Communism

By Dr Bruce Haddock. University of Wales Swansea

new perspective Vol 1,  No 2

COMMUNISM IN ITS MODERN FORM is generally regarded as an off-shoot from socialism. Yet communist ideas, stressing the complete dependence of individuals upon the community and the abolition of private property, can be traced back to early Greek and Christian thought. Plato argued in the The Republic that his ruling class of philosopher guardians should enjoy a communal life style which freed them from the distraction of private interests and responsibilities; while early Christians and later monastic groups looked upon material possessions in relation to a more fundamental commitment to God.

What transformed communist theory in modern times is its relation to a wider analysis of society and politics. Communal living, which in the monastic ideal was an optional alternative to the depravity of civil society, became a necessary means for the eradication of injustice and inequality. Babeuf (1760-97) traced all that was unsatisfactory in society to the personal dependence of individuals upon one another. And that dependence would only be ended with the abolition of private property. In Babeuf’s scheme of things it followed that if individuals had the same needs, they should necessarily enjoy the same facilities and benefits from society.

Marx gave communist theory a decisive twist by insisting that communism was not a more or less desirable mode of social and political organisation but an inevitable outcome of historical development. He continued to argue that private property and the division of labour stunted the prospects of individuals. What was novel in his argument, however, was the contention that such institutions constituted obstacles to further material progress. Particular modes of social organisation would ultimately fracture as a developing technology engendered new institutions and practices. In Marx’s view, collective ownership and direction was a fitting reflection of the complex interrelationships of industrial society.

Problems within the Marxist tradition stem from the inadequacy of Marx’s analysis of revolution. His expectation in the 1840s that revolution was imminent was tempered in his later writings. But he continued to argue that the establishment of communism would mark the end of coercive political institutions. The State, as an instrument of class rule, would wither away in a classless society. Marx was remarkably imprecise, however, about how the transition from capitalism to communism would occur. As the prospect of a cataclysmic revolutionary resolution waned, so Marx introduced the notion of a temporary ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ which would control the allocation of resources until such times as the last vestiges of bourgeois society had been eradicated. The idea was exploited by Lenin (1870-1924), who insisted on the need for a vanguard party of the proletariat to assume the direction of affairs in order to raise the political consciousness of workers and peasants. A revolutionary é1ite had essentially furnished itself with an exquisite justification for authoritarian rule, much as had occurred with the Jacobins in the revolutionary upheavals in France after 1789.

Dictatorship of the proletariat has now become a synonym for tyranny. Marx’s original usage, however, presupposed that capitalism had actually solved the problem of scarcity and that the vestiges of the bourgeois state’s coercive functions would only be necessary in the transitionary period in which the ruling communist party needed to exploit the skills and services of individuals accustomed to the practices of the old regime. Marx’s analysis of scarcity was mistaken. But so too was Lenin’s expectation that revolution in Russia would trigger wider revolutionary upheavals in the more developed European states. Instead the Soviet Union found itself confronted by a hostile international environment. Defence of the revolution involved the perpetuation of an elaborate coercive apparatus. Under Stalin (1879-1953) the regime was finely tuned for both mass mobilisation and oppression. It proved incapable, however, of responding to the domestic needs of its people.

In the post-war period, the regime became increasingly bureaucratic. Central direction of the economy proved to be inefficient, leading to major problems as administrative, political and military costs grew. Attempts to reform the system by Gorbachev after 1985 precipitated a dramatic collapse in 1991.

Communism as an ideology should not be identified with the Soviet regime. Western European communist parties, particularly in Italy, Spain, Portugal and France, have sought to fashion distinctively national roads to socialism, distancing themselves from Soviet policy and defending political alliances with wider groups as a means of fostering structural reform. With the demise of Soviet communism, however, the entire movement was dealt a decisive blow. Some parties sought to refashion themselves in order to bolster their parliamentary credentials. In doing so they largely severed their connections with the movement identified with Marx and Lenin, without necessarily establishing a clear ideological identity within their national traditions. For the moment, the communist chapter in modern political history appears to be closing, though it is certain that radically egalitarian ideologies will re-emerge in another guise.