Critiques of past and present socialism
If you want my perspective on what socialism is, you can read my paper here. It may even give you an idea of what this paper will be, but it isn’t necessary.
For socialists and leftists in general, there are a lot of things to celebrate in the past. We managed to get the social democracies we have today and improve material conditions for people living under the mundane reality that is capitalism. In fact, empirical facts support that it was the emergence of trade unions and left-wing political parties that made life better under capitalism. I cite this paper all the time which you can read [2]. Even in some of the examples of socialism happening now and, in the past, we have managed to make life better in many ways for people.
If all those cases are what they are, then why have many of them disappeared? Why did they either disappear, become authoritarian, or even start to erode and be absorbed back into capitalism, like what’s happened with the New Deal and social democracy today? That is the purpose of this paper. I will go over and cite each example.
Number one: The lack of a self-critical tradition.
This is the most important critique of past socialism. Throughout the years, if you look through a lot of socialist theory (not just anti-capitalist theory), there isn’t just a lack of imagination of a new future, there is a lack of self-critique within the left. Many leftists will dismiss valid critiques of past socialisms because of that person maybe being a CIA mole even though they have no evidence or any indicator as to why. There are a lot of valid critiques of Stalin and the Soviet Union and Castro and Cuba. I was kicked out of the biggest socialism subreddit because I had the audacity to say hey, maybe we shouldn’t uphold Castro because he was an authoritarian who suppressed valid descent. Yes, I know they have “channels” and “laws” which supposedly protect those speeches if they don’t “criticize the revolution” but notice how vague that really is.
Part of self-critique is that we look at criticisms and apply them to ourselves. Is there something behind what the critic is saying that might improve my analysis? Marxist-Leninism for example (which I will reference a lot of in this critical paper) is so authoritarian and ideological (another part of this paper) that any sort of critique is pretty much blown away. Any ideology that doesn’t allow for criticism is never going to work. The point of socialism is to do better than class and part of doing so is by being self-critical. Speaking of which.
Capitalism was able to overcome feudalism because it was self-critical and learned from past societies. Yes, there were many capitalist experiments and societies even during feudalism. It is also how Adam Smith was able to The Wealth of Nations. They were also learning how to combat feudalism and how past societies could have fought against it better. Because of this, it has become a justification for authoritarianism. Which leads me to my next point.
Number two: Overuse of the state.
What do I mean by statism? I don’t necessarily mean just universal healthcare and other social democratic measures which I will talk about in a second. What I mean is in the top-down, bureaucratic, independent force that stands above us, making decisions on its own with no accountability (representative democracy is often no better in many ways). Because of socialism’s solution of the state as the driver of the revolution. Let’s go over what I mean.
During the 20th century, it was very common for socialists to conclude that the capture of the state will be what drove the revolution. The idea is that the state will not only be made democratic, but it will eventually whither away. This is particularly the case with Marxist-Leninism. Social Democrats are very similar, but we’ll talk about them in a second. Marxist-Leninism is a revolutionary ideology which believes that all enterprises should be centralized around the state in the form of what’s called “central planning”. Basically, the state makes all the decisions in the economy and those people who do so are elected, this is known as “Democratic Centralism”. One party dictatorship is established as a vanguard which protects the revolution, and all candidates are picked by the party. This current is often referred to as “communism”. [3]
What happened instead was the opposite. The state hardened for many reasons.
A) They were surrounded by enemies who desperately wanted to see them fail. Communism directly challenged capitalism in that it wanted to replace said system. This, as you can probably imagine, would cause the state to want to harden to protect. But what is even worse is that when you centralize power so heavily to this state, it is less and less accountable to the people. And no, it was not a legitimate democracy. Democracy doesn’t simply mean voting. It’s about having free expression which there was none of (talk to anyone who lived in the communist bloc) and independent media so people can make informed decisions.
B) Another class. Marxist-Leninism follows two parts of the socialist triangle. The distributionism part and the ownership part. Basically, there was in many respects positive freedom which means access to goods and ability to act (this is nuanced of course). Also, there was social ownership. But it didn’t follow the organization part which means classless, democratic decision making. They basically modelled themselves off a capitalist enterprise in every way, even implementing Taylorism which means you micromanage workers to achieve maximum productivity. Notice the similarities between this and capitalism, which literally does the same thing. The decisions are all made in Moscow while the workers follow them. How is this doing better than capitalism? All the candidates were hand-picked by the Gosplan and often, it was candidates who were the most loyal rather than competent.
