Throughout the 20th century, the Soviet Union was frequently described as a communist state, both by its supporters and detractors. This characterisation became especially prevalent during the Cold War, when the global conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union was framed as a titanic struggle between capitalism and communism. However, a deeper examination of Marxist theory, the Soviet system, and the works of critical intellectuals such as Raymond Aron in The Opium of the Intellectuals and Jean-François Revel in The Totalitarian Temptation reveals that the Soviet Union was far from embodying true communism. Instead, it was a totalitarian state that betrayed the core ideals of Marxism, perpetuating an authoritarian regime under the guise of a socialist revolution. This mischaracterisation extends not only to the Soviet Union but also to other so-called “communist” states such as China and North Korea. Those who claimed that these regimes represented communism were fundamentally mistaken, as they conflated Marxist ideology with totalitarian practice, ignoring the profound differences between the two.
Marxist Theory: The Vision of True Communism
To understand why the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea were not truly communist, it is essential to begin with the core principles of Marxist theory. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the founders of Marxism, envisioned communism as a classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned, and goods are distributed according to need. In such a society, the exploitation inherent in capitalism would be abolished, and individuals would be free to develop their full human potential. The path to this ideal society, according to Marx, involved the overthrow of the capitalist system through a proletarian revolution, leading to a transitional period known as socialism.
Socialism, in Marxist thought, is a stage between capitalism and communism. During this period, the working class, or proletariat, would seize control of the state and use its power to dismantle the remnants of capitalism. The state, in this context, would serve as a tool to suppress the former ruling classes and reorganise society along socialist lines. However, Marx and Engels were clear that the state was not an end in itself. As class distinctions dissolved, the state would “wither away,” giving rise to a truly communist society where the need for coercive institutions would disappear.
In this ideal communist society, there would be no need for a government because social relations would be based on common ownership and democratic self-management. Workers would directly control the means of production, leading to a society free of exploitation, alienation, and oppression. The state, as a repressive apparatus, would be rendered obsolete as humanity reached a higher stage of social development.
The Russian Revolution and the Birth of the Soviet State
The Russian Revolution of 1917, led by the Bolsheviks under Vladimir Lenin, was ostensibly inspired by Marxist principles. The Bolsheviks promised to create a society in which the working class would rule, paving the way for the transition to communism. However, the realities of the Russian Revolution and the subsequent development of the Soviet state deviated sharply from Marxist theory. From the outset, the Bolsheviks faced enormous challenges, including a devastating civil war, foreign intervention, and economic collapse. In response, Lenin and his party implemented policies that concentrated power in the hands of a small revolutionary elite, justified as necessary measures to protect the revolution.
Lenin introduced the concept of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” a term borrowed from Marx, to describe the period of transition from capitalism to communism. However, in practice, this dictatorship became a dictatorship of the Bolshevik Party itself, rather than the proletariat. The centralisation of power within the party, coupled with the repression of political opposition, marked the beginning of a state that was authoritarian rather than democratic. The democratic control of the means of production, a cornerstone of Marxist theory, was replaced by the bureaucratic control of the state. The Soviets, or workers’ councils, which had initially played a key role in the revolution, were gradually sidelined as the Bolsheviks consolidated power.
This consolidation of power was further entrenched under Joseph Stalin, who transformed the Soviet Union into a totalitarian state. Stalin’s regime was marked by extreme centralisation, a personality cult, widespread purges, and a repressive police state. The state’s control over the economy led to forced collectivisation, which caused widespread famine, and rapid industrialisation, which was achieved through the exploitation of workers. Far from achieving the democratic workers’ control envisioned by Marx, the Soviet economy was directed by top-down bureaucratic decisions, often with catastrophic human costs.
The Opium of the Intellectuals: The Allure of Soviet Ideology
In his seminal work The Opium of the Intellectuals, French sociologist and philosopher Raymond Aron critiques the uncritical embrace of Soviet ideology by Western intellectuals. Aron argues that many intellectuals, disillusioned with the perceived injustices of capitalism, were seduced by the Soviet Union’s claims of building a socialist society. For these intellectuals, communism became a “secular religion,” offering a utopian vision of a classless society. This vision, however, was based more on faith than on a critical examination of the Soviet reality.
Aron uses the concept of “opium” metaphorically, drawing a parallel between the religious fervour that Marx attributed to religion as the “opium of the people” and the ideological fervour with which many intellectuals embraced Soviet communism. He argues that this ideological commitment blinded them to the contradictions and brutalities of the Soviet system. The Soviet Union’s rhetoric of equality, social justice, and workers’ power obscured the reality of a totalitarian regime that was more concerned with maintaining its grip on power than with achieving true socialism, let alone communism.
Aron’s critique is particularly relevant when considering why so many people, both in the Soviet Union and abroad, believed that the U.S.S.R. was genuinely communist. The Soviet state invested heavily in propaganda that portrayed its system as the embodiment of Marxist ideals. This propaganda was effective not only within the Soviet Union but also among left-leaning intellectuals in the West, who often viewed the Soviet Union as a flawed but necessary experiment in building socialism. Aron, however, exposes this as a dangerous delusion. By accepting the Soviet Union’s claims at face value, these intellectuals failed to see that the U.S.S.R. was not progressing towards communism but was instead entrenching a new form of authoritarianism.
