It's not a stretch to say that during the last one hundred years, the words socialism and communism have been two of the most controversial words and concepts on the planet.  It's equally true that those two words/concepts are also widely and tragically misunderstood.  You don't have to go very far to see and hear someone talking about how the fall of the Soviet Union and fluctuations in China are proof that "Karl Marx was wrong."  So, in order to clear the air, let's start by saying beyond "The Communist Manifesto", Marx wrote very little about socialism/communism.  The bulk of his writings were about the demise of capitalism as the dominant form of political economy.  So, if Marx didn't write about socialism/communism, and his name - right or wrong - is the name most closely associated with these concepts, then what exactly is socialism/communism and how do you understand them and explain their impact to other people?

The simple answer is that economies are organized around what's commonly referred to as "the means of production."  A working definition of means of production is the material means in which products and services are produced within the society.  For example, the processes in which food is produced, electricity, water usage and access, oil for heating, cars, computers, cell phones, etc.  The way in which all of those things are produced for consumption.  The methodology in which that happens can only be organized two different ways.  Either that process is organized and controlled by a few people, or it's organized and controlled by everyone.  The method of a few people controlling that process is the dominant form of production in operation today that is called capitalism.  In this system, production of products is controlled by corporate interests for the purpose of private profit.  That means everything about production is designed to insure profitability for the corporations.  So, for example, within capitalism, the objective is to produce as much as possible with as few people as possible because this is considered efficient and therefore more profitable.  The method of everyone controlling the production process is called socialism.  In this system, production of products is planned with the objective of providing resources and services for everyone in society to contribute and reach their full potential.  So, for example, in a socialist society, the economy is planned around the number of workers, what they produce, how much revenue is generated by their production and consumer dollars, and from that amount of revenue, how many people can be supported in the areas of housing, education, healthcare, etc.  In this system, the objective is collective development and not private profit.  So in a socialist society the objective isn't efficiency and profitability.  The objective is making a place for everyone to contribute.  So, instead of eliminating jobs to insure profitability, a socialist society would plan to create more jobs since the objective is to insure everyone has a job.  See the difference?  In capitalism, the objective is profitability and insuring people have employment opportunities isn't a priority.  In fact, capitalism wants unemployment because the competition for jobs pushes wages down which makes it easier to profit from the labor whereas socialism wants to employ everyone.  Actually, socialism makes full employment the law as it's objective.

Now a very simple explanation of socialism has been provided here, but because so much anti-socialist/communist propaganda has been spread and most so-called socialist parties/formations have done very little to clarify the confusion, so many people are still unable to clearly understand this analysis.  Also, it has been drilled into us 24/7 for every day of our lives that capitalism is the only legitimate way to organize an economy so many of us are incapable of seeing the world outside of a capitalist vision lense.  So, to help in with that regard, here is an FAQ about socialism/communism:

Isn't socialism/communism is a dictatorial system where people have no rights?

Actually, the definition of socialism, as indicated above, is a system where the people own and control the means of production.  They own it by planning an economy where production is organized around meeting the needs of society e.g. education, employment, healthcare, etc.  Therefore, in order for a system to be socialist it has to meet the criteria of having a planned economy around those principles where people always have a voice around making those principles a reality.  This system where these principles exist is called scientific socialism.   So, if a system doesn't have those principles, it's not a socialist system, in spite of what people endorsing that system call it.  For example, if you study the Soviet Union, that society, although it had components of socialism, can only at best be classified as a state capitalist system because critical aspects of socialist principle such as democratic input e.g. representing and meeting the people's needs, are missing.  A socialist system cannot be a dictatorship since the system is organized around what the people want - which is having their needs a priority of the system.

Aren't socialism and communism the same thing?  Aren't the words just used on an interchanging basis and can't socialism be adapted for different societies?

