| Part of thePolitics series | ||||||||
| Basic forms ofgovernment | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| List of forms ·List of countries | ||||||||
Source of power | ||||||||
Power ideology
| ||||||||
 Politics portal | ||||||||
Asocialist state,socialist republic, orsocialist country, sometimes referred to as aworkers' state orworkers' republic, is asovereignstate constitutionally dedicated to the establishment ofsocialism. The termcommunist state is often used synonymously in theWest, specifically when referring toone-party socialist states governed byMarxist–Leninistcommunist parties, despite these countries being officially socialist states in the process of buildingsocialism and progressing toward a communist society. These countries never describe themselves ascommunist nor as having implemented acommunist society.[1][2][3][4] Additionally, a number of countries that aremulti-partycapitalist states makereferences to socialism in their constitutions, in most cases alluding to the building of a socialist society, naming socialism, claiming to be a socialist state, or including the termpeople's republic orsocialist republic in their country's full name, although this does not necessarily reflect the structure and development paths of these countries' political and economic systems. Currently, these countries includeAlgeria,[5]Bangladesh,[6]Guyana,[7]India,[8]Laos,Nepal,[9]Nicaragua,[10]Sri Lanka[11] andTanzania.[12]
The idea of a socialist state stems from the broader notion ofstate socialism, the political perspective that the working class needs to use state power and government policy to establish a socialised economic system. The term can vary in its use from meaning a political system to adopting terms of a welfare state. This may either mean a system where the means of production, distribution, and exchange are nationalised or under state ownership, or simply a system in which social values or workers' interests have economic priority.[13][14][15] However, the concept of a socialist state is mainly advocated by Marxist–Leninists and most socialist states have been established by political parties adhering to Marxism–Leninism or some national variation thereof such asMaoism,Stalinism,Titoism orHo Chi Minh Thought.[16] A state, whether socialist or not, is opposed the most by anarchists, who reject the idea that the state can be used to establish a socialist society due to itshierarchical and arguably coercive nature, considering a socialist state or state socialism as anoxymoron.[17] The concept of a socialist state is also considered unnecessary or counterproductive and rejected by someclassical,libertarian, andorthodox Marxists,libertarian socialists and other socialist political thinkers who view the modern state as a byproduct ofcapitalism, which would have no function in a socialist system.[18][19][20]
A socialist state is to be distinguished from a multi-partyliberal democracy governed by a self-describedsocialist party, where the state is not constitutionally bound to the construction of socialism. In such cases, thepolitical system andmachinery of government is not specifically structured to pursue the development of socialism. Socialist states in the Marxist–Leninist sense are sovereign states under the control of avanguard party which is organizing the country's economic, political, and social development toward the realization of socialism. Economically, this involves the development of astate capitalist economy with state-directedcapital accumulation with the long-term goal of building up the country'sproductive forces while simultaneously promotingworld communism.[21][22]
Academics, political commentators, and other scholars tend to distinguish betweenauthoritarian socialist and democratic socialist states, with the first representing theSoviet Bloc and the latter representingWestern Bloc countries which have been democratically governed by socialist parties such asBritain,France,Italy, and Western social democracies in general, among others, all of which operate within a capitalist mode of production.[23][24][25][26]
The first socialist state was theRussian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, established in 1917.[27] In 1922, it merged with theByelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, theTranscaucasian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic, and theUkrainian Soviet Socialist Republic into a single federal union called theUnion of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The Soviet Union proclaimed itself a socialist state and proclaimed its commitment to building asocialist economy in its1936 constitution and a subsequent1977 constitution. It was governed by theCommunist Party of the Soviet Union as a single-party state, ostensibly with ademocratic centralism organization, withMarxism–Leninism remaining itsofficial guiding ideology until thedissolution of the Soviet Union on 26 December 1991. The political systems of these Marxist–Leninist socialist states revolved around the central role of the party which holds ultimate authority. Internally, thecommunist party practiced a form of democracy calleddemocratic centralism.[28]
During the22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1961,Nikita Khrushchev announced the completion of socialist construction and declared the optimistic goal of achievingcommunism in twenty years.[29] TheEastern Bloc was a political and economic bloc ofSoviet-aligned socialist states in Eastern and Central Europe which adhered to Marxism–Leninism, Soviet-stylegovernance, andeconomic planning in the form of theadministrative-command system andcommand economy. China's socio-economic structure has been referred to as "nationalistic state capitalism" and the Eastern Bloc (Eastern Europe and theThird World) as "bureaucratic-authoritarian systems."[30][31]
