So Called Communism or Socialism:

Some Kind of Fascism

The Mu Particle in "Communism"

by Wu Ming

So you want us to send a contribution about Communism.

Not about any group of people calling themselves communists.
Not about any one of the countless currents of "Communism".
Not about operetta nation-states like Laos and North Korea.
No, you're talking about the core concept of Communism. You want us to dig and touch the roots.
Thanks to commies and anti-commies, Communism seems to be today's most unpopular, outdated,
crestfallen issue.
The very term was bad-mouthed, adulterated, clumsified, claw-hammered out of public discourse.
Time to deal with it again.
The word Kommunismus/Communismus was coined as a neologism (both in German and late Latin),
and sporadically employed in a derogatory way during and after the religious wars that set Europe on
fire from the Late Middle Ages to Early Modernity. The doctrines of 16th century radical currents such
as the Hutterites, the Hussites and the Taborites were described as communisticae by some of their
coeval enemies and later detractors. Then the word was engulfed, until it sensationally re-emerged in
19th century.
All those 16th century heresies proclaimed sharing of goods and communal living, and some of them
advocated forced expropriation of the nobility and the clergy. During the German Peasants' War (1524-
1525), a chain of riotous events that sent waves of rebellion across Central Europe, one of preacher
Thomas Müntzer's battle cries was Omnia sunt communia, all things are common. It should go without
saying that such an emphasis on sharing was deeply rooted in Christian history and doctrine. "Erant
illis omnia communia" (Act 4,32): "Things were in common among them". And the Rule of St.
Augustine (ca. 400 AC) says: "Et non dicatis aliquid proprium, sed sint vobis omnia communia": “Call
nothing your own, but let everything be yours in common”.
Commūnis. Let's take a close look at this Latin adjective.
Commūnis means "common", "universal", "generally shared".
Mūnĭa means "duties", "public offices", "tolls", "excises", and any kind of civil services and obligations
to the community.
Therefore, Cum mūnis means "with duties", "with dues", "with engagements", i.e. obliged to take part
in the life of a regulated community.
Curiously enough, the antonym of Commūnis is Immūnis, which means "with no duties", "free from
engagements", "free of tax". [1]
This is just the beginning of the journey back, for the word Mūnĭa itself has a very long history.
The ancient root "Mai"/"Mau"/"Mu" has to do with calculating, weighing, measuring things -
presumably in order to exchange them equitably or distribute them between your fellow persons.
That's what supposed to happen with duties in a fairly regulated community.
We can find this correspondence in several ancient languages.
In Vedic Sanskrit, the 4000-year-old sacred language of India, Mâti means "to measure".
In Latin, Mensio means "measure" (French: Mesure; Italian: Misura).
In Old Slavonic (the first literary Slavic language, developed in the 9th century) Mena means
"exchange", "barter".
In Old Lithuanian (15th century), Maínas has the same meaning.
In Germanic languages, there was a distinct but parallel terminological evolution: the German adjective
Gemeinas perfectly reflects Commūnis. Ge-meinas = Cum-mūnis. [2]
That's also where the English words Moon (Greek: Mène; Gothic [3]: Mēna; Old English [4]: Mōna)
and Month (Greek: Mèn, Latin: Mensis) come from. The moon was used in order to count days and
measure longer periods of time.
That's also where Mind (Latin: Mens) comes from. The mind is the organ that counts/measures/weighs
and then sets the value and the meaning of things. Of course, the word Meaning has the same origins.
Most important, the Akkadian word Manû means "to count on the fingers". [5]
Akkadian is an ancient Semitic language. It was already widely spoken (and written in cuneiform) in
Mesopotamia 4,500 years ago. It was the language of that era's “international” commerce. Plenty of
inscriptions and tablets have been found all over Asia Minor.
The most prestigious and controversial Italian linguist and philologist, the late Giovanni Semerano
(1913-2005), devoted his entire life to tracing the origins of all European languages back to Akkadian
and a common Semitic base. He filled almost all the gaps in the etymology of Greek and Latin terms.
We're drawing heavily from his works and discoveries. [6]
Let's go further back now.
What is the reason the root "Mai"/ "Mau"/"Mu" has to do with measuring and sharing?
The Akkadian term for "water" is Mû. Ugaritic [7]: Mj. Aramaic [8]: Majjā.
Water is the most valuable resource, you can barter anything for it if you're thirsty. Water is the
mainstay of any community, the first thing that must be shared equally. The necessity of distributing
and sharing water is the pre-condition and basis of all economy and social regulation.
We're sinking deep into the past, speculating on the very birth of human language.
There's a strict correspondence between the consonant "M" and water. The sound "M" is roughly
onomatopoeic of drinking. If you're thirsty and get to drink avidly, you emit a deep, low sound that can
be rendered as "Oom... Oom... Oom..."
In Italian baby-speak, the word for "water" is Bumba (pronounced "Boom-bah").
Finally, we can say that the "-mu(n)" particle contained in the word "Com-mun-ism" has to do with
water. Which has now become the scarcest of resources.
If the word were refreshed, recharged, revamped, its return to use couldn't be better timed.
Notes.
1. If the antonym of "Common" is "Immune", then Communism is the ideology of "non-
immunity", and it's true that "Communism is a disease of the mind", as American journalist and
moral crusader George Putnam said on 23 October 1966. It was one of the punch lines in his
commemorative speech on the 1956 Hungarian uprising.

