A communist state is a form of government that combines the state leadership of a communist party, Marxist–Leninist political philosophy, and an official commitment to the construction of a communist society. Communism in its modern form grew out of the socialist movement in 19th-century Europe and blamed capitalism for societal miseries. In the 20th century, several communist states were established, first in Russia with the Russian Revolution of 1917 and then in portions of Eastern Europe, Asia, and a few other regions after World War II. The institutions of these states were heavily influenced by the writings of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and others. During most of the 20th century, around one-third of the world's population lived in communist states.[1] However, the political reforms of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev known as Perestroika and socio-economic difficulties produced the revolutions of 1989, which brought down all the communist states of the Eastern Bloc bar the Soviet Union. The repercussions of the collapse of these states contributed to political transformations in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia and several other non-European communist states. Presently, there are five communist states in the world: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam.

In accordance with Marx's theory of the state, communists believe all state formations are under the control of a ruling class. Communist states are no different, and the ruling communist party is defined as the vanguard party of the most class conscious section of the working class (this class is known as the proletariat in Marxist literature). Communist states usually affirm that the working class is the state's ruling class and that the most class conscious workers lead the state through the communist party, forming the dictatorship of the proletariat. According to this belief system, communist states need to establish an economic base to support the ruling class system (called "superstructure" by Marxists) by creating a socialist economy, or at the very least, some socialist property relations that are strong enough to support the communist class system. By ensuring these two features, the communist party seeks to make Marxism–Leninism the guiding ideology of the state. Normally, the constitution of a communist state defines the class system, economic system and guiding ideology of the state.

The political systems of these states are based on the principles of democratic centralism and unified power. Democratic centralism seeks to centralise powers in the highest leadership and, in theory, reach political decisions through democratic processes. Unified power is the opposite of the separation of powers and seeks to turn the national representative organ elected through non-competitive, controlled elections into the state's single branch of government. This institution is commonly called the highest organ of state power, and a ruling communist party normally holds at least two-thirds of the seats in this body. The highest organ of state power has unlimited powers bar the limits it has itself set by adopting constitutional and legal documents. What would be considered executive or judicial branches in a liberal democratic system are in communist states deemed as bodies of the highest organ of state power. The highest organ of state power usually adopts a constitution that explicitly gives the ruling communist party leadership of the state.

The communist party controls the highest organ of state power through the political discipline it exerts on its members and, through them, dominates the state. Ruling communist parties of these states are organised on Leninist lines, in which the party congress functions as its supreme decision-making body. In between two congresses, the central committee acts as the highest organ. When neither the party congress nor the central committee is in session, the decision-making authorities of these organs are normally delegated to its politburo, which makes political decisions, and a secretariat, which executes the decisions made by the party congress, central committee and the politburo. These bodies are composed of leading figures from state and party organs. The leaders of these parties are often given the title of general secretary, but the power of this office varies from state to state. Some states are characterised by one-man dominance and the cult of personality, while others are run by a collective leadership, a system in which powers are more evenly distributed between leading officials and decision-making organs are more institutionalised.

These states seek to mobilise the public to participate in state affairs. This is done through various forms, most commonly through communist party-controlled mass organisations. These organisations try to encompass everyone and not only committed communists. Other methods are through coercion and political campaigns. Some have criticised these methods as dictatorial since the communist party remains the centre of power. Others emphasise that these are examples of communist states with functioning political participation processes (i.e. Soviet democracy) involving several other non-party organisations such as direct democratic participation, factory committees, and trade unions.[2][3][4]

Etymology

No communist state has ever called itself such, and according to David Ramsay Steele, the term "communist state" is an invention of foreign observers: "Among Western journalists, the term 'Communist' came to refer exclusively to regimes and movements associated with the Communist International and its offspring: regimes which insisted that they were not communist but socialist, and movements which were barely communist in any sense at all."[5] These states commonly describe themselves as socialist states since they do not claim to have achieved communism, as it would constitute an oxymoron—communist society is anticipated to be stateless. Scholar Jozef Wilczynski notes: "Contrary to Western usage, these countries describe themselves as 'Socialist' (not 'Communist'). The second stage (Marx's 'higher phase'), or 'Communism', is to be marked by an age of plenty, distribution according to needs (not work), the absence of money and the market mechanism, the disappearance of the last vestiges of capitalism and the ultimate 'whithering away' of the State."[6] Scholars John Barkley and Marina Rosser concur and note: "Ironically, the ideological father of communism, Karl Marx, claimed that communism entailed the withering away of the state. The dictatorship of the proletariat was to be a strictly temporary phenomenon. Well aware of this, the Soviet Communists never claimed to have achieved communism, always labeling their own system socialist rather than communist and viewing their system as in transition to communism."[7] Academic Raymond Williams notes that etymologically this naming convention is due to a name change: "The decisive distinction between socialist and communist, as in one sense these terms are now ordinarily used, came with the renaming, in 1918, of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks) as the All-Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). From that time on, a distinction of socialist from communist, often with supporting definitions such as social democrat or democratic socialist, became widely current, although it is significant that all communist parties, in line with earlier usage, continued to describe themselves as socialist and dedicated to socialism."[8] Other self-descriptions used by communist states are, for example, national-democratic, people's democratic, socialist-oriented, and workers and peasants' states.[9]

From a Western political science perspective, it is correct to speak of a communist state since these states share several characteristics.[10] According to scholars Stephen White, John Gardner and George Schöpflin these states share four defining features. The first defining feature is that every communist state has Marxism–Leninism as its official ideology. They note that this does not mean that every leader of these states is committed to Marxist values, stating that this is a separate and empirical question. The second feature is that the whole economy, or large parts, is state-owned and organised, most commonly through a centrally-planned state apparatus. The third feature is the one-party system of a single communist party and, in some exceptional circumstances, a system in which other parties exist but the communist party is dominant. This party is highly centralised and disciplined. The last defining feature, according to White, Gardner and Schöpflin, is the control the communist party has over society, which is often constitutionally stipulated by giving the party the leading role in state and society.[11]

Overview

An anachronous map of countries that have been ruled by a one-party Marxist–Leninist state at some point in their history. From 1979 to 1983, during the time of the People's Revolutionary Government in Grenada, all the colored nations above were simultaneously Marxist–Leninist.

Development

During the 20th century, the world's first constitutionally communist state was in Russia at the end of 1917. In 1922, it joined other former territories of the empire to become the Soviet Union. After World War II, the Soviet Army occupied much of Eastern Europe and helped bring the existing communist parties to power in those countries. Originally, the communist states in Eastern Europe were allied with the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia would declare itself non-aligned, and Albania later took a different path. After a war against Japanese occupation and a civil war resulting in a Communist victory, the People's Republic of China was established in 1949. Communist states were also established in Cambodia, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. In 1989, the communist states in Eastern Europe collapsed after the Iron Curtain broke as a result of the Pan-European Picnic, under public pressure during a wave of mostly non-violent movements as part of the Revolutions of 1989 which led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. China's socio-economic structure has been referred to as "nationalistic state capitalism" and the Eastern Bloc (Eastern Europe and the Third World) as "bureaucratic-authoritarian systems."[12][13]

Today, the existing communist states in the world are in China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, and North Korea. These communist states often do not claim to have achieved socialism or communism in their countries but to be building and working toward the establishment of socialism in their countries. The preamble to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's Constitution states that Vietnam only entered a transition stage between capitalism and socialism after the country was re-unified under the communist party in 1976[14] and the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Cuba states that the role of the communist party is to "guide the common effort toward the goals and construction of socialism."[15] The DPRK's constitution outlines a socialist economy and the ruling Workers' Party of Korea remains ideologically committed to communism.[16][17]

Institutions

Communist states share similar institutions, which are organised on the premise that the communist party is a vanguard of the proletariat and represents the long-term interests of the people. The doctrine of democratic centralism, developed by Vladimir Lenin as a set of principles to be used in the internal affairs of the communist party, is extended to society at large.[18] According to democratic centralism, the people must elect all leaders, and all proposals must be debated openly, but once a decision has been reached, all people have a duty to account to that decision. When used within a political party, democratic centralism is meant to prevent factionalism and splits. When applied to an entire state, democratic centralism creates a one-party system.[18] The constitutions of most communist states describe their political system as a form of democracy.[19] They recognize the sovereignty of the people as embodied in a series of representative parliamentary institutions. Such states do not have a separation of powers and instead have the highest organ of state power body (such as the Supreme Soviet in the Soviet Union), which is bestowed with unitary power and is often defined as the highest organ of state power. Unitary power means that the highest organ of state power has executive, judicial and legislative powers but chooses to delegate these powers to other institutions.[20]

