What the Legacy of the Russian Revolution means for socialism today

Overview

• Marx and Engels provided the theory and utopian vision of socialism/communism; Lenin and Stalin provided the test case in practice. For the past century, socialist and communist leaders around the world have, in various ways, followed Lenin's example in implementing a workers' paradise where the predatory ruling class is overturned and the bourgeoisie elbowed aside.

• Even during the Stalinist years, the Soviet Union had admirers among Western intellectuals, artists, labor and civil rights activists, and dreamers seeking a better world or an alternative to capitalism. The disasters of communism that followed are familiar in hindsight: repression, mass deaths, shortages, and the collapse of many regimes.

• The experience of communism and socialism outside the Soviet Union is diverse. In the 1970s, more than a third of the world’s population lived under communist rule, yet Western social democracies built around progressive taxation and universal health care also existed.

• The discussion frames a spectrum of experience rather than a single narrative, highlighting varieties of socialist and communist governance across time and space.

Key Figures and Voices in the Discussion

• Kristen Godsey: Professor of Russian and East European studies at the University of Pennsylvania; studies lived experience of communism in Eastern Europe; author of Legacies of Twentieth Century Communism.

• Lucan Way: Professor of political science at the University of Toronto; studies authoritarianism, democracy, and post-communist states; co-chair of the editorial board of the Journal of Democracy; author of Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War.

• Conversation hosted by Michael Enright on CBC Radio’s Sunday Edition, with in-studio discussion in Philadelphia (Kristen) and Berkeley, California (Lucan).

Working Definitions and Conceptual Landscape

• Socialism and communism are not monolithic; there are many permutations and interpretations, including:

  • Democratic socialists

  • Social democrats

  • Communists

  • Anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists

  • Variants defined by means of achieving goals (e.g., progressive taxation, redistribution) versus means of production (state ownership of the means of production).

• A working tension exists between ideology and practice: socialism/communism as critiques of capitalism versus the implementation of socialist states with varying degrees of democracy.

• Core concepts discussed:

  • Dictatorship of the proletariat (Lenin’s adaptation during the Bolshevik period)

  • Single-party rule and the destruction of pluralism in many regimes

  • State control over the economy, often coupled with limited or no democratic rights

  • The distinction between political systems (democracy) and economic systems (capitalism vs. state ownership or planning)

  • The difference between “democracy” and “economic structure,” as argued in contrasting contexts (democratic capitalism vs state-led economies)

• The term “state capitalism” is used critically for cases like China under Xi Jinping, where the party maintains political control while the economy exhibits robust capitalist features.

• The Cold War dichotomy historically conflated democracy with capitalism and communism with a lack of freedom; this framing is challenged by later observations of post-communist and capitalist democracies with varying levels of freedom and prosperity.

Historical Test Case: The Soviet Experience and Beyond

• The Russian Revolution (1917) as a test case:

  • Lenin’s vision aimed at moving beyond capitalism to socialism; the initial path involved non-democratic centralization

  • The ensuing Civil War and famine forced extreme measures, often justifying a centralized, authoritarian approach in the short term

• Post-1917 developments:

  • Rosa Luxemburg and others argued for democracy and opposed the dictatorship of the proletariat; early socialist thinking contained a democratic impulse that was overshadowed in Russia by revolutionary necessity

• The periphery and diversity of outcomes:

  • China (Maoism; later shifts toward capitalist features under state control)

  • Yugoslavia (Titoism) with more openness and self-management socialism for a period

  • Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, etc., each adapting Marxist-Leninist ideas to local conditions

• The Soviet era's internal critique and reform attempts:

  • Gorbachev’s Perestroika (restructuring) and Glasnost (openness) aimed at addressing systemic flaws but culminated in the dissolution of the Soviet Union

  • Prague Spring (1968) as an attempt by Czech communists to reform the system toward greater flexibility

• Collapse and its aftermath:

  • The dissolution of the Soviet Union and Eastern European regimes was framed in some circles as the “end of history” and triumph for capitalism and liberal democracy

  • The transition to market economies widely entailed rapid neoliberal reforms with uneven social outcomes

Variants, Countries, and How They Were Implemented

• Eastern Europe and the Soviet sphere (Marxism-Leninism as the governing doctrine):

  • Characterized by single-party rule, limited pluralism, and extensive state control of the economy

• Yugoslavia under Tito (Titoism):

  • Distinct path with more economic openness for a period, differing from Moscow’s centralized model

• China (Maoism; post-Mordernization shifts):

  • Xi Jinping’s consolidation of power; continued one-party rule; high capitalist features under a non-democratic regime

  • The question of whether this constitutes “communism” in any traditional sense is debated; many classify China as a “state capitalist” system with a communist party in control

• Northern Europe and the Nordic model (democratic social democracies):

  • Countries like Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland incorporate strong welfare states, progressive taxation, universal services, but maintain democratic capitalism with markets

  • Finland’s Communist Party participation in politics as an enduring democratic tradition

  • These cases challenge the idea that socialism inevitably leads to authoritarianism; instead, they show how social democracy operates within a robust democracy

• Scandinavia’s example and “state ownership” in practice:

  • Some levels of state involvement exist (e.g., major financial institutions owned by the state in Norway) but remain compatible with democratic institutions and civil liberties

• The phrase “the end of history” and “triumphalism” after 1989:

  • The mood that capitalism and liberal democracy had decisively won; this mood overlooked the social costs of transition and the persistence of inequality

• Post-1989 consequences in the former Soviet bloc and the global South:

