Marxism, Capitalism, and Liberalism

Thank you to @libertarian_anti_capitalist on Instagram for your contribution to Chapter II, Section II

Chapter I: Introduction
One misconception in America that we Marxists/Communists are Liberals, just because both us and Liberals are on the left side of the political spectrum. However, this could not be further from the truth. While Liberals are often in the centre-left of the political spectrum, we Marxist-Leninists are on the far-left. We Marxist-Leninists are very strongly anti-Liberalism. Before we go any further, it is necessary to define the two terms. Even though Marxism-Leninism is a very complex ideology, I wrote this short paragraph that I believe summarizes it nicely: A Marxist-Leninist political party, known as a Vanguard (of the working people) demands the overthrow of a Capitalist Society. Once the pro-capitalist government has been overthrown, the Vanguard establishes a Socialist Republic. A Socialist Republic would embrace a Socialist economic system were the workers control what they produce. For example, instead of being told what to do by a boss, workers would instead collectively make decisions through worker’s councils. Since it’s in the name, a Socialist Republic would of course be a Republic. People would elect officials to represent them in the government. However in some cases the people have a direct say. For example, in 1976 in Cuba, which was (and still is) a Socialist Republic, voted on whether the new constitution should be approved. After months of grassroots discussion, the people went to the polls to vote on if Cuba should adopt the new constitution. Of 5,602,973 voters, 99.02% voted in favor of the new constitution, 0.98% voted against it, and 75,369 were invalid/blank ballots. Out of 5,717,266 Cubans who were eligible to vote in that election, 98% went to vote. In a Socialist Republic, the Vanguard is the only legal political party, the reason being is to defend the people against Counter-Revolution, which would reverse all the progress that was made. However much dialogue is allowed in the party, Vladimir Lenin called this process “Democratic Centralism.” Even though the Vanguard is the only legal political party, in some Socialist Republics, independents and United Fronts that are not part of the Vanguard are allowed to hold public office, and an example of this is the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, where independents even hold seats in the National Assembly, but most people still voted for the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party, the Vanguard there. Thus in a Socialist Republic, the ordinary people, AKA the proletariat, have democratic control over both their workplace and their government. This state of Democracy will lead to a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. In capitalist countries like Britain, America, Japan and India, the wealthy businesspeople and corrupt politicians are the ruling class. However in a Socialist Republic and Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the working people, the 99% are the ruling class. However as the working people and local communities become more self-sufficient, the Socialist Republic would no longer be necessary and will fade away, being replaced by Communism. In a Communist society, organized government is abolished, and people make decisions together. Inequality and money are also abolished, and most goods and services are distributed by the saying “Each according to their ability, each according to their need.” Goods and services could also be traded for other goods and services. Just like in Socialism, people in a Communist Society work and make decisions together instead of being controlled by bosses and managers. An example of Communism would be the Twin Oaks community in Virginia, USA. Vladimir Lenin said “The goal of Socialism is Communism.” This statement is the foundation of Marxism-Leninism, as we go from Capitalism, to Socialism, to Communism. Put simply: In it’s first stage, Marxism-Leninism is Socialism, and in it’s second and final stage, it is Communism. One could say that Communism is a form of Socialism, and Marxism is a form of Communism and Marxism-Leninism is a form of Marxism. (However, other forms of Marxism are much more obscure and have never lasted long in practice.) Critics of Marxism-Leninism claim the excessive power the Vanguard is given is often abused. They also claim that Marxist-Leninist economic models are not as successful, and in a Communist Society without money, there is no incentive to work. We will deal with such criticisms later in the essay.

Let’s move on to define Liberalism. According to Encyclopedia Britannica:
“Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in “Common Sense” (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power.

The problem is compounded when one asks whether this is all that government can or should do on behalf of individual freedom. Some liberals — the so-called neoclassical liberals, or libertarians — answer that it is. Since the late 19th century, however, most liberals have insisted that the powers of government can promote as well as protect the freedom of the individual. According to modern liberalism, the chief task of government is to remove obstacles that prevent individuals from living freely or from fully realizing their potential. Such obstacles include poverty, disease, discrimination, and ignorance. The disagreement among liberals over whether government should promote individual freedom rather than merely protect it is reflected to some extent in the different prevailing conceptions of liberalism in the United States and Europe since the late 20th century. In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies (see below Contemporary liberalism).”

Here we will be discussing American Liberalism, the Liberalism described in the bold text in the second paragraph. Unlike Marxism-Leninism, Liberalism seeks to preserve Capitalism. Liberals believe the total overthrow of Capitalism is unnecessary, violent and violates property rights. They believe it would be easier instead just to fix the errors of Capitalism from within by guaranteeing people the basic things they need like Social Security, paid leave, workplace regulations, and making healthcare, education, and housing more affordable. We Marxist-Leninists believe these are mere concessions from the ruling class, and that even with all of these benefits, there will still be inequality, and the wealthy businesspeople and corrupt politicians will still be more powerful and wealthy than the ordinary people who propped them up there in the first place. We will elaborate more on this criticism in the essay.

Chapter II: Liberal Philosophy is flawed at it’s core

Section I: Liberalism and Capitalism
Before we criticize the relationship between Liberalism and Capitalism, we first must criticize Capitalism as a whole. Capitalism is an socioeconomic system in which a small amount of people known as Capitalists or the bourgeoisie, own most of the means of production. By means of production is meant the factories, farms, shops, mines and just about anything that can be used by humans to produce and use something. The article (https://www.ecured.cu/Capitalismo) about Capitalism on Ecured, an online Cuban encyclopedia, summarizes Marxist arguments against Capitalism: (Please bear in mind this was translated from Spanish and the English may not be perfect.)
 
 “The historical form of exploitation of workers is under which the capitalist owners of the means of production, the surplus value created by the unpaid labor of the workers appropriated. The form of capitalist exploitation is distinguished from the slave and feudal ways by presented in a veiled way. In the regime of slavery and the feudal exploitation it was glaringly open; the worker depended personally operators, and work discipline was the discipline of the stick. Under capitalism, workers are legally free people, but as a lack of means of production, not to die of hunger and are forced to sell their labor. The capitalist and worker as having goods appear in the formally free and equal market rights, but the appearance of legal equality between the owner of capital and the owner of the workforce conceals the monstrous inequality between operators and exploited. The worker is only free to choose which operators will sell their labor. With the development of capitalism and the steady increase of the vast army of unemployed, the worker is not free even to choose their oppressor. The discipline of hunger forces him to seek to work it. Only destroying capitalist ownership of the means of production and establishing the socialist collective ownership, you can end the exploitation of wage labor by capital.
 The fundamental contradiction of capitalism is manifested between the social character of production and the private capitalist form of appropriating the work product. This contradiction expresses the deep antagonism between wage labor and capital, between the developing productive forces and capitalist relations of production enslaving. As modern productive forces, based on large-scale machine industry develop, the production is focusing more and more, the social division of labor progresses, leading to broaden their scope and economic ties intensified between the various companies and branches of the economy. In the production of each type of product involved, directly or indirectly, companies from different branches of production, hundreds of thousands and millions of workers, grouped into capitalist enterprises. The process of production and labor are socialized to an increasing degree. However, both production and the results do not belong to those who are actually their workers-the creators, but to private persons, capitalists, who use social wealth for profit, and not in the interest of the whole society. The relative organization of work in enterprises contradicts anarchy and lack of plan of the capitalist economy taken as a whole. Driven by his desire for profit, capitalists expand production to a huge volume and intensify the exploitation of workers. At the same time, the solvent demand of the main mass of the population is limited by the value of the labor force and in the conditions created by the massive and ongoing lockout, this demand is often lower than their value. Delaying found consumption of the masses regarding production growth makes periodic economic crises of overproduction accompanied by a waste of social work, physical destruction of material goods produced arise. The cause of the inevitable economic crisis lies in the fundamental contradiction of capitalism. This contradiction reaches its maximum sharpness in the years of crisis. With the development of capitalism, the basic contradiction is aggravated even more. But capitalism begets not only the basic contradiction that is inherent, but also creates the objective and subjective to resolve the dispute. The main part of the working class is concentrated in large companies and industrial centers, a fact that facilitates their union, cohesion and organization in the fight against the capitalist class. In the course of the revolutionary struggle, the working class, leading all workers, settles the fundamental contradiction of capitalism eliminating the capitalist system and replacing him with a more progressive social system: Socialism, Communism.” 
 We Marxists, including Karl Marx himself, are not afraid to acknowledge that Capitalism has done good things. It has helped humanity come out of the horrific darkness of Feudalism. However, it leaves behind a trial of exploitation and inequality, which we will not tolerate.

Many Liberals in America and around the world hold a view of a more regulated, humane Capitalism. Liberals do not wish to demolish Capitalism altogether. Liberals hold that when Capitalism has little regulations, it behaves badly and hurts people in the economy. They believe if it is regulated, it’s the most perfect economic system and provides a good life for everyone. This is sometimes called “Social Democracy.” They believe other economic systems are too extreme and don’t work and you need to “have a balance between Socialism and Capitalism.” However this view is idealistic and has not worked. (We will cover Liberalism in practice in Chapter IV.) Capitalism is inherently exploitative. You could give workers paid leave, free healthcare and education and even a union, but they will still work hard and keep their bosses afloat for life and still be behind. No matter how much you regulate Capitalism, there will still be exploitation. Even if you regulate Capitalism, the 1% is still going to be wealthy and powerful, and the 99% will still struggle. Only under Socialism will we have a Dictatorship of the 99% instead of the Dictatorship of the 1%, and only under Communism will class and contradictions be abolished.

Some Liberals also advocate for a mix of Capitalism and Socialism in the form of a Mixed Economy, also known as “the Third Position”, to imply they are some sort of alternative to Socialism and Capitalism. However, there is no really “mix” of Capitalism and Socialism. In such a mixed economy where both the private and public sector play an important role, it would still function in the form of a competing market and subjective prices, and thus would still function as a Capitalist mode of production. Some examples of this would be the Republic of Indonesia and Scandinavian countries.

Section II: Liberalism and gun control
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; Any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated by force if necessary.” -Karl Marx
Believing that the ban of “assault rifles” and “high capacity clips” would be effective is buying into the liberal approach to treating the symptoms instead of the disease. With every firearm restriction, the government only gives power to the 1% and prevents the 99% from uprising. Let us not forget, the American Government is one of the biggest gun runners in world, fueling conflicts, murders, and instability. The government contributes more to gun violence than any mass shooter ever. In conclusion, the 99% should be armed, and as Karl Marx said, “…any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated by force if necessary.”

