major reference definitions describe it as replacing private property and profit-based systems with public or communal control [1] [2]. Today only a handful of states are commonly described as “communist” — China, North Korea, Laos, Cuba and Vietnam — though several sources note these do not perfectly match classical theoretical definitions of communism [1] [3].
1. What the word means: theory vs. dictionary
Academic and dictionary treatments converge on a core idea: communism aims for common ownership, abolition of class divisions, and distribution based on need rather than market profit [2] [4]. Merriam‑Webster emphasizes the Marxian and Marxism‑Leninist lineage of the doctrine and notes how the term is used to describe totalitarian single‑party systems controlling state‑owned means of production [5]. Cambridge and Collins highlight the everyday usages — belief in communism, or relating to a communist government — showing both an ideological and descriptive, governmental use of the term [6] [7].
2. Origins and intellectual roots
Modern communism grew out of 19th‑century socialist critiques of industrial capitalism, most famously in Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto; Marxist thought frames communism as a later stage of socioeconomic development emerging from advances in productive forces [2] [4]. Encyclopedic treatments locate communism in a longer history of shared‑property ideas (communis) but underline that the specific modern program and vocabulary were shaped in Europe amid the Industrial Revolution [2].
3. Theory vs. historical practice — why sources distinguish them
Reference works and analysts repeatedly stress a distinction between the theoretical end‑state of “communist society” (a classless, abundance‑based order) and the historical regimes that have called themselves communist. Britannica explicitly says the five countries commonly labeled communist do not meet the “true definition” of communism, indicating a gap between Marxist theory and state practice [1] [3]. Wikipedia also notes disagreements among Marxists over whether any historic “communist” states achieved socialism as originally defined [2] [4].
4. Who counts as a communist country today?
Multiple compendia and mainstream references list China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam as the remaining states identified as communist in 2025, while qualifying that each has unique adaptations and that none perfectly match classical communist theory [8] [1] [3]. These sources show that “communist” functions both as an official self‑description (party names, constitutions) and as an analytical label applied by outside observers [8] [1].
5. Politics, memory and contested death tolls
The term is politically charged. The White House’s 2025 proclamation of “Anti‑Communism Week” described communism as responsible for “more than 100 million lives” lost and framed the ideology as destructive [9] [10]. That figure and framing are disputed in other commentary: the World Socialist Web Site called the figure “fraudulent” and traced it to contested sources such as The Black Book of Communism, arguing that different methods of counting conflate wars, famines and state repression [11]. In short: official condemnations use high cumulative death tolls to make a moral and political point, while some left‑leaning or critical commentators challenge the aggregation and interpretation of those numbers [9] [11].
6. Varied contemporary definitions and uses
Observers outside strict academic definitions sometimes broaden or shift the meaning: a sustainability outlet framed “21st century communism” as ecological interdependence rather than Marxist state policy, while opinion writers equate communism with “command‑and‑control” governance to criticize various policies [12] [13]. Dictionaries and encyclopedias remain more conservative, anchoring definitional claims in historical Marxism and state practice [5] [2].
7. What reporting does not resolve
Available sources do not mention a single, universally accepted metric for counting victims attributable to “communism” in the 20th century; they show instead competing methodologies and political agendas around such counts [9] [11]. Sources likewise do not assert that any modern state fully realizes the communist end‑state described in classical Marxist texts; rather, multiple entries explicitly say contemporary states differ from theoretical communism [1] [3] [2].
8. Why definitions matter politically
How outlets and officials define communism shapes public debate: precise academic definitions frame it as an ideological project toward common ownership [2], legal or political proclamations use stark moral language and casualty figures to justify opposition [9], and activist or opinion pieces repurpose the term for ecological or rhetorical aims [12] [13]. Readers should note each source’s perspective and stated aims when judging claims about history, responsibility, or contemporary policy [9] [11] [12].