ThePeople's Republic of China was founded on 1 October 1949, and proclaims itself to be a socialist state in its1982 constitution. TheDemocratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) used to adhere to orthodoxMarxism–Leninism since its founding until mid-1950s, by which point the supreme leader of North Korea,Kim Il Sung, sought to develop a distinct Korean re-interpretation of the ideology in order to solidify his position within theWorkers' Party of Korea (WPK), known asJuche.Originally regarded as a variant of Marxism–Leninism,Juche was declared to be fully distinct by his son and successor,Kim Jong Il, and was adopted as the official state ideology in the1972 constitution of North Korea. Further developed throughout the 1980s and 1990s,Juche madesignificant ideological breaks with Marxism–Leninism, and in the country's 1992 constitution, all references to Marxism–Leninism and communism were removed from state and party materials.[32] Scholars are divided over the classification of the modern-dayJuche, with some considering it to be a departure from Marxist–Leninist principles,[33] given the primacy offamily lineage andnationalism overclass struggle, and where social distinction and hierarchy are promoted overclassless society andegalitarianism,[34] and others considering it to still be a form of Marxism–Leninism, combined with nationalism and idolization, deification, and mystification of the Kim family.[35][36][37][38]
Similarly, direct references tocommunism in theLao People's Democratic Republic are not included in itsfounding documents, although it gives direct power to the governing ruling party, the Marxist–LeninistLao People's Revolutionary Party. The preamble to theconstitution of theSocialist Republic of Vietnam states that Vietnam only entered a transition stage betweencapitalism andsocialism after the country wasreunified under theCommunist Party of Vietnam in 1976.[39] The 1992constitution of theRepublic of Cuba states that the role of theCommunist Party of Cuba is to "guide the common effort toward the goals and construction of socialism (and the progress toward a communist society)".[40] The 2019 constitution retains the aim to work towards the construction of socialism.[41]
A number of countries make references to socialism in their constitutions that are not single-party states embracing Marxism–Leninism and planned economies. In most cases, these are constitutional references to the building of a socialist society and political principles that have little to no bearing on the structure and guidance of these country'smachinery of government andeconomic system. The preamble to the 1976Constitution of Portugal states that the Portuguese state has, as one of its goals, opening "the way to socialist society".[42] Another broad example is that of Slovenia, which defines itself as a "state governed by the rule of law and a social state".[43] Algeria, the Congo, India, and Sri Lanka have directly used the termsocialist in their official constitution and name. Croatia, Hungary, and Poland directly denounce "Communism" in their founding documents in reference to their past regimes.[44][need quotation to verify][45][need quotation to verify][46]
In these cases, the intended meaning ofsocialism can vary widely and sometimes the constitutional references to socialism are left over from a previous period in the country's history. In the case of many Middle Eastern states, the termsocialism was often used in reference to anArab socialist/nationalist philosophy adopted by specific regimes, such as that ofGamal Abdel Nasser and that of the variousBa'ath parties. Examples of countries directly using the termsocialist in their names include the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, while a number of countries make references to socialism in their constitutions, but not in their names. These include India[47] and Portugal. In addition, countries such as Belarus, Colombia, France, Russia, and Spain use the varied termsocial state, leaving a more ambiguous meaning. In the constitutions of Croatia, Hungary, and Poland, direct condemnation is made to the respective past socialist regimes.[48] Theautonomous region ofRojava, which operates under the principles ofdemocratic confederalism, has been described as a socialist state.[49]
During thepost-war consensus,nationalization of large industries was relatively widespread and it was not uncommon for commentators to describe some European countries as democratic socialist states seeking to move their countries toward asocialist economy.[23][24][25][26] In 1956, leadingBritish Labour Party politician and authorAnthony Crosland claimed that capitalism had been abolished in Britain, although others such as WelshmanAneurin Bevan, Minister of Health in the firstpost-war Labour government and the architect of theNational Health Service, disputed the claim that Britain was a socialist state.[50][51] For Crosland and others who supported his views, Britain was a socialist state. According to Bevan, Britain had a socialistNational Health Service which stood in opposition to thehedonism of Britain's capitalist society, making the following point:
The National Health service and the Welfare State have come to be used as interchangeable terms, and in the mouths of some people, as terms of reproach. Why this is so it is not difficult to understand, if you view everything from the angle of a strictly individualistic competitive society. A free health service is pure Socialism and as such, it is opposed to the hedonism of capitalist society.[52]
