This system is not an offshoot of the present age, since it dominated the minds of ancient philosophers too. In about 400 B.C. Plato introduced to the world his idea of a city which he based upon the joint ownership of wealth and women. In the third century A.D. Mezdek also called for the sharing of wealth and women in Persia. There were differences in detail in each case, but these do not concern us here. Later, others did the same, important among them being the Garmathians who went further and preached that anyone who wanted to join their cult was to leave his wife free to be taken by anyone who wished. The appeal spread to the `north of Iran and south of the Caucasus where a group of people had revolted against the rulers, wearing red clothes as a symbol of challenge and resistance. In Russia, a movement similar to that of Mezdek appeared called the «Nihilist Movement». Its doctrine was that a new pattern of youth were to deviate from recognized customs and beliefs and mock all inherited traditions. They had to change even the smallest aspect of common life; boys had to kave their hair grow long while the girls had to cut theirs short.

This movement looked at ancient traditions, such as religion, family, private ownership, central administration and the like as obstacles which had to be completely removed. Early in the nineteenth century, a number of preachers of communism, such as Robert Owen and Saint Simon, began their campaigns, but they failed as others had done. In 1847, Karl Marx published a book in which he repeated the old theme but with some additions, claiming that his book had a sound and scientific basis.

It is easy for any scholar to realize that this idea which dominated the minds of many peoples at many times, and which reappeared continuously after disappearing, contained certain hidden secrets which were responsible for giving it a new life. I believe that are basic parallels between the reasons for its appearance before Christ and reappearance in the third century A.D. and in modern times. Mezdek did not preach this idea in the third century A.D. without having first observed the unequal distribution in matters of ownership among individuals. While there were people who had a great deal, others had nothing at all. Realizing this, he expounded his idea in the hope that money would be available to all.
He was followed by other thinkers whose efforts came to nothing until Karl Marx, in the middle of the nineteenth century, made the appeal which was to achieve such great success. There is no room for surprise at this, for it did not stem from the idea itself but from circumstances which were temporary and due to particular factors. The moment these factors disappeared, the success also vanished.

The new appeal followed capitalism's victory over feudalism. The weakened feudalism had been in no mood to plunge into a prolonged war with a new appeal and hastened to surrender. In its fight for supremacy, capitalism was generous in making new promises to workers and laborers. The moment it gained ground, it completely forgot all promises made and became more oppressive than its predecessor feudalism. In addition to this, communism contained a number of concepts which filled the vacuum created by the religious decline resulting from the emphasis upon secular matters during the last three centuries. People were deceived by the outward aspect of the new life and were attracted by the fresh fields of knowledge which were accessible to them. All these factors combined were responsible for the development of the communist system; taken together they helped in the advancement of communism. The divergence of opinion among different classes of people was the main factor in bringing them together, on one platform.

After the death of Marx, Lenin took the lead. Around him mustered some of Russia's youth who formed the nucleus of the Russian Communist Party in 1905. In 1917, exploiting the disturbances in the country, this party staged a revolution which swept the entire country against the Tsar, who was forced to abdicate in March, 1917. The date marked the termination of the Tsarist dictatorship. It was followed by another dictatorship which was wrongly described as the workers' dictatorship. In fact, it was a dictatorship of a select class which seized power on behalf of the workers. Moreover, the victims of the dictatorship were the same workers in whone name it pretended to speak. From this date, Marxism flourished and advanced as an international doctrine. With long strides, it proceeded to seize power and introduce communism in more and more areas. It occupied in the minds of its believers in the place of religion. They thought that communism could offer them a complete interpretation, bringing to life a limitless perception. They believed it would provide a new spirit for the fulfillment of man's goals and hopes. This was, in fact, what religion aimed at. It is not our concern here to explain why communists feel so disturbed when parallel is drawn between communism and religion. This feeling of theirs is an unquestioned fact. Religion demands belief in unseen matters which are beyond the human mind. This belief was to be the basis of each subsequent logical issue. Communism did the same thing; the only difference between the two being that while religion admitted this fact communism went on to pretend, obstinately and persistently, that its fundamental principles were supported by science and sure knowledge. It claimed that its ideals were based on agreed scientific theories. No doubt that was nothing but vaunting claim, but the fact remains that these principles are still viewed as controversial subjects by scholars and those concerned with research.