Preface:

Apologies for the density of this piece—it’s primarily intended to help me sort through some historical threads before diving into the other chapters. Written with the assistance of ChatGPT.

2-0: Friedrich Engels

Friedrich Engels was born on November 28, 1820, in Barmen, Germany (now Wuppertal), into a wealthy Protestant capitalist family that owned textile factories—in other words, a bourgeois capitalist background. He received a strict Christian education from an early age, but during his adolescence began to question religion. His family intended for him to inherit the family business, so he did not complete university and was instead sent to apprentice at his father’s textile factory. While interning at a factory in Manchester, England, he witnessed firsthand the extreme poverty and unjust treatment of workers. This experience became the basis for his seminal work The Condition of the Working Class in England (1845)—a book like Chairman Mao’s 1926 Report on the Peasant Movement in Hunan, though Engels beat him to it by nearly a century.

Despite coming from a capitalist lineage, Engels sided with the working class in reality. He believed capitalism was not just exploitative, but a form of “moral evil.” In The Condition of the Working Class in England (1845), he offered a powerful moral critique of the capitalist system. He didn’t just expose the economic exploitation of the working class; he emphasized that this was a system of “systematic moral corruption” that degraded human nature, turned social relationships cold, and reduced people to mere things. I largely agree with his descriptions, though we may draw different conclusions.

In the introduction, he wrote:

Before the introduction of machinery, the spinning and weaving of raw materials was carried on in the workingman's home. Wife and daughter spun the yarn that the father wove or that they sold, if he did not work it up himself. These weaver families lived in the country in the neighbourhood of the towns, and could get on fairly well with their wages, because the home market was almost the only one and the crushing power of competition that came later, with the conquest of foreign markets and the extension of trade, did not yet press upon wages. There was, further, a constant increase in the demand for the home market, keeping pace with the slow increase in population and employing all the workers; and there was also the impossibility of vigorous competition of the workers among themselves, consequent upon the rural dispersion of their homes. So it was that the weaver was usually in a position to lay by something, and rent a little piece of land, that he cultivated in his leisure hours, of which he had as many as he chose to take, since he could weave whenever and as long as he pleased. True, he was a bad farmer and managed his land inefficiently, often obtaining but poor crops; nevertheless, he was no proletarian, he had a stake in the country, he was permanently settled, and stood one step higher in society than the English workman of today.

So the workers vegetated throughout a passably comfortable existence, leading a righteous and peaceful life in all piety and probity; and their material position was far better than that of their successors. They did not need to overwork; they did no more than they chose to do, and yet earned what they needed. They had leisure for healthful work in garden or field, work which, in itself, was recreation for them, and they could take part besides in the recreations and games of their neighbours, and all these games -- bowling, cricket, football, etc., contributed to their physical health and vigour. They were, for the most part, strong, well-built people, in whose physique little or no difference from that of their peasant neighbours was discoverable. Their children grew up in the fresh country air, and, if they could help their parents at work, it was only occasionally; while of eight or twelve hours work for them there was no question.

Indeed, these workers once lived relatively stable and comfortable lives—they were not the proletariat in the strict sense. Still, working eight to twelve hours a day was by no means a short shift. However, during that time, they maintained a sense of autonomy. After the Industrial Revolution, competition among workers intensified. The proletariat began to enter the factories, which meant that these property-owning weavers could no longer sell their cloth at the same price. In a way, this was a reversal—an upheaval of the middle-class artisan by the proletariat. Though the proletarians worked in worse conditions, at least they had work. Before that, they likely had neither tools nor experience, and thus no means of production and no output to speak of. But now, with the advent of machines, anyone could become a worker and begin accumulating capital.

In the chapter titled The Great Towns, Engels wrote:

Since capital, the direct or indirect control of the means of subsistence and production, is the weapon with which this social warfare is carried on, it is clear that all the disadvantages of such a state must fall upon the poor.