In communist states, the highest organs of state power often have a similar structure to the parliaments in liberal republics, with two significant differences. First, the deputies elected to the highest organ of state power are not expected to represent the interests of any particular constituency but rather the long-term interests of the people as a whole; and second, against Karl Marx's advice, the unitary highest organs of state power are not in permanent session. Instead, they convene once or several times yearly in sessions that usually last only a few days.[21] When the highest organ of state power is not in session, its powers are transferred to a smaller council (often called a presidium) which acts as a collective head of state. In some systems, the presidium is composed of crucial communist party members who vote the resolutions of the communist party into law.[21]

A feature of communist states is the existence of numerous state-sponsored social organisations (associations of journalists, teachers, writers and other professionals, consumer cooperatives, sports clubs, trade unions, youth organisations, and women's organisations) which are integrated into the political system. In communist states, the social organisations are expected to promote social unity and cohesion, to serve as a link between the government and society and to provide a forum for the recruitment of new communist party members.[22]

Historically, the political organisation of many socialist states has been dominated by a one-party monopoly. Some communist governments such as those in China, Czechoslovakia, or East Germany have or had more than one political party, but all minor parties are or were required to follow the leadership of the communist party. In communist states, the government may not tolerate criticism of policies that have already been implemented in the past or are being implemented in the present.[23]

State

According to Marxist–Leninist thought, the state is a repressive institution led by a ruling class.[24] This class dominates the state and expresses its will through it.[24] By formulating law, the ruling class uses the state to oppress other classes and form a class dictatorship.[24] However, the goal of the communist state is to abolish that state.[24] The Soviet Russia Constitution of 1918 stated: "The principal object of the Constitution of the R.S.F.S.R., which is adapted to the present transition period, consists in the establishment of a dictatorship of the urban and rural proletariat and the poorest peasantry, in the form of a powerful All-Russian Soviet power; the object of which is to secure complete suppression of the bourgeoisie, the abolition of exploitation of man by man, and the establishment of Socialism, under which there shall be neither class division nor state authority".[24] The communist state is the dictatorship of the proletariat, where the advanced elements of the proletariat are the ruling class.[25] In Marxist–Leninist thinking, the socialist state is the last repressive state since the next stage of development is that of pure communism, a classless and stateless society.[25] Friedrich Engels commented on the state, writing: "State interference in social relations, becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It dies out."[26]

In "The Tax in Kind", Vladimir Lenin argued: "No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Soviet Socialist Republic implies the determination of the Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the existing economic system is recognised as a socialist order."[27] The introduction of the first five-year plan in the Soviet Union got many communists to believe that the withering away of the state was imminent.[28] However, Joseph Stalin warned that the withering away of the state would not occur until after the socialist mode of production had achieved dominance over capitalism.[28] Soviet jurist Andrey Vyshinsky echoed this assumption and said that the socialist state was necessary "in order to defend, to secure, and to develop relationships and arrangements advantageous to the workers, and to annihilate completely capitalism and its remnants."[29]

Ideology permeates these states.[30] According to scholar Peter Tang, "[t]he supreme test of whether a Communist Party-state remains revolutionarily dedicated or degenerates into a revisionist or counterrevolutionary system lies in its attitude toward the Communist ideology."[31] Therefore, the sole ideological purpose of communist states is to spread socialism and to reach that goal these states have to be guided by Marxism–Leninism.[31] The communist states have opted for two ways to achieve this goal, namely govern indirectly by Marxism–Leninism through the party (Soviet model), or commit the state officially through the constitution to Marxism–Leninism (Maoist China–Albania model).[32] The Soviet model is the most common and is currently in use in China.[33]

Marxism–Leninism was mentioned in the Soviet constitution.[30] Article 6 of the 1977 Soviet constitution stated: "The Communist Party, armed with Marxism–Leninism, determines the general perspective of the development of society and the course of the domestic and foreign policy of the USSR."[30] This contrasts with the 1976 Albanian constitution which stated in Article 3: "In the People's Socialist Republic of Albania the dominant ideology is Marxism–Leninism. The entire social order is developing on the basis of its principles."[33] The 1975 Chinese constitution had a similar tone, stating in Article 2 that "Marxism–Leninism–Mao Zedong Thought is the theoretical basis guiding the thinking of our nation."[33] The 1977 Soviet constitution did also use phrases such as "building socialism and communism", "on the road to communism", "to build the material and technical basis of communism" and "to perfect socialist social relations and transform them into communist relations" in the preamble.[30]

People's democratic state

The people's democratic state was implemented in Eastern Europe after World War II.[34] It can be defined as a state and society in which feudal vestiges have been liquidated and where the system of private ownership exists, but the state-owned enterprises in the field of industry, transport, and credit eclipse it.[35]

In the words of Eugene Varga, "the state itself and its apparatus of violence serve the interests, not of the monopolistic bourgeoisie, but of the toilers of town and country."[35] Soviet philosopher N. P. Farberov stated: "People's democracy in the people's republics is a democracy of the toiling classes, headed by the working class, a broad and full democracy for the overwhelming majority of the people, that is, a socialist democracy in its character and its trend. In this sense, we call it popular."[35]

National-democratic state

The concept of the national-democratic state tried to theorize how a state could develop socialism by bypassing the capitalist mode of production.[36] While Vladimir Lenin first articulated the theory of non-capitalist development, the novelty of this concept was applying it to the progressive elements of the national liberation movements in the Third World.[36] The term national-democratic state was introduced shortly after the death of Stalin, who believed colonies to be mere lackeys of Western imperialism and that the socialist movement had few prospects there.[36]

The countries where the national liberation movements took power and instituted an anti-imperialist foreign policy and sought to construct a form of socialism were considered national-democratic states by Marxist–Leninists.[36] An example of a national-democratic state is Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser which was committed to constructing Arab socialism.[37] Except Cuba, none of these states developed socialism.[37] According to scholar Sylvia Woodby Edington, this might explain why the concept of the national-democratic state "never received full theoretical elaboration as a political system."[37] However, one feature was clearly defined, namely, that these states did not need to be led by a Marxist–Leninist party.[38]

Socialist-oriented state

A socialist-oriented state seeks to reach socialism by non-capitalist development.[39] As a term, it substantially differs from the concept of the national-democratic state.[39] The singular difference is that the socialist-oriented state was divided into two stages: a national-democratic socialist-oriented state and a people's democratic socialist-oriented state.[38] Countries belonging to the national-democratic socialist-oriented state category were also categorised as national-democratic states.[38] Examples of national-democratic socialist-oriented states are Algeria, ruled by the National Liberation Front, Ba'athist Iraq, and Socialist Burma.[38] In contrast, people's democratic socialist-oriented states had to be guided by Marxism–Leninism and accept the universal truths of Marxism–Leninism and reject other notions of socialism such as African socialism.[38]

The socialist-oriented states had seven defining features, namely, they were revolutionary democracies, had a revolutionary-democratic party, class dictatorship, defense of the socialist-oriented states, had organs of socialisation, initiated socialist construction, and the type of socialist-oriented state (either national-democratic or people's democratic).[40] The political goal of revolutionary democracy is to create the conditions for socialism in countries where the social, political, and economic conditions for socialism do not exist.[41] The second feature to be met is the establishment of a revolutionary-democratic party which has to establish itself as the leading force and guide the state by using Marxist–Leninist ideology.[42] While introduced in these states, democratic centralism is rarely upheld.[43]

Unlike capitalism which is ruled by the bourgeoisie class, and socialism, where the proletariat leads, the socialist-oriented state represents a broad and heterogeneous group of classes that seek to consolidate national independence.[43] Since peasants were usually the largest class in socialist-oriented states, their role was emphasised—similar to the working class in other socialist states.[44] However, Marxist–Leninists admitted that these states often fell under the control of certain cliques such as the military in Ethiopia.[44] The establishment of a legal system and coercive institutions are also noted to safeguard the socialist-oriented nature of the state.[45] The fifth feature is that the socialist-oriented state must take over the media and educational system while establishing mass organisations to mobilize the populace.[46] Unlike the Soviet economic model, the economy of the socialist-oriented states are mixed economies that seek to attract foreign capital and which seeks to maintain and develop the private sector.[47] In the words of Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, these states were in the process of taking over the commanding heights of the economy and instituting a state-planned economy.[37] According to Soviet sources, Laos was the one socialist-oriented state that has managed to develop into a socialist state.[48]