2. By the way, Gemeinwesen ("community", "common essence", "communal being") was one of
Karl Marx's favourite words, as well as one of the key concepts in his early texts, e.g. the
"Critical Notes on the Article 'The King of Prussia and Social Reform. By a Prussian'." (1844):
"But do not all rebellions without exception have their roots in the disasterous isolation of man
from the gemeinwesen? Does not every rebellion necessarily presuppose isolation? Would the
revolution of 1789 have taken place if French citizens had not felt disasterously isolated from
the gemeinwesen? The abolition of this isolation was its very purpose. But the gemeinwesen
from which the worker is isolated is a gemeinwesen of quite different reality and scope than the
political gemeinwesen. The gemeinwesen from which his own labor separates him is life itself,
physical and spiritual life, human morality, human activity, human enjoyment, human nature.".
As regards the development of this concept in 20th century critical post-Marxism, see the works
of French thinker Jacques Camatte.

3. Gothic was the Germanic language spoken by the Goths (2nd-5th Century). They later split
into two different tribes, Ostrogoths and Visigoths, and practically took over the dying Roman
Empire in Southern Europe.

4. By "Old English" (also called "Anglo-Saxon") linguists mean the Germanic language spoken
in England before the 1066 Norman invasion.

5. It's the only reasonable etymological explanation of the Latin word Manus, "hand". Italian
and Spanish: Mano; Portuguese: Mão; French: Main; Catalan: Mà.

6. Semerano's findings were systematized in his immense work Le origini della cultura europea
[The Origins of European Culture] which was published in two 2-volume instalments whose
subtitles are Rivelazioni della linguistica storica [Revelations from Historical Linguistics]
(Olschki, Florence 1984, ISBN 8822232542) and Basi semitiche delle lingue indo-europee [The
Semitic Foundations of Indo-European Languages] (Olschki, Florence 1994, ISBN
8822242335). In the following decade, he "popularized" his theories in shorter books, and
 published further groundbreaking studies on the Etruscan language. His latest works include La
favola dell'indoeuropeo [The Myth of the Indo-European Language] (B. Mondadori, Milan
2005, ISBN 8842492744) and Il popolo che sconfisse la morte: Gli Etruschi e la loro lingua
[The People that Defeated Death: The Etruscans and their Language] (B. Mondadori, Milan
2006, ISBN 8842490709). As far as we know, there is no English translation of his books.

7. Ugaritic was a Semitic language spoken in Syria from the 14th through the 12th century BC.

8. Aramaic is another Semitic language, very close to Hebrew, and Jesus of Nazareth's mother
tongue, as it was the everyday language spoken by Jews in Palestina at the times the region was
part of the Roman empire. Aramaic and its dialects are still spoken in some parts of the Middle
East (especially Syria). Some books of the Bible were originally written in Aramaic (e.g. the
book of Daniel).
http://www.wumingfoundation.com/english/outtakes/communism.htm

Except where stated otherwise, the content of this website is licensed under a Creative Common License. You are free to copy, distribute, display, and
perform the work. You are also free to make derivative works, under the following commandments: thou shalt give the original author credit; thou shalt not
use this work for commercial purposes; If thou alter, transform, or build upon a text, thou shalt distribute the resulting work only under a license identical
to this one.

