Wow. Talk about the difference of frames and filters people look to the reality through.
First time I've heard this kind of definition for Communism, a one that is defined by American Revolution.
The Pilgrims started out here with a theological sort of communal economy, but gave it up stepwise when it didn't work. There were some folks in those New England woods later, during the American Revolution, whose angst against private property required separate military action. Some gov tax measures, like the Whisky Rebellion, made waves as well. Later Mormons and some other private communal movements challenged the ideals of "property" as well.
European feudalism was a kind of communism, not based on "Party" but nobility who were interdependent with kings and such, and important to the national fabric. Leige servitude fed off notions like "The Divine Right of Kings", and it took determined action sometimes for the maintenance of any personal liberties or rights, such as those that brought about the Magna Carta.
For British nobles camped in their castles during colonial empire days, the revolt of the American colonists was a bitter pill, which deserved and got much attention. Marx and Engels were bankrolled not particularly by bankers but by British nobility.
In "
The Importance of Being Earnest", Oscar Wilde exposed the social tactics of the upper classes as shameless exploitation of the innocence of a supposed virtuous but exploited idealistic public which paid more attention to pretense than substance. You could freely exchange words for "earnest", the name of someone the targeted lady loved. Words such as "respectable", "honorable", or even "wealthy".
In any event, I find the scribblings of Marx far too obtuse to deserve serious attention, and would never have inspired any loyalty if not assiduously credited as scholarship by British educational elites at Oxford and Cambridge, and bankrolled by donors interested in distracting and manipulating the public for private purposes.
It is well known that the Russian Revolution was supported by some financial heavyweights from Europe, as the Chinese Communism was supported by operatives from the same financial interests, including Americans like the Fords and Rockefellers. During Stalin's reign of terror, our Armand Hammer had an interesting relationship with the Soviets.
If you look at British commercial interests, colonial trade systems, and such, you would see that the British have acted to maintain their economic empire by ruthlessly precipitating wars between their enemies. Machiavellian principles of the highest order which I refer to a staged political puppetry on the world stage, of which the United Nations is the current manifestation. . . .
I see the insurgence of Western operatives into Ukrainian politics as a set up for another war, and the US "police action"/"nation building" experience in Iraq and Afghanistan as serving British commercial interests, particular the oil cartels including common interests such as Shell, Exxon, Chevron, in disrupting plans for Russian developments and pipelines through the areas.
