On Communism

by Sectori

I was struck, not for the first time, by a comment made by one of our regular readers, True Conservatism, on the article about Palin, namely, "Cuba is communist!". This was not the first time that I have heard various traits misidentified as "communist", when in fact they are not, and I thought I should do my part to set the record straight.

The first definition given by dictionary.com is as follows: "a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state". This accurately, if briefly, describes the political philosophy espoused by Karl Marx and other thinkers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This also describes a political system which has never existed on a large scale on Earth. It can be seen in some smaller-scale examples, including Israeli kibbutzim.
Continued: Click "Read More"

The second definition, however, is a bit more problematic: "(often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party". This is the definition that True Conservatism was using in his comment, and, while it is common usage, I despise it.

This definition refers to "communism" in its many forms, including such totalitarian philosophies as Maoism, Stalinism, and Kim Jong-Il's cult of personality in the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (better known as North Korea). All of these systems are categorized by, if not a single party, at least a single ruling party whose rule is maintained through the use of force and coercion (Paul Wilkinson, a noted terrorism expert, calls this a "coercive state"). This force can be in the form of government-sponsored pogroms (compare Mao Zedong's crusade against the "bourgeois"), repression of opposition (cf. Stalin's repressive regime in the Soviet Union), or the indoctrination sessions, media blackout, and artificial shortages of Kim Jong-Il's government in the DPRK. This definition also has nothing to do with the Marx's political theory of communism, based on the idea of universal equality and communal control of property, goods, etc.

True Conservatism is not the only one guilty of this misuse of the term: this definition is obviously in common enough usage for it to be included on dictionary.com, for example. My history teacher this year, on the very first day of class, discussed communism briefly in the context of education bias and hastily assured us, "I'm not going to make you into communists!". My history teacher last year went even further, looping socialism in with communism; after all, "they're basically the same thing".

Which brings me to my second point: socialism and communism are not the same. Dictionary.com defines socialism as "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole". At first glance, this looks exactly the same. In practice, there is a good deal of difference. In common usage, socialism describes a balance of communist principles (vesting control of various functions in the community as a whole) and capitalist principles (allowing private control of various functions). In Marxist theory, socialism is the imperfect balance between these two that is practiced before the transition to full communism. In reality, no country that operates on socialist principles has moved on to Marxist communism, and some countries seem, in fact, to have perfected Marx's "imperfect balance" (Sweden and France, for example, both have high degrees of socialism while maintaining capitalist principles as well). It is where this balance goes wrong that issues arise, as we shall see.

So, finally, returning to the original topic of conversation: Cuba as a "communist" state. This is an arguable point. Cuba defines itself as a socialist republic, for example, and its popularly-elected legislative branch seems to be for the most part fairly elected. The issue lies in the power of the popularly-elected legislature. The National Assembly of People's Power, ostensibly the "supreme organ of power" ("Cuba", Wikipedia), meets only twice annually, and for the most part legislative power lies in an appointed Council of Ministers. Given the Cuban government's high degree of control over industry and employment in the state (an example of a high degree of socialism), threats of job loss act as powerful motivators to potential dissidents. Further, freedom of speech, although guaranteed in the Cuban constitution, is curtailed insofar as it pertains to criticism of "the existence and objectives of the socialist state". For these reasons, among others, Paul Wilkinson categorizes Cuba as "Highly Coercive" (though, notably, not "Most Coercive", into which category falls the old Soviet Union")—fairly totalitarian, but with some checks on power (for example, an elected national assembly), a statement with which I am inclined to agree.

So, ultimately, the thing I contest is the value judgment attached to the word communism in the second definition. Marx's communism is essentially benevolent, whereas the coercive state implied by the second definition is essentially just that: coercive and totalitarian. So, when it comes down to it, it seems to me that it would be more in keeping with the values of plain-speaking that seem increasingly valued these days to describe the second definition as "(x degree of) coercive totalitarianism" and the first as "communism". Call it what it is; don't try to label it as something it is not.