frenchy, you don't know what you criticize. marx was certainly aware of
the pre-technological communist societyies, callieng them primitive communism. He even later revoised the most famous sentence, changing it to "All WRITTEN history is the histroy of class struggle"; bviously, in traditional African communist-democratic societies, there were no classes, so there could be no class struggle. In fact, he devoted many words to discussing how primitive communism in undeveloped countries could be integrated into modern communism if it came about simulatenously witha worker's revolution in Europe. So you really don't have a leg to stand on in thsi respect. on teh subject of that chimera, 'totalitarianism' - God, what a dated, 1950's type word- your calim that communist societies are invariably totalitarian needs but one counter-example to refute it, sincve it's a categorical statement. To my knowledge, I've supplied many. Chile? Bengal? Kerala? Guyana? Nicaragua? Zimbabwe? South Africa? Bissau? Burkina Faso? Nepal? Hell, even Yugoslavia?
I don't understand to this day why you fail to acknowledge these. The existence of 11 examples of non-totalitarian vcommunsim (there are more) listed above mean that your eqaution of communism and totalitarianism is not true. It's as simple as that.
And by teh way, your connection of liberalism, communsim and socialism is getting old. Socialism and communinim can be very different; communism goes teh whole hog, socialism, may only go partway. Liberalism, the bastard cousin, may have more in common with capitalism and fascism than with socialism and communsim. After all, liberalism is predicated on the unrestrained freedom of the individual to do what he likes, no matter the cost. OIn capitalism, this takes the form of exploiting other humans; in facsism, of killing them.