Socialist state

A socialist state is more than a form of government and can only exist in countries with a socialist economy. There are examples of several states that have instituted a socialist form of government before achieving socialism. The former socialist states of Eastern Europe were established as people's democracies (a developmental stage between capitalism and socialism). Regarding the Marxist–Leninist-ruled countries of Africa and the Middle East, the Soviet Union deemed none of them socialist states—referring to them as socialist-oriented states. While many countries with constitutional references to socialism and countries ruled by long-standing socialist movements exist, within Marxist–Leninist theory a socialist state is led by a communist party that has instituted a socialist economy in a given country.[49] It deals with states that define themselves either as a socialist state or as a state led by a governing Marxist–Leninist party in their constitutions. For this reason alone, these states are often called communist states.[50]

The state system of unitary power

Highest organ of state power

The meeting place of the Chinese National People's Congress

All communist political systems practice unitary state power. This means that the highest organ of state power, commonly referred to as the legislature by observers, has executive, legislative and judicial power and functions as the nationally elected representative organ of these states. Since these states do not have separate power branches, the highest organ of state power can interfere in the work of executive, judicial and legislative organs as long as the law does not illegalise it. This is because both Marx and Lenin abhorred the parliamentary systems of bourgeois democracy, but neither sought to abolish the legislature as an institution.[51] Lenin wrote that it would be impossible to develop proletarian democracy "without representative institutions."[51] Both of them considered the governing model of the Paris Commune of 1871, in which executive and legislative were combined in one body, to be ideal.[51] More importantly, Marx applauded the election process by "universal suffrage in the various wards and towns."[51] While the highest organ of state power might not be an important institution in itself, they "have a place in the literature and rhetoric of the ruling parties which cannot be ignored—in the language of the party's intimacy with working masses, of its alleged knowledge about interests of working people, of social justice and socialist democracy, of the mass line and learning from the people."[52] This reasoning gives the highest organ of state power the right to interfere in every state institution unless it itself has made a law that bars it from it. This also means there are no limits to politicisation, unlike in liberal democracies, where politicians are legally barred from interfering in judicial work. This is a firm rejection of the separation of powers found in liberal democracies since no institution can legally enforce checks and balances on the highest organ of state power. The highest organ of state power passes the constitution, which can only be amended by it. Soviet legal theorists denounced judicial review and extra-parliamentary review as bourgeoisie institutions. They also perceived it as a limitation of the people's supreme power. The highest organ of state power, together with its suborgans, oversaw the constitutional order.[53] Since the highest organ of state power is the supreme judge of constitutionality, it acts cannot be unconstitutional.[54] Moreover, this means that judicial independence in communist states does not mean the same as in liberal democracies. In communist states, judicial independence means stopping all interference not granted by law, but interference in itself is not barred.

The Supreme Soviet was the first socialist highest organ of state power, and the Soviet system was introduced in all communist states.[55] The Supreme Soviet convened twice a year, usually for two or three days each.[56] The same meeting frequency was the norm in the Eastern Bloc countries and modern-day China.[57] China's highest organ of state power, the National People's Congress (NPC), is modelled on the Soviet one.[58] As with the Soviet one, the NPC is the highest organ of the state and elects a Standing Committee (the Soviets had a Presidium), the government (named the State Council in China and the Council of Ministers in the Soviet Union), the Supreme Court (such as the Supreme Court of East Germany), the Supreme Procuratorate (such as the Supreme People's Procuracy of Vietnam), the Chairman of the National Defence Council (for example, the Chairman of the Council for National Defense and Security of Vietnam), National Supervisory institutions (such as the Director of China's National Supervisory Commission) and other institutions if they exist.[59] Moreover, in all communist states, the ruling party has either had a clear majority, such as China or held every seat as they did in the Soviet Union, in their Supreme Soviet. A majority in the highest organ of state power ensures the centralised and unitary leadership of the central committee of the ruling Marxist–Leninist party over the state.[60]

By having the highest organs of state power, the Marxist–Leninist parties try to keep ideological consistency between supporting representative institutions and safeguarding the party's leading role.[51] They seek to use the highest organ of state power as a linkage between the rulers and the ruled.[51] These institutions are representative and usually mirror the population in areas such as ethnicity and language, "yet with occupations distributed in a manner skewed towards government officials."[51] Unlike in liberal democracies, the representative organ of communist states is not to act as a forum for conveying demands or interest articulation—they meet too infrequently for this to be the case.[61] This might explain why communist states have not developed terms such as delegates and trustees to give elected representatives the power to vote according to their best judgment or in the interest of their constituency.[61] Scholar Daniel Nelson has noted: "As with the British parliament before the seventeenth-century turmoil secured its supremacy, legislative bodies in communist states physically portray the 'realm' ruled by (to stretch an analogy) 'kings'. Members of the assemblies 'represent' the population to whom the rulers speak and over whom they govern, convening a broader 'segment of society' [...] than the court itself."[61] Despite this, it does not mean that the communist states use highest organ of state power to strengthen their communication with the populace—the party, rather than the highest organ of state power, could take that function.[61]

Ideologically, it has another function, namely, to prove that communist states do not only represent the interests of the working class but all social strata.[62] Communist states are committed to establishing a classless society and use the highest organ of state power to show that all social strata, whether bureaucrat, worker, or intellectual, are committed and have interests in building such a society.[62] As is the case in China, national institutions such as the highest organ of state power "must exist which brings together representatives of all nationalities and geographic areas."[62] It does not matter if the highest organs of state power only rubber stamp decisions because by having them, it shows that communist states are committed to incorporating minorities and areas of the country by including them in the composition of the highest organ of state power.[62] In communist states, there is usually a high proportion of members who are government officials.[63] In this instance, it might mean that it's less important what highest organs of state power do and more important who its representatives are.[63] The members of the highest organs of state power at central and local levels are usually either government or party officials, leading figures in their community, or national figures outside the communist party.[63] This shows that highest organs of state power are tools to garner popular support for the government in which leading figures campaign and spread information about the party's policies and ideological development.[63]

Furthermore, Western researchers have devoted little attention to the highest organs of state power in communist states. The reason is that there are no significant bodies of political socialisation compared to legislatures in liberal democracies. While political leaders in communist states are often elected as members of the highest organ of state power, these posts are not relevant to political advancement. The role of the highest organ of state power is different from country to country. In the Soviet Union, the Supreme Soviet did "little more than listen to statements from Soviet political leaders and to legitimate decisions already made elsewhere" while in the highest organs of state power of Poland, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia it has been more active and had an impact on rule-making.[64]

Constitution

Role of constitutions

Marxist–Leninists view the constitution as a fundamental law and as an instrument of force.[65] The constitution is the source of law and legality.[66] Unlike in liberal democracies, the Marxist–Leninist constitution is not a framework to limit the power of the state.[66] To the contrary, a Marxist–Leninist constitution seeks to empower the state—believing the state to be an organ of class domination and law to be the expression of the interests of the dominant class.[66] Marxist–Leninists believe that all national constitutions do this to ensure that countries can strengthen and enforce their own class system.[66] In this instance, it means that Marxist–Leninists conceive of constitutions as a tool to defend the socialist nature of the state and attack its enemies.[66] This contrasts with the liberal conception of constitutionalism that "law, rather than men, is supreme."[67]

Unlike the relatively constant (and, in some instances, permanently fixed) nature of democratic constitutions, a Marxist–Leninist constitution is ever-changing.[68] Andrey Vyshinsky, a Procurator General of the Soviet Union during the 1930s, notes that the "Soviet constitutions represent the total of the historical path along which the Soviet state has travelled. At the same time, they are the legislative basis of subsequent development of state life."[68] That is, the constitution sums up what has already been achieved.[69] This belief is also shared by the Chinese Communist Party, which argued that "the Chinese Constitution blazes a path for China, recording what has been won in China and what is yet to be conquered."[68] A constitution in a communist state has an end.[70] The preamble of the 1954 Chinese constitution outlines the historical tasks of the Chinese communists, "step by step, to bring about the socialist industrialisation of the country and, step by step, to accomplish the socialist transformation of agriculture, handicraft and capitalist industry and commerce."[70]