Although, as in the rest of Europe, thelaws of capitalism still operated fully andprivate enterprise dominated the economy,[53] some political commentators claimed that during the post-war period, when socialist parties were in power, countries such as Britain and France were democratic socialist states and the same is now applied to theNordic countries and theNordic model.[23][24][25][26] In the 1980s, the government of PresidentFrançois Mitterrand aimed to expanddirigisme and attempted to nationalize all French banks, but this attempt faced opposition of theEuropean Economic Community because it demanded afree-market capitalist economy among its members.[54][55] Nevertheless,public ownership in France and the United Kingdom during the height of nationalization in the 1960s and 1970s never accounted for more than 15–20% ofcapital formation, further dropping to 8% in the 1980s and below 5% in the 1990s after the rise ofneoliberalism.[53]
The socialist policies practiced by parties such as the SingaporeanPeople's Action Party (PAP) during its first few decades in power were of a pragmatic kind as characterized by its rejection of nationalization. Despite this, the PAP still claimed to be asocialist party, pointing out its regulation of the private sector, state intervention in the economy, and social policies as evidence of this.[56] The Singaporean prime ministerLee Kuan Yew also stated that he has been influenced by the democratic socialist British Labour Party.[57]
Because most existing socialist states operated alongMarxist–Leninist principles of governance, the termsMarxist–Leninist regime andMarxist–Leninist state are used by scholars, particularly when focusing on the political systems of these countries.[28] Apeople's republic is a type of socialist state with a republican constitution. Although the term initially became associated withpopulist movements in the 19th century such as the GermanVölkisch movement and theNarodniks in Russia, it is now associated with Communist Party ruled states. A number of the short-lived communist states which formed duringWorld War I andits aftermath called themselvespeople's republics. Many of these sprang up in the territory of the formerRussian Empire following theOctober Revolution.[58][59][60][61][62] Additional people's republics emerged following theAllied victory in World War II, mainly within theEastern Bloc.[63][64][65][66][67][68][69] In Asia, China became a people's republic following theChinese Communist Revolution[70] and North Korea also became a people's republic.[71] During the 1960s,Romania andYugoslavia ceased to use the termpeople's republic in their official name, replacing it with the termsocialist republic as a mark of their ongoing political development.Czechoslovakia also added the termsocialist republic into its name during this period. It had become a people's republic in 1948, but the country had not used that term in its official name.[72]Albania used both terms in its official name from 1976 to 1991.[73]
The termsocialist state is widely used by Marxist–Leninist parties, theorists, and governments to mean a state under the control of avanguard party that is organizing the economic, social, and political affairs of said state toward the construction of socialism. States run bycommunist parties that adhere to Marxism–Leninism, or some national variation thereof, refer to themselves as socialist states or workers' and peasants' states. They involve the direction of economic development toward the building up of theproductive forces to underpin the establishment of a socialist economy and usually include that at least thecommanding heights of the economy are nationalized and understate ownership.[22][74] This may or may not include the existence of a socialist economy, depending on the specific terminology adopted and level of development in specific countries. TheLeninist definition of a socialist state is a state representing the interests of the working class which presides over astate capitalist economy structured upon state-directedaccumulation of capital with the goal of building up the country'sproductive forces and promoting worldwidesocialist revolution, while the realization of a socialist economy is held as the long-term goal.[22]
In the Western world, particularly in mass media, journalism, and politics, these states and countries are often calledcommunist states (although they do not use this term to refer to themselves), despite the fact that these countries never claimed to have achieved communism in their countries—rather, they claim to be building and working toward the establishment of socialism and the development towards communism thereafter in their countries.[1][2][3][4] Terms used by communist states includenational-democratic,people's democratic,people's republican,socialist-oriented, andworkers' and peasants' states.[75]