C) Why give up power? If you are given power, why leave? Why abandon it? You know it was common for the central planners to build themselves waterparks while the rest of the population froze to death. Corruption was, and still is, in the few Marxist-Leninist societies which exist today, many of which abandoned the planning economies, a major problem. One of the reasons why the Soviet Union collapsed was because one) the solutions would have required them to give up power which they wouldn’t do. They found an excuse in the Cuban missile crisis to get rid of Khrushchev and get rid of moderate reforms which potentially threatened the bureaucrat class’s gravy train. Two) they sold out their “constituents” because they realized that they could make more money if they switched to capitalism, so they collapsed the communist bloc on purpose. If you look at those governments of ex-Soviet countries, they are literally all the same people and their descendants.
For all these reasons, their version of socialism is often considered “not real socialism” because it really doesn’t do better than capitalism. It might as well be called “state capitalism” (actually Lenin did call it that). It doesn’t replace the class model at all really, which is the whole point of socialism. Yeah, there were those who liked it and many of those people, who still exist today, and we on the left tend to call them “tankies”, tend to be cultists. To add a cherry on top, North Korea is classified as a one-family, hereditary totalitarian dictatorship rather than Marxist-Leninist.
There is a new strain of democratic socialism called “Half-Earth Socialism” which advocates for a centrally planned economy but with democratic socialism instead of Marxist-Leninism. There are some differences between the two types of political economy, but the logic is relatively similar in that Half-Earth gives a lot more power to the bottom, but the central planners still decide which plans are the best. There are a lot of reasons not to like this idea. For one thing, this whole idea preserves the class structure in many ways. There is still someone on top which still makes the final decisions in the enterprise and in this instance, it would be the central planners. It would be very easy for the central planners to phase out the plans that they like and the plans they don’t but also convince the “worker representative councils” (this language rubs me the wrong way given the kind of political economy they advocate) to go with plans that may be against their best interests. Capitalists do the same thing, the bureaucrat class in the communist bloc did the same, I see no reason why the central planners may do the same. While I agree with Half-earth socialism that the economic calculation problem isn’t really a problem anymore, the issues go beyond simple statistical complexity. If the workers don’t like a certain plan, they will go on strike, which can halt the economy as strikes are common in all types of class societies.
Social Democracy also uses the state to advance the interests of the proletariat. Social democracy today is an alliance between liberal socialism and social liberals. Social Democracy used to be a Marxian socialist ideology but with a gradual reformist idea rather than violent revolutionary until they gave up on it in the 50s, mostly because socialism was associated with the Soviet Union.
The idea behind this is specific brand of socialism is basically capitalism but with a human face. Capital ownership, private ownership and the ability sell your labor is maintained, but the state comes in and redistributes goods and services to the people. Stuff like universal healthcare, free college, public projects, welfare, unemployment benefits, collective bargaining, pensions, and affordable housing are all parts of the social democratic model. Think of the New Deal and social democracies in Europe today. The idea is to make capitalism much smoother on the edges. Social Democracy is seeing a surge in ideology in America, but the point here is criticism.
Yes, they were able to provide a much better life for everyone living in those social democracies. A high school friend of mine moved to Norway and said that it was the best decision of her life because she’s able to exercise her ability to achieve her greatest dreams due to those programs. It’s not just that Norway has access to that oil, they made it under social ownership and spread the benefits out equally.
So here are the criticisms:
A) They are not very stable. If you pay attention to the politics of Europe, they are going to the right. They’re societies are even more racist than America, I think it’s because they don’t have a tradition of immigration. They’re starting to get systemically racist. They are being use as an excuse to expand the police state and erode the social safety nets the working class fought and often died for. Capital strikes are starting to happen in Europe as well. Even here in America, the New Deal has been stripped away because the capitalist class deceived the working class into voting against their interests. It is much easier to distract people from class consciousness than you think it is. Basically, this system depends on if capital cooperates. If you investigate why those social democracies were created in the first place, it was because leftists were a threat and the capitalist class needed to cooperate. Now they don’t have too anymore. So, they are a threat to the well-being of the people.