In communist states, the constitution was a tool to analyse the development of society.[71] The Marxist–Leninist party in question would have to study the correlation of forces, literally society's class structure, before enacting changes.[71] Several terms were coined for different developmental states by Marxist–Leninist legal theorists, including new democracy, people's democracy, and the primary stage of socialism.[69] This is also why amendments to constitutions are not enough and major societal changes need a novel constitution which corresponds with the reality of the new class structure.[69]

With Nikita Khrushchev's repudiation of Stalin's practices in the "Secret Speech" and the Chinese Communist Party's repudiation of certain Maoist policies, Marxist–Leninist legal theories began to emphasise "the formal, formerly neglected constitutional order."[72] Deng Xiaoping, not long after Chairman Mao Zedong's death, noted that "[d]emocracy has to be institutionalised and written into law, to make sure that institutions and laws do not change whenever the leadership changes or whenever the leaders change their views. [...] The trouble now is that our legal system is incomplete. [...] Very often what leaders say is taken as law and anyone who disagrees is called a lawbreaker."[73] In 1986, Li Buyan wrote that "the policies of the Party usually are regulations and calls which to a certain extent are only principles. The law is different; it is rigorously standardised. It explicitly and concretely stipulates what the people should, can, or cannot do."[74] These legal developments were echoed in later years in Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam. This has led to the development of the communist concept of socialist rule of law, which runs parallel to, and is distinct from, the liberal term of the same name.[75] In the last years, this emphasis on the constitution as both a legal document and a paper which documents society's development has been noted by the Chinese Communist Party general secretary Xi Jinping, who stated in 2013 that "[n]o organisation or individual has the privilege to overstep the Constitution and law."[76]

Constitutional supervision

After Soviet Union general secretary Joseph Stalin's death, several communist states have experimented with some sort of constitutional supervision.[77] These organs were designed to safeguard the supreme power of the highest organ of state power from circumvention by political leaders.[77] Romania was the first to experiment with constitutional supervision when it established a Constitutional Committee in 1965.[77] It was elected by the highest organ of state power, and leading jurists sat in the committee, but it was only empowered to advise the highest organ of state power.[77] Keith Hand has commented that "[i]t was not an effective institution in practice", being unable to prevent Nicolae Ceausescu's emasculation of Romania's Great National Assembly after the inauguration of the July Theses.[77]

Hungary and Poland experimented with constitutional supervision in the early 1980s.[77] Hungary established the Council of Constitutional Law, which was elected by the highest organ of state power and consisted of several leading jurists.[77] It was empowered to review the constitutionality and legality of statutes, administrative regulations, and other normative documents; however, if the agency in question failed to heed its advice, it needed to petition the highest organ of state power.[77] In 1989, the Soviets established the Constitutional Supervision Committee, which "was subordinate only to the USSR constitution."[78] It was empowered "to review the constitutionality and legality of a range of state acts of the USSR and its republics. Its jurisdiction included laws [passed by the highest organ of state power], decrees of the Supreme Soviet's Presidium, union republic constitutions and laws, some central administrative decrees, Supreme Court explanations, and other central normative documents."[78] If the committee deemed the highest organ of state power to have breached legality, the highest organ of state power was obliged to discuss the issue, but it could reject it if more than two-thirds voted against the findings of the Constitutional Supervision Committee.[78] While it was constitutionally powerful, it lacked enforcement powers, it was often ignored, and it failed to defend the constitution during the coup against Mikhail Gorbachev.[79]

The Chinese leadership has argued against establishing any corresponding constitutional supervisory committee due to their association with the failed communist states of Europe.[80] None of the surviving communist states (China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam) have experimented with constitutional supervision committees or constitutional supervision of any kind outside the existing framework until 2018, when the Constitution and Law Committee of the National People's Congress was bestowed the right of constitutional review.[81]

Government as the highest administrative agency of state power

The government of communist states is usually defined as the "executive organ of the highest state organ of power" or as the "highest administrative agency of state power".[82] It functions as the executive organ of the highest organ of state power.[82] This model has been introduced with variations in all communist states.[55] For most of its existence, the Soviet government was known as the Council of Ministers[82] and identical names were used for the governments of Albania, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania.[83] It was independent of the other central agencies such as the highest organ of state power and its standing committee, but the Supreme Soviet was empowered to decide on all questions it wished.[84] The Soviet government was responsible to the highest organ of state power, and in between sessions of the highest organ of state power, it reported to the highest organ of state power's standing committee.[85] The standing committee could reorganise and hold the Soviet government accountable, but it could not instruct the government.[85]

In communist states, the government was responsible for the overall economic system, public order, foreign relations, and defense.[85] The Soviet model was more or less identically implemented in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania, with few exceptions.[83] One exception was Czechoslovakia, where it had a president and not a collective head of state.[86] Another exception was in Bulgaria, where the State Council was empowered to instruct the Council of Ministers.[87]

Judicial organs and socialist law

In every communist state, the judicial and procuratorial bodies are organs of the highest organ of state power. For instance, China's Supreme People's Court is the "legislative organ of governance that manages the judicial system in the name of the" National People's Congress, and through it, the Chinese Communist Party.[88] These bodies are responsible to and report on their work to the highest organ of state power. For instance, the Prosecutor-General of Vietnam's Supreme People's Procuracy delivers an annual Work Report to the highest organ of state power, the National Assembly, every year. Moreover, all communist states have been established in countries with a civil law system.[89] The countries of Eastern Europe had formally been governed by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, German Empire, and Russian Empire—all of whom had a civil law legal system.[89] Cuba had a civil law system imposed on them by Spain, while China introduced civil law to overlay with Confucian elements, and Vietnam used French law.[89] Since the establishment of the Soviet Union, there has been a scholarly debate on whether socialist law is a separate legal system or is a part of the civil law tradition.[89] Legal scholar Renè David wrote that the socialist legal system "possesses, in relation to our French law, particular features that give it a complete originality, to the extent that it is no longer possible to connect it, like the former Russian law, to the system of Roman law."[90] Similarly, Christoper Osakwe concludes that socialist law is "an autonomous legal system to be essentially distinguished from the other contemporary families of law."[91] Proponents of socialist law as a separate legal system have identified the following features:[91]

  1. The socialist law is to disappear with the withering away of the state.[91]
  2. The rule of the Marxist–Leninist party.[91]
  3. The socialist law is subordinate and reflects changes to the economic order (the absorption of private law by public law).[91]
  4. The socialist law has a religious character.[92]
  5. The socialist law is prerogative rather than normative.[92]

Legal officials argue differently for their cases compared to Westerners.[93] For instance, "[t]he predominant view among Soviet jurists in the 1920s was that Soviet law of that period was Western-style law appropriate for a Soviet economy that remained capitalist to a significant degree."[93] This changed with the introduction of the command economy, and the term socialist law was conceived to reflect this in the 1930s.[93] Hungarian legal theorist Imre Szabó acknowledged similarities between socialist law and civil law, but he noted that "four basic types of law may be distinguished: the laws of the slave, feudal, capitalist, and socialist societies."[94] Using the Marxist theory of historical materialism, Szabó argues that socialist law cannot belong to the same law family since the material structure is different from the capitalist countries as their superstructure (state) has to reflect these differences.[95] In other words, law is a tool by the ruling class to govern.[95] As Renè David notes, socialist jurists "isolate their law, to put into another category, a reprobate category, the Romanist laws and the common law, is the fact that they reason less as jurists and more as philosophers and Marxists; it is in taking a not strictly legal viewpoint that they affirm the originality of their socialist law."[96] However, some socialist legal theorists, such as Romanian jurist Victor Zlatescu differentiated between type of law and family of law. According to Zlatescu, "[t]he distinction between the law of the socialist countries and the law of the capitalist countries is not of the same nature as the difference between Roman-German law and the common law, for example. Socialist law is not a third family among the others, as in certain writings of Western comparatists."[97] In other words, socialist law is civil law, but it is a different type of law for a different society.[97]

