Challenges and Scepticism towards Communism—A Response

Introduction

This article is the third part of the debate between Trotsky the Prophet and Daniel F. Technically, however, it's only a one-sided rebuttal of Trotsky against some of the questions and challenges Daniel F raised against the theories and practices of Communism.

I.

“You cannot compare Stalinism and Maoism to Marx—they’re such different things. Stalinism and Maoism were based around an evil dictatorship, and while Marx and Engels were merely philosophers with an interest in politics.”

I’ve been trying to make this point time and time again: Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism are NOT different from Marxism. Reagon (and some historians) were trying to argue that Leninists or Marxists (the term “Communist” was specifically referred to as “Leninist” during the Cold War) did not understand Marxism since they were totalitarian while Marx wasn’t.

Also, Marx was not a “philosopher with interest in politics.” First and foremost, he clearly said that “philosophers of the past had only described the world,” whereas he wanted to change it - i.e., put things into practice. Hence, it is fair to say that he is more of a socialist revolutionary rather than a typical philosopher. In other words, his philosophical theories served for his political movements, not the opposite.

Marx wasn’t libertarian as a lot of people today think he was, either. It is evident that the essence of the “democratic centralization” system - the “evil dictatorship” in your words - was initially proposed by Marx himself. Even “worse,” he prioritized the importance of this “proletarian dictatorship” over that of class theory. In 1852, Marx wrote a letter to Weydemeyer, saying that:

“And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them… What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with the particular, historical phases in the development of production, (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the Proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition.”

Hence, I don’t believe that Leninism, albeit controversial, is fundamentally different from Marxism. A graph showing the relationship between Marxism, Leninism, and Maoism has been linked to this email.

II.

“People can also protest and, as we’ve seen, this can change things.”

Admittedly, peaceful demonstrations did change things throughout history. Many of today’s laws to protect the vulnerable, including but not limited to the welfare system and labour laws, were issued under the pressure of petitions and strikes. Yet the basis of this systematic inequality and unfairness, the systematic oppression of the black by the white, the systematic exploitation of proletariats by capitalists would never change unless a revolution overthrows the SYSTEM, viz. the organ of oppression. I will expand this idea further in the following arguments.

III.

“I also don’t believe that they are oppressive at heart. What is the government supposed to oppress?”

According to Lenin, the state is “a product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms” and “an instrument for the exploitation of the oppressed class.” I will go into details in a future article, but it’s essential to understand how Lenin perceived the concept of “state” to understand the system he designed for the Soviet Union.

IV.

“That is essentially anarchy and that won’t work, because, as I said above, I believe that selfishness and greed are human emotions.”

The goal of communism is exactly anarchy, which will not work under current circumstances because of ostensible “human emotions” - Lenin referred to it as the ability of “observing the fundamental rules of social intercourse.” Anarchy is just a vision, and to achieve it, Lenin considered socialism as a “bridge” towards communism as described by Marx as one of history’s stages.

V.

“Along with the above, you cannot simply divide the world into the proletariat and the bourgeois.”

Yes and no. The two hostile camps of class struggle—proletariat and bourgeois—were introduced by Marx in the 1840s. During these 200 years, of course, things have changed. These changes include but are not limited to: the introduction of social welfare, the development of mental labour, the revolution of means of production, etc. There are more various social classes and stakeholders nowadays, each of them representing different interests. Yet, again, the basis of class antagonisms is still there. The “proletariats,” though not necessarily the poorest today, were still reduced to selling their labour-power. Big capitalists are still siphoning off the surplus value from labourers. So no, we can’t simply divide the world into Proletariat and Bourgeois. But yes, the concept of hostility between the proletariat and bourgeois still stands.

VI.

“Take the police for instance; they are workers, for the government. Who do they serve? They protect the Proletariat by stopping people from breaking the law, but are enforcing a government’s law.”

True, the police do indeed work for the government. Nowadays, their duty has been extended to protect the private properties and personal safety of all members of the society, including the proletariats, but its fundament was still to enforce the rule of the state power, as exposed in the George Floyd protests and Hong Kong riots. Today people are condemning “police brutality” without even recognizing that this was what had happened two hundred years ago when the purpose of the police was to capture escaped slaves (in the south of the US) and to break up labour strikes and demonstrations (In the north of the US and Europe). Nothing is terrifying about ‘police brutality.’ This purely oppressive character is, to a certain extent, masked during peaceful times. When violence and demonstrations (i.e., struggles) happen, it stands out plainly.

VII.

“I would also like some clarification on the meaning of ‘the state’ in communism. Marx viewed the state as a creature of the bourgeois economic interest. Firstly, a communist society would still have an economy, and secondly, as I said above a bourgeois (in Marx’s terms) is ‘the capitalist class who own most of society’s wealth and means of production.’”

Not necessarily. Marx did believe that the ‘state’ under capitalism was established to serve the interest of the bourgeoisie - yet not only economically but also politically and socially. In short, the state is an organ of class rule (this can be any class, not just the bourgeoisie). Status is not just a creature; instead, it’s an apparatus that consists of all instruments of the class oppression: police, standing army, political system, bureaucracy, etc. As Lenin stated,

“The centralized state power that is peculiar to bourgeois society came into being in the period of the fall of absolutism. Two institutions most characteristic of this state machine are the bureaucracy and the standing army [...] The need for all bourgeois parties, even for the most democratic among them, to intensify repressive measures against the revolutionary Proletariat, to strengthen the apparatus of coercion, i.e., the state machine.”

VIII.

“If there was a dictatorship of the Proletariat, then wouldn’t they control all of the wealth? Wouldn’t they control all of this production?”

They would. But it’s better to put it as “means of production” than “wealth”. Theoretically, there would be two phases of “communism.” The first phase of communism, or “socialism,” would still be stamped with the birthmarks of capitalism from whose womb it comes.” During this phase, the means of production are no longer the private property of individuals, but in the hands of the government that represents the entire society. People don’t get paid for doing work, either, but receives a certificate from society to the effect that he has done a certain amount of work (all labours are valued equally as long as the workers have paid equal effort, more on this in a separate reply), and with this certificate, he receives a certain amount of goods. It should also be noted that a deduction should be made before distributing wealth to workers (who would receive as much as he has given to it after the deduction). This deduction is intended to cover for replacement of the means of production used up, for expansion of production, and reserve or insurance funds. It should be made due to underdeveloped labour forces and potential accidents (e.g., an unprecedented pandemic like COVID-19)

In a higher phase of communist society, after all labour is valued equally; after labour has become “life’s prime want”; after the productive forces are so developed -- only then can people take as much as they want from the society. They would still have to work, but since working is “life’s prime want,” laziness won’t occur.

Leaders of the government could also be democratically elected. Many people accuse the Soviet Union and China to be “undemocratic” as the leader held onto power for too long. Yet “long reign” is not an inherent element of Leninist Socialism. Even within the 'vanguard party,' there could still be elections internally... as what is happening in China nowadays. The electorship is determined by another election that all Chinese citizens are involved in.

IX.

“Isn’t an ‘administration of things’ essentially a government?”

It isn’t. In this specific context, the ‘administration of things’ stands as the opposite of “administration of men,” which is the root cause of systemic oppression and cannot be abolished until the final phase of communism. By administering “things” (i.e., means of production) rather than “workers,” though, there would be no longer a hierarchy and class antagonisms.