As socialists and upholders of the dictatorship of the proletariat, we are often bombarded by liberals and reactionaries with accusations of "totalitarianism".
Within the context of the Capitalist media and ideology, “totalitarianism” may seem like a concept which is incontestable, for, as one indoctrinated in Liberal ideology would understand, there exists an eternal dichotomy between the “government” and the elements of society which are not the “government”, which includes most predominantly the “free market”.
Thus, to one who is under the fetters of bourgeois ideology, it may seem only logical that a Socialist country such as the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics may be perceived as “totalitarian”, due to the abundant anti-Communist propaganda targeting it.
In most of bourgeois academia, “totalitarianism” particularly is defined as a societal situation in which there exists a “single, unifying ideology” which the government adheres to, government control of the economy, and a government monopoly on all public services, including housing, a personality cults venerating certain figures, mass usage of secret police and general mass surveillance of the population, extensive state terrorism, and a lack of consequential public elections.
Most Socialist states are accused of being “totalitarian”, and reactionaries of all sorts accuse Marxism generally of seeking total control of society, with various anti-Communist myths assisting to reinforce this falsehood.
However, “totalitarianism”, like so many other examples of reactionary anti-Communist ideology, is not only an easily refutable concept, but is in fact a projection of Capitalist society itself. That is, nearly all aspects of “totalitarianism” in reality, exist in Capitalist society, particularly in Imperialist countries such as the United States of America, to varying extents.
“Totalitarianism” has been employed as a term for decades by both opportunist and pseudo-Marxist groupings (such as Trotskyists, who first called the Soviet government “totalitarian defeationists”, and others on the anti-Stalinist “left”) and reactionaries with the purposeful intention, not only to attack Socialism, particularly Stalinism, but to actively conflate it with Fascism.
Were the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc “totalitarian” in their political systems?
It is important to note that the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc, with the exception of Albania, beyond the year 1956 will not be accounted for, as that period contained the abandonment of the construction of Socialism, de-Stalinization, and other economic, political, and ideological deviations.
Among the most vulgar claims made by anti-Communist propagandists regarding the Soviet Union was that of its political and governmental system. The claims in this instance propagates the notion that Josef Stalin was a dictator who was omnipotent in all aspects of Soviet life, with faux elections, no institutions or legality which permitted criticism against the government and Communist party, and those who resisted the party line were simply purged by the secret police and either liquidated or damned to a GULag, with the more prominent dissenting officials being subjected to show trials supplemented by fabricated evidence of criminality and with confessions being attained via torture and other physically vile means. Thus, in the mind of the bourgeois ideologist, fulfilling one fundamental aspect of this “totalitarian” system, with Stalin allegedly maintaining totalistic domination of every aspect of Soviet society.
Similar assertions are made about other Socialist countries in Eastern Europe, that being of politically despotic and stagnate police states.
Despite these claims, however, the political system of the Soviet Union was in fact in deep contradiction to this understanding.
In truth, the system of governance in the Soviet Union was among the most democratic and egalitarian societies ever achieved. Contrary to the falsehoods, the Soviet political system was based on a system of Soviet (council) democracy by which workers, regardless of age, gender, race, religion, etc. were enfranchised, and would regularly elect officials into representative posts into increasing central chambers of the government. This democratic system was even witnessed and documented in detail by outside observers, and was indeed codified in the 1936 Soviet Constitution, with, for instance, article 95 of the constitution stating:
“The Soviets of Working People's Deputies of territories, regions, autonomous regions, areas, districts, cities and rural localities (stanitsas, villages, hamlets, kishlaks, auls) are elected by the working people of the respective territories, regions, autonomous regions, areas, districts, cities or rural localities for a term of two years.”
Further, these officials were not necessarily required to hold membership in the Communist party, with non-party member holders of posts from citizen organizations, workplace groups, and other smaller groupings being permitted. Even former landlords and white guards from the time of the Russian Civil War were, upon Stalin’s insistence, largely permitted to vote in elections.
Stalin himself was elected in this democratic manner in multiple instances, and even attempted to retire from his post many times, but was refused on account of his popularity among the people.
Other aspects in Soviet society such as criticism of the government were not merely tolerated, but actively encouraged, with it being understood that a lack of criticism from the people was indicative of bureaucratism, disconnection, and a general lack of understanding of the socioeconomic condition of society, furthermore, criticism remained a core aspect of the internal Soviet government, namely in the form of Democratic Centralism. Similar to the freedom to partake in democratic elections, freedom of criticism was also provided in the Soviet Constitution of 1936.
It was even the case that the publication of statements and articles from the oppositionist elements of the Communist party was allowed, and was only ceased once they became an open threat to people’s power in the Soviet Union.
Other claims made by anti-Communists, such as the Moscow Trials being fraudulent, are likewise false, with those involved in the trials all having committed provable acts of subversion and sabotage against the people’s government.
One of the most common criticisms of the political system of the Soviet Union and the Socialist states of Eastern Europe was, however, their one-party states. Many say that elections were necessarily unfair in these countries due to their lack of the bourgeois democratic system of multi-parties, yet, this is untrue. This criticism is communicative of the Liberals’ lack of understanding of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which fundamentally functions in a very different manner than the bourgeois dictatorship. Within the Socialist electoral system in Eastern Europe, individual candidates were chosen by the voters to represent them, and many were not even members of the Communist party, with many, particularly in the Eastern European People’s Democracies, being from ideologically distinct factions, such as former social-democrats. Furthermore, a one-party state is not any more restrictive or authoritarian than the multi-party arrangements in bourgeois democracies. The governments of countries such as the Soviet Union were ruled by the proletariat, and the proletarian dictatorship only required a single party to represent its class interests, any specific decisions regarding the development of Socialism in a dictatorship of the proletariat can be discussed and decided upon fully within the context of a single party. In most Socialist states, the citizens never particularly demanded more parties, and indeed, more parties beyond the leading Communist party would have made decisions regarding the Socialist state more cumbersome.
