Kimmy's dead

[Deleted member 7164]

Oh Jesus, not again.

Communism is based on a very elaborate theory describing relations between man, work, capital, and property. Just as Capitalism. Which I think is a rubbish ideology, and are perfectly willing to debate with anyone. Now Foro, there are a few quite "nice" African states that have buzzwords like democracy, free market, etc, in their outlook. You don't see me putting them in same room with the Netherlands? The media needs categories and standards and envelopes, that's the way they get attention. We don't.

So. Man, work, capital, and property. The word goes around there's little hard cash in NK, because it's practically worthless, they use rationing system in cities and goods-to-goods trade in villages. Property is non-existent, the Kimmy owns your ass. Work is going slow, and men aren't in good shape.

Look, I won't start describing differences in detail between former Yugoslav "communist" system and NK "communist" system. Since I think I'm the only participant in this thread that has actually lived in "communism", I'll share some of my family background. From father's side I have a army officer (late) granddad and war veteran (late) grandmother. From mother's side i have a construction company owner granddad, and economist grandmother. Something you expect in a post WW2 communist country, and something you don't. Army granddad got his housing by collective model. The business granddad bought his own crib by getting a f'king loan from a bank. Both stories from same neighborhood, same age. The economic model was fair, if you wanted to be rich, there was no law against that, but there were limits how you operate. But the limits were posed only to ensure that your private wealth doesn't control too many other lives - private companies were limited by number of employees, not by annual income. Nor was personal possession regulated. Regarding the social aspect of the system, some might argue that it has generated more free thought than today's "democracy", that's a complicated issue to resolve, however some of finest works of art were ones of satirical nature towards the system. It was a very strange thing - a most famous Dalmatian film work that was so critical that Party canceled state funding and brought and end to it, however it won numerous awards around the country and was broadcast and reprogrammed again and again. The regime was determined to maintain it's full power, but they actually listened to people. Such things are evident in cases of Croatian Spring, when local intelligentsia demanded a change in politics. The movement was crushed, its key people arrested, sent to low-security prisons for up to a year, and their demands fulfilled by a constitutional change. So people got what they wanted and the Great Party(TM) looked strong as ever.

But, at the end the Communist Party was the judge and the jury. Everyone was in mercy of their ruling, and that's a bad thing to have.

The point of this longish post is to outline some of the key differences between states that have been both called Communist.
North Korea is not a Communist state. If you really want to use the word - North Korea is a failed Communist state.

---

And yeah - the autocracy and Party dictatorship were the demise of Yugoslav system. A bloody one. But it wasn't due to Communism, it was due to handful of people having absolute power, and that kind of thing is system-agnostic. That's why I'm for managed controlled economy ran by a democratic liberal civilian government. 

 

[Perun]

I don't separate Stalinism entirely from Communism myself.

I really don't feel like getting into this again, especially because it was so pitifully pointless last time, but the usage of the word Communism to describe a form of government is a western mis-interpretation of the term, and a deliberate one as such. Communism is described by Marx and Engels as a state of society, or an end to human development. The means to reach this end is a political transformation process that begins with the installation of a Socialist government. Only very few regimes that were dubbed "Communist" by the West actually had the guts to call themselves such, most styled themselves as "democratic", "socialist" and "people's republic". Usually, but certainly not always, the word "Communist" was reserved for the description of the ruling party's political ideology. If a group calls itself the "Communist Party of the Soviet Union", the meaning of that term is that the party strives for the goal of Communism, not that they are living within Communism. I would be very interested if you could point out one single self-described Communist philosopher who believes that Communism has ever been actively and successfully implemented in modern times. I remember my old history professor, a renowned specialist on Eastern European history, say that if there was ever actually such a thing as a truly Communist government both in intention and practice, it only existed in Russia in the last few months of 1917, and fell victim to post-revolutionary terror. Even Lenin himself said that pragmatics (both with and without a cynical undertone) must win over idealism in the early stages of the foundation of a socialist state so it will survive. The difference is that, against Lenin's intentions, the return to idealism was never made.