Section III: Liberal “Democracy”
Liberals believe a true Democracy is when the government holds multi-party elections and people get to vote. However what this means is the Liberal definition of Democracy is being able to vote for a bunch of (usually corrupt) politicians every year or two. However real Democracy in Marxism-Leninism is were the people have Democratic control over both the workplace and government. Liberalism is very passive and tolerates dangerous ideologies such as Fascism and Monarchy in the name of “Free speech.” In Liberalism, men like Adolf Hitler would be allowed to rise to power because under a Liberal “Democracy” what the Nazi Party was advocating for would be allowed, since it’s “Free speech.” We can see Liberals doing the same thing today when it comes to Radical Islamic Terrorism. Liberals are often afraid to criticize radical Islam or Sharia Law because they are afraid it would be “Islam-phobic.” We Marxist-Leninists do not hate all Muslims. In fact, there have even been some Muslims who were also Marxist-Leninist. As long as they are good people we are fine with Muslims. However we do not tolerate the theocratic Extremism within Islam. We are not afraid to say that many Muslim countries oppress women and religious minorities in horrible ways that include torture and death. We are not afraid to say that in a lot of places the teachings of Islam are being used to oppress people. We are not afraid to say they are plenty of Muslims out there in very Conservative Muslim countries that hold extreme beliefs. However, Liberals struggle to say this. Many are afraid to attack or critique Islam in anyway. Liberals do this in the name of what they perceive as tolerating all cultures and religions. However when people hold extremist beliefs that put others in danger, it is necessary to take action against those beliefs. We aren’t supporting any of the discriminatory proposals of Donald Trump, and we do not want to kill all Muslims. However unlike many Liberals, we Marxist-Leninists believe it is necessary to take action against Radical Islam, and Radical Islamic Terrorist groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, more commonly known as “ISIS.” 
 
 In 1937, Chinese Marxist Mao Zedong published a pamphlet (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm) titled Combat Liberalism. It’s goal was to show that Liberalism can be critiqued from the left as well as the right, much like we are trying to show here. In one part of his pamphlet, he stated eleven flaws of Liberal philosophy and attitudes. Here are a few important ones that should summarize this section nicely:
⦁ To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism.
⦁ To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one’s suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one’s own inclination. This is a second type.
⦁ To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type.
⦁ To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type.
⦁ To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along — “So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell.” This is a ninth type.

Of course this is but an expert from his pamphlet, but these summarize the point of this section and this chapter. In a corrupt system, Liberalism takes little action. It tells people Revolution and struggle are unnecessary and we can used peace and “Democracy” to fixed the system. It does not want to overthrow the 1%, but thinks they can convince the wealthy and powerful to contribute to society through, get this, the elections and rigged system the wealthy and powerful themselves control. Liberalism cannot achieve change, as change cannot happen without struggle. I hold an admiration for Bernie Sanders supporters, however despite their effort they could not defeat the Hillary Clinton campaign, as it was all rigged against Bernie and rigged for Hillary. Simply voting for Bernie Sanders and donating to his campaign was not enough. When I supported Bernie Sanders, I fell for this trap, as I thought he could actually beat the establishment. However the game is rigged from the start. We can only rid our selves of our oppressors through struggle. Sides, even as anti-establishment as everyone said Bernie Sanders was, in the end, he still supported the Capitalist mode of production. He was not the Socialist he claimed to be, he was a Social Democrat, which is just Capitalism with a lot of regulations. In the end, he sold out to Hillary Clinton, a Liberal and very pro-Capitalist canidate with plenty of ties to financial and political elite. This shows no matter how hard we try, we cannot try to change Capitalism by peaceful changes inside the system. We can only liberate the working people by abolishing the Capitalist system and replacing it with a Socialist one, and the eventual construction of full Communism.

Chapter III: Criticisms of Marxism-Leninism addressed

Section I: The Economic Calculation Problem
One of the main criticisms of Marxism-Leninism, or more so Socialism in general, is the Economic Calculation Problem. It was formulated in 1920 by the capitalist economist Ludwig Von Mises. He stated that one problem with Socialism is that in a Socialist Planned Economy were all the means of production are publicly owned, central planners cannot accurately determine prices without a competing market. This is indeed a very good, well thought criticism of Marxism. However I will not retaliate to address it. In Marxism-Leninism, we transition from Socialism to Communism, so this would be a temporary problem. However under Socialism, directory broads can be created to determine reasonable prices of goods and the prices of goods in capitalist economies can also be examined. What about Capitalism, which pretends the world has infinite resources for infinite market growth, and with it’s constant recessions? It is also important to remember he formulated this criticism before the swift industrialization and economic boom in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which will be discussed in the next chapter. They also point out the large and inefficient bureaucracies in Marxist countries. Yes, this was a mistake they made. It would be very un-Marxist to want to be an exact replication of any Marxist country, as Marxism is about adapting to the material conditions of a nation and people and acknowledging the flaws of the past. What about the large bureaucracies in Capitalist America and the European Union, were the government is often inclined to serve the Capitalist class?

Section II: Marxism and human nature
One argument against Marxism is that is conflicts against human nature, as in Communism and Socialism people will have no incentive to work since they cannot start a business and make a profit, and human nature is naturally selfish and desires profit. However humans are not naturally selfish. It is merely the material conditions we are put in that make us selfish. How come when someone is dying, we try to save them? How come friends and family get each other gifts? How come most people try to show good gestures towards each other, such as hold the door open? How come people give to charity? How come many people are willing to join wars and fight and die for a cause they are passionate in? How come people do all of these things when it usually gets them nothing in return? In the stone age before money and Capitalism, people worked together and we shared the fruits of our hunting and gathering. This shows that Communism and working together is human nature as opposed to Capitalism and entrepreneurship. I am not advocating for a return to the Stone Age, but I am advocating we return to a collective mindset of working together for each other. In an ecosystem, animals (humans are considered animals) do not thrive by competing against each other, they thrive by working together. If Socialism stifles innovation, how come the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had the world’s most advanced space program, which managed to get the first satellite, dog, man and women into space, perform the first spacewalk and land several probes on Venus? How come they also had the world’s second largest economy, a good healthcare system and a near 100% literacy rate? How come they created one of the largest economic booms in history? That is just one example, and as we will see in the next chapter, Marxism-Leninism has worked and has improved living standards and the economy, as well as giving the working people a say in the government and the workplace.

Section III: Marxism-Leninism and Authoritarianism
Many people would call us Marxist-Leninists Authoritarians, and I will plead guilty. We are Authoritarians, but we are Authoritarian in the sense that we believe the Proletariat (The working people, the 99%) should hold political authority instead of the Bourgeoisie (The politicians and businessman, the 1%) and they should use that authority to advance their interests and crush the Counter-Revolutionaries, those who actively fight to end the Proletarian Revolution. They would exercise this authority through trade unions, worker’s councils, and elected representatives which can be recalled at any time. Also, what about Democracy and Capitalism? Their criticize Marxist-Leninist countries for being one-party Republics. However in the American political system, there are two political parities, the Democratic Party and Republican Party. They may disagree on issues like abortion, gun control, gay marriage, the minimum wage. However in the end they are still support the Capitalist economic system. In Marxism-Leninism, members of the Vanguard Party may disagree on some issues, but in the end they are still Marxist-Leninist. So how come one is shining beacon of Democracy to the world and the other is a Totalitarian Dictatorship?

Section IV: Crimes allegedly committed by Communism
“When Stalin’s successors opened the gates of the Gulag, they allowed 3 million inmates to return home. When the Allies liberated the Nazi death camps, they found thousands of human skeletons barely alive awaiting what they knew to be inevitable execution.” -Amir Weiner on the claim that Communism was worse than the Nazis (Amir Weiner, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 32, №3 (Winter, 2002), pp. 450–452)

Many people claim that the Khmer Rouge, a genocidal group in Cambodia that held power from 1975–1979 was Communist. While they adopted the label, it was largely to get support. They were ultra-nationalist and highly racist and xenophobic, a direct betrayal of Marxism. They also saw industrialization and technological progress as oppressive, but Marxism sees it as a positive means to advance society. It was the Cambodian and Vietnamese Marxists who toppled the Khmer Rouge and rebuilt the country. 
 
 People often use the policies of North Korea to discredit Marxism-Leninism. However, North Korea is revisionist. Revisionism is distortion and revising the original principles of Marxism, and turning it into something that does not help the working people. They have abandoned Marxism-Leninism in the 1980s in favor of Juche, a Korean Nationalist ideology. While it is an anti-Capitalist ideology, it has little basis in the ideas of class struggle and a International Proletarian Revolution, and North Korea themselves have admitted they are no longer Marxist-Leninist. 
 
 The Black Book of Communism claims 94 million people have been killed by Marxist governments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism#cite_ref-Torpey_2001_14-0) as of the year it was published, 1998. There is an excellent YouTube video debunking such claims: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsvZoAATfOw. It is worth noting that four million of these deaths are from Cambodia and North Korea, whose governments should not be considered representatives of Communism.

While this claim is used against us Marxists and Communists much less, some people claim Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were Socialist and Communist-friendly. The Nazis were Fascists. Fascism is a far-right wing ideology. Socially, Fascism is anti-Democratic, believes in a strong government, fanatical Nationalism and an aggressive foreign policy. Economically, they believe in Capitalism with a lot of regulations, and an extensive welfare state, but only for those they deem belong to the “master race.” We Marxists and Communists strongly disagree with almost all of these things. The Nazis considered Communists to be sub-humans who should be gassed alongside Jews, (https://www.quora.com/Who-were-considered-undesirable-by-nazis) and hatred of the Communists and the USSR was the centerpiece of their political campaigns. When the Nazis invaded the USSR, they had orders to shoot members of the Communist Party on sight, according to former soldiers who served in the German army at the time. The only reason the Nazis were called the “National Socialist German Worker’s Party” was because the word Socialist was appealing to a lot of people at the time. Just because they had a bunch of regulations does not make them Socialist, in fact, since they preserved private ownership, they were Capitalists.

What about the millions Capitalism has killed? The millions that died in King Leopold II’s quest for profit in the Congo, the tens of millions that have died in the Colonial and Imperialist wars started by US and British governments in order to expand their markets? What about the twenty-one thousand (http://www.poverty.com/) people that die of starvation a day, and millions of people that die from starvation and other poverty related-causes mostly in Capitalist countries every year? Capitalists would refute this by saying that the bulk of these poverty-related deaths happens in the third and second world, and thanks to Capitalist Globalization, extreme poverty in these countries is going down and things are getting better. However, the same can be said for Marxist countries. This will of course be elaborated on in the next chapter, but many Marxist countries such as the USSR, Bulgaria, Albania, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Mongolia, China, Laos and Cuba have all improved living standards in some way ever since they adopted Marxism-Leninism. People may have starved in this countries at first, but after a while, living standards improved.