Etymology of the English word communism

the English word communism
derived from the French word communisme
derived from the Old French word commun
derived from the Latin word communis (common, joint, public; neutral; impartial; applicable on either
side; ordinary; sociable, courteous obliging; shared, possessed, used by two)
using the Latin prefix con- (together)
derived from the Latin prefix com-
derived from the Latin word cum (with)
derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *kom (near, with, together)
derived from the Latin word munus (service; duty, office)
derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *mei-

http://www.myetymology.com/english/communism.html

Communism" and other related terms

1.1 History of use of the word "communism"
"communism" and "communist" first came into use in France after the Revolution of 1830.
The words
They began to enter common speech in the 1840s. In particular, in 18401840 is a leap year starting on
Wednesday (link will take you to calendar). Events January 3 One of the predecessor papers to the
Herald Sun of Melbourne, Australia, The Port Phillip Herald is founded by George Cavanaugh. January
10 Uniform penny postage, the first " communist banquet " was held in ParisEiffel Tower has become
the symbol of Paris throughout the world. Paris is the capital and largest city of France. The city is built
on an arc of the River Seine, and is thus divided into two parts: the Right Bank to the north and the
smaller Left Bank to. The term was also used to refer to supporters of Étienne Cabettienne Cabet
( January 1, 1788 1856) was a French philosopher and utopian socialist. In 1831, he was elected into
the chamber of deputies, but due to his bitter attacks on the French Government he was sentenced for
treason and fled to England. Influenced, a utopian socialistUtopian Socialism is the term for the first
currents of modern Socialist thought. Utopian socialists never actually used this name to describe
themselves; the term "utopian socialism" was introduced by Karl Marx and used by later socialist
thinkers, to de. In FrenchFrench le francais la langue francaise is one of the most important Romance
languages, outnumbered only by Spanish and Portuguese. French is the 11th most spoken language in the
world, spoken by about 77 million people (called Francophones) as a mother to, the root of the word
"communism" could be interpreted to refer both to a commune, a self-governing village or community,
and to communauté, common ownership. The later Marxist use of the word "communism" contains
elements from both interpretations. "Communism" came into usage in England through the French exile
community and had a connotationIn logic and in some branches of semantics, connotation is more or
less synonymous with intension''. Connotation is often contrasted with denotation which is more or less
synonymous with extension''. See these articles for further information. In everyday of militancy, as
opposed to the milder connotation of "socialism". This is why Marx and Engels chose to use
"communism" in the title of the Communist Manifesto.

1.2 "Communism" and "socialism"

Much confusion surrounds the words "communism" and "socialism", particularly in the United States.
The aim of this paragraph is to dispel that confusion. In terms of ideology and politics, communism is a
sub-category of socialism. Communist ideology is a specific branch of socialist ideology and the
communist movement is a specific branch of the larger socialist movement. A person who calls himself or
herself a "communist" is a certain kind of socialist; in other words, all communists are socialists but not
all socialists are communists. In terms of socio-economic systems, communism and socialism are two
different things. For example, socialism involves the existence of a state, while communism does not.
Socialism involves public ownership of the means of production and private ownership of everything
else, while communism abolishes private ownership altogether.

1.3 Communism and "communist states"

As noted several times above, a communist system does not involve the existence of a state. Thus, the
term "communist state" is an oxymoron. No country ever called itself a "communist state" and no
government ever claimed to have established a communist system (in fact, no government can ever claim
to have established a communist system, since the very existence of that government shows that the
system is not communist).
Nevertheless, there have been a number of countries ruled by Communist Parties, and those countries
were often called "communist states" by people living in other parts of the world. They called
themselves socialist countries, and their ruling Communist Parties claimed to have established a
socialist, democratic system, with the aim of eventually reaching communism. However, these
countries were generally not seen as democratic by anyone except their leadership, and were not seen
as socialistic by any (non-communist) socialists living outside their borders. In fact, most socialists
strongly opposed them. Due to these reasons (as well as a number of others), the term "communist
states" was invented to refer to those countries.
However, the term "communist state" is itself quite inappropriate. Besides the problem noted above
(the fact that "communist state" is technically an oxymoron), there is one further issue with this term:
there were (and are) many communists who opposed the governments of those countries and who
argued that their ruling parties were communist in name only. The best known of these dissenting
communists are probably the Trotskyists.
A better term for "communist states" would be "states ruled by communist parties". But that name is
generally considered too long to be practical. Another term could be "Stalinist states", since all of them
were governed by communist parties that were either clearly Stalinist themselves or could trace their
roots back to Stalinism.
http://www.economicexpert.com/2a/Communist.htm