Now, Stalinism is yet another thing. It is a buzzword created to describe a particularly restrictive and harsh dictature based on cult of personality that describes itself as socialist. It is used precisely to distinguish this particular form of socialist government from other forms. The separation is not always clean, and there is more often than not a significant difference between ideological intention and practical implementation. Words such as "Leninism", "Maoism", "Trotskyism" et al usually describe a particular ideological nuance of the grand idea of Communism that the eponymous individuals tried to implement, but always failed at.

So the actual political outcome of Communist philosophy as first developed by Marx has always been a dictature with varying degree of restrictiveness. That, however, is not contained in the idea of Communism. Regimes such as Stalinist Russia or Kimid North Korea (I think it's legit to speak of a Kimid dynasty now) is in fact the very reversal of the Communist ideal. The reason why these countries are still called "Communist" by western media is simply because the western public has gotten used to the designation. Western leaders referred to countries like the Soviet Union or China as "Communist" for the purpose of giving this whole complex of hostile countries a label by which they can be identified, and the media obviously caught on right away. And since North Korea has always been called "Communist", and the political system hasn't changed, it would be too confusing both for readers and for journalists to call it something else now.

What media write should be read with a generally critical attitude. In this case, they are not exactly "lying" or telling falsities, but they are using words that have particular associative meanings. What a news website, a newspaper or a television commentator say is never gospel Truth and should never be treated as such. There is a bunch of questions that should be in a reader's or listener's or watcher's head, such as, what are they telling me? Why are they telling me this? What kind of media is this? What kind of audience does this report target? What do they mention, and what do they not mention? What other media are there that report or don't report this? How do other media phrase this? etc. If a piece of information or a news item genuinely interest someone, they should not settle for the first information they get. They should check other media, different media, opposing opinions, and most of all, background. Be critical with your sources. If, for instance, I read a commentary on a political subject that I find myself in agreement with, the first thing I do is go and look for a different commentary from an opposing position. When I first did some in-depth reading on Libertarianism, I found myself thinking that this idea is so wrong it's hard to believe anybody can think it is right. So I looked for websites, blogs, articles and commentaries written by self-proclaimed Libertarians to see what makes them tick, and why they say what they say. I wanted to understand them. I did find myself agreeing with a number of points, but I still reject the ideology in general. The point is that at least I know what I am talking about now. And I find that a lot of people, including professional journalists, do not. The same counts for an endless number of other subjects.

So, when I talk about Communism, I talk about the philosophy. When I talk about Stalinism, I talk about a particular form of dictature. The key is knowing the difference.


EDIT: This post was written before Zare's.

 

[Dr. Eddies Wingman]

Great and interesting posts, by both Zare and Perun.

I think a brief summary can be made as such:

Due to the fact that men do not behave the way needed to establish the Communist Utopia where everyone gives according to their ability and receives according to their needs, any attempt at establishing such a society has to go via Socialism. All revolutions that have claimed to have Communism and a classless society as its goal, has ended up establishing a more or less strict dictatorship which is Socialist - in nature or in name. The actual dictators are a very diverse bunch - just look at the Soviet Union under Stalin vs the same country under Breznjev some decades later, or look at Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia vs North Korea. All have been Socialist countries in name, but very different. And if there is one of these countries which has really gone far away from the ideals they claim to uphold, it has to be North Korea, where all resources are spent on giving the ruling elite a comfortable life, or on maintaining a huge army - while the working class are starving.

 

[Forostar]

All revolutions that have claimed to have Communism and a classless society as its goal, has ended up establishing a more or less strict dictatorship

That's for me the essence, and the connection I make as well.

Basically us Maidenfans members do not disagree that much though I see that some people rather only speak about communism in theoretical or philosophical sense (or as something from a "separated" past), where I see it as a real thing, a real cause of trouble, a real connection with present times.