Section V: “Everyone gets paid the same” 
One common myth about Marxism is that everyone gets paid the same, but this is not true. The saying goes “Each according to their ability, each according to their need.” People do the job they are best at, and are rewarded based on how hard they work and their needs. In Capitalism, a few can amass untold millions while the proletariat must work hard much of their life just to keep up.

Section VI: “All of the luxuries we enjoy would not be possible without Capitalism”
Right now, I’m wearing shirt I bought while I was in Socialist Cuba, but the computer I’m typing this on was made for Microsoft in Capitalist China. However, the shirt I am wearing was not made by Socialism and the computer I am using was not made by Capitalism. Labor made these things. Labor makes everything, the economic system just determines how the good is distributed and who gets what share of surplus from exchanging that good. As will be seen in the next chapter, once Marxism was adopted, many countries increased the amount of luxury and consumer goods they were producing thanks to industrialization. While the quality was low at first as a need to increase production, once they had industrialized, quality rose further, as shown by the 1967 Soviet quality standards. For example, the USSR was making many personal computers in the 1980s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrL_1QOvTss. Of course, Marxism did not make these things, but as said, it shows that such luxury and consumer goods are not exclusive to Capitalism, and at least the workers who made these goods controlled controlled their workplaces.

Section VII: The Abolition of private property
Many people hold it against Marxism, and Communism for a whole for that matter, for wanting to abolish private property. When we say this, we are not saying your neighbor can take your toothbrush and shove it up their butthole and there is nothing you can do about it. A good quote from The Communist Manifesto, the founding document of Marxism, says, “(You hold it against us for wanting to abolish private property,) …but private property is already abolished for nine-tenths of the population.” In America today, this would be an understatement, as much of the political and economic power is concentrated in the hands of the top 1% of earners, who control much of the economy and new income, and political scene. We want to abolish their private property, the private property that they use to exploit workers and outsource jobs. You are free to use your personal property, such as your phone, TV, or bed.

Section VIII: “Then why did they give up Marxism?”
Many countries have adopted Marxism-Leninism, and it worked for a long time. Just because it fell does not mean it did not work while it lasted. The biggest reason Marxist-Leninist countries have fell is because they were destroyed from the inside by Revisionists, like the Soviet President Grobachev.

Chapter IV: Liberalism in action versus Marxism-Leninism in action

Section I: Liberalism in America
The official website of the American Democratic Party, (From this point forward will be referred to as the Democratic Party or the Democrats) the main proponent of Liberalism in America, says voting for them will support American workers and the 99%, but their policies say otherwise. How can people like Hillary Clinton, with such high connections to big business, help the 99%? One example of this is shown in their free trade policies, but the main people gaining freedom from these policies are corporations. For example, we should look at the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, a free trade agreement between America, Canada and Mexico. To quote an article on The Washington Post: “Many economists agree that NAFTA has had some positive impact on overall U.S. employment. But most also agree that gains have been accompanied by some painful side effects. Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, notes that wages haven’t kept pace with labor productivity and that income inequality has risen in recent years, in part due to pressures on the U.S. manufacturing base. To some extent, he says, trade deals have hastened the pace of these changes in that they have “reinforced the globalization of the American economy.”

“Analysts cite economic growth in Mexico since NAFTA was implemented. Attributing this growth directly to the deal is a fuzzy process, however, and some experts say Mexican growth has underperformed expectations. Since 1994, Mexico’s GDP has increased at an average annual rate of 2.7 percent, below the average growth rates of 3.3 percent and 3.6 percent in the United States and Canada, respectively. Mexican exports to the United States have quadrupled since NAFTA’s implementation, from $60 billion to $280 billion per year. U.S. exports to Mexico have also increased sharply, more than tripling as Mexico’s economy has grown. In addition, experts say trade liberalization between Mexico and the United States has brought broad positive consequences for regular Mexicans, not just Mexican business interests. For instance, the deal has led to a dramatic reduction in prices for Mexican consumers. GEA, a Mexico City-based economic consulting firm, estimates that the cost of basic household goods in Mexico has halved since NAFTA’s implementation. 
But some analysts argue the deal hasn’t benefited Mexico much. Alejandro Portes, a Princeton sociology professor, notes stagnation in the country’s labor market: “Economic growth has been anemic in Mexico, averaging less than 3.5 percent per year or less than 2 percent on a per capita basis since 2000,” Portes writes. “Unemployment is higher than what it was when the treaty was signed; and half of the labor force must eke out a living in invented jobs in the informal economy, a figure ten percent higher than in the pre-NAFTA years.” Some critics single out Mexico’s farm industry, saying NAFTA has crippled Mexican farming prospects by opening competition to the heavily-subsidized U.S. farm industry. Economists dispute this assessment as flatly incorrect. The Economist notes that despite increased competition, Mexican farm exports to the United States have in fact tripled since NAFTA’s implementation, in part because of reduced tariffs on maize.” Here is another article about NAFTA that is also from The Washington Post: “Nafta has cut a path of destruction through Mexico. Since the agreement went into force in 1994, the country’s annual per capita growth flat-lined to an average of just 1.2 percent — one of the lowest in the hemisphere. Its real wage has declined and unemployment is up. 
As heavily subsidized U.S. corn and other staples poured into Mexico, producer prices dropped and small farmers found themselves unable to make a living. Some two million have been forced to leave their farms since Nafta. At the same time, consumer food prices rose, notably the cost of the omnipresent tortilla. 
As a result, 20 million Mexicans live in “food poverty”. Twenty-five percent of the population does not have access to basic food and one-fifth of Mexican children suffer from malnutrition. Transnational industrial corridors in rural areas have contaminated rivers and sickened the population and typically, women bear the heaviest impact.
The American City of Detroit shows the failures of these agreements. Factories have been shut down and many workers have lost their jobs and forced to move elsewhere. Many buildings in the city of collapsed into ruin. Many cities like Detroit, Baltimore, and Chicago have declined under the policies of the Democrats. In these cities, some old buildings and factories have been shut down and are crumbling and a lot of people live in ghettos and there is high crime and economic inequality. States run by Democrats like California and New York actually have very high levels of inequality, something Liberals claim to fight. Another upcoming free trade agreement, supported by the Democrat President Barack Obama is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. This agreement is still being negotiated, but could give multinational corporations even more power than NAFTA. Many of the countries involved, such as Indonesia, have even lower labor standards than Mexico, which could help encourage human trafficking. The failures of American Liberalism go beyond trade. Let’s lot at President Barack Obama’s healthcare policy, dubbed “Obamacare.” Under the policy, Americans are require to sign up for health insurance or pay a tax. The whole idea was to get everyone health insurance, and I will admit it did do that. However, for one I saw first hand how everyone’s health insurance rate got much more expensive. Here we can see how Liberalism has helped big corporations, in this case the insurance companies, the group Liberals claim to fight against. However under Socialism, healthcare is a right to everyone. Barack Obama has also bailed out big banks and car companies, but he did not bail out the working people, who lives were just ruined by the global economic crisis in 2008. We also need to bear in mind he continued the Imperialist policies of President George W. Bush. He intervened in Libya, (Hillary Clinton’s leaked emails show the main purpose of the invasion was to gain Libyan gold and oil: http://www.middleeastrising.com/hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-libya-intervention/) he continued to the drone program, and while I will give him credit for avoiding direct military intervention in Syria, he funded “Moderate Syrian Rebels”, many of which turned out to be radical Jihadists that would go on to join ISIS. (http://theantimedia.org/declassified-pentagon-report-proves-us-helped-create-isis/) Wages and living standards have continued to stagnate in America, under the watch of both Democrats and Republicans. Liberalism in America has not helped the average American. It only continues the corrupt Capitalist system, but claims it has changed everything because they give concessions such as Social Security. While things like Social Security are great, in the end as stated in the introduction, only under Socialism are the working people liberated, and under Capitalism there will still be exploitation and inequality no matter how many social programs you have. The failures of Liberalism can go beyond America. In the European Union (EU), is Social Democracy (What Europeans would call what Americans know as “Liberalism”) really working with all the unemployment, debt, corruption, painful austerity measures, and still widespread poverty in Europe? Liberals and Social Democrats often use Northern European countries like Sweden of examples of their ideology working, but they forget there are also many third and second world countries governed by Liberals. Where has Liberalism and Social Democracy ended Capitalism, given the workers democratic control of the workplace, ended homelessness and unemployment, abolished taxation, and built direct Democracy?
Section II: Was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) really the “Asheap of history?” or the “Evil Empire?”
 In 1982, the then American President Ronald Regan gave a speech to the British House of Commons. In the speech, he said “Freedom and Democracy” (Of course in a Capitalist sense) would be victorious and would leave Marxism-Leninism on the “asheap of history.” He also called the USSR an “evil empire.” 
 Every era of human history has it’s superpowers. The Ancient world had the Persians and Romans, the Middle Ages had the Chinese and Mongols, the Renaissance had the Spanish, the Industrial Revolution had the British, the Cold War had the USSR and present day has the USA. All of these great powers, expect the USA, may no longer exist or may not be as great as they were, but all of them contributed something to humanity, all of them helped changed history, and all of them cemented a legacy to stand the test of time, and the Soviets were no exception. The USSR was not just some country that came and went, it was a great power that gave us inventions and ideas that have and will continue to influence human history. 
 One common myth about the USSR is everyone who lived there hated it and thought it was awful. From: http://qz.com/207365/more-than-half-of-russians-want-the-soviet-union-back/
“The US polling company Pew Research Center has just released a survey of Russian and Ukrainian attitudes to what’s going on in eastern Ukraine, and one fact caught our eye: 55% of Russian adults think it’s a ‘great misfortune’ that the Soviet Union no longer exists.
Pew has asked Russians this question twice before, and got roughly the same result: 58% in 2009 and 50% in 2011. (There’s a 3.6-percentage-point margin of error.) What makes this rather striking is that, in 2009, none of the people Pew surveyed (aged 18 and older) would have been born after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Today, roughly 6 million fully post-Soviet Russians have reached adulthood, judging by Russian official data (spreadsheet, link in Russian).”
 I believe the best way to start would be with a brief summary of the history of the USSR so we know what we are talking about. Ever since the 1400s, Russia had been ruled by Tsars, or Emperors. While the rest of Europe was moving forward, Russia still maintained a Feudal system of serfdom up until 1863. Many Russians lived in terrible poverty. Many of them were illiterate peasants who lived in poverty in the countryside, working for their nobles. In the late 1800s, things were starting to get a little bit better. The Tsar’s regime cracked down on dissent, seen in the crushing of protesters in 1905. In 1914, Russia entered World War I one the side of the allied powers. The war with Germany on their western borders was long and inconclusive. Many Russians were dying and it was costing a lot of money, but there was no clear winner. Fed up with the Monarchy, in February of 1917, the February Revolution began and the Monarchy was overthrown. The Russian Republic was proclaimed. However, the new government kept the country in the war. Many Russians felt the new government would change nothing. I will let the wikipedia article about the USSR take it from here: “The Soviet Union (Russian: Сове́тский Сою́з, tr. Sovetskiy Soyuz; IPA: [sɐ’vʲetskʲɪj sɐˈjʉs]), officially the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Russian: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик, tr. Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik; abbreviated to USSR (Russian: СССР, tr. SSSR), was a socialist state on the Eurasian continent that existed from 1922 to 1991. A union of multiple subnational Soviet republics, its government and economy were highly centralized. The Soviet Union was a one-party federation, governed by the Communist Party with Moscow as its capital.
The Soviet Union had its roots in the October Revolution of 1917, when the Bolsheviks, headed by Vladimir Lenin, overthrew the provisional government that had replaced the Tsar. They established the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (renamed Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in 1936), beginning a civil war between the revolutionary “Reds” and the counter-revolutionary “Whites.” The Red Army entered several territories of the former Russian Empire and helped local Communists take power through soviets, which nominally acted on behalf of workers and peasants. In 1922, the Communists were victorious, forming the Soviet Union with the unification of the Russian, Transcaucasian, Ukrainian, and Byelorussian republics. Following Lenin’s death in 1924, a troika and a brief power struggle, Joseph Stalin came to power in the mid-1920s. Stalin suppressed all political opposition to his rule, committed the state ideology to Marxism–Leninism (which he created), and initiated a centrally planned economy. As a result, the country underwent a period of rapid industrialization and collectivization which laid the foundation for its victory in World War II and post-war dominance of Eastern Europe. Stalin also fomented political paranoia, and conducted the Great Purge to remove opponents of his from the Communist Party through the mass arbitrary arrest of many people (military leaders, Communist Party members, and ordinary citizens alike) who were then sent to correctional labor camps or sentenced to death.
At the beginning of World War II, Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany; the treaty delayed confrontation between the two countries. In June 1941 the Germans invaded, opening the largest and bloodiest theater of war in history. Soviet war casualties accounted for the highest proportion of the conflict in the cost of acquiring the upper hand over Axis forces at intense battles such as Stalingrad. Soviet forces eventually captured Berlin in 1945. The territory overtaken by the Red Army became satellite states of the Eastern Bloc. The Cold War emerged in 1947 as the Soviet bloc confronted the Western states that united in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949.
Following Stalin’s death in 1953, a period of political and economic liberalization, known as “de-Stalinization” and “Khrushchev’s Thaw”, occurred under the leadership of Nikita Khrushchev. The country developed rapidly, as millions of peasants were moved into industrialized cities. The USSR took an early lead in the Space Race with the first ever satellite and the first human spaceflight. In the 1970s, there was a brief détente of relations with the United States, but tensions resumed when the Soviet Union deployed troops in Afghanistan in 1979. The war drained economic resources and was matched by an escalation of American military aid to Mujahideen fighters.
In the mid-1980s, the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, sought to further reform and liberalize the economy through his policies of glasnost and perestroika. The goal was to preserve the Communist Party while reversing economic stagnation. The Cold War ended during his tenure, and in 1989 Soviet satellite countries in Eastern Europe overthrew their respective communist regimes. This led to the rise of strong nationalist and separatist movements inside the USSR as well. Central authorities initiated a referendum — boycotted by the Baltic republics, Armenia, Georgia, and Moldova — which resulted in the majority of participating citizens voting in favor of preserving the Union as a renewed federation. In August 1991, a coup d’état was attempted by Communist Party hardliners. It failed, with Russian President Boris Yeltsin playing a high-profile role in facing down the coup, resulting in the banning of the Communist Party. On 25 December 1991, Gorbachev resigned and the remaining twelve constituent republics emerged from the dissolution of the Soviet Union as independent post-Soviet states. The Russian Federation is the legal successor of the USSR.[7][8][9]”
So aside from China, the USSR is without doubt, the most well-known example of Marxism-Leninism in practice. So here is the biggest question of all: did it work? This is not an easy question to answer and the debate will rage on, but I would like to put forward the case that while the USSR was no perfect utopia, it was a successful model of Marxism-Leninism and I support their legacy and hope that it can serve as a model and reference for future Revolutionaries. 
So how was it successful? Let’s start with the economy. When the USSR was founded in 1922, it was well behind the industrialized world. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (From this point forward will be merely referred to as the Communist Party) understood that if they would have to catch up with the developed world if they wanted their ideology was to be respected. In 1929, the industrialization process began, with it’s goal to transform the Soviet economy from a largely primitive, agricultural based one to an industrial one based on manufacturing and services. Here are two excerpts from an article (https://waitingforputney.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/a-beginners-guide-to-soviet-industrialization/) about Soviet Industrialization: “A.) Properly Comparing the Soviet Union’s Economic Gains: It is the first trick of anti-communists to compare the gains of the Soviet Union to Western Europe and the United States — a comparison perhaps made easy by their rivalry in the Cold War. Economically speaking, the comparison is fraudulent. (What would become) The Soviet Union in 1900 was comparable to China, the Latin-American periphery, Japan and South-East Asia — not the US and Western Europe.

