When people talk about communism, they’re typically referring to the Soviet Union or some country they believe operates on the Soviet model (whatever they think that is). The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), guided by the ideology Marxism-Leninism, did not consider its union to be communist, but rather a socialist state building towards communism, hence the name the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). In past writings and debates, I have referred to the Soviet Union as “state socialism,” and sometimes “siege socialism” (following Michael Parenti’s explanation of the deformations), but never “communism,” because, in fact, the Soviet Union was never communism. Communism is a stateless and classless social formation, and is the original human societal type, as I will explain in this essay.
In casual conversation, I find attempts to clarify the matter rather futile and always tedious, so I generally abandon any attempt to do so. Instead, I simply note that the Soviet Union did not represent Marx’s idea of communism, nor did it follow from the logic of his argument. I suspect that I haven’t changed any minds. I have acknowledged the notable achievements of the socialist project in my previous writings (see, e.g., The Soviet Union: State Capitalist or Siege Socialist?), and I stand by those, but I agree with those who criticize the Soviet Union for its totalitarianism and oppressive nature. Indeed, my stance on state socialist projects has hardened in recent years. In recent talks and discussions, I’ve expressed admiration for the positions taken by such figures like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, as well as appreciated the nuanced understanding demonstrated by Richard Nixon concerning Red China. Nixon’s efforts to disrupt the Sino-Soviet alliance through diplomatic engagement with China were properly motivated.
However, the opening of China, while initially a diplomatic success, was manipulated by corporate power to integrate the People’s Republic (PRC) into the capitalist framework—and adopt authoritarian features of that regime. This strategic move tapped into the vast Chinese population as a source of cheap labor, facilitating the offshoring of production (the spread of the export processing zone or EPZ) and leading to significant profits at the expense of labor unions, often financed with the pensions of Western workers. This development plays a central role in the transnational project, championed by successive administrations from both major political parties, including the Bushes, the Clintons, Obama, and now Biden. Thus, Nixon’s approach, perhaps unwittingly, more likely manipulated, contributed to strengthening the totalitarian regime in China at the expense of the Chinese people.
Although the Soviet Union is no longer in existence, its historical legacy serves as a poignant warning to the world about the perils of totalitarianism as popularly understood. The rise and fall of the Soviet Union, marked by oppressive regimes and human rights abuses, provide a cautionary tale for societies contemplating similar paths. George Orwell’s writings, particularly Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, play a significant role in keeping the lessons from Soviet history alive in popular memory. Orwell’s works vividly depict the dangers of unchecked power and the erosion of individual freedoms, serving as a timeless reminder of the potential consequences when ideologies veer towards authoritarianism. In recognizing the enduring relevance of the Soviet experience and Orwell’s literary contributions, we are reminded to remain vigilant against threats to democracy and human rights in the pursuit of societal progress.
Indeed, despite the ongoing existence of communist China, the Soviet Union persists as the paradigm of communism in the collective global consciousness, a phenomenon that obscures the threat China represents to humanity and its direct oppression of eighteen percent of the global population; the historical imprint of the Soviet Union continues to overshadow the narrative of contemporary China’s communist regime; the iconic imagery and narratives associated with the Soviet era, from the Cold War tensions to the Iron Curtain, dominate discussions on communism, eclipsing awareness of China’s current political landscape. The enduring perception of the Soviet Union as the archetypal communist state reflects the historical significance of its role in shaping the geopolitical landscape and reinforces the tendency to view contemporary communist entities through the lens of the Soviet experience.
This essay’s objectives are to illuminate and rectify the, perhaps inadvertent (although I don’t really think it is), overshadowing of China’s current political landscape by the historical specter of the Soviet Union and to redirect reader’s focus toward a nuanced examination of terminology, clarifying the intricate relationship between the capitalist West and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). By doing so, I mean to untangle the threads that have relegated China to the shadows of the Soviet narrative. Assuming we accept the CCP’s self-designation as valid, the integration of the capitalist West with communist China poses a contradiction: why would the democratic capitalist countries of the West work so closely with an authoritarian communist nation? The answer is that China is neither a communist nor a socialist social formation. It’s not communist for the reason the Soviet Union wasn’t communist: neither countries was or has ever been stateless or classless. It’s not socialist because socialism is a social formation in which those who produce the social surplus own and control the means of production, either through direct democratic procedures (preferred) or through a bureaucracy that administers the nation’s affairs for the good of the nation.