So I am not Godwinning the word (especially not when a communist party was involved in a country in question), while I sense that some others rather put the term under the carpet, especially when dictatorship is involved. "Let's keep things theoretical (or let's totally separate it from a current dictatorship) so that we don't have to talk about its negative sides and consequences". Just my 2 cents.

 

[Dr. Eddies Wingman]

"Let's keep things theoretical (or let's totally separate it from a current dictatorship) so that we don't have to talk about its negative sides and consequences". Just my 2 cents.

¨

You see, this is what I have a problem with. In a discussion with fanatical supporters of Communism, who might be blind to the downsides of their religion, this is probably valid. In a discussion with informed people, this looks like a straw man.

I have the impression (if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me) that you just use "communism" as the superlative of "socialist" - that the two are equal in essence, but different in degree. That communism is the same as socialism, only more totalitarian. If this is not what you mean, please clarify how you separate between the two.

I see it the following way: The Communist society is one particular kind of utopia, which will never be achieved, and Communism is a school of thought which describes how to get there. Socialism is a more pragmatic political ideology, in which liberty is sacrificed for the sake of equality.

I support neither Communism (as a philosophy) nor Socialism (as a political direction). We can - and should! - discuss the negative sides of both, but they are two different topics - and in the discussion about Socialism, it makes a lot more sense to discuss the various regimes that have called themselves Socialists.

... where I see it as a real thing, a real cause of trouble, a real connection with present times.

But then you have to look into how much of the trouble is caused by the idea of Communism, and how much is caused by the power thirst of the leading class. The latter is not an inherent property of any particular ideology.

 

[Perun]

Yeah, I just love spending half an hour on writing a post that isn't even properly read.

 

[Deleted member 7164]

So the actual political outcome of Communist philosophy as first developed by Marx has always been a dictature with varying degree of restrictiveness

Because it had wrong set-up from the very start. All countries ruled by the Communist Party have been a wreck prior to that. Communism requires abundance of food, energy, and commodity. These countries had all basic stuff in shortage. Completely opposite. That's why Socialist dictatorship happened (Dictature of the proletariat, even called by them!), because someone needed to make choices how to preallocate resources from the hands of the few to hands of the many. Then basic human nature kicks in, the ruling allocate a "bit more" for themselves, and you have a true dictature.

In socialism, everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others.

So I looked for websites, blogs, articles and commentaries written by self-proclaimed Libertarians to see what makes them tick, and why they say what they say. I wanted to understand them. I did find myself agreeing with a number of points, but I still reject the ideology in general. The point is that at least I know what I am talking about now. And I find that a lot of people, including professional journalists, do not. The same counts for an endless number of other subjects.

Bingo. I don't like their stuff too, but they have a few elements worth incorporating anywhere.
I never figured why people tend to be so fucking exclusive. Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Libertarian, Corporatism...none of them would actually satisfy the needs of the most. But a right mixture would.

So I am not Godwinning the word (especially not when a communist party was involved in a country in question), while I sense that some others rather put the term under the carpet, especially when dictatorship is involved. "Let's keep things theoretical (or let's totally separate it from a current dictatorship) so that we don't have to talk about its negative sides and consequences". Just my 2 cents.

Look, everything has negative sides. Nothing is black or white, everything is in shades of grey. Dictatorship is always bad. I think you'll have a hard time finding someone here that doesn't agree. It might be good in the short run, but it just doesn't let go.
The whole issue is about NK's "Communist" notion. They can call themselves the Communist Party but they haven't fulfilled any of Communists ideals. Other countries ruled by CP at least did something partially.

There's a good sentence from German physician who worked as aid in NK. He said - "they'll tell you that healthcare is better because it's free to anyone, but in reality it isn't free because it's non-existent. You can't treat serious illnesses here.". They don't deserve to be called Communist.