Socialism and communism are different stages of the economic evolution process towards creating an economy that is more and more advanced.  Socialism is the next stage after capitalism where the means of production are controlled by the people in society and the state apparatus, such as police for example, are used under the collective government to serve the people.  Socialism should be seen as the transition between capitalism and communism.  On the other hand, communism is a more advanced stage where people's consciousness has advanced far enough under socialism (remember that under socialism you have generations of people who receive free education, etc.) so that people reach a higher level of understanding about taking responsibility to take care of one another so that institutions that are dominant in capitalism, and functional in socialism, like health services, police, social services, are unnecessary and fazed out within communism.  Plus, the class structure that maintains order for the ruling classes within capitalism, is fazed out after many years of socialism so that they no longer exist in communism.  So, obviously there has not been a time period in our life times where class structure hasn't existed so therefore, communism has yet to exist.  We are still moving in that direction.  So people that call Cuba, China, the Soviet Union, etc., communist, clearly don't know what they are talking about.  Finally, socialism has those universal principles we have talked about here e.g. planned economy, democracy, etc., so although the way those things are implemented will change based on the society, the principles are universal and would exist anywhere socialism is built.

Aren't socialism/communist concepts that originated from Europe?  Aren't these systems incompatible to Africa, Central and South America, the Middle East, etc.?

In fact, the concepts of socialism/communism evolved from the early production system of communalism which was most common in Africa, Asia, and other non-European societies.  In fact, it was African philosophers like Ibn Khaldun that people like Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, and V.I. Lenin studied to develop their theories on capital and economic transformation.  Again, these principles are universal and therefore cannot belong to any one culture or people.  Marx doesn't own socialism no more than Newton owns gravity.

Isn't it true that anyone who considers themselves a socialist/communist is a Marxist/Leninist and a follower of the ideas of Marx and Lenin, etc.?

No.  In fact, Marx and Lenin had an ideology, and that ideology is good for the conditions of Europe that they spoke and wrote about, but those conditions in which the universal principles of socialism must be applied vary so it's important for people to look to their history and culture to determine the ideology in which scientific socialism can be applied in their reality.  For Africa, we believe the ideas of people like Kwame Nkrumah, Sekou Ture, Amilcar Cabral, and others express the best way to apply socialist principles.  In Asia it may be Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse Tung, Kim Il Sung, etc.  In Ireland it's James Connelly.  In Central and South America there are other ideologues.  These ideologies shouldn't be seen as in contradiction with each other, but in concert and harmony as the masses of people of the Earth should be in order to make socialism dominant which is a pre-requisite to creating a communist society.

(Picture is Kwame Ture with my daughter Shukura in 1990)

November 15, 2013, will be 15 years since Kwame Ture (formally Stokely Carmichael) made his physical transition while lying in bed at home in Guinea-Conakry, West Africa.  His life is significant to me because in many ways, he is very much responsible for me becoming the person I am today.  I remember being in high school and somehow becoming aware of this man "Stokely Carmichael."  I can't recall what I knew about him or how I came upon that information, but one thing I knew is I had great pride thinking about him back then at a time in my young life where very little that I encountered gave me any hope about anything.  At some point during that high school period, I became motivated enough to locate and read "Black Power" the book Kwame co-wrote with Dr. Charles Hamilton in response to the call for Black Power he made along with Mukassa (Willie) Ricks, and other Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee organizers in Mississippi during the March against Fear in June of 1966.  After reading that book, I wanted to know as much about Kwame as I possibly could so you can just imagine my excitement when I heard he was speaking at a college campus close by in Southern California.  I think I skipped a class to go over and hear him.  I know I wasn't alone.  I had a car full of young African men with me.  All of us curious.  All of us looking for that dose of dignity and self esteem that so routinely eluded us in our daily lives in racist, capitalist amerikkka.  

In truth, I was somewhat disappointed after hearing Kwame that day.  I couldn't understand why he had changed his name.  I didn't comprehend why he needed to talk about Africa and these strange men from Africa that he admired so much e.g. Kwame Nkrumah and Sekou Ture.  I didn't care about them.  I wanted him to criticize white people and tell me I was right.  Instead, he told me that I needed to join an organization, something I had no intention of doing.  Still, for some reason, Kwame stayed on my conscious brain and by the time I was 20, there he was again, speaking at Sacramento State University where I attended college.  By that time I was a member of the Pan-Afirican Student Union that helped bring him there along with organizers for the All African People's Revolutionary Party, that organization he apparently belonged to.  His message that day was that we are Africans...Not Americans....Not African-Americans, but Africans - period!  We belong to the African nation and until Africa is free "no African on the planet will be free."  I followed that Kwame Nkrumah was his teacher.  I even asked a question about the selective service draft that I had refused to cooperate with and although that event was 31 years ago, I remember Kwame's response as clear as if it was yesterday.  He told me that any African has no business fighting in the U.S. imperialist military and that I should follow his example and burn the selective service form as he burned his draft card in 1967.  He told us that the only army I should volunteer for is the All African People's Revolutionary Party (A-APRP) and the All African People's Revolutionary Army.  I left that lecture understanding much more than I had two years previously.  The name Kwame Ture was a tribute to Kwame Nkrumah and Sekou Ture and I needed to understand that ideology directs action and ideology comes from my African culture.  I somehow got my hands on Nkrumah's "Africa Must Unite" and by the time I read "Neo-Colonialism" I was ready to graduate and join the A-APRP.  


