Misconceptions about Communism

Published in

International Worker’s Press

7 min readSep 6, 2017

What comes into your head when you hear the word communism? Is it individuals such as Lenin, Stalin, or Marx? Countries such as Cuba, the USSR, or China? Our contemporary discussion is rife with contrary definitions and examples of communism, many of which are a historical distortions of reality. In this piece, I will dispel many of the commonplace myths about communism, and in their place move towards a more succinct and accurate definition of the socioeconomic model that is communism.

First, we should clarify the meaning of communism, and avoid the academic laziness of parroting innacurate red scare era definitions. Communism is a stateless, moneyless, classless society. [1] This description is generally used by classical Marxists, who follow Marx’s work and not later distortions of it. Karl Marx was born in Germany in 1818, and is generally considered to be the foundational thinker responsible for devising and formulating communism. He wrote extensive criticisms of capitalism, culminating in his 4 volume flagship work Capital (The fourth volume of which was only partly finished at the time of Marx’s death and was revised and completed by Engels). [2] His critique of capitalism is the foundation of scientific socialism, and has been built on extensively by others to form new ideologies. Marx’s work can be categorised as classical Marxism.

Marx defines socialism as a system in which the workers take control of the state in a revolution and form a dictatorship of the proletariat [3], where the workers control their workplaces, the means of production, so to no longer be exploited by the bourgeoisie. He called it a dictatorship because he considered the state to be necessarily dictatorial, and considered the state in capitalism to be a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie; although his more detailed views on the state are largely lost or unwritten (because Marx died before he had written all that he planned to). However, for it to really be socialism, the state had to work in the interests of the workers, and let them control their own workplaces. He then proposed that the state would “wither away” to form communism (Engels coined the phrase). [4] [5] This one phrase is largely unexplained by Marx himself, and there is heated debate amongst leftist thinkers as to how this would take place. But the definitions are clear: socialism is when the workers have control of the government and make it work in their interests, take ownership of their workplaces from the bosses; communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society without government, which some may call a utopia. Marxist, authoritarian, and statist socialists believe that socialism is the route to communism. [6]

Many anarchists (myself included), however, believe that communism should be achieved directly by a revolution, and that the stage of socialism should be skipped. We hold this position because authority corrupts its holder and debases its victim [7], and that a state will never give up power and will never wither away voluntarily. Authority and thus the state must always be destroyed by force; it will never dissappear on its own. Communism is anarchistic and anarchism is communistic. In fact, they are synonyms. Both represent a society based on mutual aid, love, individual autonomy, collective cooperation, fairness, equity, freedom, and harmony within humanity and with nature. That is communism. That is anarchism.

Given our now clarified and improved definitions of socialism and communism, we see relatively clearly that many depictions and definitions of of communism are incorrect. Instead of clinging to old and inadequate examples, I shall explain a few of the most outstanding examples of socialist societies that have existed thus far. First let me again assert that Communism as a socioeconomic sysem has not yet been achived, as nowhere where socialism exists have the actual conditions of Communism come into being. However, while communism has never been achieved, this is no charge to be used with any validity against it. Rather, in spite of the inability of a revolution to fully bring into existence communism, we must look to the historical glimpses of communism as example and inspiration. In the Spanish Civil War, from 1936–9, the CNT FAI, an anarcho-syndicalist federation (a form of anarchism distinct from anarcho-communism, but not without major similarities), seized land in Catalonia and created a truly liberatory society, defined by its radical expansion of production,standard of living and individual liberty. As I have previously claimed, anarchism/communism has never been fullyachieved , but in Catalonia we saw more closely than before what the specter of communism may appear like when it is finally manifest. [8] Another example of close anarchism is the Free Territory of Ukraine, which existed from 1918–21, in the wake of the 1917 Russian Revolution. It was situated in south eastern Ukraine, and was headed by Nester Makhno and his Black Army. The style of his leadership was not purely anarchist, and neither was the society created, although it was deeply libertarian and left wing. The Free Territory was eventually overun and annexed by the Red Army, an early example of the history of betrayal of working class movements by the Bolsheviks that would mar the revolutionary validity of the Bolsheviks and Marxist-Leninism.

