Many leaders and their people have vowed that they understand the concept and the premises of Marxist thought, and reckoned that they have put in to practice this precise philosophy in their political system during the twentieth century; furthermore, many in the world claims a solid grasp of marxist notions, and many are either ardently for or against this philosophy. Most would claim they have an opinion as to this household name that is Marx. However, one has to consider the multitude who even if they think they understand Marxist thinking, seem to be misrepresenting him due to a fundamental misinterpretation of his premises. One can spot these errors when one holds up their false conceptions of Marxist philosophy to the gold standard. One such example is the dictatorial regimes of eastern Europe and asia. While socialism may be inspired by Marxist thought, it has not implemented the premises and axioms of marxism successfully, is far from meeting the requirements, and is fundamentally a distorted misrepresentation of his philosophy.

the socialist systems of Asia and eastern Europe may have been inspired by marxist thought, and it is important to discover why they may make this is central to determining whether it is faithful enough to marx's conception of communism. The Socialist regimes seems to place much emphasis on the communism rather than the stages of society which Marx discusses. For many of these countries, an initial revolt and revolution was there; however, other elements seem absent. There is also a focus on the more pragmatic aspect, listed rules, and listed conditions of Marxism rather then theoretical consideration to what communism actually is. Equality was a principal axiom, which was almost sacred to the socialists. The premise that everyone deserved equal amount of goods or recognition was a central premise. Every citizen could not have more than his brother or comrade. This would be greed and this could lead to either a reason to make the other greed or oppression. Their was suppose to be one class of citizens. The devide between the upper class and the proletariat had ceased to exist. The Redistribution of Goods and resources was a first priority, and a strict observance of how much each was rationed was central. If one produced more than his due, it was distributed. For this to work, no one owned much that was their own. Nationalistic principals were important and it was strictly observed that you owned not what you were not rationed, and not even if you grew it. Necessities was rationed and given freely. They felt this was a representation of Marx and his principles. To keep this in operation, a comrade, or chairman was installed. This then is a bit of what socialistic countries took from Marx's conceptions of communism. To understand how Marx has influenced the socialist governments it is not enough to merely understand how, but we must also understand what the original philosophy was.

It will serve to understand the actual meaning of marx, since there is much that has been said about marxism which are not all accurate. Some of these assertions are false and others may hold some merit. Communism is first and foremost not his entire Theory. There is a difference in Marxism and Communism. Communism is the notion of a concept of a society which is in it's advanced stages, which has matured and developed. Communism is a conception of an End Stage of a long history. It does not involve the revolts, and rest of Marxist thought. Marxist did theorise on a system which would lead up to communism, but this is all just Marxist thought. His theory stretches over many political forms which includes capitalism, feudalism, and other forms before it solidifies in to communism. Marx does not discount capitalism, in fact he determines that it has to be part of the evolution of history, before we can reach communism. Capitalism must happen, and Marx thought the most natural place for commism to occur is the United States. This bloody revolt isn't against a specific dictator, a physical brutal Enemy such a leader; on the contrary, it is against a perceived whole class and a system. Communism's premise is that the metaphysical fact is that Good and evil has been resolved. This is because the conscious of society has altered molded by brutal and fundamental events which changes society's values. Society will not implant the values of greed in to future generations and so the world may stabilize. Communism need no government. The world will not be divided in to countries because all will recognize the benefit to be united in to one body. There needs no supervision either locally or a supposed one world power. Ethically all will know what is just and equal. Greed will not exist. All will be shared. Enmity and distrust will vanish and all with friendly with one another. Since human sciousness is Tabula Rasa no such ideas of evil will exist, because it will not be impressed on the future generations born in to communism. This egalitarian society isn't out of fear of greed or oppression, but it is natural. It is as ingrained in to our consciousness as greed and lust is today. Now that we understand both sides of the argument, we can look at whether the socialists models of communism was an accurate portrayal of Marxist's actual conceptions.

While Marx was an influence for socialist regimes in eastern Europe and asia, and inspired many of their ideas, the truth was that, in fact, it was not an accurate implementation of marxist premises and axioms. We have to keep in mind how and why these regimes exist. The revolt was not against a system of freedom, but of oppression in the physical sense. There was no sense of freedom. The regime before socialism was a dictatorial feudalism. These systems failed because capitalism was just about no where to be seen. It was a war for freedom against a noble family, not the cogs of capitalist and their supposed oppressive free markets. Also, the truth was throughout the regimes it was not so much a hatred of capitalism because it wouldn't work, but in fact it was hatred as it is mostly because of fear of it because they never experienced it, and was told it was evil. In fact, if any of them experienced capitalism before communism, it wouldn't be so hateful and fierce, perhaps it would be more passionate and reasonable in opposing it. Experience makes one wise to an issue not hateful and resentful. Another problem with these socialistic regimes being communistic is they were rather self contained and nationalistic to a comrade or chairman. Also, the countries may be allies and had good relationship but they were not one big country. communism was unable to convince the rest of the world to follow suit. An interesting issue is that everytime these communistic areas wanted to expand it was war. They conquered countries, and fought other powers. Communism is about one class conquering another class not really about one country conquering another and that these new countries it had to conquered had to follow precisely their rules on being equal to all citizen. Communism isn't taught, it's realized. Another huge problem or flaw is the leader, whether you call him a comrade or chairman. Communism needs no leaders, and the versions of communism in eastern Europe and asia was full of them. The leaders rationed, the leaders called the shots and had to help people overcome the greed. The people, also had not overcome the greed and the ideas of an unjust world, which is another issue with it being communist. Now that we have heard both perspectives and engaged both sides in a conversation and have thus made a descision on whether the claims of the modern socialists hold up or not to the gold standard of which they were trying to achieve, we can conclude how it may have been a valiant attempt but nevertheless, still a misinterpretation of Marxist conceptions.

Marxism is a complex concept, which has been discussed in many occasions and has been reinterpreted many times. One has been able to gather modern conceptions of Marx's thought, and hold it up to the actual arguments of Marx. Thus it has been determined because of various issues of contention that modern systems which has tried to implement Marxism has failed to implement it accurately. Part of this is circumstance, and part of it is due to misunderstanding of his philosophy. Whatever may be the case, still Many claim that they understand marx, even more claim they are marxist, but now that we have a solid grasp of what it is and what it isn't, we can clear up the confusion in our minds and represent the thoughts of the man who invented the term communism more clearly; furthermore, we can have a more educated approach and view of what marxist conceptions are and speak of marx and his premises with more accuracy and preciseness.