As the graphs illustrate, the Soviet Union performed very well in comparison to countries that did not have significant American and Western European aid (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) and began 20th century development at a comparable starting point.”
“What were the positive impacts of the Soviet Industrial Revolution, to name a few, given the knowledge highlighted above of its inherent weaknesses and impediments?
1.) A yearly growth rate of 5.3% from 1928 to 1940, impressive for even the Asian miracle markets.
2.) Labor time for growing grain fell from 20.8 days in 1920 to 10.6 days in 1937 due to mechanization, significantly increasing free time.
3.) The production of consumer goods rose 79% between 1928 and 1939
4.) Education and Health Service sectors grew by 12% per year in the five-year plans
5.) Literacy rose from 21% in 1897 to 51% in 1926 to 81% in 1939. In 1897, a man was 3x more likely to be literate than a woman, this disparity was almost completely eliminated by 1939. Similar gains were seen in class size at the secondary and high level, as well.
6.) Unemployment and homelessness were eliminated in the Soviet Union in this period. Not having a permanent home was made illegal, and almost no residences were left vacant. Compare this to the United States were there are 6x as many vacant homes (18 million) than there are homeless persons (3+ million) (http://blog.amnestyusa.org/us/housing-its-a-wonderful-right/)
7.) The urban decay associated with rapid urbanization and industrialization were essentially avoided by a post-industrialization focus on improving housing. The slums of its economic peers were absent from soviet urban environments.
8.) Industrial output was tripled in the decade of the 30s
9.) The USSR avoided the post-war depression even in an international market full of protectionist nations. Other grain exporters like India suffered significantly more economically than the Soviet Union did.
10.) Consumption rose significantly after the Second World War, resulting in increased quality of life, made possible by industrialization in heavy and light industry.
Conclusion:
Collectivization and Industrialization in the Soviet Union must be thought of in a different way than it is commonly thought of in western society. As illustrated above, the process was debated at length and impeded by inherent weaknesses in the Tsarist economy and thus Russian development. A revolution cannot transcend the material conditions in which it is born. The errors of industrialization are not the product of cartoonish villains who co-opted the revolution and willingly threw the Soviet Union into rural warfare. They were a product of the dialectical relationship any socialist society has with its capitalist predecessor and the internal contradictions that will arise in constructing a socialist economy amongst the vestiges of capitalism.
With that said, the gains of the Soviet Union in this period, as highlighted above, were monumental. Russia would surge from European backwater to international power, capable of throwing down the tyranny of Nazism and rebuilding the nation from the grievous injuries levied upon it by the invaders and capable of establishing educational and healthcare systems that would be the envy of the developing world.
As Michael Parenti would say in a lecture on the topic, ‘Communism transformed desperately poor countries into societies in which everyone had adequate food, shelter, medical care and education.’ This, in essence, is the mechanism of the Soviet Industrial Revolution. Given our peripheral study of this revolution above, we must conclude with Parenti that, ‘To say that socialism doesn’t work is to overlook the fact that it did work for hundreds of millions of people.’”
 Up until 1989 living standards and the economy continued to improve (https://ria.ru/history_spravki/20101108/293796130.html). In the 1960s and 1970s it almost looked like the USSR would catch up to the western world. However in 1979, the USSR intervened in Afghanistan to stop Radical Islamic terror groups. As a result of this, the west slapped economic sanctions on the Soviets. This combined with high military spend caused a stagnation. The policies of the Soviet President Grobachev, a Revisionist-Marxist, a Marxist who disregards the original principles of Marxism, worsened the stagnation and resulted in an economic crisis in 1989. His policies lead to the downfall of the USSR. While the Capitalist world went through many recessions and booms and busts, the USSR continued to grow from 1945 to 1989. When the USSR collapsed and the former Soviet Socialist Republics transitioned to Capitalism, it was one of the greatest economic crises in history. Living standards and the economy dropped severely. While most countries have recovered in recent years, some, like Ukraine and Moldova still have not. Levels of human development are still lower than they were under Socialism. In fact, in the 1990 United Nations Development Report, at a time when the USSR was in economic and political chaos, it still had a human development index of 0.920, (http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/219/hdr_1990_en_complete_nostats.pdf) and that was a significant accomplishment because that was higher than many developed Capitalist countries like Singapore, South Korea and Portugal, and barely behind the USA, which had 0.961, and the world average was around 0.500–0.799, which the USSR was well above, in line with developed first world countries. For most of the Cold War, the USSR had the second highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the world, beat only by the USA. (http://stat.kushnir.mk.ua/en/gdp/su.html)
 On the note of living standards, to quote an article from BBC: “Privatisation ‘raised death rate’ 
The rapid mass privatisation which followed the break up of the Soviet Union fuelled an increase in death rates among men, research suggests. 
The UK study blames rapidly rising unemployment resulting from the break-neck speed of reform. The researchers said their findings should act as a warning to other nations that are beginning to embrace widespread market reform. The study features online in The Lancet medical journal. The researchers examined death rates among men of working age in the post-communist countries of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union between 1989 and 2002. They conclude that as many as one million working-age men died due to the economic shock of mass privatisation policies. Following the break up of the old Soviet regime in the early 1990s at least a quarter of large state-owned enterprises were transferred to the private sector in just two years. This programme of mass privatisation was associated with a 12.8% increase in deaths. The latest analysis links this surge in deaths to a 56% increase in unemployment over the same period. However, it found some countries with good social support networks withstood the turmoil better than others. Where 45% or more of the population were members of at least one social organisation, such as a church group or labour union, mass privatisation did not increase mortality. But Russia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were worst affected, with a tripling of unemployment and a 42% increase in male death rates between 1991 and 1994. Countries that adopted a slower pace of change, gradually phasing in free-market conditions and developing appropriate institutions, fared much better. The best were Albania, Croatia, Czech Republic, Poland and Slovenia, which experienced only a 2% increase in unemployment — and a 10% fall in male mortality. 
Caution urged The authors, led by sociologist David Stuckler, from Oxford University, wrote: “The policy implications are clear. “Great caution should be taken when macroeconomic policies seek radically to overhaul the economy without considering potential effects on the population’s health.” Researcher Professor Martin McKee, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said the death rate was already high in the old Soviet Union, as the healthcare system was inadequate, while rates of smoking and alcohol use were high, and diets poor. This was compounded as the unemployment rate began to rise as workers suffered from uncertainty and stress. Not only does stress have a direct effect on health, it is also closely associated with unhealthy lifestyles, such as alcoholism. Together this raises the risk of heart disease and strokes, as well as mental illness. “The workplace also tended to provide what healthcare was available, along with social support,” he said. “People got everything from work — and when they lost their jobs all that just went.” In an accompanying article, Professor Martin Bobak and Professor Sir Michael Marmot, from University College London, said the findings were relevant today. “Countries in other regions are, and have been, undergoing economic and social transitions. “That the extent and speed of such changes are important is increasingly apparent.” However, they stressed that the impact on health also depended on historical and political contexts.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7828901.stm