As we can understand, the political system of Socialist states in Eastern Europe were, even by the definition adopted by pro-Capitalist academics, not “totalitarian”, but were flourishing democracies with a degree of egalitarianism and industriousness to overcome the bourgeois pseudo-democracies a thousand-fold, with factors which inhibit democratic rule in the Capitalist world such as lucrativity, class, and so forth being either greatly reduced or excised entirely in the Socialist states.
Were Socialist economies and media “totalitarian”?
To Liberals, one of their most upheld concepts is that of the “free press”, that in order to maintain a functional “democracy”, the media must necessarily be free from the “fetters” of the “government” in order to give the electorate an “informed decision” on whom they should vote for. Thus, to the Liberal, the government being in control of the media, regardless of if it is a Capitalist or Socialist government, is inherently authoritarian and otherwise anti-democratic.
However, this is yet another example of the fallacious dichotomy between the “government versus the free market”. Liberals do not care if this media is controlled by mega-corporations which propagate imperialist fabrications to further their class interests and are motivated to a much more significant extent by making more abundant profits and concocting the most bombastic story about their national enemies rather than bringing the public truth about global events and issues.
The media in Socialist states was present for furthering the class interests of the people and providing the truth about the world. It may have been significantly influenced by the government, yet that was a government for-and-by the working class.
To understand how valid this Liberal understanding of the “free press” is, let us take the most obvious example of a Capitalist society on this planet currently, the United States of America.
In the United States, merely six corporate entities hold ownership of 90% of the news outlets, with these news outlets being extremely supportive of American imperialist efforts and the internal Capitalist system. The Liberal claim of individual voters being able to “choose” what media is correct and extract from the “marketplace of ideas” in a libertine manner is hastily refutable when it is considered that nearly all major news outlets in the United States alone are all deeply in favor of Capitalism, of Imperialism, of the United States government, and of the status quo in general. The only ideological diversity in the Capitalist media is simply what “flavor” of Capitalism you would prefer; corporatocratic austerity, petit-bourgeois exploitation and disorganization, or welfare statism founded on the basis of superprofits extracted from the imperialized countries. Therefore, we can conclude that the “free press” in Capitalist states is no more “free” than a state-press, and unlike the press under Socialism, this de-facto state-press of the Capitalists is clearly anti-proletarian and imperialist, with it existing largely to help provide the ideological justification for Capitalism, or, in other words, reinforce the Capitalist superstructure of society.
As to the notion that a centrally planned economy is “totalitarian”, this omits the nature of the government under Socialism. Not only was a significant portion of the Socialist economies under control of agricultural collectives, the government which owned the industry was under the control of the people, with the Communist party alone having most of its membership strictly proletarian. The five-year plans were a popular effort, and democratically decided. To say that the “government”, and only the government, of the Soviet Union and other Socialist countries controlled the economy is an anti-dialectical statement, for it fails to comprehend the greater nature of the society under Socialism. The government under Socialism is ruled by the proletariat, and it exercises control over the economy indirectly via the state, yet this is worker-control nonetheless.
Why “totalitarianism” fails to transcend Capitalist hypocrisy
Nearly all aspects of totalitarianism exist in Capitalist states. The media is under the control of billionaire-oligarchs and is used to maintain their class dictatorship, there exists a unifying ideology under Capitalism, that being, commonly, Liberalism, by which most bourgeois parties operate under, however, the propaganda of the bourgeoisie merely makes it seem as if we do not live under any particular ideology, with it insisting that the present bourgeois democracies are “the standard political system”.
While Liberals claim that “command economies”, or rather, centrally planned economies are an instrumental of governmental totality in society, at the same time, their Capitalist economies are controlled by oligarchs who maintain total control over the lives of their workers, being able to fire the, lower their wages, and extend their working hours on their own will alone. While Liberals will claim that the Soviet system of free and universal housing was totalitarian, they are perfectly willing to have millions go without housing and starve in the street merely if they lack the wealth, wealth which they are unable to achieve due to the greater issues inherent in Capitalism.
While it is said that Socialist states lack democracy, concurrently, most Capitalist regimes are effective one-party states whose leaders are determined by familiar ties and particularly wealth, with elections which exclude dissenting parties and with corporate “donations” having major influence. There supposedly exists a cult of personality under Socialism, yet Capitalist societies similarly worship leaders, being media-related, political, or historical.
"Totalitarianism" is a concept of Bourgeois propaganda which must be combated
Totalitarianism as a concept has no place in Marxist discourse, as it is used almost exclusively by Liberals and reactionaries to dismiss Socialism. The term “totalitarianism” is founded on an anti-Marxist and simplistic understanding of society, that the government is merely a static force with no relation to the economy and greater society, that the “free market” is indeed a provider of freedom, and so on.
As such, “totalitarianism” should be abandoned as a concept for what it is - solely Capitalist propaganda used to attack our revolutionary ideology.
(First published in January 2023. Revisions made in August 2023)