TROTSKY LEAVES NEW YORK TO COMPLETE THE REVOLUTION

Chapter 2 - Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution

By Antony C. Sutton
You will have a revolution, a terrible revolution. What course it takes will
depend much on what Mr. R tells Mr. Hague to do. Mr. R is a symbol of the
American ruling class and Mr. Hague is a symbol of its political tools.

Leon Trotsky, in New York Times, December 13, 1938. (Hague was a New
Jersey politician)

In 1916, the year preceding the Russian Revolution, internationalist Leon Trotsky was
expelled from France, officially because of his participation in the Zimmerwald conference but
also no doubt because of inflammatory articles written for Nashe Slovo, a Russian-language
newspaper printed in Paris. In September 1916 Trotsky was politely escorted across the
Spanish border by French police. A few days later Madrid police arrested the internationalist
and lodged him in a "first-class cell" at a charge of one-and-one-haft pesetas per day.
Subsequently Trotsky was taken to Cadiz, then to Barcelona finally to be placed on board the
Spanish Transatlantic Company steamer Monserrat. Trotsky and family crossed the Atlantic
Ocean and landed in New York on January 13, 1917.
Other Trotskyites also made their way westward across the Atlantic. Indeed, one Trotskyite
group acquired sufficient immediate influence in Mexico to write the Constitution of Queretaro
for the revolutionary 1917 Carranza government, giving Mexico the dubious distinction of
being the first government in the world to adopt a Soviet-type constitution.
How did Trotsky, who knew only German and Russian, survive in capitalist America?
According to his autobiography, My Life, "My only profession in New York was that of a
revolutionary socialist." In other words, Trotsky wrote occasional articles for Novy Mir, the
New York Russian socialist journal. Yet we know that the Trotsky family apartment in New
York had a refrigerator and a telephone, and, according to Trotsky, that the family occasionally
traveled in a chauffeured limousine. This mode of living puzzled the two young Trotsky boys.
When they went into a tearoom, the boys would anxiously demand of their mother, "Why
doesn't the chauffeur come in?"1 The stylish living standard is also at odds with Trotsky's
reported income. The only funds that Trotsky admits receiving in 1916 and 1917 are $310,
and, said Trotsky, "I distributed the $310 among five emigrants who were returning to Russia."
Yet Trotsky had paid for a first-class cell in Spain, the Trotsky family had traveled across
Europe to the United States, they had acquired an excellent apartment in New York ? paying
rent three months in advance ? and they had use of a chauffeured limousine. All this on the
earnings of an impoverished revolutionary for a few articles for the low-circulation Russian-
language newspaper Nashe Slovo in Paris and Novy Mir in New York!
Joseph Nedava estimates Trotsky's 1917 income at $12.00 per week, "supplemented by
some lecture fees."2 Trotsky was in New York in 1917 for three months, from January to
March, so that makes $144.00 in income from Novy Mir and, say, another $100.00 in lecture
fees, for a total of $244.00. Of this $244.00 Trotsky was able to give away $310.00 to his
friends, pay for the New York apartment, provide for his family ? and find the $10,000 that was
taken from him in April 1917 by Canadian authorities in Halifax. Trotsky claims that those who
said he had other sources of income are "slanderers" spreading "stupid calumnies" and "lies,"
but unless Trotsky was playing the horses at the Jamaica racetrack, it can't be done.
Obviously Trotsky had an unreported source of income.
What was that source? In The Road to Safety, author Arthur Willert says Trotsky earned a
living by working as an electrician for Fox Film Studios. Other writers have cited other
occupations, but there is no evidence that Trotsky occupied himself for remuneration
otherwise than by writing and speaking.
Most investigation has centered on the verifiable fact that when Trotsky left New York in 1917
for Petrograd, to organize the Bolshevik phase of the revolution, he left with $10,000. In 1919
the U.S. Senate Overman Committee investigated Bolshevik propaganda and German money
in the United States and incidentally touched on the source of Trotsky's $10,000. Examination
of Colonel Hurban, Washington attache to the Czech legation, by the Overman Committee
yielded the following:
COL. HURBAN: Trotsky, perhaps, took money from Germany, but Trotsky will deny
it. Lenin would not deny it. Miliukov proved that he got $10,000 from some
Germans while he was in America. Miliukov had the proof, but he denied it. Trotsky
did, although Miliukov had the proof.

