So, What the Hell is Communism and Socialism, Really?

By David Starr

 

The words communism and communist have been used frequently for decades, in particular, during the Cold War. The propaganda from the West has attempted to classify these words as to be associated with evil and repression. 

 

The East has at times over-glorified these words to the point of virtually being associated with religion.

 

Both associations are wrong.

 

There is a book entitled Let History Judge by Roy Medvedev, a Soviet historian and a Marxist. This book has been a big influence on me as Medvedev analyses and dissects those “dirty” words. The main objective, however, is a focus on Stalin and Stalinism and the origins and consequences of Stalin’s deformed version of socialism. 

 

This may come off sounding like a book review, but Medvedev has written what is perhaps the best example of looking in-depth at communism, Marxism and socialism; and Stalin’s perversions of them.

 

And this may sound odd, but communism hasn’t really existed. What has is varying degrees of socialism and, unfortunately, Stalinism. Given the political, ideological, economic and social conditions of the 20^thcentury and leading up to the 21^st century, the time for communism to exist has not been established and developed. It would take more years and perhaps a couple of centuries for communism to exist based on the evolving of humankind. And if the conditions are appropriate.

 

During the Cold War, a Soviet official in 1960 declared that the USSR reached the full stage of communism. But it turned out to be merely a boast. But with the Cold War going on, both sides tried to take advantage of each other and, thus, made declarations that were sometimes true and sometimes false.

 

The Soviet Union existed for about 74 years but that’s not enough time to establish and develop communism. After all, we are talking about an epoch, which is like saying that “Rome wasn’t built in a day.” Meaning, it would be a process where change would sometimes be gradual and sometimes rapid, depending on the conditions in a given time.

 

But getting back to Medvedev’s book, as I said, this may sound like a book review. But I think its important to quote Medvedev along with others in his book that he quoted.

 

The first thing is, what the hell is communism, really? Marx and Engels made hypotheses and gave clues as to what a communist society could be like. In Let History Judge, Medvedev quoted from the Communist Manifesto as to the meaning: “An association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” 

 

There is also the more well-known meaning: From each according to one’s ability, to each according to one’s needs. Anti-communists have harped on this meaning to make the simplified argument that people will get free stuff, and that’s it. But it’s obvious that the first part of the sentence is ignored: From each according to one’s ability. That is, one is using their ability or skills. And so, it follows that they are used to produce, to be part of the means of production. Thus, laziness is not a contributor.

 

We have an idea on what socialism is since there have been varying degrees of it practiced worldwide. From liberal democracies to socialist countries, socialism has appeared in one form or another. But in liberal democracies, whatever degree that has existed has been overshadowed and dominated by the rule of capitalism. It does vary if we look at the United States as opposed to European countries. The latter has had a stronger social safety net despite the fact that capitalism has been a major influence.

 

In the United States, now anyway, the social safety net has been threatened directly due to the policies of the Trump regime. Whatever degree of socialism that exists is the potential victim of a right-wing/neoliberal/billionaire/capitalist class. 

 

Again, getting back to Medvedev’s book, he gives an idea of what socialism is:

 

“Socialism, even the ideal conception of it, does not guarantee full equality of material possibilities or an equal position in society to everyone, because people differ individually. Socialism must, however, ensure substantial progress toward equality in the most important sense–equality of rights and obligations, just treatment of all, and equal opportunity for all to discover and develop their talents and abilities. It must reduce the flagrant material inequality that exists under capitalism, eliminating both excessive wealth and humiliating poverty.”

 

Quoting from Medvedev, he writes on Engel’s view of socialism: “…the historical mission of the working class that the essence of socialism consists in ‘ the creation of all people of such conditions that all will have the chance to develop their human nature freely, to live in human relationships with their neighbors, without fear of violent destruction of their well-being.’”

 

Further, Medvedev writes, “According to Marxist-Leninist theory, socialism is the first, incomplete phase or stage in the evolution toward a fully communist society. In the stage of socialism elements of communism appear in society–public ownership of the means of production, a communist attitude toward labor, and communist morality [this may sound corny but even communists have morals]. 

 

“Many of what Marx called the ‘birthmarks of capitalism’ also persist in this first stage. In changed and weakened form phenomena and social relations of capitalism continue to exist–for example, money, commodity production, inequality in distribution and consumption, giving rise to inequality of possibilities for individual development, and of course the state and other forms of political coercion.

 

“Such phenomena and social relations took shape over the course of centuries. They can be changed and placed at the service of the people, but they cannot be eliminated overnight. Several decades or even centuries are needed for that.”

 

Then, there is Stalin and Stalinism. The system that Stalin imposed, especially after attaining absolute power, actually violated communist, socialist and Marxist ideas and principles. 

 

Stalin enforced collectivism during the 1930s rather than letting the peasantry learn the concepts of collectivization and giving them the power to make decisions regarding the means of production, which is what socialism is about; having at least some degree of economic and political power within the peasantry and working class. And having a socialist government representing the interests of those classes. 

 

Politically, Stalin gradually played off some officials over others and then turned on the officials who had “acceptance.” Members of the Bolshevik leadership sooner or later became victims, as well as the rank-and-file of the Communist Party. This to eliminate “enemies of the people.” Other accusations that were consistently used were “wreckers,” and “spies.” 

 

That’s not to say there were not real threats against the USSR. The West attempted to impose capitalist encirclement. But Stalin was very ambitious to attain absolute power and pointed the accusing finger at anyone who dared to criticize him or offer suggestions for the implementation of policies. 

 

Meanwhile, many in the Soviet population supported Stalin out of ignorance and fear. 

 

While there now may be attempts to rehabilitate Stalin, it’s too late for that to succeed. There’s no way Stalinism can make a comeback, unless the Russian leadership and its oligarchic supporters resort to using it to put the masses in their place.

 

What I think has to be done is to separate Stalinism from actual socialism, Marxism and communism. This, of course, would be a difficult objective since it was Stalin who set a precedent of how those ideas should be implemented. But it would not be impossible.

 

Something has to be done to set the record straight on what really communism, Marxism and socialism are. Working class democracy can play a part. After all, it was Marx who said that democracy is the road to socialism.

 

If those ideas can be attained–really attained–the odds are good that it would be a more effective challenge to anti-communism and other reactionary objectives.