Another accomplishment of the Soviets was their contribution to science and technology. For example, in 1957 they launched the first satellite into space, the Sputnik. They went on to launch the first dog, man, and woman into space, perform the first spacewalk, and was the only country to put probes on Venus. (https://www.cia.gov/library/video-center/video-transcripts/the-soviet-space-program.html)

But wasn’t the USSR a dictatorship? The USSR was in fact a Democracy. I touched on this earlier in Chapter III, Section III. However, I believe I could describe it working in practice. The word “Soviet” is Russian for “Council.” A lecture given in Lima in 1923 describes it nicely: “The framework of the Russian constitution is the following: Beginning: He who does not work, does not eat. End: suppression of exploitation of man by man. Middle: during the proletariat’s decisive struggle against its exploiters power must belong exclusively to the working masses. 
The cell of the Soviet regime is the urban and rural soviet, or council. These urban and rural soviets are grouped first in a volost congress, then in district congresses, then in the regional congresses, and lastly in the pan-Russian congress of soviets, made up of urban soviets’ delegates (one for every 25,000 inhabitants) and of provincial congress delegates (one for every 125,000 inhabitants). The pan-Russian congress meets twice a year. It appoints an executive central committee which is the supreme authority in the intervals between congresses. From within itself, the Executive Central Committee names the people’s commissars who, in turn, make up a college or soviet. There are eighteen people’s commissars. 
The term of each delegate is three months. However, all delegates can be recalled at any time. All the workers, without distinction of gender, nationality, religion, etc., are the electors. 
There is no democratic dualism the soviet system. The soviets are, at once, executive and legislative organs. The council of people’s commissars is but a leadership committee, a general staff, for the soviet assembly. Parliament, due to aging, is often out of step with the latest currents. The soviet is in constant renovation, in constant change. All the undulations of public opinion are reflected in the soviet. The soviet is the typical organ of the proletarian regime, just as parliament is the typical organ of the democratic system. It is a system of professional representation and of class representation. 
The dictatorship of the proletariat, therefore, is not a party dictatorship, but a class dictatorship, a dictatorship of the working class. When the soviet regime was inaugurated, the Bolsheviks did not predominate except in the urban soviets, in the industrial centers. In the peasants’ soviets the Social Revolutionary Party, which more closely corresponded to the little-evolutionist and petty-bourgeois mentality of the peasants, predominated. But the Bolsheviks attracted the collaboration of these peasant masses by carrying out their program of peace and land distribution.” (https://www.marxists.org/archive/mariateg/works/1924-hwc/hwc14.htm)
 They criticize the USSR for being a one-party Republic. However in the American political system, there are two political parities, the Democratic Party and Republican Party. They may disagree on issues like abortion, gun control, gay marriage, the minimum wage. However in the end they are still support the Capitalist economic system. In the USSR, members of the Communist Party may have disagreed on some issues, but in the end they are still Marxist-Leninists. So how come America is a shining beacon of Democracy to the world and the USSR was a Totalitarian Dictatorship? Unlike capitalist countries, there was workplace Democracy in the USSR, and there is a whole book on it for those interested: https://archive.org/stream/WorkersParticipationInTheSovietUnion/Workers%20Participation%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union#page/n0/mode/2up
 On that note, here is a fun fact: In the 1930s, many black Americans immigrated to the USSR. They said life was better there. They did not experience all of the racism and economic problems they did in America. There is still a community of tens of thousands of black Russians today. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/advertisers/russia/articles/society/20090826/russias_black_community.html)
 But didn’t the USSR kill millions? There is lots of evidence refuting many of the claims made aganist the USSR. For example, Fraud, Famine, and Fascism, by Douglas Tottle, debunks the claim that the Soviet government engineered a famine in Ukraine. Much of it was to blame on Kulaks, wealthy farmers who hoarded grain and hoped to sell it at inflated prices during the famine. When Soviet authorities came to confiscate it, many of them burned the grain, worsening the famine. Here is a essay about the famine: https://www.instagram.com/p/BJKF2kbD2Dk5IKomD0-2N7QXb8Ny4sc92ud9pY0/?taken-by=proletarian.stalinist) The last famine to occur in the USSR was in 1947. In Russia under the Tsars, it happened every few years. Do I think the USSR was perfect? No, it had heavy restrictions freedom of speech and movement and was very repressive at times. However, I still believe it proves Marxism-Leninism works.