  • Economic hardship, social-dislocation, and political backlash in some cases; contrasting outcomes in different countries (Ukraine’s transition diverges from some neoliberal prescriptions)

• Neoliberal transition and its critics:

  • Some point to rapid privatization, deregulation, and austerity as explaining factors in social suffering after the collapse of many welfare-state regimes

  • Arguments about the limits and uneven implementation of neoliberal policies; involvement of international institutions and thinkers (e.g., Jeffrey Sachs) influenced policy choices in transition economies

The Pragmatic and Ethical Dimensions

• The critique of capitalism remains a common thread: the left critiques the distribution of wealth, exploitation of labor, and the concentration of profits

• The pragmatic failures of many communist regimes are acknowledged: shortage economies, suppression of civil liberties, and lack of political pluralism

• The Nordic/social-democratic model is presented as a potential democratic, non-authoritarian alternative that achieves redistribution through democratic processes, high taxation, and strong public services

• The ethical question surrounding democratic legitimacy of a socialist economy: can the state legitimately own or control significant parts of the economy while remaining accountable to the people?

• The relationship between economic design and political freedom:

  • Democratic accountability is essential for legitimacy in any non-capitalist system that seeks to distribute wealth and power more broadly

• The role of reform vs. revolution:

  • Reforms (e.g., Gorbachev’s policies) attempted to preserve the system while correcting its faults; their failure points to deeper structural issues

• The enduring appeal of socialist ideas in the modern era:

  • Inequality and economic insecurity drive renewed interest in socialist critiques and policy proposals, even among people who do not advocate for a full communist program

• The case for a non-authoritarian socialism:

  • There is historical and theoretical space for left politics that is compatible with democracy, pluralism, and civil liberties (e.g., democratic socialists, reformists in social democracies)

Democratic Possibilities and Future Trajectories

• Is a democratically elected, non-authoritarian form of communism possible?

  • Some argue yes, excluding Marxist-Leninist frameworks as inherently autocratic; there are historical currents (Mensheviks, other socialist strands) that favored democracy

  • The discussion emphasizes that such an approach would be separate from the traditional Leninist-Marxist blueprint and aligned with democratic accountability

• Kristen’s closing view on democratic socialism:

  • The state should be accountable to the needs of the people; ordinary people should use the state to advance their interests, primarily through voting and taxation that redistributes wealth

  • This is not the same as Marxist-Leninist-state socialism; it is compatible with democracy and pluralism

• The Scandinavian example as a tangible model:

  • Public education, libraries, roads, welfare programs; income redistribution through taxation; government ownership of some institutions (e.g., banks in Norway) that supports broad welfare without undermining democracy

• The political economy lesson:

  • It is possible to imagine a variant of socialism that preserves civil liberties, multiparty politics, rule of law, and competitive elections while achieving substantial social welfare and equity

• Final reflections on modern popularity of socialism:

  • Why does socialism retain appeal? Because capitalism produces significant inequality, and people seek alternatives that promise fairness, opportunity, and dignity for ordinary citizens

• Closing sentiment and framing:

  • The discussion intentionally avoided overly partisan labels (e.g., mentioning or avoiding contemporary political figures) to focus on ideas, historical patterns, and future possibilities

Key Terms and Concepts to Remember

• Socialism, Communism, Marxism-Leninism, Titoism, Maoism, democratic socialism, social democracy, anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism

• Dictatorship of the proletariat, single-party rule, destruction of pluralism, state control of the economy

• State capitalism, democratic capitalism, open markets with strong welfare states

• Perestroika, Glasnost, Prague Spring, neoliberalism, privatization, austerity

• End of history, triumphalism, illiberal democracy, hybrid regimes, competitive authoritarianism

• Notable cases: Russia (1917–1991), Finland (democratic socialism in practice), Yugoslavia (Titoism), China (Maoism to state capitalism), Scandinavia (social democracy), Ukraine (transition dynamics), Bulgaria (2013 self-immolations)

• Notable figures: Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Gorbachev, Tito, Mao, Xi Jinping, Bern ie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, Jeffrey Sachs

Notable Quotations and Concepts (Paraphrased Highlights)

• "Communism was fundamentally antithetical to democracy" (as discussed in the context of the early Soviet project)

• "Socialism equals Stalinism" is not universally valid; there are many permutations and historical contexts beyond Stalinism

• "Capitalism can coexist with autocracy"; democracy can exist with non-democratic economic systems, and vice versa

• "The end of history" and neoliberal triumphalism after 1989 underestimated social suffering and the persistence of inequality

• "Ordinary people using the state to promote their interests" under democratic socialism rather than Marxist-Leninist state control

Connections to Foundational Principles and Real-World Relevance

• The material conditions of a country (war, famine, civil conflict) shape the likelihood of democratic outcomes in socialist experiments

• Historical exceptions (Finland, Nordic countries) demonstrate that a mixed economy with strong welfare and democratic institutions can be compatible with high living standards and robust civil liberties

• The critique of unrestrained capitalism (inequality, concentration of wealth) remains a powerful driver of contemporary leftist politics (e.g., Corbyn, Sanders)

• Policy implications for transition economies: rapid privatization and deregulation can produce social distress; gradual reform, social protection, and rule of law matter for legitimacy

Mathematical/Quantitative References in the Discussion

• Reference to global population under communist rule in the 1970s: > frac{1}{3} ext{ of the world population}

• Other numerical aspects are qualitative, focusing on historical periods (1917, 1960s–70s, 1980s, 1990s, 2010s) rather than precise statistics