Editing Communist party (section)

== Views ==
Although the historical importance of communist parties is widely accepted, their activities and functions have been interpreted in different ways. One approach, sometimes known as the [[totalitarian]] school of communist studies, has implicitly treated all communist parties as the same types of organizations. Scholars such as [[Zbigniew Brzezinski]] and [[Francois Furet]] have relied upon conceptions of the party emphasizing [[Centralized government|centralized]] control, a top-down hierarchical structure, [[ideology|ideological rigidity]], and strict [[party discipline]].<ref>See Carl Joachim Friedrich and Zbigniew K. Brzezinski, ''Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy'' (Cambridge, MA: [[Harvard University Press]], 1965); François Furet, et.al., ''The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century'' (Chicago: [[University of Chicago Press]], 1999); Martin Malia, ''The Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia, 1917–1991'' (New York: Free Press, 1995).</ref> In contrast, other studies have emphasized the differences among communist parties. Multi-party studies, such as those by [[Robert C. Tucker]] and A. James McAdams, have emphasized the differences in both these parties' organizational structure and their use of Marxist and Leninist ideas to justify their policies.<ref>Franz Borkenau, ''World Communism'' (Ann Arbor, MI: [[University of Michigan Press]], 1962); Robert C. Tucker, ''The Marxian Revolutionary Idea'' (New York: [[W. W. Norton & Company]]), 1969; McAdams, ''Vanguard of the Revolution'';</ref>

Another important question is why communist parties were able to rule for as long as they did. Some scholars have depicted these parties as fatally flawed from their inception and argue they only remained in power because their leaders were willing to use their monopoly of power and the [[state monopoly]] to crush all forms of [[opposition (politics)|opposition]].<ref>Zbigniew Brzezinski, ''The Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century'' (New York: [[Charles Scribner's Sons]], 1989); Martin Malia, ''The Soviet Tragedy''; and Andrzej Walicki, ''Marxism and the Leap to the Kingdom of Freedom: The Rise and Fall of the Communist Utopia'' (Palo Alto, CA: [[Stanford University Press]], 1997).</ref> In contrast, other studies have emphasized these parties' ability to adapt their policies to changing times and circumstances.<ref>See George Breslauer, ''Five Images of the Soviet Future: A Critical Review and Synthesis'' (Berkeley, CA: Center for International Studies, 1978); Stephen F. Cohen, ''Rethinking the Soviet Experience'' (New York: [[Oxford University Press]], 1986; and Martin K. Dimitrov, ed., ''Why Communism Did Not Collapse: Understanding Authoritarian Regime Resilience in Asia and Europe'' (New York: [[Cambridge University Press]], 2013)</ref>