Section III: The People’s Socialist Republic of Albania
After many years of being a colony of the Turks for centuries, the Albanians declared themselves independent from the Ottoman Empire in 1912. In 1928, Zog I was crowned King of the Albanians, ending the short-lived Republic. King Zog I was mostly very conservative and preserved many of the feudal traditions in the country, and it remained a European backwater. However, some progress was made and some schools and hospitals were built. In 1939, Fascist Italy occupied Albania with almost no resistance. The New World Encyclopedia summarizes the following events well: “Italy invaded Albania on April 7, 1939, meeting little resistance, and took control of the country. The Italians annexed parts of Montenegro, Kosovo and Northern Greece. Albanian communists and nationalists fought a partisan war against the Italian and German invasions in World War II. The Communist Party was created on November 8, 1941, with the help of Bolshevik Communist Parties, under the guidance of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. In November 1944, the communists gained control of the government under resistance leader Enver Hoxha.”
In 1946 after two years of transitional rule, the Fascists had been driven out and the People’s Republic of Albania was founded, a Marxist-Leninist People’s Republic lead by the Communist Party of Albania. In 1948, the Communist Party of Albania was renamed the Labor Party of Albania. From this point forward, I will refer to the Labor Party of Albania as the PPSH, an abbreviation for it’s Albanian name, Partia e Punës e Shqipërisë. Anyway, Albania followed it’s own form of Marxism-Leninism known as Hoxhaism. Hoxhaism believed that in the 1960s and early 1970s, Albania and China were the only really Marxist-Leninist countries and the rest were revisionist. I may not agree entirely with Hoxhaism, but I will respect the Albanians for what they achieved. So what did the Marxist-Leninist policies of the PPSH achieve? An article written in 1973 in the State University of Tirana summarizes the accomplishments of PPSH rule up to that point:
From: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/panorama.htm#1
“From Albania Today, 1973, 3
Panorama of the Economic-Social Development of Socialist Albania
By Aristotel Pano — University professor at the economics faculty of the State University of Tirana, specialist on problems of finance and statistics.
Some thoughts and facts about the Albania of yesterday, today and tomorrow. Rate of development in the various fields of socio-economic and cultural construction
In the south-western part of the Balkan peninsula, in an area of about 28,000 km2, live 2.3 million Albanians who, holding the pick in one hand and the rifle in the other, are showing the whole world what wonders a free people can work, however small in number, when they are led by a genuine Marxist-Leninist party. Very few people knew Albania before the Second World War. Some foreign bourgeois politicians considered Albania at that time as merely a geographical notion and, some ultra reactionaries and fascists, between imperialist bargainings, were trying to trample underfoot this ancient country and people of patriotic, revolutionary traditions.
It is difficult to characterize the giant stride of the Albanian people within 29 years of the people’s power in a few pages. Poverty and the impoverishment of the working masses reigned in pre-liberation Albania. The taxes and imposts levied on the people constituted 95.7 per cent of the state budget and this budget was mainly used for the palace, for the police and the army of the Zog regime. In this field no comparison whatever can be drawn with the present situation, since Albania today is the only country in the world where the working people pay no imposts or taxes whatever.
Before liberation, the Albanian peasants suffered from malaria and other diseases, they were illiterate and their small huts were lit only by torch-light and oil-lamp, while today all the Albanian villages are lit by electric light. The pre-liberation Albanian economy imported almost everything from abroad, including matches and needles, while now our country produces the major part of its commodities by itself and, indeed, some of them successfully compete in foreign markets too.
Or let us take another fact; before liberation 80 per cent of the population was illiterate, while today 1/3 of the population pursues studies and Albania has its own academy of sciences with its many institutes and an electronic computer centre, all managed by Albanians themselves. 
It is perhaps difficult for a foreigner to understand the grandeur of these socio-economic changes made by the Albanian people under the brilliant leadership of their Party of Labour. But the Myzeqe peasants or the Kurbnesh highlanders, who have lived the sad past, feel the magnificence of the successes of the socialist construction of the country at their every step. Therefore, when Radio Tirana announced that in the elections to the Sixth legislature of the People’s Assembly 100 per cent of the voters cast their votes for Democratic Front candidates, the Albanians very easily understand this logical fact which to a foreigner may seem very very strange and paradoxical. In reality this is one of the external aspects of the monolithic unity of the people around the Party of Labour and our outstanding and glorious leader comrade Enver Hoxha. Their names are connected with all the victories of socialist Albania during these 29 years of the building of a free and happy life here on the Adriatic coasts, in the heart of Europe infested with imperialism and revisionism of various hues.
1. Figures which speak for themselves
The various aspects of the economic development of a country can be shown by many specific indices, but the most eloquent index for this purpose is without fail that of the national income. The change in the volume of the national income summarily characterizes all the successes achieved by an economy in the development of its productive forces, as well as the financial possibilities of a country for further accumulation and for the uninterrupted elevation of the level of wellbeing of the labouring masses.
As a result of the vigorous development of the various branches of material production, in 1970 the Albanian national income increased over 8.3 times in comparison with 1938. Despite the great increase of the population, per capita incomes for the same period increased 4 times. The 1971–1975 five-year plan envisages a further increase of the national income by 55–60 per cent as compared with 1970. 
A main feature of the national income of our country is the achievement of a high rate of increase throughout the period of socialist construction, although the basis of comparison becomes greater from year to year. Here is a table of the average annual growth of the national income according to the 5-year plans:
 1955–1960 1961–1965 1966–1970 1971–75 (Plan)
Average annual rate of increase in % 7 5.8 9.1 9.5
As can be seen, if we exclude the 1961–1965 period in which, as a result of the savage imperialist-revisionist blockade, our economy suffered a certain decline in the rate of increase, in all the other periods the average annual rate of increase of the national income has continued to grow. This is one of the characteristics of our progressive and high rate of development. 
In order to better understand the successes of Albania concerning the increase of the national income we can draw some comparisons with the world as a whole and with other countries.
During the 1960–1970 period the average annual rate of increase of national income for the world in general was 5.6 per cent, for Europe it was 4.6 per cent, while for Albania — 7.2 per cent. Thus, during this period the average annual rate of increase of Albania’s national income was 29 per cent higher than the world average and 56 per cent higher than the European average.1
Albania, due to its correct economic policy, has obtained a higher rate of increase of the national income not only in comparison with the world average and with that of Europe, but also in comparison with many individual countries which had better conditions of development from the viewpoint of the past.
Thus, if we consider the last period of our development, 1965–1970, and compare ourselves with some neighbouring countries or with some other countries of Eastern Europe where the revisionist cliques are in power, then we have the following results.2
Country Average annual rate of increase in %
1 Albania 9.1
2 Yugoslavia 6.2
3 Greece 7.1
4 Bulgaria 8.6
5 Poland 6.1
6 Hungary 7.0
7 Czechoslovakia 6.8
8 Italy 5.6
Another important fact is that our rate of increase of the national income is not only high, but increases continually, while in other countries the rate has begun to fall. Thus, for the 1971–1975 period the average annual rate of increase of the national income in our country is envisaged to be 5 per cent higher than that of the 1966–1970 period, while in Bulgaria, Hungary, the German Democratic Republic, Poland, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, this rate is expected to decline.
In pre-liberation Albania about 90 per cent of the national income was ensured from agriculture alone, which shows that it was essentially an agricultural country. Now the structure of our economy has completely changed. The implementation of the Leninist policy of industrialization resulted in the transformation of Albania from an essentially agricultural country into an agricultural-industrial country. This is also evident from analysis of the present-day structure of the production of the national income according to the branches of material production. The specific weight of individual branches of material production in the realization of the country’s national income expressed in percentage is as follows:
Branches of material production 1938 1950 1960 1965 1970
1. Industry 3.2 11.0 32.7 35.0 42.4
2. Agriculture 93.1 76.3 44.4 43.8 34.5
3. Building construction 0.8 4.6 10.9 10.1 12.2
4. Transport, Commerce, etc. 29.3 8.1 12.0 11.1 12.9
Total 00 100 100 100 100
The above data shows that the major part of the national income is now realized in Albania from the industrial branch. The specific weight of the industrial branch in the realization of the national income grew from 11.0 per cent to 42.4 per cent in the twenty years between 1950 and 1970. The fifth five-year plan (1971–1975) will mark a new stride forward in the increase of the role of industry in the creation of the national income and in the transformation of Albania from an agricultural-industrial country into an industrial-agricultural country.
Today in Albania the socialist relations of production have triumphed 100 per cent in all the sectors and branches of the economy. Thus, the whole of the national income is produced in the socialist sector. The economic policy of the Party of Labour of Albania has ensured not only a rapid growth of the national income, but also its correct utilization in the interest of the labouring masses, in the interest of the present and of the future. In Albania there are no longer parasitic and exploiting classes, as is the case in the capitalist and revisionist countries where the bourgeois classes and strata in power appropriate the major part of the national income. In Albania, the whole of the national income belongs to the working people and is used to their advantage, to increase the wellbeing of the working people.
One of the main preoccupations of the economic policy of our Party concerning the utilization of the national income is its correct division into accumulation fund and consumer fund. On this question the aim has been and remains to utilize the national income in such a way as to ensure a high rate of development of the country and to improve the material and cultural standards of the working people, not only at present, but in the future, too. The high rate of increase of the national income has created conditions for the consumer fund, on which the material and cultural standards of the labouring masses depend, to grow continually both in volume and per capita of the population.
Thus, in 1970, as compared with 1950, the volume of the consumer fund amounted to 373.3 per cent, and per capita of the population — 213 per cent. Thus, the consumption per capita of the population within 20 years doubled, which shows a considerable improvement of the material and cultural conditions of the labouring masses. In every period, alongside the large investments and accumulations, the Party has taken care to earmark a considerable part of the funds for the increase of the real incomes of the population. Thus, under the fourth five-year plan (1966–1970) the real incomes per capita of the population increased by 17 per cent. It is expected that the real incomes per capita of the population will increase more or less at the same rate during the 1971–1975 period too. ‘
2. Results of the policy of industrialization
It is well known that the economic successes of a country at the present time are determined in the first place by the rate and proportions of its industrialization. For this reason, since the first days of the establishment of the people’s power, the Party drafted and applied the magnificent plan for the socialist industrialization of the country at a rapid rate. Albania inherited a backward industry from the past, therefore essential changes had to be made in this field within a short period of time. Thanks to its correct policy in the field of industrialization too, within 20–25 years our country created a modern and diversified industry, formerly non-existent, which not only fulfils a large part of the country’s needs but also provides many commodities for export. One of the indices testifying to the colossal successes of our country in the field of industrialization is that of the increase of total industrial production. Thus, in 1970, as compared with 1938, total industrial production increased 63.7 times. This colossal increase of total industrial production in comparison with 1938 is mainly the result of the high rate of economic development. This is also shown by the fact that our industrial production has greatly increased not only in comparison with the pre-liberation period, but also with the subsequent periods.
If we compare our rate of increase of industrial production during the 1951–1970 period with that of the world and its areas we have the following results:3
Country Average annual rate of increase 1951–1970
1. Albania 14.7
2. World in general 7

3. Developed capitalist countries 5.3
4. Other capitalist countries 10

5. Revisionist countries 10

Thus our rate of increase of industrial production is double that of the world, almost 3 times higher than that of the developed capitalist countries and 47 per cent higher than that of the revisionist countries.
Of special importance is the fact that our economy continues to develop at a high rate, although the basis of our industrial production has grown considerably. In order to appreciate the proportions of the growth of the basis of industrial production suffice it to mention that under the first five-year plan (1951–1955), one per cent of the increase of industrial production represented production amounting to 5 million leks, while under the fourth five-year plan (1966–1970), one per cent of this increase represented production amounting to 70 million leks. Despite this great increase of the basis of comparison, the rate of increase of industrial production continues to be higher than the average for the world and its various countries. To become convinced of this, suffice it to look at the figures of the last five-year plan, 1966–1970.
Thus, during the 1966–1970 period the average annual rate of increase of total industrial production was:4
Country Average annual rate of increase of industrial production in % for the 1966–1970 period.
1. Albania 12.9

2. Revisionist countries: 7.5–8
a) Bulgaria 10.9

b) Hungary 6

c) German D.R. 6.5

d) Poland 8.4

e) Czechoslovakia 6.8

The above data shows that we continue to have a very high rate of increase of industrial production as compared with the revisionist countries. This rate of ours will continue to be high under the 5th five-year plan (1971–1975) too. For this period an average annual rate of increase of industrial production of 10.3 per cent is envisaged, a figure about 7 per cent greater than the rate envisaged for the same period in Bulgaria, about 70 per cent greater than that envisaged in Hungary, 65 per cent greater than that in the German D.R., 65 per cent greater than that envisaged in Czechoslovakia, etc.5
A characteristic of our industrial development is the priority growth of the branches producing the means of production and especially of the electric power industry, engineering industry, chemical industry, etc., at the same time without neglecting the consumer industry. In the last decade (1960–1970) the tempo of the individual sectors of industry was characterized by the following indices (in %):
Years Total industrial production of which
 Extracting Industry Processing Industry Power Industry
1960 100 
 100 
 100 
 100