Karl Marx and subsequent thinkers in theMarxist tradition conceive of the state as representing the interests of its ruling class, partially out of material necessity for the smooth operation of the modes of production which the state presides over. Marxists trace the formation of the contemporary form of thesovereign state to the emergence of capitalism as a dominant mode of production, with its organizational precepts and functions designed by capitalists and by their supporters specifically to manage and regulate the affairs of a capitalist economy. Because this involves governance and laws passed in the interest of thebourgeoisie as a whole, and because government officials either come from the bourgeoisie or are dependent upon bourgeois interests, Marx characterized thecapitalist state as adictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Extrapolating from this, Marx described a post-revolutionary government on the part of the working class or proletariat as adictatorship of the proletariat because the economic interests of the proletariat would have to guide state affairs and policy during a transitional state. Alluding further to the establishment of a socialist economy wheresocial ownership displacesprivate ownership and thus, class distinctions on the basis of private-property ownership are eliminated, the modern state would have no function and would gradually "wither away" or be transformed into a new form of governance.[76][77]
Influenced by the pre-Marxist utopian-socialist philosopherHenri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825),Friedrich Engels theorized that the nature of the state would change during the transition to socialism. Both Saint-Simon and Engels described a transformation of the state from an entity primarily concerned with political rule over people (via coercion and law-creation) to a scientific " administration of things" that would be concerned with directing processes of production in a socialist society, essentially ceasing to be a state.[78][79][80] Although Marx never referred to a "socialist state", he argued that the working class would have to take control of the state apparatus and of the machinery of government in order to transition out of capitalism and to socialism. The dictatorship of the proletariat would represent this transitional state and would involve working-class interests dominating government policy in the same manner that capitalist-class interests dominate government policy under capitalism (the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie). Engels argued that as socialism developed, the state would change in form and function. Under socialism, it is not a "government of people, but the administration of things", thereby ceasing to be a state by the traditional definition.[81][82] With the fall of the 1871Paris Commune, Marx cautiously argued inThe Civil War in France that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes. The centralized state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature—organs wrought after the plan of a systematic and hierarchic division of labor originates from the days of absolute monarchy, serving nascent middle class society as a mighty weapon in its struggle against feudalism".[83] In other words, "the centralized state power inherited by the bourgeoisie from the absolute monarchy necessarily assumes, in the course of the intensifying struggles between capital and labor, 'more and more the character of the national power of capital over labour, of a public organized for socialenslavement, of an engine of class despotism'".[84]
One of the most influential modern visions of a transitional state representing proletarian interests stemmed from the example of the Paris Commune, in which the workers and working poor took control of the city of Paris in 1871 in reaction to theFranco-Prussian War of 1870-1871. Marx described the Paris Commune as the prototype for a revolutionary government of the future, "the form at last discovered" for the emancipation of the proletariat.[83] Engels noted that "all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers. [...] In this way, an effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism was set up".[85] Commenting on the nature of the state, Engels continued: "From the outset, the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working class, once come to power, could not manage with the old state machine". Engels states that in order to avoid overthrow once having conquered power, the working class "must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment". Engels argues that such a state would be a temporary affair and suggests that a new generation brought up in "new and free social conditions" will be able to "throw the entire lumber of the state on the scrap-heap".[86]
Socialists who embracedreformism, exemplified by the German politicianEduard Bernstein (1850-1932), took the view that both socialism and a socialist state will gradually evolve out of political reforms won by organized socialist political-parties and unions. More-orthodox Marxists regard these views as arevision of Marxist thought. Bernstein stated: "The socialist movement is everything to me while what people commonly call the goal of Socialism is nothing".[87] Following Marx,revolutionary socialists instead take the view that the working class grows stronger through its battle for reforms (such as in Marx's time, the ten-hours bill). In 1848, Marx and Engels wrote:
Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. [...] [I]t ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the ten-hours' bill in England was carried.[88]
According to theorthodox Marxist conception, these battles eventually reach a point where a revolutionary movement arises. A revolutionary movement is required (in the view of Marxists) to sweep away the capitalist state and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which must be abolished and replaced with a dictatorship of the proletariat, to begin constructing a socialist society. In this view, only through revolution can a socialist state be established as written inThe Communist Manifesto:
In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.[88]
Other historic reformist or gradualist movements within socialism, as opposed to revolutionary approaches, includeFabian socialist andMenshevik groupings.