Every great city has one or more slums, where the working-class is crowded together. True, poverty often dwells in hidden alleys close to the palaces of the rich; but, in general, a separate territory has been assigned to it, where, removed from the sight of the happier classes, it may struggle along as it can. These slums are pretty equally arranged in all the great towns of England, the worst houses in the worst quarters of the towns; usually one- or two-storied cottages in long rows, perhaps with cellars used as dwellings, almost always irregularly built. These houses of three or four rooms and a kitchens form, throughout England, some parts of London excepted, the general dwellings of the working-class. The streets are generally unpaved, rough, dirty, filled with vegetable and animal refuse, without sewers or gutters, but supplied with foul, stagnant pools instead.

And the truth is, conditions like these did not end in 1845—they still persist today. Regardless of so-called social progress, all of a society’s burdens always fall upon those at the bottom: the powerless, the voiceless, the dispossessed—those without capital, without control over the means of production, without inherited experience or institutional access. That’s why it is especially important to care about the hidden, shadowy corners of society—because that’s where injustice accumulates.

By 1845, various labor movements had already emerged in Manchester. In the chapter on Labour Movements, Engels wrote:

The revolt of the workers began soon after the first industrial development, and has passed through several phases. The investigation of their importance in the history of the English people I must reserve for separate treatment, limiting myself meanwhile to such bare facts as serve to characterise the condition of the English proletariat.

The earliest, crudest, and least fruitful form of this rebellion was that of crime. The working-man lived in poverty and want, and saw that others were better off than he. It was not clear to his mind why he, who did more for society than the rich idler, should be the one to suffer under these conditions. Want conquered his inherited respect for the sacredness of property, and he stole. We have seen how crime increased with the extension of manufacture; how the yearly number of arrests bore a constant relation to the number of bales of cotton annually consumed.

…..

At this point help came in the shape of a law enacted by the old, unreformed, oligarchic-Tory Parliament, a law which never could have passed the House of Commons later, when the Reform Bill had legally sanctioned the distinction between bourgeoisie and proletariat, and made the bourgeoisie the ruling class. This was enacted in 1824, and repealed all laws by which coalitions between working-men for labour purposes had hitherto been forbidden. The working-men obtained a right previously restricted to the aristocracy and bourgeoisie, the right of free association.

Engels also pointed out that these unions and strikes had limited effect in the face of economic law:

The history of these Unions is a long series of defeats of the working-men, interrupted by a few isolated victories. All these efforts naturally cannot alter the economic law according to which wages are determined by the relation between supply and demand in the labour market. Hence the Unions remain powerless against all great forces which influence this relation. In a commercial crisis the Union itself must reduce wages or dissolve wholly; and in a time of considerable increase in the demand for labour, it cannot fix the rate of wages higher than would be reached spontaneously by the competition of the capitalists among themselves. But in dealing with minor, single influences they are powerful. If the employer had no concentrated, collective opposition to expect, he would in his own interest gradually reduce wages to a lower and lower point; indeed, the battle of competition which he has to wage against his fellow-manufacturers would force him to do so, and wages would soon reach the minimum.

2-1: The October Revolution

The first real-world implementation of “communism” took place during the October Revolution in Russia in 1917, when the Bolsheviks came to power. Before 1917, Russia was still ruled by the Romanov dynasty, making it the last major European country to retain an autocratic monarchy. Tsar Nicholas II was rigid and reactionary, refusing constitutional reform and suppressing dissent. After the failed 1905 Revolution, a parliament (the Duma) was established, but it held minimal power and did little to curb systemic corruption and social injustice. The vast majority of peasants remained landless, workers endured harsh conditions, and ethnic minorities suffered under heavy repression. Social tensions had long been brewing.

In 1914, Russia entered World War I with outdated military equipment, inadequate logistics, and poor leadership. The long war front and heavy casualties demoralized soldiers, while the economy, already fragile, collapsed entirely. Cities faced food and fuel shortages, inflation skyrocketed, and rural communities bore unbearable tax burdens. Workers went on strike repeatedly. More critically, people lost faith in the Tsar and the government, viewing the war as a means of sacrificing the lower classes for the benefit of the elite. In February 1917, a mass uprising broke out in Petrograd, forcing the Tsar to abdicate and bringing an end to the Romanov dynasty. A Provisional Government was established by the bourgeoisie, aiming to build a parliamentary democracy.