Yugoslav jurist Borislav Blagojević noted that a "great number of legal institutions and legal relations remain the same in socialist law", further stating that it is "necessary and justified" to put them to use if they are "in conformity with the corresponding interests of the ruling class in the state in question."[98] Importantly, socialist law had retained civil law institutions, methodology, and organisation.[99] This can be discerned by the fact that East Germany retained the 1896 German civil code until 1976 while Poland used existing Austrian, French, German, and Russian civil codes until adoption of its own civil code in 1964.[100] Scholar John Quigley wrote that "[s]ocialist law retains the inquisitorial style of trial, law-creation predominantly by legislatures [highest organ of state power] rather than courts, and a significant role for legal scholarship in construing codes."[99]

Military

Control

Communist states have established two types of civil-military systems. The armed forces of most socialist states have historically been state institutions based on the Soviet model,[101] but in China, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam, the armed forces are party-state institutions. However, several differences exist between the statist (Soviet) and the party-state models (China). In the Soviet model, the Soviet armed forces was led by the Council of Defense (an organ formed by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union) while the Council of Ministers was responsible for formulating defence policies.[102] The party leader was ex officio the Chairman of the Council of Defense.[102] Below the Council of Defense, there was the Main Military Council which was responsible for the strategic direction and leadership of the Soviet armed forces.[102] The working organ of the Council of Defense was the General Staff tasked with analysing military and political situations as they developed.[103] The party controlled the armed forces through the Main Political Directorate (MPD) of the Ministry of Defense, a state organ that functioned "with the authority of a department of the CPSU Central Committee."[104] The MPD organised political indoctrination and created political control mechanisms at the centre to the company level in the field.[105] Formally, the MPD was responsible for organising party and Komsomol organs as well as subordinate organs within the armed forces; ensuring that the party and state retain control over the armed forces; evaluates the political performance of officers; supervising the ideological content of the military press; and supervising the political-military training institutes and their ideological content.[105] The head of the MPD was ranked fourth in military protocol, but it was not a member of the Council of Defense.[106] The Administrative Organs Department of the CPSU Central Committee was responsible for implementing the party personnel policies and supervised the KGB, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Defense.[107]

In the Chinese party-state model, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is a party institution.[108] In the preamble of the Constitution of the Chinese Communist Party, it is stated: "The Communist Party of China (CPC) shall uphold its absolute leadership over the People's Liberation Army and other people's armed forces."[108] The PLA carries out its work in accordance with the instructions of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party.[109] Mao Zedong described the PLA's institutional situation as follows: "Every communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' Our principle is that the party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party."[110] The Central Military Commission (CMC) is both an organ of the state and the party—it is an organ of the CCP Central Committee and an organ of the national highest organ of state power, the National People's Congress.[111] The CCP General Secretary is ex officio party CMC Chairman and the President of the People's Republic of China is by right state CMC Chairman.[111] The composition of the party CMC and the state CMC are identical.[111] The CMC is responsible for the command of the PLA and determines national defence policies.[111] fifteen departments report directly to the CMC and that are responsible for everything from political work to administration of the PLA.[112] Of significance is that the CMC eclipses by far the prerogatives of the CPSU Administrative Organs Department while the Chinese counterpart to the Main Political Directorate supervises not only the military, but also intelligence, the security services, and counterespionage work.[113]

Representation

Unlike in liberal democracies, active military personnel are members and partake in civilian institutions of governance.[114] This is the case in all communist states.[114] The Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) has elected at least one active military figure to its CPV Politburo since 1986.[115] In the 1986–2006 period, active military figures sitting in the CPV Central Committee stood at an average of 9,2 per cent.[115] Military figures are also represented in the national highest organ of state power (the National Assembly) and other representative institutions.[115] In China, the two CMC vice chairmen have had by right office seats in the CCP Politburo since 1987.[116]

Ruling party

Leading role

A Marxist–Leninist party has led every communist state.[49] This party seeks to represent and articulate the interests of the classes exploited by capitalism.[49] It seeks to lead the exploited classes to achieve communism.[49] However, the party cannot be identified with the exploited class in general.[49] Its membership comprises members with advanced consciousness above sectional interests.[49] Therefore, the party represents the advanced section of the exploited classes and, through them, leads the exploited classes by interpreting the universal laws governing human history towards communism.[117]

In Foundations of Leninism (1924), Joseph Stalin wrote that "the proletariat [working class] needs the Party first of all as its General Staff, which it must have for the successful seizure of power. [...] But the proletariat needs the Party not only to achieve the [class] dictatorship; it needs it still more to maintain the [class] dictatorship."[118] The current Constitution of Vietnam states in Article 4 that "[t]he Communist Party of Vietnam, the vanguard of the Vietnamese working class, simultaneously the vanguard of the toiling people and of the Vietnamese nation, the faithful representative of the interests of the working class, the toiling people, and the whole nation, acting upon the Marxist–Leninist doctrine and Ho Chi Minh's thought, is the leading force of the state and society."[119] In a similar form, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) describes itself as "the vanguard of the Chinese working class, the Chinese people, and the Chinese nation."[120] As noted by both communist parties, the ruling parties of communist states are vanguard parties. Vladimir Lenin theorised that vanguard parties were "capable of assuming power and leading the whole people to socialism, of directing and organising the new system, of being the teacher, the guide, the leader of all the working and exploited people in organising their social life without the bourgeoisie."[121] This idea eventually evolved into the concept of the party's leading role in leading the state[121] as seen in the CCP's self-description and Vietnam's constitution.[119][120]

Internal organisation

The Marxist–Leninist governing party organises itself around the principle of democratic centralism and through it, the state too.[122] It means that all directing bodies of the party, from top to bottom, shall be elected; that party bodies shall give periodical accounts of their activities to their respective party organisations; that there shall be strict party discipline and the subordination of the minority to the majority; and that all decisions of higher bodies shall be absolutely binding on lower bodies and on all party members.[122]

The highest organ of a Marxist–Leninist governing party is the party congress.[123] The congress elects the central committee and either an auditing commission and a control commission, or both, although not always.[123] The central committee is the party's highest decision-making organ in-between party congresses and elects a politburo and a secretariat amongst its members and the party's leader.[123] When the central committee is not in session, the politburo is the highest decision-making organ of the party and the secretariat is the highest administrative organ.[123] In certain parties, either the central committee or the politburo elects amongst its members a standing committee of the politburo which acts as the highest decision-making organ in between sessions of the politburo, central committee, and the Congress. This leadership structure is identical all the way down to the primary party organisation of the ruling party.[123]

Economic system

From reading their works, many followers of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels drew the idea that the socialist economy would be based on planning and not market mechanisms.[124] These ideas later developed into believing that planning was superior to the market mechanism.[125] Upon seizing power, the Bolsheviks began advocating a national state planning system.[125] The 8th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) resolved to institute "the maximum centralisation of production [...] simultaneously striving to establish a unified economic plan."[125] The Gosplan, the State Planning Commission, the Supreme Soviet of the National Economy, and other central planning organs were established during the 1920s in the era of the New Economic Policy.[126] On introducing the planning system, it became a common belief in the international communist movement that the Soviet planning system was a more advanced form of economic organisation than capitalism.[127] This led to the system being introduced voluntarily in countries such as China, Cuba, and Vietnam and, in some cases, imposed by the Soviet Union.[127]

In communist states, the state planning system had five main characteristics.[128] Firstly, except for field consumption and employment, practically all decisions were centralized at the top.[128] Secondly, the system was hierarchical—the centre formulated a plan that was sent down to the level below, which would imitate the process and send the plan further down the pyramid.[128] Thirdly, the plans were binding in nature, i.e. everyone had to follow and meet the goals outlined in them.[128] Fourthly, the predominance of calculating in physical terms to ensure planned allocation of commodities were not incompatible with planned production.[128] Finally, money played a passive role within the state sector since the planners focused on physical allocation.[128]

According to Michael Ellman, in a centrally-planned economy, "the state owns the land and all other natural resources and all characteristics of the traditional model, the enterprises, and their productive assets. Collective ownership (e.g. the property of collective farms) also exists but plays a subsidiary role and is expected to be temporary."[128] The private ownership of the means of production still exists, although it plays a somewhat more minor role.[129] Since the class struggle in capitalism is caused by the division between owners of the means of production and the workers who sell their labour, state ownership (defined as the property of the people in these systems) is considered as a tool to end the class struggle and empower the working class.[130]

Analysis

Countries such as the Soviet Union and China were criticised by Western authors and organisations based on the lack of the representative nature of multi-party liberal democracy,[131][132] in addition to several other areas where socialist society and Western societies differed. Socialist societies were commonly characterised by state ownership or social ownership of the means of production either through administration through communist party organisations, democratically elected councils and communes, and co-operative structures—in opposition to the liberal democratic capitalist free-market paradigm of management, ownership and control by corporations and private individuals.[133] Communist states have also been criticised for the influence and outreach of their respective ruling parties on society, in addition to lack of recognition for some Western legal rights and liberties such as the right to own property and the restriction of the right to free speech.[134] The early economic development policies of communist states have been criticised for focusing primarily on the development of heavy industry.