In discussing the most heinous misconceptions about communism it seems only fitting to begin by discussing the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), or Soviet Union. Communism must be decentralised, and the USSR was highly centralised. The USSR failed to abolish classes, as there were still peasants and other workers, and the privileged, bureaucratic government class. The government exploited the workers instead of the bosses. The USSR also still had money, as well as vast amounts of inequality and authority. The huge government was very authoritarian and oppressive, which is the complete opposite to communism. Government propaganda said that the USSR was communist, but this was a blatant lie to win over the workers. Many argue that the USSR was not even socialist, but merely sate capitalist. This is because there was a neo-bourgeoisie, the government or “vanguard” who exploited the workers for their own profit. It simply replaced private capitalists and businesses with beuraucratic state apparatus. In short, the workers did not control the means of production (factories, equipment, and natural resources), the state did. [11] [12]

The ideology of the USSR was Marxist-Leninism, and could possibly have been Leninism or Stalinism at various points, but they are almost indistinguishably similar, and none of them are communist. This developed out of Leninism, a theory which Vladimir Lenin had created. It claimed to be communist, yet combined the two most anti-communist concepts in existence: the state, and capitalism. [13] Marxist-Leninism has nothing to do with Marx or Marxism, and only pretends that it does so to present itself as a legitimate ideology. Marxist-Leninism is, in fact, state capitalism. It is not socialism. It is not communism. All criticisms of the USSR and countries following the same or similar an ideology are criticisms of government and of capitalism. [14]

The second vital explanation that I must give is on China. China’s revolution, completed in 1949, was Maoist. Maoism is an ultra authoritarian ideology, which wants hugely oppressive government and claims to be communist, yet is not. Maoism is more akin to socialism than Marxist-Leninism is, but in its iterations has still ended in a state capitalist system. The state still effectively controls the means of production in Maoism, and the hugely oppressive neo-bourgeoisie governmental class exploits the workers. There are still large amounts of authority, social class, and money within this ideology. In fact, the state killed millions of workers under Maoism. [15] Maoism is state capitalism, not communism or socialism. [16] China today has a mixed economy, like all countries; some industry is privately owned, by the bourgeoisie and their businesses, and some is owned by the state, and its neo-bourgeoisie class. Private and state exploitation go hand-in-hand. China does have a larger proportion of state owned/controlled industry than most countries, but does still have much private ownership, and is fully integrated into modern day capitalism. [17]

North Korea is in a similar situation to China. It is not and never was communist or socialist, and is under authoritarian state capitalist rule. Venezuela is not socialist either. It has a mixed economy, but with a higher proportion of state owned industry and services than most countries. There is much private ownership, money, class, and authority, and the workers do not control the means of production. It meets none of the criteria of socialism, let alone communism. Cuba, also, was under state capitalism, although less authoritarian than the USSR or Maoist China, it was still fairly authoritarian. [18] It is now moving towards a more mixed economy, combining state capitalism with private capitalism.

I hope that I have given you an understanding of what socialism and communism really are, and shown that most charges brought against them are false.

Sources:

[1] http://www.moneylesssociety.com/home/category/communism/

[2] Capital Volume 1, Karl Marx, introduction by Ernest Mandel, Penguin Classics 1976

[3] https://www.marxists.org/subject/marxmyths/hal-draper/article2.htm

[4] https://theredphoenixapl.org/2010/03/09/the-withering-away-of-the-state/

[5] http://www.socialiststudies.org.uk/polemic%20withering.shtml

[6] http://www.workerspower.co.uk/2011/04/the-transition-to-communism/

[7] What is Communist Anarchism? Alexander Berkman, 1929

[8] https://www.britannica.com/event/Spanish-Civil-War

[9] http://jdennehy.com/the-forgotten-story-of-the-free-territory/

[10] http://syriancivilwarmap.com/