B) How do those countries get the resources? That part they don’t tell you. They do so by imperializing other countries. This video will explain what I mean because it’s a vast subject. While I disagree with Hakim’s Marxist-Leninist politics, I still think he does some good videos.
https://youtu.be/4lDZaKjfs4E?si=g1UDp0H9cY-KtZMh [4]
Look, the social democracies of Europe certainly did a lot of good things for the people who live there. It is common for Americans to romanticize Europeans because of those spoils, and it is common for European Social Democrats to use America as a boogeyman against privatization of healthcare. But unless we look past a lot of the niceties, we are just going to lose social democracy again like we lost the New Deal.
To give a more concrete conclusion, using the state can be a good way of providing resources and making the means of production under social ownership, but they don’t really go beyond capitalism, or even balance out the gains of society very stably. Venezuela would go on to make similar mistakes as this criticism which I will talk about in a minute.
Number three: Ideology over practicality.
Something I have noticed among many socialists is their tendency to abandon practicality and do whatever they can to achieve utopia (often being communism) and ignoring the potential situations which may uncover. In essence, they have abandoned short-term and mid-term goals over long-term ideas. While I am a communist myself, I do notice that some communists will promise the moon and stars, crap out all these pie-in-the-sky, often populistic ideas that are great idealism in the long term, but have little concept of what to do in the short term. Even mentioning the idea of market socialism as a short-term idea can make some revolutionaries squirm.
According to Greek mythology poet Hesiod, the titan-God known as Prometheus stole the heavenly fire for humanity, enabling the progress of civilization, for which he was punished by being chained to a mountain and having his liver eaten by an eagle every day until eventually being freed by the hero Heracles. This idea is called the theft of fire. There are many different variations of this story such as the Polynesian or Ojibwa versions of it. A lot of them boil down to “Someone stole fire from some other being and gave it to others so that they could.” It is often a noble story. It emphasizes that with great power comes great responsibility. It also has been used to justify a drastic increase in the productive prowess and commodity flow of the world by some leftists. Often this is called “accelerationism.”
The big idea is that if we accelerate capitalism to a breaking point, it will lead to a revolution and perhaps a wielding of its productive prowess for productive. Where I agree with Half-Earth Socialism is how big of an economy is too big? We can only take so much of the earth that maybe we are creating an unsustainable ecological economy when it comes to the environment. In the Soviet Union for example, they wanted to have more clothes for everyone, so they needed cotton. Where did they get the cotton? From cotton plantations in Eastern Kazakhstan. What happened was they built a bunch of canals to divert water flow from the Aral Sea into those plantations and that lake began to sink. It is now a tenth of what it was.
The ecological and economic consequences for the locals were devastating. Many local fisheries lost their jobs and toxins began to enter the food chain. The Aral Sea was a major source of fish for Russia but that’s not the case anymore. All because of the promise of extreme riches. Which they barely have any of anymore.
Socialists have been irresponsible with the earth and have a bad record on the environment. Green socialism as an ideology is spreading and people are more aware than ever of the economy’s impact on the environment. But what does this have to do with the topic here?
Ideologues will often ignore the laws of physics to achieve whatever dreams they wish, only to lose everything in sight. The promise of a wonderland becomes the priority rather than the moment. I am for clothing and food for everyone, don’t get me wrong. We must however analyze what the earth can give and take. Relationships are about give and take; we must live in symbiotic relationship with the earth. I do believe technology can save us, but it requires us to acknowledge that domination of nature transcends from domination of man over man.
What we should do is try to set up what are called short-term goals, mid-term goals, and long-term goals. I am one of those greens who says that we need to defeat fascism and the expansion of gas and coal in the short term as well as keeping nuclear energy alive and using Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Sequestration (BECCS) as temporary until we can straighten out solar and wind energy. In the mid term we can do De-Growth and expand public services in the mid-term. In the long term, luxury automated communism.