The Totalitarian Temptation: The Soviet Union as a Model of Control
Jean-François Revel, in his book The Totalitarian Temptation, provides another crucial critique of the Soviet system. Revel explores the broader appeal of totalitarianism in the 20th century, arguing that totalitarian regimes, including the Soviet Union, represented a temptation for those who sought absolute control over society in the name of ideological purity. For Revel, the Soviet Union was not an aberration but a logical outcome of the desire to impose a utopian vision on reality, regardless of the human cost.
Revel contends that totalitarianism is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of Marxist communism, which is supposed to be based on the voluntary association of free individuals. Totalitarian regimes, by contrast, rely on coercion, repression, and the elimination of dissent. The Soviet Union, under Stalin, became the archetype of this totalitarian impulse, where the state sought to control every aspect of life, from the economy to personal thought. The Soviet regime’s obsession with control was evident in its use of surveillance, censorship, and propaganda to maintain its power. This totalitarian control was justified by the need to protect the revolution and build socialism, but in reality, it served to perpetuate the power of the ruling elite.
Revel’s analysis helps to clarify why the Soviet Union cannot be considered communist. The essence of communism, according to Marx, is the abolition of class distinctions and the creation of a society where individuals are free from oppression. In the Soviet Union, however, a new ruling class emerged in the form of the Communist Party elite, or nomenklatura. This elite enjoyed privileges far beyond those of ordinary citizens, creating a system that was far from classless. The state’s control over the means of production did not lead to the empowerment of workers but instead concentrated power in the hands of a bureaucratic elite. The democratic, egalitarian society envisioned by Marx was replaced by a hierarchical, authoritarian state that bore little resemblance to true communism.
The Soviet Economy: State Capitalism, Not Communism
One of the most significant misconceptions about the Soviet Union is the belief that it represented an alternative to capitalism. In reality, the Soviet economy was not truly communist but rather a form of state capitalism. Under state capitalism, the state, rather than private capitalists, controls the means of production. However, this control is exercised in a manner that is fundamentally capitalist, with the state acting as the ultimate capitalist. In the Soviet Union, the state owned all major industries, controlled agricultural production through collectivisation, and directed economic activity through central planning.
This system of state capitalism was antithetical to Marxist communism, which advocates for the collective ownership and democratic management of the means of production by the workers themselves. In the Soviet Union, workers had little to no control over the production process. Instead, economic decisions were made by a centralised bureaucracy that operated according to the imperatives of state power, rather than the needs and desires of the workers. The Soviet economy was characterised by hierarchical decision-making, a lack of worker participation, and the prioritisation of state goals over individual and communal well-being.
Moreover, the Soviet system of state capitalism led to significant inequalities in wealth and power. The nomenklatura enjoyed access to special privileges, including better housing, healthcare, and consumer goods, while the majority of citizens faced shortages, poor living conditions, and limited personal freedoms. This disparity between the ruling elite and ordinary workers contradicts the Marxist ideal of a classless society. In a truly communist society, there would be no ruling class, and the means of production would be collectively owned and managed by the people. The Soviet Union, with its rigid hierarchy and concentration of power, was far removed from this ideal.
Political Repression and the Absence of Democratic Participation
The political system of the Soviet Union further illustrates why it was not communist. Marxist theory envisions the eventual “withering away” of the state, as society becomes self-managed and class distinctions disappear. In contrast, the Soviet state became increasingly centralised and repressive. The Communist Party, which claimed to represent the interests of the working class, monopolised political power and suppressed all forms of opposition. The result was a one-party state that bore little resemblance to the democratic, participatory society imagined by Marx.
Under Stalin, the Soviet Union became a totalitarian state where dissent was ruthlessly crushed. The purges, show trials, and mass executions of the 1930s were justified as necessary to protect the revolution, but in reality, they served to eliminate potential rivals and consolidate the power of the ruling elite. The suppression of dissent extended to all aspects of society, including culture, science, and education, where conformity to the party line was enforced through censorship and ideological indoctrination. This repression was antithetical to the democratic principles that are supposed to underpin communism. In a truly communist society, power would be decentralised, with decisions made collectively by the people. The Soviet Union, by contrast, was a highly centralised state where power was concentrated in the hands of a few, and where dissent was ruthlessly suppressed.
China: The Continuation of State Capitalism Under the Banner of Communism
The experience of China under the rule of the Communist Party further demonstrates the divergence between Marxist theory and the practice of so-called “communist” states. Following the Chinese Revolution of 1949, the Communist Party, under the leadership of Mao Zedong, established a one-party state that claimed to be building socialism on the road to communism. However, like the Soviet Union, China quickly deviated from Marxist principles in both its economic and political practices.
Mao’s early policies, such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, were marked by a top-down approach to economic and social change that resulted in widespread human suffering. The Great Leap Forward, which aimed to rapidly industrialise China and collectivise agriculture, led to one of the worst famines in human history, with millions of deaths. The Cultural Revolution, intended to purge capitalist and traditional elements from Chinese society, resulted in massive social upheaval, persecution, and the destruction of cultural heritage.
