The revolutionary movement on the territory of USSR is growing. In Ukraine especially the movement is gaining strength in view of the forthcoming presidential elections. Things could be improved if there appeared a LEADER who could unite the people on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and revolutionary activity. As an example, leaders of parties, those that call themselves even "communists", many times do not even mention the word "communist". The problem is that under the name of communists many times there are hidden social-democrats of bourgeois persuasion.
How then can we separate a real left party from those that are opportunists? The criteria for making this distinction should be looked at from the point of view of their stance on the question of the ownership of production. Is not this the question of the struggles for decades about the character as to who owns the means of production? Is this not so?
Socialism and Communism does not recognize private ownership of production. It is good to realize that it wasn't the Bolsheviks that thought this up. Working people dreamt of such a society since ancient times. An example could he the Christian Brotherhoods of the past century. They formed a brotherhood that was based solely on common ownership and not private ownership. The products of their labour were divided evenly. All members of such brotherhoods had to work together and share collectively.
Of course such an early model cannot be the example for building a Communist Society. The question is about the ideals of Communism and the growing collective morality. Early stages of human history saw many attempts at collective living and social society. The feelings of collective own
Close this page to return.