On the other hand, we wouldn't even be speaking about Communism if the ruling NK party was called the Flower Party. And did exactly same stuff. Image and name is just image and name, without essence.

I support neither Communism (as a philosophy) nor Socialism (as a political direction). We can - and should! - discuss the negative sides of both, but they are two different topics - and in the discussion about Socialism, it makes a lot more sense to discuss the various regimes that have called themselves Socialists.

Good idea, I'm looking forward to that discussion. Perhaps we should merge this stuff into another thread, and focus our efforts on North Korea here. 

 

[LooseCannon]

Here's an older, but still very interesting, article by the now-late Christopher Hitchens about the ideology of North Korea:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... warfs.html

 

[Black Wizard]

I already knew that this dynasty was a bit bonkers, but apparently Kim Jong-Il's father, Kim II Sung, started a myth about KJI's birth. Apparently his birth was prophesized by a swallow and heralded by the presence of a double rainbow and a new star, and he was also supposed to have been born in a log cabin but the Russians say that he was actually born in some random Siberian town.

Do the population seriously lap this crap up?

 

[Forostar]

Yeah, I just love spending half an hour on writing a post that isn't even properly read.

I have a bad habit of scanning a post (too) quickly in order to see if I (dis)agree with it, and this time indeed it went too fast. Same goes for Zare's post, EW's and others. I'll do some more reading before I get back here. Lengthy and well written posts deserve that.

---

My "problem" in this discussion is that I have never been so busy with the philosophy, the ideal, the (theoretical) message. Since communism failed so often, I rather think of the consequences than of the philosophy itself, even if power thirst is not an inherent property of any particular ideology.

Also in my perception the terms socialism and communism are not so strictly separated as in most of you guys' upbringing/schooling/definitions on this forum.

Instead my association relies more on what happened in 20th century "communist" countries in Eastern Europe, China, etc. What did politics do, in its name. Much more important in my opinion.

So I am not entirely sure what the point is of a debate about a theoretical term, a philosophy that mostly (if not always) failed to have success. But, anyway, I am eager to learn more from it.

I would be very interested if you could point out one single self-described Communist philosopher who believes that Communism has ever been actively and successfully implemented in modern times.

Same here.

Be critical with your sources.

Always have been!

I just read a bit further on the use of the terms socialism and communism and how I might have "learned" to associate with (especially) communism:
So apparently these countries can officially be called socialist and not communist. Ruling parties from these countries reigned a dictatorship in the socialistic state -in name of the working class- until capitalistic states structures were eradicated and a communist society would arise. That's why these ruling parties call themselves communist (apart from the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands in the DDR).

And this is how the term communism got stuck in my head, and stuck to dictatorship.

 

[bearfan]

It always struck me as odd that discussions of purity comes up so often when communism comes up.  It is a theory, name one theory of government or economics that has been implemented with 100% purity.  Communism predicts/demands (?) a period of dictatorship that has in every case been so brutal to it's people and so corrupt that they have imploded (USSR) or modified (China).  The flaw in communism (along with about every other theory) is that it depends on people to behave a certain way and when people/leaders act differently you become very unpure very quickly.

So, no there has not been a Communist country by definition, but there has also not been a democracy, repuplic, fascist, or capitalist country either.  But every Communist country that has been attempted (either seriously or just grabbing onto the name) has ended up in the same state of disrepair and human rights violations, there should be some lesson there.

 

[Natalie]

Actually, I'm not sure, but according to what I know of fascist political ideology, Hitler's Third Reich did constitute something of theory being put pretty much 100% into practice. And capitalism, as far as I know, is an economic system rather than a political ideology, so I'm not sure that any country should even be called "capitalist" when it comes to describing their political ideals.

But this is a very interesting debate to have, although rather involved, about what exactly constitutes communism (in theory, in practice, and in our perception) and what the up and downsides are of each political ideology (I for one, am very skeptical of democracy but I accept it because for now I don't see/have a better solution). Perhaps best reserved for a different thread.