Given these definitions, the current state of China aligns more closely with the designation totalitarian state monopoly capitalism (TSMC). Today, China officially describes its system as “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,” the designation introduced by Deng Xiaoping, the late-twentieth century leader, to acknowledge the country’s departure from Marxist-Leninist principles. At an earlier state of its development, it would not have been inaccurate to categorize China as an instantiation of bureaucratic collectivism, a term developed by some Trotskyist thinkers to describe the socioeconomic system that emerged in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, i.e., a distinct social formation characterized by a dominant bureaucracy controlling the means of production (what I have commonly referred to as state socialism); however, China’s market reforms and promotion of private enterprise suggests state monopoly capitalism, with the CCP maintaining strict political control over the population (the totalitarian piece).
A problem arises when TSMC regimes are incorrectly designated as “communist states,” in that the misrepresentation obscures the reality that Western states in their late capitalist phase are themselves instantiations of state monopoly capitalism and are not generally thought of as communist or even socialist social formations, except of course by rank-and-file right-wing observers, as well as progressives attempting to cover up their corporate loyalties. Moreover, many Western states exhibit tendencies towards evolving into more authoritarian structures. These developments are ominous. Here’s why: The term TSMC was coined by Franz Neumann in Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism, 1933-1944, to describe fascist regimes, particularly the Nazi regime in Germany from 1933 to 1945. Neumann’s work highlights the corporatist nature of totalitarian capitalism. It’s crucial to clarify in debate and discussion that the economic and social policies implemented by the Nazi regime were not based on socialist principles advocating for worker ownership of the means of production. In practice, the Nazi regime pursued corporatist economic structure overlayed with authoritarian politics. Private property continued to exist, with the state exercising substantial control over the economy through central planning in collaboration with large corporations and financial institutions.
Corporatist political arrangements have become inherent in the organization of Western states. Some may object that, while corporatism is obvious in European countries, it is not so in the United States; however this objection ignores the role of administrative state in reproducing the corporate structure and the entrenched power of public employees unions, which protect a permanent political elite guided by progressive values and technocratic norms. Thus the mislabeling of social formations creates confusion in political discourse, as seen in the aforementioned tendency of conservatives to categorize progressive Democratic policies as “communist” or “socialist” when, in fact, they are are variations on the corporatist model and function to reproduce corporate power. To advance the populist-nationalist project, especially in raising consciousness about the problem of corporate personhood for those on the political right who are rightly suspicious and critical of concentration of power, in other words, in uniting individuals across the political spectrum, it is imperative to employ a common language with valid terms and draw well-founded conclusions.
Given the goal of this essay to provide conceptual clarity, I want to elaborate my previous points concerning the character of communism. When Karl Marx discusses communism, he refers to something distinct from the really-existing socialism of the Soviet Union (I do not deny that the Soviet Union at points represented some form of socialism, just that it wasn’t communist). Marx is referring to a theoretical construct, a future state of existence or possibility. The concrete instantiation of communism from which Marx abstracts the future state (the abstraction is never elaborated but described in terms of justice principles) is a past state of human existence, what Marx terms “primitive communism.” The American sociologist, Gerhard Lenski, following the nomenclature of anthropology, called this “gatherer-hunter” (actually “hunter-gatherer,” but this gives hunting too big a role in food production) in his work Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification. Lenski’s depoliticized categories are the more commonly used. I will use both terms interchangeably.
Primitive communism, or gatherer-hunter, is a classless and stateless social formation. The existence of primitive communist societies substantially confirms John Locke’s speculations concerning the state of nature, i.e., the original human society, presented in his Two Treatises of Government. Locke supposes a “state of equality” in the beginning, “wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection.” On the matter the natural right to the fruits of one’s labor, Locke asks his audience to “consider natural reason, which tells us, that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence.” “But this being supposed,” he observes, “it seems to some a very great difficulty, how any one should ever come to have a property in any thing.” It is here that he sets out his labor theory of value and insists that it could not have been God’s desire to leave the world undeveloped by the creative force of human agency. Let’s explore Locke’s point by briefly reviewing the cultural and social evolution of man.