However, this new government continued the war against Germany, refused to address the land question, and declined to recognize the Soviets (workers’ and soldiers’ councils), quickly losing public support. In this atmosphere of disillusionment, the Bolsheviks won support by calling for “Peace, Land, and Bread,” rallying workers, soldiers, and peasants. In his April Theses, Lenin explicitly called for the overthrow of the bourgeois government and the transfer of “all power to the Soviets.” He advocated a direct transition from capitalism to socialism. The Bolsheviks’ tight organization, clear objectives, and aggressive propaganda made them the only political force capable of seizing power.

In November 1917 (October according to the old Russian calendar), the Bolsheviks led an armed uprising in Petrograd, overthrew the Provisional Government, and established Soviet power. Though the uprising involved little actual bloodshed, it marked the beginning of a new era: class struggle entered the heart of state power, and socialism moved from theory to practice. The foundation of the Soviet Union was laid.

The Bolsheviks were a faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party that supported armed revolution, rapid seizure of power, and the establishment of proletarian dictatorship. They later evolved into the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, one of the most influential political forces of the 20th century. The word “Bolshevik” means “majority” in Russian, originally just referring to a vote in which Lenin’s faction had a numerical advantage during the 1903 Second Party Congress. The opposing faction, led by Martov, became known as the Mensheviks, meaning “minority.” Although this division began with a single vote, “Bolshevik” eventually became a political identity, signifying a radical, centralized, and revolution-first approach.

Under Lenin’s ideological leadership, the Bolsheviks believed that revolution could not rely on slow parliamentary reforms. Instead, they called for a violent overthrow of capitalism and feudalism, the creation of a highly centralized vanguard party led by a disciplined core of professional revolutionaries, and once in power, the establishment of proletarian dictatorship to suppress bourgeois forces and carry out socialist transformation. The Mensheviks, by contrast, favored broad mass participation and a two-stage process: first a capitalist democratic revolution, followed by a gradual transition to socialism. The Bolsheviks rejected this, arguing that Russia could leap over the capitalist stage and move directly to working-class rule.

2-2: Lenin / Stalin

Lenin, full name Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, was born in 1870 into an intellectual family in Russia and died in 1924. He became globally known under the pseudonym “Lenin,” which is said to come from the Lena River in Siberia—a symbol of exile and struggle. He was not the type of theorist who passively awaited “historical development.” He was an extreme man of action. Lenin believed that revolution must be driven by a small, iron-willed vanguard. This was the core of his interpretation of “dictatorship of the proletariat.” While Marx had envisioned socialist revolution occurring in highly developed capitalist countries, Russia was still an agrarian nation. Lenin revised the roadmap, advocating for a “weak link explosion”: revolution would erupt in the most backward countries because they were the most unstable. He also introduced key strategies such as “democratic centralism” (yes, that was his invention—how annoying), “one-party rule,” and “violent revolution before parliamentary reform,” which directly shaped the organizational structure of the Soviet Union and later Communist parties such as the CCP.

Starting in 1917, Lenin led the newborn Soviet government through civil war, famine, and economic collapse. He first implemented “war communism,” but later shifted to a more moderate “New Economic Policy (NEP),” which allowed limited private enterprise to revive production. Lenin died at just 53, before the Soviet Union was formally established in 1922. His death triggered a fierce power struggle that ultimately led to Stalin rising to dominance and pushing the regime toward a more extreme form of authoritarianism.

Stalin, full name Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, was born in 1878 in Georgia and died in Moscow in 1953. “Stalin” was not his birth name, but a pseudonym meaning “man of steel”—cold, resolute, ruthless, and immovable. Honestly, it’s kind of funny: world leaders using stage names? These guys really were something. After Lenin’s death, the Soviet leadership descended into a bitter power struggle. Stalin was not the most brilliant theorist, but he seized control over the Party’s organizational, personnel, and security apparatus, and ultimately consolidated absolute power. By the 1930s, he had positioned himself as Lenin’s sole legitimate heir, purging Trotsky and other rivals through exile or assassination.