Whereas Marx, Engels, andclassical Marxist thinkers had little to say about the organization of the state in a socialist society, presuming the modern state to be specific to the capitalist mode of production,Vladimir Lenin pioneered the idea of a revolutionary state based on his theory of the revolutionaryvanguard party and organizational principles ofdemocratic centralism. Adapted to the conditions of semi-feudal Russia, Lenin's concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat involved a revolutionary vanguard party acting as representatives of the proletariat and its interests. According to Lenin'sApril Theses, the goal of the revolution and vanguard party is not the introduction of socialism (it could only be established on a worldwide scale), but to bring production and the state under the control of thesoviets of workers' deputies. Following theOctober Revolution in Russia, theBolsheviks consolidated their power and sought to control and direct the social and economic affairs of the state and broader Russian society to safeguard against counterrevolutionary insurrection, foreign invasion, and to promote socialist consciousness among the Russian population while simultaneously promoting economic development.[21]
These ideas were adopted by Lenin in 1917 just prior to the October Revolution in Russia and published inThe State and Revolution. With the failure of the worldwide revolution, or at least European revolution, envisaged by Lenin andLeon Trotsky, theRussian Civil War and finally, Lenin's death, war measures that were deemed to be temporary, such as forced requisition of food and the lack of democratic control, became permanent and a tool to boostJoseph Stalin's power, leading to the emergence of Marxism–Leninism andStalinism, as well as the notion that socialism can be created and exist in a single state with theory ofsocialism in one country.
Lenin argued that as socialism is replaced by communism, the state would "wither away"[89] as strong centralized control progressively reduces as local communities gain more empowerment. As he put it succinctly, "[s]o long as the state exists, there is no freedom. When there will be freedom, there will be no state".[90] In this way, Lenin was thereby proposing a classically dynamic view of progressive social structure which, during his own short period of governance, emerged as a defensive and preliminary bureaucratic centralist stage. He regarded this structural paradox as the necessary preparation for and antithesis of the desiredworkers' state which he forecast would follow.
.jpg)
Following Stalin's consolidation of power in theSoviet Union and static centralization of political power, Trotsky condemned the Soviet government's policies for lacking widespread democratic participation on the part of the population and for suppressingworkers' self-management and democratic participation in the management of the economy. Because these authoritarian political measures were inconsistent with the organizational precepts of socialism, Trotsky characterized the Soviet Union as a deformed workers' state that would not be able to effectively transition to socialism. Ostensibly socialist states where democracy is lacking, yet the economy is largely in the hands of the state, are termed byorthodox Trotskyist theories asdegenerated ordeformed workers' states and not socialist states.[91]
Manydemocratic andlibertarian socialists, including anarchists,mutualists, andsyndicalists, criticize the concept of establishing a socialist state instead of abolishing thebourgeois state apparatus outright. They use the termstate socialism to contrast it with their own form of socialism, which involves eithercollective ownership (in the form ofworker cooperatives) orcommon ownership of themeans of production without statecentralized planning. Those socialists believe there is no need for a state in a socialist system because there would be no class to suppress and no need for an institution based on coercion and therefore, regard the state being a remnant of capitalism.[18][19][20] They hold thatstatism is antithetical to true socialism,[17] the goal of which is the eyes oflibertarian socialists such asWilliam Morris, who wrote as follows in aCommonweal article: "State Socialism? — I don't agree with it; in fact, I think the two words contradict one another, and that it is the business of Socialism to destroy the State and put Free Society in its place".[92]
Classical andorthodox Marxists also view state socialism as an oxymoron, arguing that while an association for managing production and economic affairs would exist in socialism, it would no longer be a state in theMarxist definition, which is based ondomination by one class. Preceding theBolshevik-ledrevolution in Russia, many socialist groups—including reformists, orthodox Marxist currents such ascouncil communism, and theMensheviks, as well as anarchists and other libertarian socialists—criticized the idea of using the state to conductplanning andnationalization of the means of production as a way to establish socialism.[93] Lenin himself acknowledged state capitalism as part of the transition from capitalism to socialism.[94][95]
Critical of the economy and government of socialist states,left communists such as the ItalianAmadeo Bordiga said that their socialism was a form of political opportunism which preserved rather than destroyedcapitalism because of the claim that the exchange of commodities would occur undersocialism; the use ofpopular front organisations by theCommunist International;[96] and that apolitical vanguard organized byorganic centralism was more effective than a vanguard organized bydemocratic centralism.[97] The American MarxistRaya Dunayevskaya also dismissed it as a type of state capitalism[98] becausestate ownership of the means of production is a form of state capitalism;[99] thedictatorship of the proletariat is a form of democracy andsingle-party rule is undemocratic;[100] andMarxism–Leninism is neitherMarxism norLeninism, but rather, a composite ideology which socialist leaders likeJoseph Stalin used to expediently determine what iscommunism and what is not communism among theEastern Bloc countries.[101]