 

[bearfan]

It is hard to separate an economic system from a political system as one depends on the other to be compatible.  Every system, including Nazi Germay, has had to make compromises (some more than others of course) based on reality.

 

[Perun]

Since communism failed so often, I rather think of the consequences than of the philosophy itself, even if power thirst is not an inherent property of any particular ideology.

True, but there is more significance to the Communist philosophy than its attempted implementation in real politics. The writings of Marx and Engels have been immensely influential in western Europe as well. Without them, there would be no social state, no labour unions, no insurances, etc. The general idea that the state has responsibilities for its people and that it is to be an institution of the people, with the people and for the people found its definite modern pronounciation with Marx. The problem is that Marx' philosophy is ambiguous. On the one hand, it tries to find a rational response to the challenges of modern society, on the other hand, it is victim to the romantic zeitgeist in which it originated. The romantic element, which calls for a modern noble savage, is clearly the more attractive, which is why Communism often got reduced to that. On the other hand, the entire western European socialist movement took its core elements from Marx, and combined them with a more pragmatic political approach that they should gradually be enriched to a system that does not completely abolish capitalism. This approach carries different names depending on the political culture it grew in; in France, which has always been more on the radical side, it is called socialisme, in Germany it is called social democracy. Hence, it is necessary to understand both Marx and the philosophy of Communism to understand the political and social development of Europe.
Moreover, in the era of de-colonialisation, much of communist ideas and terminology has been adopted by the people of the colonised world. In many cases, the words have been echoed without a grasp of their meaning, and in many other cases, the meaning has been re-interpreted, sometimes beyond recognition. So it is also necessary to understand Communism to understand what in the Cold War was known as the Third World.

It always struck me as odd that discussions of purity comes up so often when communism comes up.  It is a theory, name one theory of government or economics that has been implemented with 100% purity.  Communism predicts/demands (?) a period of dictatorship that has in every case been so brutal to it's people and so corrupt that they have imploded (USSR) or modified (China).  The flaw in communism (along with about every other theory) is that it depends on people to behave a certain way and when people/leaders act differently you become very unpure very quickly.

I hope that what I wrote above explains this a bit. The Communist philosophy is a very important part of European development, and it is not all bad; however, a very particular interpretation has seized the entire term and gave it a terrifying face that is the complete reversal of the original intentions.

Actually, I'm not sure, but according to what I know of fascist political ideology, Hitler's Third Reich did constitute something of theory being put pretty much 100% into practice.

That is a political and historical myth on which very much relied and relies. The idea that Hitler and the nazis implemented a system that worked with demonic precision is, however, one of the most consequently adopted misconceptions in history. Truth is, the one element that worked the most effectively in nazi Germany was the show. The nazis could create monstrous images that virtually crushed their observers and led them to believe that these people were capable of anything and everything. The actual results were often far behind official professions, and the only reason why nazi Germany didn't collapse under its own inefficiency was because from the word go, it created a war economy. If you keep building tanks and aeroplanes, there is of course a need for workforce. Efficient production was possible because Germany was one of the most industrialised countries in the world, had an exceptionally highly educated, and very large population, and had probably the most advanced infrastructure in the world... but the nazis didn't create those resources, they had already been there before. Had Germany been in the state of Russia or Italy in 1933, things would have looked very different.
As for the ideology, it may sound cynical, but there was more talk than action. There is more to national socialism than antisemitism and persecution of minorities, but that element was the easiest to actually put into practice. Very much in national socialism got stuck pretty soon. The nazis were experts in concealing this, though. It remains an argument among historians whether Hitler's foreign political ambitions that commenced in the invasion of Poland and the outbreak of the Second World War were just a tactic to distract from his domestic failures. The ideology of national socialism definitely asked for a war of large proportions, but that again was the means to an end. An effective realisation of the ideas would only ever have been possible after Germany prevailed in such a war, and that never happened. Whether it would have worked then is anyone's guess, but some commentators have pointed out that the national socialist ideology is significantly flawed. There is very much focus on racist romanticism and political methodology, but only very little consideration of economic aspects. In other words, just like in reality, there is much show but little substance.

