User:Trust Is All You Need/Socialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Part of a series on
Marxism–Leninism
Concepts
Variants
People
Theoretical works
History
By country
Organizations
Related topics
See also

By definition a socialist state is led by a communist party, operating under the principles of Marxism–Leninism, that has instituted a socialist economic system in a given country.[1][2] This article does not deal with countries with constitutional references to socialism and countries ruled by long-standing socialist movements (such as Venezuela for instance). 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.[3][4][5]

The socialist state is more than a form of government. A socialist state can only exist in countries with a socialist economic system. There are examples of several states that have instituted a socialist form of government before achieving socialism. For example, the former socialist states of Eastern Europe were established as people's democracies (a developmental stage between capitalism and socialism). On the question of the Marxist–Leninist ruled countries of Africa and the Middle East, the Soviet Union deemed none of them to be socialist states—referring to them as socialist-oriented states.

Types[edit]

What is a socialist state?[edit]

The state in Marxist–Leninist thought is a repressive institution led by a ruling class.[6] This class dominates the state, and expresses its will through it.[6] By formulating law, the ruling class uses the state to oppress other classes, and forming a class dictatorship.[6] However, the goal of the socialist state is to abolish that said state.[6] For instance, the Russian 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 over the urban and rural proletariat and the poorest peasantry, in the form of strong 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."[6] The socialist state is the dictatorship of the proletariat, were the advanced elements of the proletariat are the ruling class.[7] 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.[7] Friedrich Engels commented on this, and wrote "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 (withers away)."[8]

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.[9] However, Stalin warned that the withering away of the state would not occur until after the socialist mode of production had achieved dominance over capitalism.[9] 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."[10]

Ideology permeates these states.[11] According to scholar Peter Tang "The 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."[12] Therefore the sole purpose of socialist states, ideologically, are to spread socialism—to reach that goal, these states have to be guided by Marxism–Leninism.[12] The socialist states have opted for two ways to achieve this goal; (1) govern indirectly by Marxism–Leninism through the party (Soviet model) or (2) commit the state, officially through the state constitution, to Marxism–Leninism (Maoist China–Albania model).[2] The Soviet model is the most common, and is currently in use China.[13]

Marxism–Leninism is mentioned once in the Soviet constitution.[11] Article 6 of the 1977 Soviet constitution states that "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".[11] This contrasts with the Albanian constitution of 1976, which states in Article 3 that "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."[13] The 1975 Chinese constitution has a similar tone, stating in Article 2 "Marxism–Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought is the theoretical basis guiding the thinking of our nation."[13] The 1977 Soviet constitution does use phrases such as "buiding socialism and Communism", "on the road to Communism", "to buid the material and technical basis of Communism" and "to perfect socialist social relations and transform them into Communist relations" in the preamble.[11]

What is a socialist economy?[edit]

What is a people's democratic state?[edit]

Main article: People's democracy (Marxism–Leninism)

The people's democratic state was implemented in Eastern Europe after World War II.[14] 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 is eclipsed by the state-owned enterprises in the field of industry, transport and credit.[15] 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."[15] Soviet philosopher N. P. Farberov states that "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."[15]

What is a national-democratic state?[edit]

The term was introduced shortly after the death of Stalin, who believed colonies to be mere lackeys of Western imperialism and that the socialist movement few prospects there.[16] The concept of the national-democratic state tried to theorise how a state could develop socialism by bypassing the capitalist mode of production.[16] While the theory of non-capitalist development was first articulated by Vladimir Lenin, the novelty of this concept was applying it to the "progressive" elements of the national liberation movements in the Third World.[16] The countries in which the national liberations movements took power, and which instituted an anti-imperialist foreign policy and sought to construct a form of socialism were considered as national-democratic states by Marxist–Leninists.[16] An example of a national-democratic state is Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser, which was committed to constructing Arab socialism.[17] With the exception of Cuba, none of these states managed to develop socialism.[17] This might explain why, according to scholar Sylvia Woodby Edington, the concept of the national-democratic state "never received full theoretical elaboration as a political system."[17] However, one feature was clearly defined; these states didn't need to be led by a Marxist–Leninist party.[18]

What is a socialist-oriented state?[edit]

By definition a socialist-oriented state seeks to reach socialism by non-capitalist development.[19] The term, however, is substantially different from the concept of the national-democratic state.[19] The singular difference is that the socialist-oriented state was divided into two stages; (1) a national-democratic socialist-oriented state and a (2) people's democratic socialist-oriented state.[18] Countries belonging to the national-democratic socialist-oriented state category were, normally, also categorised as national-democratic states.[18] Examples of national-democratic socialist-oriented states are Ba'athist Iraq, Socialist Burma and Algeria ruled by the National Liberation Front.[18] In contrast, people's democratic socialist-oriented states had to be guided by Marxism–Leninism and accept the universal truths of scientific socialism and reject other notions of socialism (such as African socialism).[18]