Soviet advocates and socialists responded to criticism by highlighting the ideological differences in the concept of freedom. McFarland and Ageyev noted that "Marxist–Leninist norms disparaged laissez-faire individualism (as when housing is determined by one's ability to pay), also [condemning] wide variations in personal wealth as the West has not. Instead, Soviet ideals emphasized equality—free education and medical care, little disparity in housing or salaries, and so forth."[135] When asked to comment on the claim that former citizens of communist states enjoy increased freedoms, Heinz Kessler, former East German Minister of National Defence, replied: "Millions of people in Eastern Europe are now free from employment, free from safe streets, free from health care, free from social security."[136]

In his analysis of states run under Marxist–Leninist ideology, economist Michael Ellman of the University of Amsterdam notes that such states compared favorably with Western states in some health indicators such as infant mortality and life expectancy.[137] A 1986 study published in the American Journal of Public Health and a 1992 study published in International Journal of Health Services stated, respectively, that "between countries at similar levels of economic development, socialist countries showed more favorable PQL (physical quality of life) outcomes" and that socialism was "for the most part, more successful than capitalism in improving the health conditions of the world's populations."[138][139]

Philipp Ther posits that there was an increase in the standard of living throughout Eastern Bloc countries as the result of modernisation programs under communist governments.[140] Similarly, Amartya Sen's own analysis of international comparisons of life expectancy found that several Marxist–Leninist states made significant gains and commented "one thought that is bound to occur is that communism is good for poverty removal."[141] The dissolution of the Soviet Union was followed by a rapid increase in poverty,[142][143][144] crime,[145][146] corruption,[147][148] unemployment,[149] homelessness,[150][151] rates of disease,[152][153][154] infant mortality, domestic violence,[155] and income inequality,[156] along with decreases in calorie intake, life expectancy, adult literacy, and income.[157]

Memory

Monuments to the victims of communist states exist in almost all the capitals of Eastern Europe and there are several museums documenting communist rule such as the Museum of Occupations and Freedom Fights in Lithuania, the Museum of the Occupation of Latvia in Riga, and the House of Terror in Budapest, all three of which also document Nazi rule.[158][159] In Washington D.C., a bronze statue based upon the 1989 Tiananmen Square Goddess of Democracy sculpture was dedicated as the Victims of Communism Memorial in 2007, having been authorized by the United States Congress in 1993.[160][161] The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation plans to build an International Museum on Communism in Washington. As of 2008, Russia contained 627 memorials and memorial plaques dedicated to victims of the communist states, most of which were created by private citizens and did not have a national monument or a national museum.[162] The Wall of Grief in Moscow, inaugurated in October 2017, is Russia's first monument for victims of political persecution by Stalin during the country's Soviet era.[163] In 2017, Canada's National Capital Commission approved the design for a memorial to the victims of communism to be built at the Garden of the Provinces and Territories in Ottawa.[164] On 23 August 2018, Estonia's Victims of Communism 1940–1991 Memorial was inaugurated in Tallinn by President Kersti Kaljulaid.[165] The memorial construction was financed by the state and is managed by the Estonian Institute of Historical Memory.[166] The opening ceremony was chosen to coincide with the official European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism.[167]

According to anthropologist Kristen Ghodsee, efforts to institutionalize the victims of communism narrative, or the moral equivalence between the Nazi Holocaust (race murder) and the victims of communism (class murder), and in particular the recent push at the beginning of the global financial crisis for commemoration of the latter in Europe, can be seen as the response by economic and political elites to fears of a leftist resurgence in the face of devastated economies and extreme inequalities in both the East and West as the result of the excesses of neoliberal capitalism. Ghodsee argues that any discussion of the achievements under communist states, including literacy, education, women's rights, and social security is usually silenced, and any discourse on the subject of communism is focused almost exclusively on Stalin's crimes and the double genocide theory.[168] According to Laure Neumayer, this is used as an anti-communist narrative "based on a series of categories and figures" to "denounce Communist state violence (qualified as 'Communist crimes', 'red genocide' or 'classicide') and to honour persecuted individuals (presented alternatively as 'victims of Communism' and 'heroes of anti totalitarian resistance')."[169]

See also

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Communist countries.