SENATOR OVERMAN: It was charged that Trotsky got $10,000 here.

COL. HURBAN: I do not remember how much it was, but I know it was a question
between him and Miliukov.

SENATOR OVERMAN: Miliukov proved it, did he?

COL. HURBAN: Yes, sir.

SENATOR OVERMAN: Do you know where he got it from?

COL. HURBAN: I remember it was $10,000; but it is no matter. I will speak about
their propaganda. The German Government knew Russia better than anybody, and
they knew that with the help of those people they could destroy the Russian army.
 (At 5:45 o'clock p.m. the subcommittee adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday,
February 19, at 10:30 o'clock a.m.)3

It is quite remarkable that the committee adjourned abruptly before the source of Trotsky's
funds could be placed into the Senate record. When questioning resumed the next day,
Trotsky and his $10,000 were no longer of interest to the Overman Committee. We shall later
develop evidence concerning the financing of German and revolutionary activities in the
United States by New York financial houses; the origins of Trotsky's $10,000 will then come
into focus.
An amount of $10,000 of German origin is also mentioned in the official British telegram to
Canadian naval authorities in Halifax, who requested that Trotsky and party en route to the
revolution be taken off the S.S. Kristianiafjord (see page 28). We also learn from a British
Directorate of Intelligence report4 that Gregory Weinstein, who in 1919 was to become a
prominent member of the Soviet Bureau in New York, collected funds for Trotsky in New York.
These funds originated in Germany and were channeled through the Volks-zeitung, a German
daily newspaper in New York and subsidized by the German government.
While Trotsky's funds are officially reported as German, Trotsky was actively engaged in
American politics immediately prior to leaving New York for Russia and the revolution. On
March 5, 1917, American newspapers headlined the increasing possibility of war with
Germany; the same evening Trotsky proposed a resolution at the meeting of the New York
County Socialist Party "pledging Socialists to encourage strikes and resist recruiting in the
event of war with Germany."5 Leon Trotsky was called by the New York Times "an exiled
Russian revolutionist." Louis C. Fraina, who cosponsored the Trotsky resolution, later ? under
an alias ? wrote an uncritical book on the Morgan financial empire entitled House of Morgan.6
The Trotsky-Fraina proposal was opposed by the Morris Hillquit faction, and the Socialist
Party subsequently voted opposition to the resolution.7
More than a week later, on March 16, at the time of the deposition of the tsar, Leon Trotsky
was interviewed in the offices of Novy Mir.. The interview contained a prophetic statement on
the Russian revolution:
"... the committee which has taken the place of the deposed Ministry in Russia did
not represent the interests or the aims of the revolutionists, that it would probably
be shortlived and step down in favor of men who would be more sure to carry
forward the democratization of Russia."8

The "men who would be more sure to carry forward the democratization of Russia," that is,
the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, were then in exile abroad and needed first to return to
Russia. The temporary "committee" was therefore dubbed the Provisional Government, a title,
it should be noted, that was used from the start of the revolution in March and not applied ex
post facto by historians.
WOODROW WILSON AND A PASSPORT FOR TROTSKY
President Woodrow Wilson was the fairy godmother who provided Trotsky with a passport to
return to Russia to "carry forward" the revolution. This American passport was accompanied
by a Russian entry permit and a British transit visa. Jennings C. Wise, in Woodrow Wilson:
Disciple of Revolution, makes the pertinent comment, "Historians must never forget that
Woodrow Wilson, despite the efforts of the British police, made it possible for Leon Trotsky to
enter Russia with an American passport."
- "There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends
on circumstances."