 

[Deleted member 7164]

Great stuff there Perun, especially the last part. Right-wing nuts and neo-nazis here long for their Nazi puppet Independent State Of Croatia, but little is known of it's economy, internal system etc.

 

[LooseCannon]

Chances are, it existed only in name and paper, with a few puppets to run, whilst the country rotted away.

Perun, my old friend, that is one of the greatest analysis of the Nazi state of affairs I've ever seen.

 

[Dr. Eddies Wingman]

An effective realisation of the ideas would only ever have been possible after Germany prevailed in such a war, and that never happened. Whether it would have worked then is anyone's guess, but some commentators have pointed out that the national socialist ideology is significantly flawed. There is very much focus on racist romanticism and political methodology, but only very little consideration of economic aspects. In other words, just like in reality, there is much show but little substance.

Well, one important aspect of the Nazis was the view of others than the Germanic races as suited only for slavery. I guess that had they won the war, they could have kept the economy going with resources they conquered - Russian oil, Ukrainian farmlands and so on. So my guess is that the Nazis could have kept the economy running for some time - by exploiting others. The Neo Nazis of Croatia should be glad it never happened, but I guess they are just as knowledgeable as those we have in Norway. That is, pretty ignorant.

 

[Forostar]

True, but there is more significance to the Communist philosophy than its attempted implementation in real politics. The writings of Marx and Engels have been immensely influential in western Europe as well. Without them, there would be no social state, no labour unions, no insurances, etc. The general idea that the state has responsibilities for its people and that it is to be an institution of the people, with the people and for the people found its definite modern pronounciation with Marx.

+

Hence, it is necessary to understand both Marx and the philosophy of Communism to understand the political and social development of Europe.

Hope you don't mind that I'd like to point you out that Marx and Communism were not the only main factors in all countries of Europe. In my country in the 17th century..

wiki
-------
..because of the importance of wealth in defining social status, divisions between classes were less sharply defined and social mobility was much greater than elsewhere. Calvinism, which preaches humility as an important virtue, also tended to diminish the importance of social differences. These tendencies have proved remarkably persistent: modern Dutch society, though much more secularized, is still considered by many to be remarkably egalitarian. Despite less income inequality than in other European countries, the difference between a dockworker's one-room hovel and a great merchant's mansion in Amsterdam was so obvious as to require no commentary.

Workers and laborers were generally paid better than in most of Europe and enjoyed relatively high living standards, although they also had higher than normal taxes. Farmers produced mainly cash crops for a nation that needed large amounts of fodder to support its urban and seafaring population, and prospered as a result.
-------

Maybe it's interesting to know that the first labour union in the Netherlands was founded when Marx was still studying (perhaps when he was still partying in Bonn even ). But I assume you meant that Marx co-organized the labour unions from Brussel, he stimulated a network, which resulted in the "First International", the International Workingmen's Association.

And of course he influenced politically. Inspired by this thread and some great posts in it, I started investigating and I would like to tell the lifecycle of communism in the Netherlands (helped by wiki), how it started and where it is now.

It started with the SDAP. The Social Democratic Workers' Party was a Dutch socialist political party and a predecessor of the social-democratic PvdA, which is the party I support.

The SDAP was founded in 1894 by members of the Social Democratic League (SD after a conflict between anarchist and reformist factions.