1965 139 
 105.3 141.7 167.9
1970 225.4 179.9 259.0 441.0
These figures show that the production of electric power has continued to grow with greater priority, which is of great importance for the development of the economy. 
While previously, the greatest weight in the total industrial production was represented by the production of consumer goods (group B), now the most important specific weight is represented by the production of the means of production (group A). In 1970 the latter accounted for 56.6 per cent of total industrial production. The new five-year plan (1971–1975) will mark a new stride towards the further industrialization of our country, especially with the construction of such rich projects as the ferrous metallurgy combine in Elbasan (the first stage of which will be put into operation in 1975) and the big Fierza hydropower station.
3. Profound changes in the agricultural sector
In the pre-liberation period Albania was a very backward agricultural country, where 40 per cent of the land was in the hands of 3 per cent of landlord families, while 14 per cent of the peasant families were landless.
The first revolution carried out by the people’s power in the agricultural sector was the land reform. Through this reform the land and other means of production of the landlords and rich peasants were expropriated and distributed to poor peasants. Seventy-thousand peasant families benefited from the land reform; they were given the land they had dreamed of for so long, free of charge.
The second revolution in the agricultural sector was collectivization, the voluntary union of the small peasant economies into large socialist economies, a process which was completed in the years 1965–1966. With the conclusion of collectivization the exploitation of man by man was liquidated once and for all in agriculture, and socialist relations of production were fully established in the countryside too. These two important revolutions opened great prospects to the development of the productive forces and to the increase of agricultural production.
During the years of the people’s power the Party has devoted its attention in the agricultural sector to the extension of the arable areas, to the mechanization of and introduction of chemical aids into agriculture, to the increase of agricultural yields and to the improvement of the entire structure of agricultural production.
Albania is a country with a high rate of increase of the population whose needs could not be fulfilled without the increase of the arable land area. Therefore, the clearing of virgin land and the big land reclamation works enabled the arable land area to increase to 599,000 hectares in 1970, in comparison with 292,000 hectares in 1938, that is, to double. 
The great tasks of increasing agricultural production could not be realized without the mechanization of agricultural work. Therefore, providing agriculture with mechanized means has been one of the serious concerns of the people’s power. Thanks to this care, in 1970 Albania had 10,900 tractors in terms of 15 HP, in comparison with only 30 tractors all told in 1938; while in 1970 it had 1,286 threshing machines, in comparison with 75 in 1938. The tasks of increasing the yield of agricultural crops could not have been realized without the introduction of chemical aids into agriculture, without the use of chemical fertilizers. While much still remains to be done in this direction, the successes achieved so far are encouraging. In 1970 176.8 thousand tons of chemical fertilizer were used in Albanian agriculture in comparison with 5.2 thousand tons in 1950. In 1970 over 75 kg. of active substance were used per hectare of cultivated land in comparison with only 2.6 kg. in 1950. Today we are more advanced in the use of chemical fertilizers than Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Yugoslavia and many other countries. Great importance in agriculture has been attached to the extension of the irrigated area, taking into consideration our weather conditions. Thus, while in 1938 only 10 per cent of the cultivated area was irrigated, in 1970 this figure increased to 54%. All these measures have resulted in the satisfactory increase of the volume of agricultural production. The tempo of total agricultural production has been as follows:
Index of total agricultural production in % 1938 1950 1960 1965 1970
 100 119 172 223 309
Thus, in comparison with 1936, in 1970 the volume of total agricultural production in our country increased over 3 times. This increase is 5 per cent greater than the increase of the number of the population.
On the question of the rate of increase of total agricultural production we have surpassed the world average as well as the average of many other countries. During the 1954–1970 period, the average rate of increase of agricultural production for the world as whole was 2.6%, while for Albania it was 4.9%, or 1.9 times more.
Important successes have been achieved in the agricultural sector, particularly during the fourth 5-year plan (1965–1970). In this period the average rate of increase of agricultural production was higher than in all the previous periods and considerably surpassed the average rate of increase in all the countries of Eastern Europe. Thus, during the years 1965–1970 the average rate of increase of agricultural production in Albania and in some other countries of Eastern Europe was as follows:6
Countries Average annual rate of increase in %
1. Albania 5.8
2. Bulgaria 3.4
3. Hungary 2.8
4. German D.R. 1.5
5. Poland 1.8
6. Czechoslovakia 4.9
7. USSR 3.9
As can be seen, during this period the average annual rate of increase of total agricultural production in Albania was 2–3 times greater than that of the other countries. Agricultural production will take a very important stride forward during the 1971–1975 period when, under the 5th five-year plan an increase of 65–69 per cent is envisaged, that is an average annual rate of 10.8 per cent. 
With the increase of agricultural production, with the economic and organisational consolidation of the agricultural cooperatives, the incomes of the peasantry, too, have increased and continue to increase. In recent years the state itself has adopted a series of measures to the benefit of the peasantry, such as the abolition of taxes on the mountainous and hilly agricultural cooperatives, the reduction of tariffs on machine and tractor station work, establishment of pensions and other forms of social security for the cooperatives, etc.
4. Albania — a big construction site
These great successes of socialist Albania could not have been realized without a studied and intensified programme of investments and construction work. Our country has turned into a big construction site, where factories, hospitals, schools and apartment houses are going up everywhere. In order to understand the majestic programmed of construction work in Albania suffice it to compare the state investments made in various periods:
 Sum in million leks
1951–1955 2250
1956–1960 4266
1961–1965 6029
1966–1970 9406
1970–1975 (Plan) 16460
Thus state investment funds have increased at a rapid rate from one five-year plan to another.
Investments in the 1971–1975 period will be particularly great, surpassing the total investments made in the 1960–1970 period. The major part of the investments has been earmarked for the construction of industrial projects, but a considerable part has been allocated to other branches, including for the construction of apartment houses.
The improvement of housing conditions has been a continual concern of the Party and our people’s power, and this has been solved not only through the construction of houses by the population themselves, but also through large-scale construction work by the State. Thus the construction of apartment houses by the State and of houses by the population is characterized by the following figures:
Periods Total number of flats and houses built of these
 By the State By the population
1951–1955 26110 7596 18514
1956–1960 47413 11734 35679
1961–1965 44693 15808 28885
1966–1970 73213 29045 44168
1971–1975 (Plan) 80000 40000 40000
This large scale construction work carried out during the 1950–1970 period, has enabled more than half of Albania’s population to move into new lodgings. In the improvement of the wellbeing of the working masses it is important to point out not only the high rate of the construction of apartments, but also the exceptionally low rent the population pays. In fact house rent in Albania amounts to only 1.5–3 per cent of the expenditure of an average family.
5. Development of education and health
The panorama of the great changes that have occurred in socialist Albania during the years of the people’s power would be incomplete if we did not stress the revolution that has been carried out in the field of education and health. Education and health services in our country are provided free of charge to the whole population.
Ever since its early years the people’s power has adopted energetic measures to completely eradicate illiteracy and to develop all forms of education. As a result, today we have a broad network of schools of all types, and the State makes colossal expenditure on them.
The following figures give an idea of the development of education in Albania:
Indices: 1938 1950 1960 1965 1970
1. Total number of pupils7 and students per 1000 inhabitants 56.3 178.0 311.5 425.0 661.2
Of these: 
a) In 8-year schools 54.6 170.8 274.8 361.2 555.3
b) In middle schools 1.7 6.8 29.9 51.0 80.4
c) In higher schools … 0.3 6.7 12.8 20.5
2. Budget expenditure on education and culture (in million leks) … 58.6 250.1 333.4 553.8
The figures in the above table show that the development of education and the budget expenditure on education have taken on proportions incomparable with the pre-liberation period or even with the year 1950.
The health service in Albania has undergone similar development. Thanks to the great concern of the Party and the people’s power in our country, such diseases as malaria and syphilis, which formerly half the population suffered from, have long ago disappeared. This table of health indices and budget expenditure in the health service in Albania gives an idea of the development of this sector:
Data: 1938 1950 1960 1965 1970
1. Number of doctors and dentists 122 149 478 990 1808
2. Number of inhabitants per 1 doctor 8527 8156 3362 1865 1181
3. Number of beds in health institutions (in thousands) 1.0 5.3 8.6 11.1 15.1
4. Number of beds per 10,000 inhabitants 9.6 43.7 53.4 59.3 70.8
5. State budget expenditure on health (in million leks) … 31.4 153.0 71.4 260.7
These figures show that while in 1938 Albania had 1 doctor for every 8,527 inhabitants, in 1970 it had 1 doctor for every 1181 inhabitants, or over 8 times more. Likewise, in 1938 health institutions had 9.8 beds per 10,000 inhabitants while in 1970 there were 70.8 beds, or over 7 times more. State budget expenditure on health has also increased at a very rapid rate.
The measures and concern of the Party and the people’s power towards health have been directly reflected in the prolongation of the average life expectancy in Albania and in the perceptible lowering of the mortality rate, which has ensured a rapid increase of the population. Thus, while in 1938 the average life expectancy of the population in Albania was 38.3 years, in 1969–1970 it rose to 68 years; the mortality rate in Albania in 1938 was 17.8 per thousand, while in 1969 it fell to 7.5 per thousand.
All this shows the great improvement of the material and cultural standards of the laboring masses.
The data presented in this article, although incomplete, clearly testifies to the colossal successes of the Albanian working people in the complete construction of socialist society. They are indisputable testimony to what a country and a people, though small in number, are able to do when they proceed on the road of socialism, led by a genuine Marxist-Leninist party.
1) Data concerning the World and Europe refer to the 1960–1963 period and have been taken from “Yearbook of National Accounts Statistics” 1970, II volume International Tables p. 74–91.
2) Concerning Yugoslavia, the data has been calculated on the basis of Statistiqni Godisnjak Jugoslavje pages 102–103; Greece — on the basis of Roczhik Statystyczny 1972 p. 625 (Polish statistical yearbook); concerning other countries — on the basis of the yearbook “Narodnoe Hazjastvo SSSR 1970 goda” page 84.
3) For the world as a whole the calculations are ours. For the groups of countries the figures have been taken from the review “Mirovaja ekonomika i mjezhdunarodnie othoshenra” Nr. 1–1973, pages 151 and 156.
4) Figures taken from the review “Vjestnik statistiki” Nr. 12–1971 page 34.
5) Calculations made according to data from “Vjestnik Statistiki” Nr. 12–1971 page 34.
6) Figures for these countries taken from the review “Vjestnik Statisliki” Nr. 12–1971 page 36.”
Some may criticize the article above for being from a state university, but that alone does not discredit it, and they also cited many sources of their own. Anyway, putting the economics aside, the PPSH also achieved a lot socially. In 1966, inspired by China’s Cultural Revolution, Albania unleashed a Cultural Revolution of it’s own. In order to bring about real Democracy, many government bureaucrats had their salaries slashed and were forced to work alongside ordinary people in farms in factories. Many governments agencies were eliminated, including the Ministry of Justice. The New World Encyclopedia also summarizes the rights that were given to Albanian women during the time: “The postwar repression of clan leaders, collectivization of agriculture, industrialization, migration from the countryside to urban areas, and suppression of religion shattered traditional kinship links centered on the patriarchal family. The postwar regime brought a radical change in the status of Albania’s women. Considered second-class citizens in traditional Albanian society, women performed most of the work at home and in the fields. Before World War II, about 90 percent of Albania’s women were illiterate, and in many areas they were regarded as chattels under ancient tribal laws and customs. During the cultural and ideological revolution, the party encouraged women to take jobs outside the home in an effort to compensate for labor shortages and to overcome their conservatism.
Enver Hoxha died in 1985. During his totalitarian rule, about 6000 Albanian citizens were executed for political reasons. Despite this, the quality of life improved as both life expectancy and literacy showed large gains and economic growth continued until the mid 1970s.” (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Albania#Totalitarian_state)
 Under the Albanian constitution in 1976 (http://bjoerna.dk/dokumentation/Albanian-Constitution-1976.htm), women were equal to men. In 1976, the People’s Republic of Albania was renamed the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania, in order to show that Capitalism had been overthrown, and Socialism had been established. 
Since the New World Encyclopedia summarizes it very well, I’ll let them finish it off: “The first massive anti-communist protests took place in July 1990. Shortly afterwards, the communist regime under Ramiz Alia carried out some cosmetic changes in the economy. At the end of 1990, after strong student protests and independent syndicated movements, the regime accepted a multiparty system. The first pluralist general elections were held on March 31, 1991, and saw the Communist Party (PPSH) win the majority. Democratic parties accused the government of manipulation and called for new elections, which were held on March 22, 1992, and resulted in a democratic coalition (composed of the Democratic Party, the Social-Democrats, and the Republican Party) coming to power.
In the general elections of June 1996 the Democratic Party won an absolute majority and the results winning over 85 percent of parliamentary seats. In 1997 widespread riots erupted after the International Monetary Fund forced the state to liberalize banking practices. Many citizens, naive to the workings of a market economy, put their entire savings into pyramid schemes. In a short while, $2-billion (80 percent of the country’s GDP) had been moved into the hands of just a few pyramid scheme owners, causing severe economic troubles and civic unrest. Police stations and military bases were looted of millions of Kalashnikovs and other weapons. Anarchy prevailed, and militia and even less-organized armed citizens controlled many cities. Even American military advisors left the country for their own safety. The government of Aleksander Meksi resigned and a government of national unity was built. In response to the anarchy, the Socialist Party won the early elections of 1997 and Berisha resigned the Presidency.”
 The People’s Socialist Republic of Albania had officially dissolved in 1998, but it had already adopted a Capitalist economy and multi-party Republic by that point. It was replaced with the Republic of Albania, a Multi-Party Republic with a Capitalist economy, which continues to govern Albania to this day. So anyway, was Marxist-Leninist Albania perfect? No, it violated religious freedoms and prohibited it’s citizens from traveling freely, and it’s Hoxhaist ideology took it’s anti-Revisionism to point were they thought they were the world’s only Socialist country in the late 1970s and 1980s, but I believe there were many Socialist countries around the world at the time. Albania was still the poorest country in Europe at the time. However, Marxism-Leninism turned Albania from a Feudal backwater into an industrialized country. The Liberals in Albania did very little about the economic crisis and allowed the country to descend into chaos, and the economy did not recover from the transition to Capitalism until the early 2000s.

