O que realmente define o COMUNISMO?

Overview

The video is framed as a discussion about what defines communism/socialism in practice, but it largely becomes a historical survey of revolutionary movements—especially those often ignored by mainstream history books.

It argues that communism/socialism can’t be understood only through “big examples” (Russia, China, Cuba), and instead points to a broader, 20th-century wave of revolutions across Asia, Africa, and the Americas that followed communist ideas.

---

Why talk about communism through revolution history?

• Limits of “big examples”: The presenters argue that communism/socialism can’t be understood only through major cases like Russia, China, and Cuba.
• A wider revolutionary wave: They claim there was a broader 20th-century wave of revolutions influenced by communist ideas across Asia, Africa, and the Americas—yet it receives little attention.
• Narratives and power: They emphasize that history is shaped by competing narratives. What one side calls liberation, the other side often labels terrorism. Ultimately, who “writes the book” depends on who wins.

---

International organizations and strategic expansion

The discussion presents the international workers movement as developing through successive internationals:

1. First International Marx and Engels are involved; it also includes anarchists such as Bakunin.

2. Second International Shifts toward reformism, associated with parties like Germany’s SPD, and is later judged as having paved the way toward war.

3. Third International (1920, Baku) A major turning point that broadens the revolutionary project beyond European proletarian revolutions.

Key claim: changing the revolutionary motto

The motto shifts from “workers/proletarians united” to “proletarians and oppressed peoples united,” aiming to link revolutionary struggles with anti-colonial resistance.

---

Examples of “lesser-known” revolutions (and why they matter)

The video argues that revolutionary change was not rare or confined to Europe, highlighting multiple cases:

• Mongolian Revolution (early 1920s)

  • Presented as driven by liberation from Chinese influence/imperial pressure, British economic influence, and interference from White Russian forces.
  • Mentions major figures (e.g., Dandin Chubaktar).
  • Notes the later consolidation of party rule in Mongolia.

• Indochina and linked revolutions

  • Argues that revolutionary trajectories in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia are interconnected.
  • Notes that early organizing was “Indochinese” rather than purely national.
  • Raises that regional “socialism attempts” varied across Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and related processes.

• Nepal and India (Maoist/Mao-influenced and other communist currents)

  • Nepal: described as a long period involving communist rule and internal debates over revolutionary strategy (e.g., people’s war vs. electoral path).
  • India: emphasizes many communist parties with similar names but different strategies (splits among Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, Marxist-Maoist, etc.).
  • Naxalbari → Dandakaranya: framed as a major ongoing revolutionary struggle rooted among Adivasi communities.
  • The video suggests these conflicts are widespread but underreported.

• Philippines, Turkey (Moura guerrillas), Myanmar

  • Used to argue that revolutionary warfare/guerrilla movements persisted into the late 20th century and even into more recent periods.

---

What communism “means” in the video: core shared ideas

When asked what Marxist subdivisions share, the main synthesis is:

• Marxism is presented as a qualitative leap developed by Marx and Engels.
• Marxism–Leninism is described as Lenin’s further qualitative leap.
• Maoism is described as another stage, again framed as qualitative theoretical and practical contributions.

• Across these variants, the shared “common ground” is:

  • Capitalism is historically limited and must be superseded, not merely reformed.
  • The transition requires a revolutionary rupture and a transitional socialist state, rather than gradual change within the existing system.

---

Reformism vs revolution (Chilean case)

• Allende’s Chile is discussed as a special case:
  • Not a classic “revolutionary overthrow,” but a deeply radical reform agenda (e.g., agrarian reform; nationalization of banking/education).
• The video claims:
  • Loss of mass mobilization and elite/foreign opposition contributed to the 1973 military coup.
• The subsequent dictatorship is described as:
  • Intensely violent and neoliberal, with long-term social harms (including claims about elderly suicides and loss of pension/health coverage).

---

“Real socialism” after the USSR: divergence across Asia

After the Soviet collapse, the video argues that developments differed by country:

• Vietnam
  • Described as linked to Soviet influence for decades, then shifting toward “openness” (especially economic reforms in the 1990s).
• Laos
  • Presented as having long-term party continuity, later moving toward reforms.
• North Korea
  • Presented as structurally different due to Japanese colonial history and the Korean War.
  • Emphasizes a more independent development path despite Soviet ties.

Overall conclusion (as framed by the video)

Even with market-opening debates, the video maintains that the revolutions’ core socialist character continues in these societies—while acknowledging that critics argue it “isn’t socialism anymore.”

---

Propaganda, labeling, and “terrorism” as a retrospective label

A central argument is that groups labeled “terrorists” by states and outsiders may originate from internal line disputes and revolutionary interpretations.

The video repeatedly illustrates that the “terrorist” framing can function as a political tool used by victors after failed revolutionary paths.

---

Presenters / contributors

• Emilio Garcia
• Carlos Ruas
• João Carvalho (main historical contributor)
• Camila (mentioned as a project author for Tales from the End of the World / Contos do Fim do Mundo)
• Rafa Pinheiro (illustrator mentioned)
• Pedro Matalo (design mentioned)