Despite these failures, the Chinese Communist Party retained its grip on power by maintaining tight control over the economy, society, and political life. Under Deng Xiaoping, China shifted towards a model of “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” which in practice meant the introduction of market reforms within a framework of state control. This shift resulted in rapid economic growth, but it also created significant inequalities and entrenched the power of the Communist Party elite. China’s system today is better described as state capitalism than communism, with a ruling party that combines authoritarian control with market-based economic practices. The exploitation and inequality that exist within Chinese society are starkly at odds with the ideals of communism, further highlighting the gap between rhetoric and reality.
North Korea: A Family Dynasty Masquerading as a Communist State
North Korea, officially known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), provides another example of a state that has claimed to be communist while practicing something entirely different. The DPRK, founded in 1948 under the leadership of Kim Il-sung, presents itself as a socialist state following the principles of Marxism-Leninism. However, North Korea’s political and economic system is far removed from the vision of communism outlined by Marx.
North Korea is best understood as a hereditary dictatorship with a totalitarian regime that exercises extreme control over its population. The ruling Kim family, now in its third generation of leadership, has maintained its power through a combination of propaganda, repression, and the cultivation of a personality cult. The state’s control over the economy is absolute, with all economic activity directed towards supporting the regime’s survival. The rigid hierarchy, lack of personal freedoms, and pervasive surveillance in North Korea stand in stark contrast to the Marxist ideal of a classless, stateless society.
The economic system in North Korea is one of extreme centralisation, where the state controls all means of production. However, this control is not exercised for the benefit of the working class but rather to sustain the ruling elite and the military. The economy is characterised by chronic shortages, inefficiency, and widespread poverty, with the vast majority of the population living in conditions of severe deprivation. The stark inequality between the ruling class and ordinary citizens, along with the absence of democratic participation, underscores the gap between North Korea’s claims to communism and its actual practices.
The Cultural and Social Dimension: The Betrayal of Revolutionary Ideals
In addition to their economic and political failings, the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea all betrayed the cultural and social ideals of communism. Marxist theory envisions a society where individuals are free to develop their full potential, liberated from the alienation and exploitation of capitalist society. However, in these states, cultural and social life was subordinated to the needs of the regime. Art, literature, and education were all subject to strict ideological control, with creativity and critical thought stifled by censorship and propaganda. The result was societies where conformity was enforced, and where individual expression was limited to what was deemed acceptable by the party.
In the Soviet Union, Stalin’s regime imposed a rigid cultural orthodoxy known as “socialist realism,” which required artists and writers to depict reality in a manner that glorified the party and its achievements. This stifling of artistic freedom was mirrored in China during the Cultural Revolution, where intellectuals and artists were persecuted for deviating from the party line. North Korea, with its even more extreme control over cultural life, has created a society where the arts serve primarily as tools of propaganda, extolling the virtues of the Kim family and the state.
The repression of cultural freedom in these states reflects their broader betrayal of the revolutionary ideals of communism. Rather than creating societies that were free, equal, and democratic, these regimes imposed new forms of oppression, control, and inequality. The state’s obsession with power and control led to societies where the very ideals that had inspired their revolutions—freedom, equality, and human dignity—were systematically undermined.
The Soviet Union, China, and North Korea as False Flags for Communism
The Soviet Union, China, and North Korea, far from being true communist states, are better understood as totalitarian regimes that distorted and betrayed the principles of Marxist theory. The works of Raymond Aron in The Opium of the Intellectuals and Jean-François Revel in The Totalitarian Temptation provide critical insights into why these states should not be considered communist. Aron’s analysis of the ideological blindness of Western intellectuals reveals how propaganda and the allure of a utopian vision obscured the reality of authoritarianism in these regimes. Revel’s exploration of the totalitarian impulse highlights how the obsession with control and power in these states was fundamentally incompatible with the principles of communism.
The Soviet Union, China, and North Korea each developed systems of state capitalism, where the state acted as the ultimate capitalist, rather than creating societies based on collective ownership and democratic management. Their political systems were characterised by the concentration of power in the hands of a ruling elite, the suppression of dissent, and the absence of genuine political participation. Culturally and socially, they imposed conformity and repression, betraying the liberatory aspirations of communism.
Those who claimed that these states were communist were wrong because they mistook their rhetoric for reality. By conflating Marxist ideology with the practices of these regimes, they overlooked the profound differences between the two. The Soviet Union, China, and North Korea were not communist societies but totalitarian states that used the language of communism to justify their authoritarian rule. Understanding this distinction is crucial for both historical accuracy and for preserving the integrity of Marxist theory, which remains a radical critique of capitalism and a vision for a society based on true freedom, equality, and democracy.
KEEP US ALIVE and join us in helping to bring reality and decency back by SUBSCRIBING to our Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ1Ll1ylCg8U19AhNl-NoTg AND SUPPORTING US where you can: Award Winning Independent Citizen Media Needs Your Help. PLEASE SUPPORT US FOR JUST £2 A MONTH https://dorseteye.com/donate/