Two years later I was a party organizer and the next time Kwame came to Sacramento I was picking him up to take him to the campus engagement.  I remember when I first encountered his lanky six foot five (or so) frame.  He smiled brightly.  He was engaged in a phone conversation with Minister Louis Farrakhan and this 22 year old was impressed.  I listened intently as he implored Farrakhan to not let ego get in the way of developing an African United Front.  A few short years later, I was firmly entrenched and committed as an A-APRP organizer and I began to coordinate Kwame's tours to the area, organizing his security and spending time with him when he came around once every year.  This relationship continued in many places for several years, but there are two stories that stand out the most for me.  One was in 1992 when we were traveling from Sacramento to Sonoma State University.  That drive takes you through the twists turns of Napa Valley and we were late.  I was driving at the required 30 to 35 mile an hour speed on the numerous curves, but that wasn't going to get us to the Sonoma campus on time.  Kwame calmly asked if he could drive so I quickly pulled over to permit him to take over.  He proceeded to get us there on time by taking the curves at 60 miles per hour.  Once we arrived and placed our hearts back in our stomachs, myself and the other brothers asked him how he learned to drive like that.  As we walked to the lecture hall, he explained that when the SNCC workers arrived in Mississippi and Alabama to do voter registration work, the local Africans would immediately show them how to drive that way so they could outrun the constant KKK terrorists that pursued them on those dark dangerous roads.  The second story is one of the last times I saw Kwame in the states.  I think it was San Francisco.  We were driving and talking about what time it was when he suddenly pulled out a watch and started shaking it because it wasn't working.  He cursed the watch and when I took a look at it, it was the type of low cost digital watch that one would expect to find in a box of crack jacks.  I remember being shocked at the fact this man who slept on our couches, ate the food we young poor people had, and who never complained about anything, had such a valueless watch when his political colleagues, like Marion Berry, John Lewis, Julian Bond, etc., were well off and in highly comfortable positions.

The point to all of this is the true story of Kwame Ture has yet to be told.  I know his autobiography - "Ready for the Revolution" is out and sells well, but I feel that much of what he accomplished and contributed is still untold.  If you Google him, go on youtube, or research books, his name and efforts are everywhere, but much of that information talks mostly about his work during the 1960s.  This is exactly the problem.  You see, Kwame spent approximately seven years in SNCC, and maybe two years, give or take, in the Black Panther Party.  He spent 30 years in the A-APRP living and building that organization in Guinea-Conakry and in spite of the focus on the Black Power days, it's his work in Africa that provides his greatest legacy.  In fact, he said it best himself when he asked about it some years ago.  His response, in typical witty Kwame fashion, when asked why he moved away from calling for Black Power and towards calling for Pan-Africanism was "during the sixties we defined our struggle as a struggle against racism.  So calling for Black Power was a response to that, but the people's struggle doesn't stand still, it moves...As we developed, we realized the struggle wasn't just against racism.  Its a struggle for power and power means land and our land is Africa.  Thus, our struggle is a struggle for Africa's freedom and liberation!"

I'm not worried about Kwame' legacy being correctly articulated because he worked for 30 years to create revolutionary Pan-African cadre to carry on his work after he was gone.  He has made his physical transition, but we are still here and we are everywhere in every corner of the world today.  We're still building the A-APRP and we will continue to struggle for Pan-Africanism until we achieve it.  Thank you Kwame.  You made your contribution.  Now it's time for us to make ours.