He ruled through totalitarianism, turning the one-party state into a one-man cult. Through the Great Purge, he had hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of “potential enemies” executed or sent to their deaths, including old revolutionaries, officers, intellectuals, and ordinary citizens. He institutionalized fear, making people afraid not only of the state but of one another. He launched Five-Year Plans and agricultural collectivization, rapidly industrializing the country and transforming the USSR from a backward agrarian economy into a military-industrial superpower. Millions of peasants died in famines—most notoriously the Holodomor in Ukraine—and dissenters were exiled to the labor camps of the Gulag. Yet he did achieve “modernization” and enabled the USSR to withstand and eventually defeat Nazi Germany during World War II.

After Hitler’s invasion, Stalin mobilized the nation for a brutal war of survival. The USSR emerged victorious, though at enormous cost, and established itself as a superpower in the postwar world order. Stalin became one of the “Big Three” at the Yalta Conference, alongside Roosevelt and Churchill, shaping the geopolitical landscape of the modern world.

Lenin and Stalin together created a “revolutionary template for export”: one party, one ideology, one enemy, and one promised future. This party was not a Western-style political organization participating in pluralistic elections—it was a super-party: the state manager, ideological enforcer, and societal organizer all rolled into one. It monopolized the interpretation of truth and dictated the paths of public action. Lenin’s “vanguard theory” asserted that only a party of elite revolutionaries could truly represent the working class. Original Marxism emphasized historical processes and structural contradictions, but in the Soviet Union, it was reconstructed into a salvation narrative: we know the future, we hold the roadmap to utopia, and if you obey the Party and sacrifice the present, collective liberation awaits. Without enemies, there was no legitimacy. The Soviet model relied on systematically producing enemies: internally, the bourgeoisie, Trotskyists, rightist capitulators; externally, imperialists, colonialists, and reactionary regimes. Only through continuous “class struggle” could the state justify repression, control, mobilization, and terror. This “enemy-making technique” became a hallmark of every country that copied the model.

Reality was painful, but the “future” was bright. This promise was not meant to be fulfilled today, but postponed—for the next generation, for “the day of victory.” It justified obedience, sacrifice, and suffering, and excused every failure as merely a “necessary step toward eventual success.”

In 1929, the Wall Street Crash triggered the Great Depression, a worldwide economic catastrophe. By 1933, the United States had an unemployment rate of 25 percent. Millions went bankrupt, homeless, and hungry. Germany was also drowning in hyperinflation and mass unemployment, creating the perfect storm for the Nazi Party’s rise. Britain, France, and other major powers faced labor strikes, political instability, and economic stagnation. For ordinary people, the so-called “liberal order” didn’t put food on the table—it brought anxiety, insecurity, and chaos. Around the world, people began to ask: Would a different system be better?

While the West fell into disorder, the Soviet Union was pressing ahead with rigid, state-planned industrialization and nation-building. The First Five-Year Plan (1928–1932) centralized national resources to develop heavy industry, railways, electricity, and military production. Massive steel plants, machine factories, power stations, and rail networks were built—not by market forces, but by state mobilization. Though agricultural collectivization resulted in disastrous consequences (especially in Ukraine), industrial output soared. In just a few years, the USSR’s steel, coal, and machinery production caught up with or even surpassed many Western nations.

Of course, this was a kind of illusion of efficiency. The increase in industrial output was based on extreme exploitation and sacrifice. Millions died of famine, were imprisoned in the Gulag, or were purged in political terror. The planned economy stifled innovation, freedom, and individual rights, resulting in a rigid and brittle system. But to many Western observers in the 1930s, these problems were invisible—or deliberately ignored. What they saw was a “disciplined nation” with plans, goals, momentum, and visible results. At this historical crossroads, the Soviet model appeared to be a compelling alternative: more controlled than capitalism, more efficient than democracy, and more “liberating” than colonialism.

This is also why, after the 1930s, many countries began turning toward the Soviet model. Communist movements in China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, and Eastern Europe would all adopt this as their blueprint.