- "As for us, we were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker
prattle about the "sacredness of human life". We were revolutionaries in opposition,
and have remained revolutionaries in power. To make the individual sacred, we must
destroy the social order which crucifies him. And that problem can only be solved by
blood and iron. The man who recognizes the revolutionary historic importance of the
very fact of the existence of the Soviet system must also sanction the Red Terror."

- "It was during that period that I became interested in freemasonry. ... In the
eighteenth century freemasonry became expressive of a militant policy of
enlightenment, as in the case of the Illuminati, who were the forerunners of the
revolution; on its left it culminated in the Carbonari. Freemasons counted among their
members both Louis XVI and the Dr. Guillotin who invented the guillotine. In southern
Germany freemasonry assumed an openly revolutionary character, whereas at the
court of Catherine the Great it was a masquerade reflecting the aristocratic and
bureaucratic hierarchy. A freemason Novikov was exiled to Siberia by a freemason
Empress.

I discontinued my work on freemasonry to take up the study of Marxian economics.

 The work on freemasonry acted as a sort of test for these hypotheses. I think this
influenced the whole course of my intellectual development."
Leon Trotsky
My Life: The Rise and Fall of a Dictator

http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/communism.html

This business of lending blood money is one of the

most thoroughly sordid, cold blooded, and criminal
that was ever carried on, to any considerable extent,
amongst human beings. It is like lending money to
slave traders, or to common robbers and pirates, to be
repaid out of their plunder. And the man who loans
money to governments, so called, for the purpose of
enabling the latter to rob, enslave and murder their
people, are among the greatest villains that the world
has ever seen.
LYSANDER SPOONER, No Treason (Boston, 1870)

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/best_enemy_moneybuy.pdf

A. Fascism and Communism had perhaps more in common than what separated them,
namely:
1. a totalitarian government in the form of a dictatorship. Whether we would be talking about it as
representing the proletariat or an ethnic group, the dictator embodied the alleged will of the
people;
2. a presumption that, given the consent of the proper people, the problems of the nation would be
solved;
3. a theory by which the will of the people, as enacted by the government, took precedence over
the rights of individual persons;
4. a socialist economy strictly operated by the government;
5. the vilification of those who were deemed to oppose the will of the people as represented by the
government. By that I don't just mean the usual rhetoric and name calling that is an integral part
of political discourse, but their active suppression by means of depriving them of freedom of
expression or even by downright persecution.
The above description sounds extreme, of course, but as I keep saying, unless you slept through the
twentieth century, you know that whether we are talking about the so-called left (Communism) or the
so-called right (Fascism), it barely does justice to the horrific events of the last one hundred years.
Millions of people have been murdered by their own governments in the name of totalitarian
ideologies, and millions more have had to live in their shadow. Even now, the countries that are still
calling themselves "Communist" have actually metamorphosed into Fascist dictatorships.

http://win_corduan.tripod.com/socialism.html
A Socialist Empire

It is the drama in which the East and the West now confront
each other. The history that we are evoking here, which seems
so far removed from us, is, in fact, our very own. It is the history
in which we ourselves are the actors. The conflict with which it
is concerned has become one of the most burning issues of the
present day. The two civilizations, the two social systems whose
impending clash fills us with anxiety today are the very same that
confronted each other at the dawn of the sixteenth century; and
under the impact of their violent collision, one of them, the empire
of the Incas, collapsed.
http://mises.org/books/Socialist_Empire_Baudin.pdf

The Austrian School

The story of the Austrian School begins in the fifteenth century, when the followers of St. Thomas
Aquinas, writing and teaching at the University of Salamanca in Spain, sought to explain the full range
of human action and social organization.
Despite the theoretical sophistication of this developing pre-Austrian tradition, the British school of the
late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries won the day, mostly for political reasons. This British
tradition (based on the objective-cost and labor-productivity theory of value) ultimately led to the rise
of the Marxist doctrine of capitalist exploitation.

http://mises.org/etexts/austrian.asp