Due to the low level of development in the technological means, there is no social surplus in gatherer-hunter arrangements. Primitive communism is a subsistence-level society where people work to fulfill their needs, their work distributed based on individual ability, with the results of that work distributed to tribal members as they have need. The tribe works together to secure a life-way and protect its members from the elements, including other tribes. There is a natural sexual division of labor rooted in the differences between men and women, but primitive communism was marked by democratic-egalitarian social arrangements, arrangements which, according to Frederich Engels, power-sharing between the genders and a concern for the family. It is from such arrangements that Marx developed the communist principle—“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”—that should mark the ethic of future communist society.
Initially, humans didn’t have much work to do because they were few in numbers and nature provided for them, thus the pace of technological development was in the beginning slow. We can identify a formula here for explaining the variability in the development and elaboration of the forces of production, i.e., organization and technology: the extent of technological development depends upon the nature of the environment conditions; the greater the technical problems to be solved, the more robust the technological development. As humans migrated from South and Central Africa to Northern Africa and then out into Eurasia, the technological means developed more rapidly, explaining why large-scale agrarian society and civilization appear first in those areas referred to as the Fertile Crescent (Nile River Valley, up through and across the Levant to Mesopotamia, then down into the Indus River Valley). The appearance of social class in history signifies a level of technological sophistication where society has the capacity to produce a social surplus, allowing some to live without working, sustained by value produced by others.
To maintain the unequal arrangement that result from this dynamic, the state, law, patriarchy, and religion come into existence. These form the superstructure upon which arises mass consciousness and ideational culture which function to reproduce normative structures surrounding the new property arrangements; successive generations are born and socialized into the worldview provided by the ideological apparatus and develop a collective consciousness—crucially, a false consciousness—that reproduces the legitimacy of class relations over time and space. As German sociologist Max Weber observed, this is how power becomes authority, namely through legitimization of domination of the whole of the population by a groups within it. Marx characterizes this situation as alienation, i.e., the estrangement of humans from their fellow humans, from their productive capacity, and from their role in world-building. Marx contends that alienation, rooted in exploitation and inequality, along with the distortions in consciousness it produces, is unjust. This is why he becomes a communist.
Modern communism, as envisioned by Marx, anticipates a future state where technological advancement allows everyone to live without working or with only minimal work required. In his day, and in our day, also, this condition doesn’t yet exist, but clearly the trend is in the direction of eliminating necessary labor in production—and the gap between work and its disappearance is disastrous for humanity. Under capitalism, technological development is in fact driven by the imperative to reduce the variable labor component in production, thus raising the organic composition of capital, which in turn displaces labor. There is not getting around this; for capitalism that is not growing is dying, and things don’t act right when they’re dying. History abounds with concrete instantiation of this, the madness of National Socialism being one of them. But the madness is becoming all to normal now.
Marx theorizes that a socialist revolution could accelerate development towards these ends with the goal of liberating people from necessary labor, thus freeing them to engage in creative endeavors of their own choosing. One might suppose that humanity can allow the process to unfold under capitalist relations, and Marx and Engels were impressed by capitalism’s ability to drive social and technological development (late in his life, Christopher Hitchens argues that capitalism had yet more work to do in denying not his Marxism but his socialist credentials); however waiting for technological possibility to establish the basis for a different society poses challenges for the reasons noted above, which I elaborate here. Today, corporation are aggressively replacing human labor with automated systems and AI. The drive to eliminate human labor from production processes represents a contradiction in the system, since capitalism relies on the circuit of workers earning wages, taking them to the market, realizing surplus value as profit. As technology advances, capitalism faces a realization crisis, requiring the state to fix the broken circuit (the money presses are humming). The result is capitalist crisis and ever greater corporate state control.