Section IV: The Republic of Cuba, a resilient fortress of Marxism-Leninism
Having been to Cuba and talked to Cubans, I do believe Cuba is surviving example of Marxism-Leninism not just working, but improving the lives of it’s people and building a better society, despite all the US Imperialists have thrown at them. In 1898, after many centuries of exploitation at the hands of the Spanish colonialists, Cuba declared her independence. However, the US Imperialists occupied the country for the next four years. Cuba did not become fully independent until 1902. However, under the Platt Amendment, Cuba was a American puppet state, with the US government being allowed to intervene in their affairs if it ever compromised it’s interests.
 In 1953, Fulgencio Batista became the President of Cuba through a coup. His government was even more friendly to the interests of US Imperialists and Capitalists. Cuba was only independent in name. American companies had significant influence in Cuba. He was a Neoliberal Capitalist, and was very kind to cooperate interests. In one instance, he gave a construction company a very generous deal to build a tunnel in Havana, but the reason why it was built was unclear. Vast amounts of land used for sugar was owned by American companies. The living standards remained subhuman in much of the countryside. There were very little hospitals and medical treatment and widespread unemployment. Some statistics about farmers in the Cuban countryside showed that on average, most have no more than twenty-five centavos. Sixty-five percent live in thatch-roof bohios with dirt floors without toilets, sewage or running water. Eighty-five percent of homes lacked running water, forty-four percent could not send their children to school at any level, and ninety percent used kerosene for lighting. (Carteles Magazine, March 18th, 1956) By the 1950s, as a result of U.S. colonialism and preceding Spanish rule, five out of six Cubans lived in shacks or were homeless, 80% of Havana suffered from hunger and unemployment, and two out of three Cuban children didn’t attend school. (http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0309pepper.html) His regime showed little interest in improving their lives, and often worked with companies, some being American multinationals, who often laid off workers and paid very little to those they did hire. I could go on, the point is clear: There was a great inequality in Cuba between the proletarians and bourgeoisie. Many Cubans resisted Batista’s government, and they responded by cracking down and setting up a police state. On July 26th, 1953, a group of Revolutionaries, lead by Fidel Castro Ruz, attacked Moncada barracks, in an attempt to overthrow Batista. The attack failed and the combatants were imprisoned. However, they were pardoned and fled to Mexico. There, the surviving Revolutionaries met Ernesto “Che” Guevara, an Argentine Marxist-Leninist. His ideas influenced many of them. They founded the 26 de Julio movement, dedicated to overthrow Batista. They returned in 1956, and the Revolution raged on for three years. On January 1st 1959, the July 26th Movement occupied Havana, making them victorious. They did not openly declare themselves Socialist or Marxist yet, but the new government clearly showed they leaned on the left. They nationalized most of the economy and made services like healthcare and education free. They also quickly aligned themselves with the USSR and other Marxist countries. In 1961, Fidel Castro openly came out as Marxist-Leninist, and so did Cuba. As mentioned earlier in the Introduction, the majority of Cubans voted for the new constitution in 1976. So, why support Cuba?
⦁ Healthcare is free for all Cubans. (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/heres-a-map-of-the-countries-that-provide-universal-health-care-americas-still-not-on-it/259153/)
⦁ They have the highest doctor to population ratio in the world and Cuban doctors treating people in countries around the world. (http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/185-the-patients-per-doctor-map-of-the-world)
⦁ They have developed their own lung-cancer vaccine which is available to Cuban citizens, Cimavax. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/14/cuba-lung-cancer-vaccine_n_7267518.html)
⦁ Life expectancy is at 79.1 years according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Life expectancy in America is 79.3 years, however America has access to medical equipment from around the world while Cuba is a developing country that has an embargo against them and they still have a very high life-expectancy. (http://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/2016/EN_WHS2016_AnnexB.pdf?ua=1)
⦁ They are the first country in history to eradicate mother-to-child transtions of HIV and Syphilis, which the WHO says is “one of the greatest public health achievements possible”. (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/mtct-hiv-cuba/en/)
⦁ The infant mortality per 1,000 live births is only at 5.13. (http://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/2016/EN_WHS2016_AnnexB.pdf?ua=1)
⦁ Education is free for all Cubans. (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Cuba#Education)
⦁ The literacy rate is at 99.8%, the second highest in the world. (http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-highest-literacy-rates-in-the-world.html) 
⦁ The high school graduation rate is 94%. (http://www.tc.columbia.edu/news2/7292)
⦁ They spend 6.8% of their GDP on education, compared to the world average of 4.534%. (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS)
⦁ Homelessness is vitrually non-existent. (http://fresnoalliance.com/homeless-in-cuba-not-likely/)
⦁ As of 2015, the unemployment is very low at 2.4%. (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/country-list/unemployment-rate)
⦁ 98% of Cuban workers are unionized, and many state-owned companies are being given directly to the workers. This shows the workers truly have control over what they produce. (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Cuba#Trade_unions http://community-wealth.org/content/worker-co-ops-gain-foothold-cuba)
⦁ Taxes were abolished in the early years of the Revolution. There were reinstated in the 1990s only for very wealthy Cubans to help counter income inequality. Most Cubans however, are still free from taxation. (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Cuba#Economy)
⦁ Women are equal under the law in Cuba and make up almost half the seats in the National Assembly of People’s Power. (http://www.constitutionnet.org/files/Cuba%20Constitution.pdf http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm)
⦁ Cuban elections have a very high voter turnout. In the 2013 election, there was a 90% voter turnout. (http://www.juventudrebelde.cu/cuba/2013-02-08/resultados-finales-de-las-elecciones/) They criticize Cuba for being a one-party Republic. However in the American political system, there are two political parities, the Democratic Party and Republican Party. They may disagree on issues like abortion, gun control, gay marriage, the minimum wage. However in the end they are still support the Capitalist economic system. In Cuba, members of the Communist Party of Cuba and the National Assembly of People’s Power may disagree on some issues, but in the end they are still Marxist-Leninist. So how come one is shining beacon of Democracy to the world and the other is a Totalitarian Dictatorship?
⦁ There is very little crime, and there is a zero tolerance policy for drugs. The Cubans preserve their culture and traditional values.
⦁ On the United Nation’s yearly Human Development Report, in 2015 they scored a Human Development Index of 0.769 which is a “High” rating. Out of the 188 countries in the report, Cuba was in 67th place. (Niger was in last place and Norway was in first place.) (http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2015_human_development_report.pdf)
⦁ The Cuban Gross Domestic Product and Gross Domestic Product per capita is much higer than many of it’s capitalist neighbors, such as Jamaica, Haiti and the Dominican Republic. (https://www.bing.com/search?q=cuba+gdp+per+capita&FORM=AWRE https://www.bing.com/search?q=cuba%20gdp&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=cuba%20gdp&sc=8-19&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=037E424CA4BF4758B523EB332FA93A8C)
⦁ This has all been achieved under an American trade embargo that has cost the country $800 billion dollars. (http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0309pepper.html)
Cuba is proof that Marxism-Leninism lives on, and our movement is not a dead one. ¡Viva Cuba Libre!
I may not have been able to discuss all Marxist-Leninist countries here. I am not trying to hide the truth, that maybe these were the only three countries that it worked in. It has worked in many more places, I just felt only a few examples were necessary.
Chapter V: Conclusion
After reading all of this, you still might be skeptical. These are new and strange ideas. I could just be saying a bunch of propaganda as far as you know. In the end, this is up for you to decide. Go ahead, research as much as you want and develop your opinion. I presented you with my ideas in the hope they may influence you and change your mind on not just Liberalism, but maybe Capitalism as a whole. 
 Liberalism is unrealistic. A more humane and regulated Capitalism will still exploit the workers, and the 1% will still be the ruling class. This is a fundamental contradiction of Capitalism that cannot be changed due to the relation between the worker and capitalist in the Capitalist Mode of Production. Sorry Liberals, not matter how many social programs you have, Capitalism will still have it’s inherent problems. We cannot achieve change by working with the Democratic Party, a corrupt and pro-capitalist party. We achieve change with a Revolutionary Vanguard of the Working People. Only under Socialism will the workers control their fate, and only under Communism will class be abolished. Marxism-Leninism has helped industrialize or at least positively change many countries. Liberalism may have done some good things here and there, but it still preserves the flaws of Capitalism. Liberals, you have two options: go with Capitalism, a system based on private ownership of the means of production, no matter your flavor of it, or go with Socialism, (Preferably Marxism-Leninism) a system based on worker ownership of the means of production.