This post contains some thoughts I had about a recent Quillette article that discussed whether any implementation of Marxist political philosophy in the real world inevitably results in authoritarian regimes.  The article’s approach is persuasive; here’s how I would phrase that argument.

What is Marxism?

To answer this question, we must first define Marxism. In the Marxist worldview, only labor creates value. Any “profit” (excess goods beyond what pays back the original investment) belongs to those that produced it rather than to the “capitalists” who arranged for its production, etc. Whenever individuals own the means of production, and collect “profit” from that ownership, those that labor for them are being exploited and oppressed. The private ownership of the means of production is therefore inherently oppressive and an eternal source of social strife. For these reasons, as per the Communist Manifesto:

…the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

By making the means of production owned by “the community”, strife may be eliminated and oppression ended.

The Problem of Consensus

The problem, however, comes when the community must decide what to do with the means of production. If everyone in the community is in complete, unanimous agreement about how to use it, there is no problem. However, the variation in the capabilities, inclinations, beliefs, and desires of men practically ensures that unanimity can not be achieved naturally. What then does the commune do when there is a disagreement? It appears there are two options.

The first option is to partition the community, with each group taking some portion of the means of the property under their control. This process would continue until the community was sufficiently atomized that a unanimous consensus could be achieved within each commune. It’s clear that this leads inevitably back to the private ownership of property, as the quanta for decision-making is the individual human.  There are also problems with deciding how to partition the property that “belongs” to each community.  Furthermore, it seems a partitioning would be an invalidation of the idea that communal ownership of property works.

This takes us to the second option – one portion of the community assumes control over all the property and the remainder is compelled to follow their direction. The group that controls the property has absolute power, and the group that does not is absolutely dependent on them, being unable to do such simple things as grow food or make shoes. for the means to do both are owned by the community.  The radical power disparity between those in control and those not in control naturally gives rise to an authoritarian regime.

The legitimacy of the government in control of the property is based on universal consensus as to its use and distribution.  Therefore, it must maintain that consensus or  the appearance of it in order to remain legitimate.  Given the impossibility of having absolute consensus between large numbers of people on any topic of importance, this naturally leads to the government using its power to enforce strict conformity.

Collectivization

As an example of the powerlessness of those in a Marxist system not in direct control of property, let us consider Soviet collectivization efforts.  From 1928-1940, the Soviet Union initiated a massive campaign to bring agricultural production under control of the central government, with most of the work being done as part of the first Soviet Five Year Plan (1928-1933).  Two simultaneous efforts accomplished this goal – the re-organization of peasant farms into massive kolkhozy communal farms (collectivization) and the removal of alternative power centers in rural life (dekulakization).

The combination of these policies result in the deaths of around 10 million people (~6 million from famine and another ~4 million from liquidation of the Kulaks).  Most notable to our discussion is that the Soviet policies resulted in more grain being taken  from the peasant farmers than they were able to produce, forcing the peasants to either starve to death or risk imprisonment or execution for attempting to hide some of their grain.  Since both the means to grow grain and the grain itself were property of the state, individual peasants had no way to sustain themselves if the state issued to them rations insufficient for their survival.

The Illusion of Consensus

As an example of the necessity of maintaining the illusion of consensus, let us consider a Czech political dissident named Václav Havel.  In 1978, Havel wrote an essay called “The Power of the Powerless” to discuss life under a Communist regime and how an individual can fight back against it. In it, he analyzes why a Czech grocer might place a sign in his window saying, “Workers of the world, unite!”  Per Havel:

Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

Unfortunately this is not the case. As Havel elaborates, the grocer places the sign in his window to say:

Verbally, it might be expressed this way: ‘I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.’ This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers.

But why must that exact phrasing be used? Why not just have the grocer post a sign saying, ‘I am loyal, please don’t kill me!’ The ultimate purpose of the sign is, as per Havel:

…the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology…The primary excusatory function of ideology…is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe.

Everyone in the system is required to act in a very specific way to maintain the illusion of harmony, and anyone that breaks the illusion becomes a threat to the entire system. Per Havel:

Individuals need not believe all these mystifications, but they must behave as though they did, or they must at least tolerate them in silence, or get along well with those who work with them. For this reason, however, they must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them to have accepted their life with it and in it. For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system.

Even those truly in power must maintain the illusion. As per Havel:

Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.