References

  1. ↑ Ball, Terence; Dagger, Richard, eds. (2019) [1999]. "Communism". Encyclopædia Britannica (revised ed.). Retrieved 10 June 2020.
  2. ↑ Webb, Sidney; Webb, Beatrice (1935). Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation?. London: Longmans.
  3. ↑ Sloan, Pat (1937). Soviet Democracy. London: Left Book Club; Victor Gollancz Ltd.
  4. ↑ Farber, Samuel (1992). "Before Stalinism: The Rise and Fall of Soviet Democracy". Studies in Soviet Thought. 44 (3): 229–230.
  5. ↑ Steele 1999, p. 45.
  6. ↑ Wilczynski 2008, p. 21.
  7. ↑ Rosser & Rosser 2003, p. 14.
  8. ↑ Williams 1983, p. 289.
  9. ↑ Nation 1992, pp. 85–86.
  10. ↑ Gardner, Schöpflin & White 1982, p. 85.
  11. ↑ Gardner, Schöpflin & White 1982, pp. 85–86.
  12. ↑ Morgan, W. John (2001). "Marxism–Leninism: The Ideology of Twentieth-Century Communism". In Wright, James D., ed. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 657–662.
  13. ↑ Andrai, Charles F. (1994). Comparative Political Systems: Policy Performance and Social Change. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe. pp. 24–25.
  14. ↑ "VN Embassy - Constitution of 1992". Archived 9 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine Full Text. From the Preamble: "On 2 July 1976, the National Assembly of reunified Vietnam decided to change the country's name to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; the country entered a period of transition to socialism, strove for national construction, and unyieldingly defended its frontiers while fulfilling its internationalist duty".
  15. ↑ "Cubanet - Constitution of the Republic of Cuba, 1992". Archived 9 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine Full Text. From Article 5: "The Communist Party of Cuba, a follower of Martí's ideas and of Marxism–Leninism, and the organised vanguard of the Cuban nation, is the highest leading force of society and of the state, which organises and guides the common effort toward the goals of the construction of socialism and the progress toward a communist society".
  16. ↑ Lee, Grace (Spring 2003)) "The Political Philosophy of Juche". v.3, n.1. Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs. Quote: "The DPRK claims that juche is Kim Il Sung's creative application of Marxist-Leninist principle to the modern political realities in North Korea."
  17. ↑ Atsuhito, Isozaki (21 June 2021). "A Revival of North Korean Communism?: The rhetoric is there. But what does it mean?". The Diplomat. Retrieved 2 December 2022. In his closing address at the Conference of Cell Secretaries of the Workers' Party of Korea in late April, Kim mentioned the word "communism" six times. His recent claim that North Korea aims to become a "communist utopia" is a notable change in rhetoric.
  18. 1 2 Furtak 1987, pp. 8–9.
  19. ↑ Furtak 1987, p. 12.
  20. ↑ Furtak 1987, p. 13.
  21. 1 2 Furtak 1987, p. 14.
  22. ↑ Furtak 1987, pp. 16–17.
  23. ↑ Furtak 1987, pp. 18–19.
  24. 1 2 3 4 5 Guins 1950, p. 187.
  25. 1 2 Guins 1950, pp. 187–188.
  26. ↑ Imam 1986, p. 383.
  27. ↑ Lenin, Vladimir (21 April 1921). "The Tax in Kind". Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 15 June 2020.
  28. 1 2 Guins 1950, p. 188.
  29. ↑ Guins 1950, pp. 188–189.
  30. 1 2 3 4 Tang 1980, p. 43.
  31. 1 2 Tang 1980, p. 41.
  32. ↑ Tang 1980, pp. 42–43.
  33. 1 2 3 Tang 1980, p. 42.
  34. ↑ Skilling 1961, p. 16.
  35. 1 2 3 Skilling 1961, p. 21.
  36. 1 2 3 4 Poelzer 1989, p. 13.
  37. 1 2 3 4 Poelzer 1989, p. 14.
  38. 1 2 3 4 5 Poelzer 1989, p. 16.
  39. 1 2 Poelzer 1989, p. 15.
  40. ↑ Poelzer 1989, p. 22.
  41. ↑ Poelzer 1989, p. 23.
  42. ↑ Poelzer 1989, p. 24.
  43. 1 2 Poelzer 1989, p. 25.
  44. 1 2 Poelzer 1989, p. 26.
  45. ↑ Poelzer 1989, p. 44.
  46. ↑ Poelzer 1989, pp. 50–52.
  47. ↑ Poelzer 1989, pp. 54–55.
  48. ↑ Poelzer 1989, p. 61.
  49. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Harding 1981, p. 27.
  50. ↑ Wilczynski 2008, p. 21; Steele 1999, p. 45; Rosser & Rosser 2003, p. 14.
  51. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Nelson 1982, p. 7.
  52. ↑ Nelson 1982, p. 6.
  53. ↑ Hand 2016, p. 2.
  54. ↑ Hazard 1985, p. 163.
  55. 1 2 Gardner, Schöpflin & White 1982, p. 86.
  56. ↑ Gardner, Schöpflin & White 1982, p. 91.
  57. ↑ Gardner, Schöpflin & White 1982, pp. 114–115.
  58. ↑ Gardner, Schöpflin & White 1982, p. 114.
  59. ↑ Gardner, Schöpflin & White 1982, p. 115.
  60. ↑ Gardner, Schöpflin & White 1982, p. 82.
  61. 1 2 3 4 Nelson 1982, p. 8.
  62. 1 2 3 4 Nelson 1982, p. 9.
  63. 1 2 3 4 Nelson 1982, p. 10.
  64. ↑ Nelson 1982, p. 1.
  65. ↑ Chang 1956, p. 520.
  66. 1 2 3 4 5 Chang 1956, p. 521.
  67. ↑ Chang 1956, p. xi.
  68. 1 2 3 Chang 1956, p. 522.
  69. 1 2 3 Chang 1956, p. xii.
  70. 1 2 Chang 1956, p. 524.
  71. 1 2 Triska 1968, p. xii.
  72. ↑ Chang 1956, p. xiii.
  73. ↑ Keith 1991, p. 112.
  74. ↑ Keith 1991, p. 114.
  75. ↑ Keith 1991, p. 118.
  76. ↑ Wan, William; Qi, Li (3 June 2013). "China's constitution debate hits a sensitive nerve". The Washington Post. Retrieved 27 December 2019.
  77. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Hand 2016, p. 3.
  78. 1 2 3 Hand 2016, p. 4.
  79. ↑ Hand 2016, p. 5.
  80. ↑ Hand 2016, p. 15.
  81. ↑ Hand 2016, p. 16.
  82. 1 2 3 Feldbrugge 1985, p. 202.
  83. 1 2 Staar 1988, p. 36 (Bulgaria), 65 (Czechoslovakia), 133 (Hungary), 161 (Romania), 195 (Poland).
  84. ↑ Feldbrugge 1985, pp. 202–203.
  85. 1 2 3 Feldbrugge 1985, p. 203.
  86. ↑ Staar 1988, p. 64.
  87. ↑ Dimitrov 2006, p. 170.
  88. ↑ Stone Sweet, Bu & Zhuo 2023, p. 18.
  89. 1 2 3 4 Quigley 1989, p. 781.
  90. ↑ Quigley 1989, p. 782.
  91. 1 2 3 4 5 Quigley 1989, p. 783.
  92. 1 2 Quigley 1989, p. 784.
  93. 1 2 3 Quigley 1989, p. 796.
  94. ↑ Quigley 1989, pp. 798–99.
  95. 1 2 Quigley 1989, p. 799.
  96. ↑ Quigley 1989, p. 797.
  97. 1 2 Quigley 1989, p. 800.
  98. ↑ Quigley 1989, p. 802.
  99. 1 2 Quigley 1989, p. 803.
  100. ↑ Quigley 1989, p. 801.
  101. ↑ Kramer 1985, p. 47.
  102. 1 2 3 Snyder 1987, p. 28.
  103. ↑ Snyder 1987, p. 30.
  104. ↑ Loeber 1984, p. 13.
  105. 1 2 Staff writer 1980, p. 1.
  106. ↑ Staff writer 1980, p. 3.
  107. ↑ Kokoshin 2016, p. 19.
  108. 1 2 Mulvenon 2018, p. 3.
  109. ↑ Tung 2012, p. 251.
  110. ↑ Blasko 2006, p. 6.
  111. 1 2 3 4 Blasko 2006, p. 27.
  112. ↑ Garafola, Cristina L. (23 September 2016). "People's Liberation Army Reforms and Their Ramifications". RAND Corporation. Retrieved 27 December 2019.
  113. ↑ Kokoshin 2016, p. 23.
  114. 1 2 Staff writer 1980, p. 7.
  115. 1 2 3 Thayer 2008, p. 68.
  116. ↑ Miller 2018, p. 4.
  117. ↑ Harding 1981, pp. 27–28.
  118. ↑ Steiner 1951, p. 58.
  119. 1 2 Bui 2016, p. 223.
  120. 1 2 Li 2017, p. 219.
  121. 1 2 Evans 1993, p. 20.
  122. 1 2 Gardner, Schöpflin & White 1982, p. 131.
  123. 1 2 3 4 5 "Central Committee". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 26 December 2019.
  124. ↑ Ellman 2014, pp. 1–2.
  125. 1 2 3 Ellman 2014, p. 2.
  126. ↑ Ellman 2014, p. 9.
  127. 1 2 Ellman 2014, p. 11.
  128. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ellman 2014, p. 22.
  129. ↑ Ellman 2014, p. 23.
  130. ↑ Ellman 2014, p. 25.
  131. ↑ Samuel P., Huntington (1970). Authoritarian Politics in Modern Society: The Dynamics of Established One-party Systems. Basic Books (AZ).
  132. ↑ Lowy, Michael (1986). "Mass Organization, Party and State: Democracy in its Transition to Socialism". Transition and Development: Problems of Third World Socialism (94): 264.
  133. ↑ Amandae, Sonja (2003). Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy: The Cold War Origins of Rational Choice Liberalism. University of Chicago Press.
  134. ↑ "Need for international condemnation of crimes of totalitarian communist regimes". Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. 25 January 2006. Retrieved 31 January 2020.
  135. ↑ McFarland, Sam; Ageyev, Vladimir; Abalakina-Paap, Marina (1992). "Authoritarianism in the Former Soviet Union". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 63 (6): 1004–1010. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.397.4546. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.6.1004.
  136. ↑ Parenti, Michael (1997). Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism. San Francisco: City Lights Books. p. 118. ISBN 978-0-87286-330-9.
  137. ↑ Ellman, Michael (2014). Socialist Planning. Cambridge University Press. p. 372. ISBN 1107427320.
  138. ↑ Cereseto, S.; Waitzkin, H. (1986). "Economic development, political-economic system, and the physical quality of life". American Journal of Public Health. 76 (6): 661–666. doi:10.2105/ajph.76.6.661. PMC 1646771. PMID 3706593.
  139. ↑ Navarro, V. (1992). "Has socialism failed? An analysis of health indicators under socialism". International Journal of Health Services. 23 (2): 583–601. doi:10.2190/B2TP-3R5M-Q7UP-DUA2. PMID 1399170. S2CID 44945095.
  140. ↑ Ther, Philipp (2016). Europe Since 1989: A History. Princeton University Press. p. 132. ISBN 9780691167374. As a result of communist modernization, living standards in Eastern Europe rose.
  141. ↑ Wilkinson, Richard G. (November 1996). Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality. Routledge. p. 122. ISBN 0415092353.
  142. ↑ McAaley, Alastair. Russia and the Baltics: Poverty and Poverty Research in a Changing World. Archived from the original on 23 January 2017. Retrieved 18 July 2016.
  143. ↑ "An epidemic of street kids overwhelms Russian cities". The Globe and Mail. 16 April 2002. Retrieved 17 July 2016.
  144. ↑ Targ, Harry (2006). Challenging Late Capitalism, Neoliberal Globalization, & Militarism.
  145. ↑ Gerber, Theodore P.; Hout, Michael (July 1998). "More Shock than Therapy: Market Transition, Employment, and Income in Russia, 1991–1995". American Journal of Sociology. 104 (1): 1–50.
  146. ↑ Volkov, Vladimir (26 April 2007). "The Bitter Legacy of Boris Yeltsin (1931-2007)". World Socialist Website. Retrieved 31 January 2020.
  147. ↑ "Cops for Hire". The Economist. 18 March 2010. Retrieved 4 December 2015.
  148. ↑ "Corruption Perceptions Index 2014". Transparency International. 3 December 2014. Retrieved 18 July 2016.
  149. ↑ Hardt, John (2003). Russia's Uncertain Economic Future: With a Comprehensive Subject Index. M. E Sharpe. p. 481.
  150. ↑ Alexander, Catharine; Buchil, Victor; Humphrey, Caroline (12 September 2007). Urban Life in Post-Soviet Asia. CRC Press.
  151. ↑ Smorodinskaya, Tatiana, ed. (2007). Encyclopaedia of Contemporary Russian. Routledge.
  152. ↑ Galazkaa, Artur (2000). "Implications of the Diphtheria Epidemic in the Former Soviet Union for Immunization Programs". Journal of Infectious Diseases. 181: 244–248. doi:10.1086/315570. PMID 10657222.
  153. ↑ Shubnikov, Eugene. "Non-communicable Diseases and Former Soviet Union countries". World Health Organization. Archived from the original on 11 October 2016. Retrieved 18 July 2016.
  154. ↑ Wharton, Melinda; Vitek, Charles (1998). "Diphtheria in the Former Soviet Union: Reemergence of a Pandemic Disease". Emerging Infectious Diseases. 4 (4): 539–550. doi:10.3201/eid0404.980404. PMC 2640235. PMID 9866730. Retrieved 18 July 2016.
  155. ↑ Parenti, Michael (1997). Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism. San Francisco: City Lights Books. pp. 107, 115. ISBN 978-0872863293.
  156. ↑ Hoepller, Cristopher (2011). "Russian Demographics: The Role of the Collapse of the Soviet Union". Undergraduate Research Journal for the Human Sciences. 10 (1).
  157. ↑ Poland, Marshall. "Russian Economy in the Aftermath of the Collapse of the Soviet Union". Archived from the original on 8 July 2016. Retrieved 18 July 2016.
  158. ↑ Gille, Zsuzsa; Todorova, Maria (2012). Post-Communist Nostalgia. Berghahn Books. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-857-45643-4.
  159. ↑ Ghodsee, Kristen (Fall 2014). "A Tale of 'Two Totalitarianisms': The Crisis of Capitalism and the Historical Memory of Communism". History of the Present: A Journal of Critical History. 4 (2): 124. doi:10.5406/historypresent.4.2.0115. JSTOR 10.5406/historypresent.4.2.0115.
  160. ↑ "Friendship Act (HR3000)". Act of 1993 (PDF). United States Congress. p. 15 at §905a1. Retrieved 14 November 2020 – via U.S. Government Publishing Office.
  161. ↑ Fekeiki, Omar (13 June 2007). "The Toll of Communism". The Washington Post. Retrieved 19 November 2020.
  162. ↑ Satter, David (2011). It Was a Long Time Ago, and It Never Happened Anyway: Russia and the Communist Past. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-17842-5.
  163. ↑ "Wall of Grief: Putin opens first Soviet victims memorial". BBC News. 30 October 2017. Retrieved 19 November 2020.
  164. ↑ "Victims of communism monument could be unveiled next spring". CBC News. 19 March 2018. Retrieved 19 November 2020.
  165. ↑ "Estonia's Victims of Communism 1940–1991". Kommunismiohvrite memoriaal. 23 August 2018. 2018. Retrieved 19 November 2020.
  166. ↑ "Cornerstone laid for new memorial for victims of communist crimes". ERR News. 4 May 2018. Retrieved 19 November 2020.
  167. ↑ "Victims of Communism Memorial opened in Tallinn". ERR News. 24 August 2018. Retrieved 19 November 2020.
  168. ↑ Ghodsee, Kristen (Fall 2014). "A Tale of 'Two Totalitarianisms': The Crisis of Capitalism and the Historical Memory of Communism". History of the Present: A Journal of Critical History. 4 (2): 115–142. doi:10.5406/historypresent.4.2.0115. JSTOR 10.5406/historypresent.4.2.0115.
  169. ↑ Neumayer, Laure (2018). The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781351141741.