Although most Marxist–Leninists distinguish betweencommunism andsocialism, Bordiga, who did consider himself aLeninist and has been described as being "more Leninist than Lenin",[102] did not distinguish between the two in the same way Marxist–Leninists do. Both Lenin and Bordiga did not see socialism as a separate mode of production from communism, but rather, just as how communism looks as it emerges out of capitalism before it has "developed on its own foundations".[103]
This is coherent with Marx and Engels, who used the termscommunism andsocialism interchangeably.[104][105] Like Lenin, Bordiga usedsocialism to mean what Marx called thelower-phase communism.[106] For Bordiga, both stages of socialist orcommunist society—with stages referring tohistorical materialism—were characterized by the gradual absence of money, the market, and so on, the difference between them being that earlier in the first stage, a system of rationing would be used to allocate goods to people, while in communism this could be abandoned in favour of full free access. This view distinguished Bordiga from Marxist–Leninists, who tended, and still tend, to telescope the first two stages and so have money and the other exchange categories surviving into socialism. But Bordiga would have none of this. For him, no society in which money, buying and selling, and the rest survived could be regarded as either socialist or communist—these exchange categories would die out before the socialist rather than the communist stage was reached.[96] Stalin made the claim that theSoviet Union had reached the lower stage of communism and argued that thelaw of value still operated within a socialist economy.[107]
Marx did not use the termsocialism to refer to this development and instead called it a communist society that has not yet reached its higher-stage.[108] The termsocialism to mean the lower-state of communism was popularized during theRussian Revolution by Lenin. This view is consistent with, and helped to inform early concepts of, socialism in which the law of value no longer directs economic activity, namely, that monetary relations in the form ofexchange-value,profit, interest, andwage labour would not operate and apply to Marxist socialism.[109] Unlike Stalin, who first claimed to have achieved socialism with theSoviet Constitution of 1936[110][111][112][113] and then confirmed it in theEconomic Problems of Socialism in the USSR,[114][115][116][117][118] Lenin did not call the Soviet Union a socialist state, nor did he claim that it had achieved socialism.[119] He adopted state capitalist policies,[13][14][15][16] defending them from left-wing criticism,[120] but arguing that they were necessary for the future development of socialism and not socialist in themselves.[121][122] On seeing the Soviet Union's growing coercive power, Lenin was quoted as saying that Russia had reverted to "a bourgeois tsarist machine [...] barely varnished with socialism".[123]
A variety of non-state, libertarian communist and socialist positions reject the concept of a socialist state altogether, believing that the modern state is a byproduct of capitalism and cannot be used for the establishment of a socialist system. They reason that a socialist state is antithetical to socialism and that socialism will emerge spontaneously from thegrassroots level in anevolutionary manner, developing its own unique political and economic institutions for a highly organizedstateless society. Libertarian communists, includinganarchists,councillists,leftists, andMarxists, also reject the concept of a socialist state for being antithetical to socialism, but they believe that socialism can only be established through revolution and dissolving the existence of the state.[17][19][20] Within the socialist movement, there is criticism towards the use of the term socialist states in relation to countries such as China and previously of Soviet Union and Eastern and Central European states before what some term the "collapse ofStalinism" in 1989.[124][125][126][127]
Anti-authoritarian communists and socialists such as anarchists, other democratic and libertarian socialists, as well as revolutionary syndicalists and left communists[128] claim that the so-called socialist states actually presided over state capitalist economies and cannot be called socialist.[98] Those socialists who oppose any system of state control whatsoever believe in a more decentralized approach which puts the means of production directly into the hands of the workers rather than indirectly through state bureaucracies[17][19][20] which they claim represent a new elite orclass.[129][130][131][132] This leads them to consider state socialism a form of state capitalism[96] (an economy based on centralized management, capital accumulation and wage labor, but with the state owning the means of production)[133] which Engels stated would be the final form of capitalism rather than socialism.[134]
SomeTrotskyists following on fromTony Cliff deny that it is socialism, calling it state capitalism.[135] Other Trotskyists agree that these states could not be described as socialist,[136] but deny that they were state capitalist.[137] They supportLeon Trotsky's analysis of pre-restoration Soviet Union as a workers' state that haddegenerated into abureaucratic dictatorship which rested on a largely nationalized industry run according to a production plan[138][139][140] and claimed that the former Stalinist states ofCentral and Eastern Europe weredeformed workers' states based on the same relations of production as the Soviet Union.[141] Some Trotskyists such as theCommittee for a Workers' International have at times included African, Asian, and Middle Eastern socialist states when they have had anationalized economy as deformed workers' states.[142][143] Other socialists argued that theneo-Ba'athists promoted capitalists from within the party and outside their countries.[144]
Contrary to Western usage, these countries describe themselves as 'Socialist' (not 'Communist'). The second stage (Marx's 'higher phase'), or 'Communism' is to be marked by an age of plenty, distribution according to needs (not work), the absence of money and the market mechanism, the disappearance of the last vestiges of capitalism and the ultimate 'whithering away' of the State.
