What is the definition/basic philosophy of The One-Party-System (Sparta, Marxism, Fascism and Maoism)?
349355
Communism:  From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. \n\nMarx (and Engels) based this on a class system divided into the beugiose  (boo-sua-zee) and the proletariat. It was called a "dictatorship of the elite".  The former being less than 10% of the poplulation with more than 90% of the wealth, the latter 90% of the population a poor, uneducated, working class which they called a "system of wives in common".  The Soviet Union was the first great experiment here and you see what happened.  Mao was closer to this model in theory the Soviets more Socialist.  Both based thier systems on the model from the Communist Manifesto.  BTW, Marx and Engles lived in england and Engles came from a very wealth industrial family. \n\nFacism: Not even close.  Read about Moussilini (El Deuc'e) and Hitler.
250392
Stalinism is referring to a specific style of government (the Stalin USSR era), whereas Communism is the political ideology behind it. Check out this site: \n\nhttp://www.marxists.org/glossary/index.htm\n\n(wikipedia is also helpful)
499958
I would argue that it wasn't.  But it certainly was more theoretical.  Marx version never had to be tested in the trenches of reality.  Whenever communism has been lived out (Leninism, Maoism, etc), it has always led to disaster: either mass poverty or mass violence, or a combination of both.  Marx' approach has never had to be tested, since one can always claim that it was the fault of lenin or Stalin or Mao or whoever that it didn't work.  The reality is that it never really works.
757460
only one word should describe this topic\n\nFREEDOM
82539
Political pluralism refers simply to there being a plurality of political stances. For instance in America, there are liberals, conservatives, populists, communists, socialists, libertarians etc.
420151
First off you need to figure out what you believe and why.  Remove emotions from the equation.  Read Plato's Republic, Machevelli, Communist Manifesto, your country's founding documents.\n\nThen once you know what you believe and why then you can see which party is the closest to your beliefs
995518
The correct term for them is marxist.  I've heard Horowitz refer to them as neo-communists, but that doesn't really capture their essence, and neither does socialist.  The problem here is today's marxists don't even have a cogent plan for their particular implementation of marxism....just some vague agenda for destroying the United States and democracy in the world in the interests of "social justice".  However, just like all of the previous children of marxist thought......national socialism (nazism), socialism and communism, progressives and liberals are really all about genocide.  What they want.  What they support.  What they ALWAYS support, is nothing less than the murder of hundreds of millions of innocent people.  That really is all that marxism is about, when you pair it down to its essence.  It is the one repeating pattern that ties all of these people (including all liberals) and their behavior together.  It's their goal.  And it is a good reason to seriously consider rounding up and jailing the lot of them.
843539
I found something for Wang Ming as two separate words-someone's name. The website below has a more complete description, but here is a quote to summarize him," the label given by Mao to Wang as a representative of dogmatism, subjectivism and sectarianism hits the nail on the head. "  Perhaps with this information, you can reread the reference to a computer guru and see if this definition fits.
666954
I could be wrong but I think Maoism is the term use to define Chinese Communism. I don't think there is a difference.\n\nLooked it up I was right\n\nMaoism or Mao Zedong Thought is a variant of Marxism-Leninism derived from the teachings of the Chinese communist Mao Zedong.
800427
Welcome to the world of political philosophy vs political propoganda.  Okay a couple of things socialism means that the government has more control over business.  MAking sure there is money for healthcare, welfare, education, etc.  There are many socailistic countries in Europe that are democratic and doing fine.  Communism is further left.  Communism is an economic model and not a political one.  You could have a democratic communism.  What has happenned is a lot of solcialistic dictatorships.  There is yet to be a true communist country.  Unfortunately human greed always ruins communism as it will do with capitalism (according to marx) and there is examples of it starting to happen now (outsourcing jobs for penny wages).  Captilism will expand until it cannot expand any further and then collapse upon itself (basically once the rich have starved the poor whats left?).  It is a very confusing issue.   Anarchy is a political model and I would say is the opposite of socialism...which is no governemnt at all.  However I have been an anarchist for awhile, not because of punk, but because I have no faith in the politcal process today.  Too much business influence and lobbyists to really help most individuals.  But the pistols do rock.
752964
Leniin's political party was called Communism, it was socialism, but a branch from the main stem like several other varieties of economic systems...It was the Communist party which was socialist in origin...socialism is not a political party, but an economic system
1014204
Marx. By the way, how's that philosophy workin' out for the world?
452360
fuedal systems obiding by  the laws of Nature.\nkeeping in mind human nature\nwhich is a local form of self government.\nwith a freemarket system
577751
First of all, Communism has never truly been achieved.  Communism is Karl Marx's idea on how to control the masses which he wrote about in his book "Communist Manifesto".  It involves everybody working for everybody, no religion, and an overall unified society.  Socialism is what was seen in the Former Soviet Union, in China now.  It involves ideas of everybody working for the whole, but is a very far cry from Communism.  To Compare to the United States: liberals and extreme leftists are socialists.
258034
"A party system is a concept in political science concerning the system of government in a state where political parties exist.\n\nThe party system of a state determines how many political parties in a state have a realistic chance of becoming the government, usually through winning elections. Party systems are usually created by a variety of factors, such as the type of electoral system used in a state. For example, the use of First Past the Post in elections to a state's primary legislative assembly (for example general elections) usually results in a two-party system (this theory is called Duverger's law).\n\nA two-party system is a form of party system where only two major political parties exists with a realistic chance of winning an election. Usually this means that the candidates of the two parties that get the most votes hold all, or nearly all, elected offices. Coalition governments occur only rarely in two-party systems, though each party may internally look like a coalition.\n\nTwo-party systems have historically occurred commonly in the so-called Anglosphere nations such as the United Kingdom and former British colonies like Jamaica, New Zealand and the United States. While Americans and Britons often see the two-party system as natural, based on their long experiences with it, it in fact comes about as a product of particular rules and conventions (especially those involving first-past-the-post voting). The two parties that dominate at any particular time thus have an incentive to keep the existing rules in operation, so as to prevent electoral erosion to the benefit of smaller parties."\n\nAnother viewpoint comes from Debbie O'Hara:\n\n"America's political system as set up by our Founding Fathers had no political parties or factions. It wasn't that they didn't know about political parties, but that they were unwelcome. When looking at the factions of Europe, our Founders didn't like what they saw - political intrigue, conspiracy, and hostile divisions. They were afraid that such a system would rip apart the Union. They hoped that in free elections it would be natural for the best men to rise to the top and be elected to office. That is why before the rise of political parties (which made necessary the Twelfth Amendment), the man with the most votes was president and the man with the second most was vice-president. While in a fallen world it might be a bit unrealistic to expect that factions would not appear among diverse peoples, what rule tells us that we must work within a two-party system rather than voting for the best individuals? We have been propagandized into believing that there are only two viable parties because it is much easier for the enemies of a free America to exercise control within a two-party system than to deal with individuals."
895901
it's A Communism. I am not really sure on this one so please give me feed back.
1131779
communalism is something else but you probably mean 'communism'\n\nWell in the Marxist theory, communism was regarded an 'ideal'  realm of society in which everyone would contribute as they could and receive as they need. (Any earlier stage couldn't be regarded as Communism)\n\nSocialism was a transitory stage on the way to communism.\n\nLater on the terminology used in the Marxist theory was rather blurred and confused as Stalin declared the USSR had to head for 'socailism in one country' (as opposed to universal revolution rhetoric) and; the term 'communist' in the names of the leading parties in the Eastern bloc turned out to be the names of the concurrent regimes in those countries at that time.