Bibliography

General

References for when the individuals were elected to the office of CCP leader, the name of the offices and when they established and were abolished are found below.

Articles and journal entries

Books

  • Blasko, Dennis (2006). The Chinese Army Today: Tradition and Transformation for the 21st Century. Routledge. ISBN 9781135988777.
  • Dimitrov, Vessellin (2006). "Bulgaria: A Core Against the Odds". In Dimitrov, Vessellin; Goetz, H. Klaus; Wollmann, Hellmut (eds.). Governing after Communism: Institutions and Policymaking (2nd ed.). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 159–203. ISBN 9780742540095.
  • Ellman, Michael (2014). Socialist Planning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107427327.
  • Evans, Daniel (1993). Soviet Marxism–Leninism: The Decline of an Ideology. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780275947637.
  • Feldbrugge, F. J. M. (1985). "Council of Ministers". In Feldbrugge, F. J. M.; Van den Berg, G. P.; Simons, William B. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Soviet Law (2nd ed.). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 202–204. ISBN 1349060860.
  • Furtak, Robert K. (1987). The Political Systems of the Socialist States. New York City: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 9780312625276.
  • Gardner, John; Schöpflin, George; White, Stephen (1982). Communist Political Systems (2nd ed.). Macmillan Education. ISBN 0-333-44108-7.
  • Harding, Neil (1981). "What Does It Mean to Call a Regime Marxist?". In Szajkowski, Bogdan (ed.). Marxist Governments. Vol. 1. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 22–33. ISBN 978-0-333-25704-3.
  • Hazard, John (1985). "Constitutional Law". In Feldbrugge, F. J. M.; Van den Berg, G. P.; Simons, William B. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Soviet Law (2nd ed.). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 162–163. ISBN 1349060860.
  • Li, Lin (2017). Building the Rule of Law in China. Elsevier. ISBN 9780128119303.
  • Loeber, Dietrich Andre (1984). "On the Status of the CPSU within the Soviet Legal System". In Simons, William; White, Stephen (eds.). The Party Statutes of the Communist World. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 1–22. ISBN 9789024729753.
  • Nelson, Daniel (1982). "Communist Legislatures and Communist Politics". In Nelson, Daniel; White, Stephen (eds.). Communist Legislatures in Comparative Perspective. Vol. 1. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 1–13. ISBN 1349060860.
  • Nation, R. Craig (1992). Black Earth, Red Star: A History of Soviet Security Policy, 1917-1991. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0801480072.
  • Rosser, Barkley; Rosser, Marianne (2003). Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262182348.
  • Staar, Richard (1988). Communist Regimes in Eastern Europe (4th ed.). Hoover Press. ISBN 9780817976934.
  • Steele, David Ramsay (September 1999). From Marx to Mises: Post Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation. Open Court. ISBN 978-0875484495.
  • Triska, Jan, ed. (1968). Constitution of the Communist-Party States. Hoover Institution Publications. ISBN 978-0817917012.
  • Tung, W. L. (2012). The Political Institutions of Modern China (2nd ed.). Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9789401034432.
  • Wilczynski, J. (2008). The Economics of Socialism after World War Two: 1945–1990. Aldine Transaction. ISBN 9780202362281.
  • Williams, Raymond (1983). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society, revised edition. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-520469-8.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.