The Reds are Calling, strengthen the SDAP

In 1907 Ceton and D. Wijnkoop founded De Tribune, a magazine in which they criticized the leadership of the SDAP of which they were members. They were still oriented towards orthodox Marxism and expected a proletarian revolution and opposed the leadership of the SDAP, who were more oriented towards more a revisionist ideology and a parliamentary and reformist political strategy. At a party congress in Deventer 1908 the leadership of the SDAP demanded that they stop publishing De Tribune or be expelled from the party. Wijnkoop and Ceton refused and they and their supporters, including the poet Herman Gorter, lost their membership to the SDAP. This conflict took place in almost all European Socialist parties, but the SDP was one of the parties founded as an orthodox Marxist split. So in 1909 these dissenters founded a new party called the Social-Democratic Party (SDP).

In the 1910s the SDAP paid much attention to attacking the newly formed SDP. The mobilization for the First World War, which the SDAP supported and the SDP opposed further strengthened the differences between the parties. The Russian Revolution of 1917 fractured most European parties between their revolutionary and reformist factions, which had already happened in the Netherlands. Then collaborations followed with the League of Christian Socialists and the Socialist Party.

In 1919 the SDP joined the Comintern, the worldwide alliance of revolutionary socialist parties, which was led by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It was forced to change its name to Communist Party Holland (CPH) by the Comintern. The increasing influence of Moscow led to conflicts and all kinds of new parties. In 1935 the name was changed to CPN (Communist Party of the Netherlands).

Immediately after the German invasion, the CPN went illegal (the only illegal political party). That´s why they formed an important part of the resistance. There was an infamous strike, the February Strike, against persecution of Jews in the Netherlands and it was organized by them. Actually, it was the first direct action undertaken against the anti-Jewish measures of the Nazis in occupied Europe, and it was carried out by non-Jews.

So, sympathy for communism in the Netherlands grew. Because of this active role in the resistance about 10 percent of the Dutch voted on the communists, after the war.

Communists were called traitors because of their anti colonial attitude. There was a clash with the government when the Netherlands sent troops to the Dutch Indies.

The post-war Dutch government saw the communists as a danger for the state. In the Netherlands it was not officially forbidden to work when you were a communist (as in Germany) but during the whole Cold War it was not made easy for them. Civil servants were not allowed to be a member of the CPN. So many people left the party because they were afraid to loose their job. Also, the CPN was the only party in the Netherlands without any broadcast time allowed on the radio.

In 1971 a new Socialist Party (SP) was founded in October 1971 as a Maoist(!) party named the Communist Party of the Netherlands/Marxist-Leninist. Formed following a split from the Communist Unity Movement of the Netherlands (Marxist-Leninist) which started in 1964 as a pro-China leftist fraction within the CPN. In 1991, the party officially scrapped the term Marxism–Leninism, because the party had evolved to the point that the term was no longer considered appropriate.

Currently, this same Socialist Party has 15 seats in the parliament but don't worry, now they have a more democratic socialist signature!

Back to the CPN: In 1989 the CPN went with 3 other small left wing parties into Groen Links (Green Left), currently 5 seats in the parliament.

The third still existing left political party in the parliament are the PvdA (the Labour Party, a social-democratic party). 30 seats.

At this time still a few different Communist parties and organisations exist but they are small:
- The New Communist Party of the Netherlands, based on Leninism
- United Communist Party
- Socialist Alternative Politics, based on Trotskyism
- Communist Youth Movement  

So, what role is Communism still playing in your country? I assume that in Croatia the party is the biggest.

 

[Dr. Eddies Wingman]

So. the situation among Communists/radical Socialists in the Netherlands is pretty much like in Norway, then. Several small fractions, who seem to disagree (strongly) about who are fronting true Communism and who are not. It makes me think that Communism, more than other political schools of thought, resembles a religion in many ways. A religion where Marx is the supreme prophet, and where the Communist society is heaven.

 

[Forostar]

Well, apart from these 4 small parties (which don´t have much attention) no one talks about communism or Marx anymore. That word is really something dark of the past, associated with the things I mentioned earlier.