Number Four: Lack of alternative institutions
A new emerging theme for socialism of the 21st century is the need for alternative institutions to capitalism. What do I mean by this? I mean that there will be more democratic workplaces as a way of offering another way out of capitalism. It will do two things: 1) it will help educate workers on workplace democracy and socialism and 2) they can be blueprints for the inevitable revolution so the community can model themselves off said enterprises.
Socialism of the 20th century often had little clue of where it was going or what it was doing because there was almost no alternative to what life can be. And by this, I mean that there was no conscious movement before on the alternatives. This has been a reason why so many socialist projects went authoritarian because the state can often offer full power solutions. But as I said earlier, why leave power? There is no guarantee they will leave. And if socialism is done in that certain way, then it may even become permanent rather than temporary. What is worse is that if a tradition of democracy and libertarianism isn’t established beforehand, then authoritarianism is likely to win. Russia for example, was barely out of feudalism when the Bolsheviks overthrew the czar and there was little tradition of what Russian democracy can look like. Stalin was more influenced by Russian Patrimonialism (which is basically the idea that power flows from the ruler) than by Marx. In China, Mao Zedong was more influenced by brutality of the Chinese emperors and the old idea that “might makes right.” In Latin America, there is a very old tradition of calling on the military to come in and be the government, as the military was often more trusted than the government. In essence, caudillos (Spanish for strong hand) were very common in history and is sometimes talked as though they were benevolent. Venezuela was in many ways, a repeat of both this criticism and number 2.
What I am trying to say here is that you need to build alternative institutions so that you can build up a tradition of democracy beforehand. If there was no tradition of private property or economy based on exchange beforehand, it is likely that the American or English revolutions likely wouldn’t have happened. I say this last part because some socialists are saying we should look at how the capitalists overcame feudalism; this is part of how they did so. Worker Cooperatives are the best bridge towards a better socialist future, while market socialist, they still form a great alternative and tradition builder.
Number five: not willing to cooperate with other causes.
In this I am going to criticize libertarian socialism (which I am part of) as well as the class narrative.
One of the reasons why libertarian socialists have been the biggest under achievers of all anti-capitalist variants is because they have not been willing to cooperate with other anti-capitalist causes. They ignored the importance of political and economic reform which could potentially be great first steps towards a libertarian socialist world. Mikhail Bakunin argued that we shouldn’t participate in the voting process or electoralism because it is statism. While I agree with not partaking in electoralism as the party would eventually get corrupted, not voting or even partaking in reformist causes never works and Bakunin was not alive to see the horrifying terror of fascism and Trumpism. The “not-voting” strategy never works and always blows up in our faces. We need to participate with democratic socialists in terms of reformism. What do I mean? Democratic socialists can be the reformist wing, while libertarian socialists be the revolutionary wing. Also, we build those alternative institutions even if they aren’t perfect. That is part of the reason why I’m a communalist and not an anarchist, I think the city is the best place to start building these alternatives. Like it or not, other tendencies will always exist.
An extension of this is what I call the class narrative. A common criticism of socialists toward other social justice causes like feminism or racial equality is the idea that if class goes away, so then will others do as well. This is often based on the over-economistic worldview of Marxism which many socialists have treated more as a religion than a theory of societal analysis. Relations for example between socialists and feminists have often been a little tense because the former will say that liberals aren’t doing enough for freeing women (even if its short-term goals) while the latter will accuse socialists of not really being for women. A similar dispute between leftists and black liberation leaders will sometimes happen. The main criticism I want to get across here is socialism isn’t just about class liberation, it’s about all liberation and justice for all people. Classless doesn’t imply hierarchy-less, which should be our primary target (this includes class). And a fight for black or feminist liberation, is a fight towards social equality.
There are many other critiques of past socialism, but I wanted to touch on the most important parts in my opinion. I am interested in hearing other critiques of past socialisms. But I may say that they are irrelevant if I deem it so.
Thank you for reading! If you enjoyed reading then don’t forget to clap, follow, and share so that others may read my message. My email is derekhudley@gmail.com if you wish to contact me.
Sources
[1] Working and Living Conditions — The Industrial Revolution (weebly.com)
[3] “What is socialism”. Hudley, Derek