Central to corporate state control is the social logic known as neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is an economic and political ideology that announced itself in the mid-twentieth century, ostensibly advocating for free-market principles and emphasizing minimal government intervention in the economy; however, in practice, it is the transfer of functions and powers native to governments to corporations, institutions without democratic redress. Neoliberalism rationalizes this move by promoting the idea that markets are efficient allocators of resources, which promises increased economic efficiency. Global economic integration and free trade are encouraged, involving the removal of barriers to international trade. In other words, neoliberalism is the handmaiden to the transnationalization of the corporate state. Neoliberals advocate for privatization of public assets and services, including sectors such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure. It places a strong rhetorical emphasis on individual responsibility and self-reliance, arguing that individuals should take charge of their economic well-being through market participation and competition, even while it makes it more difficult for individuals to do any of this.
David Harvey’s critique of neoliberalism, presented in his A Brief History of Neoliberalism, in part involves an analysis of the geographical and spatial consequences of neoliberal policies. He shows how these policies reshape urban landscapes, exacerbating social and economic inequalities. He argues that the implementation of neoliberal principles often results in distinct spatial arrangements that favor certain groups over others. Rather than being a neutral economic framework, Harvey contends that neoliberalism inherently serves the interests of the capitalist class, concentrating wealth among a select few and reinforcing existing power dynamics. The rise of financialization emerges as a crucial element in Harvey’s analysis, highlighting the growing influence of financial markets and the prioritization of financial interests over productive economic activities. The financialization trend is one more indication of the late capitalism Freedom and Reason is devoted to analyzing.
Helping us understand the governance structure that emerges from this situation, Sheldon Wolin’s Democracy Inc.: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism offers a critical examination of contemporary political and economic structures, emphasizing the impact of neoliberalism on democratic governance. One of the central concerns in Wolin’s critique is the transformation of democracy into what he terms “inverted totalitarianism.” He argues that, under the influence of neoliberalism, traditional democratic ideals are subverted, leading to a system where corporate and economic interests wield significant influence over political institutions. Wolin contends that, to be sure, the formal trappings of democracy remain, but real political power is concentrated in the hands of a managerial elite and powerful corporate entities.
The intertwining of corporate and political power, according to Wolin, poses a threat to the core principles of democratic governance. The political strategy of “managed democracy,” plays a major role in this dynamic marked by the management and manipulation of the electoral process by powerful elites. He discusses how the formalities of elections may persist, but the substance of democracy is hollowed out as economic elites exercise disproportionate influence over political outcomes. Wolin’s analysis delves into the erosion of civic engagement and the decline of active citizen participation. Neoliberalism, he argues, contributes to a form of political apathy and disengagement as citizens feel increasingly marginalized in a system dominated by corporate and economic interests.
There is a story to tell about political developments in late capitalism that I cannot pursue here, but promise to in the near future. I will leave readers with the observation of Jürgen Habermas, a German sociologist and philosopher, who in his 1973 book Legitimation Crisis, explores the challenges faced by modern states in terms of maintaining legitimacy and securing the consent of their citizens amid these developments. The legitimation crisis arises when the traditional institutions and mechanisms that have historically provided legitimacy to a political system come under strain and begin to falter. Habermas argues that modern societies rely on three primary systems of legitimation: the economic system (market and economic institutions), the political system (government and legal institutions), and the sociocultural system (norms, values, and cultural institutions). When these systems experience dysfunction, such as corruption in politics, cultural alienation, and economic inequality, a legitimation crisis may result. Citizens begin to question the authority and legitimacy of the existing institutions, leading to a loss of trust in the system. This crisis can manifest as political protests, social unrest, or a general decline in confidence in the established order.
I hardly need to announce in this essay that we are presently in a legitimation crisis. It remains to be seen if the power elite can reestablish control as they did in the 1970s (which is the political story I promised a moment ago). Habermas suggests that, during a legitimation crisis, societies face the challenge of restructuring the three systems to regain legitimacy and restore the social contract between citizens and institutions. He emphasizes the need for open communication, democratic deliberation, and the active participation of citizens in addressing the underlying issues causing the crisis. Of course, this is not how the previous crisis was resolved. And given that the goal of transnationalism and the development of a world corporate state rooted in neofeudalism is to hinder the transition to a technologically-advanced communist society, where everyone benefits from machines working for us. The current trajectory points towards managing useless eaters on vast custodial estates resembling serfdom rather than emancipation.
freedom and reason 