Among Western journalists the term 'Communist' came to refer exclusively to regimes and movements associated with the Communist International and its offspring: regimes which insisted that they were not communist but socialist, and movements which were barely communist in any sense at all.
Ironically, the ideological father of communism, Karl Marx, claimed that communism entailed the withering away of the state. The dictatorship of the proletariat was to be a strictly temporary phenomenon. Well aware of this, the Soviet Communists never claimed to have achieved communism, always labeling their own system socialist rather than communist and viewing their system as in transition to communism.
The decisive distinction between socialist and communist, as in one sense these terms are now ordinarily used, came with the renaming, in 1918, of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks) as the All-Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). From that time on, a distinction of socialist from communist, often with supporting definitions such associal democrat ordemocratic socialist, became widely current, although it is significant that all communist parties, in line with earlier usage, continued to describe themselves as socialist and dedicated to socialism.
But there are still others (concepts and institutions) which by virtue of their nature cannot stand transplantation and always carry the flavor of a particular institutional framework. It is extremely dangerous, in fact it amounts to a distortion of historical description, to use them beyond the social world or culture whose denizens they are. Now ownership or property – also, so I believe, taxation – are such denizens of the world of commercial society, exactly as knights and fiefs are denizens of the feudal world. But so is the state (a denizen of commercial society).
Article 13: Political parties and other organizations whose programmes are based upon totalitarian methods and the modes of activity of nazism, fascism and communism, as well as those whose programmes or activities sanction racial or national hatred, the application of violence for the purpose of obtaining power or to influence the State policy, or provide for the secrecy of their own structure or membership, shall be forbidden.
Even in the statist 1960s–70s, SOEs in France and the UK did not account for more than 15–20% of capital formation; in the 1980s the developed-nation average was around 8%, and it dropped below 5% in the 1990s.
In 1816, he declares that politics is the science of production, and foretells the complete absorption of politics by economics. The knowledge that economic conditions are the basis of political institutions appears here only in embryo. Yet what is here already very plainly expressed is the idea of the future conversion of political rule over men into an administration of things and a direction of processes of production.
It should not be forgotten, however, that in the period of the Second International, some of the reformist currents of Marxism, as well as some of the extreme left-wing ones, not to speak of the anarchist groups, had already criticised the view that State ownership and central planning is the best road to socialism. But with the victory of Leninism in Russia, all dissent was silenced, and socialism became identified with 'democratic centralism', 'central planning', and State ownership of the means of production.
By 1888, the term 'socialism' was in general use among Marxists, who had dropped 'communism', now considered an old fashioned term meaning the same as 'socialism'. [...] At the turn of the century, Marxists called themselves socialists. [...] The definition of socialism and communism as successive stages was introduced into Marxist theory by Lenin in 1917 [...], the new distinction was helpful to Lenin in defending his party against the traditional Marxist criticism that Russia was too backward for a socialist revolution.
According to nineteenth-century socialist views, socialism would function without capitalist economic categories, such as money, prices, interest, profits and rent. Rather, it would function according to laws other than those described by current economic science. While some socialists recognized the need for money and prices (at least during the transition from capitalism to socialism), socialists more commonly believed that the socialist economy would soon administratively mobilize the economy in physical units without the use of prices or money.
The 1936 Constitution described the Soviet Union for the first time as a 'socialist society', rhetorically fulfilling the aim of building socialism in one country, as Stalin had promised.
A new phrase, state-capitalism, has been widely used in mC20, with precedents from eC20, to describe forms of state ownership in which the original conditions of the definition – centralized ownership of the means of production, leading to a system of wage-labour – have not really changed.
Authority control databases: National |
|---|