The socialist-oriented states had seven defining features; (1) they were revolutionary democracies, (2) had a revolutionary-democratic party, (3) class dictatorship, (4) defense of the socialist-oriented states, (5) had organs of socialisation, (6) initiated socialist construction and (7) the type of socialist-oriented state (either national-democratic or people's democratic).[20] The political goal of revolutionary democracy is to create the conditions for socialism in countries were the social, political and economic conditions for socialism don't exist.[21] The second feature to be met is the establishment of the revolutionary-democratic party, which has to establish itself as the leading force of state and guides the state using Marxist–Leninist ideology.[22] Democratic centralism, while introduced in these states, are rarely upheld.[23] Unlike capitalism, which is ruled by the bourgeoisie class and socialism were the proletariat leads, the socialist-oriented state represents a broad and heterogeneous group of classes that seek to consolidate national independence.[23] Since the peasantry were usually the largest class in socialist-oriented states, their role were emphasised—similar to the working class in socialist states.[24] However, Marxist–Leninist admitted that these states often fell under the control of certain cliques, such as the military in Ethiopia.[24] The establishing of a legal system and coercive institutions are also noted to safeguard the socialist-oriented nature of the state.[25] The fifth feature is that the media and educational system has to be taken over by the socialist-oriented state, while establishing mass organisations to mobilise the populace.[26] 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.[27] 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.[17] As for the last point, only one socialist-oriented state has managed to develop into a socialist state according to Soviet sources; that being Laos.[28]

Political system[edit]

Government[edit]

In socialist states, the highest administrative agency of state power is the government.[29] It functions as the executive organ of the legislature.[29] In effect, the Soviet has been introduced, with variations, in all socialist states.[30] For most of its existence, the Soviet government was known as the Council of Ministers[29]—identical names were used for the governments of East Germany, Poland, Romania, Hungary and Albania.[31] It was independent of the other central agencies, such as the legislature and its presidium, but the Supreme Soviet was empowered to decide on all questions it wished.[32] The Soviet government was responsible to the legislature, and in between sessions of the legislature, reported to the legislature's standing committee.[33] The standing committee could reorganise and hold the Soviet government accountable, but it could not instruct the government.[33] The government was responsible for the overall economic system, public order, foreign relations and defense.[33] The Soviet model was more-or-less identically implemented in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland and Romania, with few exceptions.[31] Exceptions being that, for instance, Czechoslovakia had a president and not a collective presidency,[34] and that in Bulgaria, the State Council was empowered to instruct the Council of Ministers.[35]

Legislature[edit]

Powers and organisation[edit]

The meeting place of the Chinese National People's Congress.

All state power is unified in the legislature in socialist states.[36] This is a firm rejection of the separation of powers found in liberal democracies.[36] The constitution is passed by the legislature, and can only be amended by the legislature.[36] Judicial review and extra-parliamentary review were denounced by Soviet legal theorists as bourgeoisie institutions.[36] They also perceived it as a limitation of the people's supreme power.[36] The legislature together with its suborgans was responsible for overseeing the constitutional order.[36] Since the legislature is the supreme judge of constitutionality, the legislature's own acts cannot, therefore, be unconstitutional.[37]

The USSR Supreme Soviet was the first socialist legislature, and the Soviet legislative system has in effect been introduced, with variations, in all socialist states.[30] The Supreme Soviet convened twice a year, usually for 2-3 days each, making it one of the world's 1east frequently convened legislatures during its existence.[38] The same meeting frequency was the norm in the Eastern Bloc countries, as well as modern-day China.[39] China's legislature, the National People's Congress (NPC) is modeled on the Soviet one.[40] As with the Soviet one, the NPC is the highest organ of the state, and elects a Standing Committee (the Soviets had a Presidium), and elects the government, the State Council (the Soviet counterpart being the Council of Ministers).[41] In addition, all socialist states the ruling party has either had a clear majority, such as China, or held every seats, as they did in the Soviet Union, in their national legislature.[42]

Western researchers have devoted little attention to legislatures in socialist states.[43] The reason being that, compared to legislatures in liberal democracies (such as the United States Congress), are not significant bodies of political socialisation.[43] For instance, while political leaders are often elected as members of socialist legislatures, these post are not relevant to political advancement.[43] The role of legislatures is different from country to country.[43] 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 legislatures of Polen, Vietnam and Yugoslavia have been more active, and have had an impact on rule-making.[43]

Representativity[edit]

Both Marx and Lenin abhorred the parliamentary systems of bourgeoisie democracy, however, neither of them sought to abolish it.[44] Lenin wrote that it would be impossible to develop proletarian democracy without "without representative institutions."[44] Both of them considered the governing model of the Paris Commune of 1871 to be ideal, in which executive and legislative were combined in one body.[44] More importantly, Marx applauded the election process by "universial suffrage in the various wards and town."[44] While the institution of the socialist legislature might not be important 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.[45]

The Marxist–Leninist parties, by having legislatures, try to keep ideological consistency between supporting representative institutions and safeguarding the leading role of the party.[44] The seek to use the legislatures as a linkage between the rulers and the ruled.[44] 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."[44] Unlike in liberal democracies, legislatures of socialist states are not to act as a forum for conveying demands or interest articulation—they meet too infrequently for this to be the case.[46] This might explain why socialist states have not developed terms such as delegates and trustees, eg to give legislature representatives to vote according to their best judgement or in the interest of their constituency.[46] Scholar Daniel Nelson notes that "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 anaology) '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."[46] Despite this, it doesn't mean that the socialist states use legislatures to strengthen their communication with the populace—the party, and not the legislature, could take that function.[46]

Ideologically it has another function; to prove that socialist states don't only represent the interests of the working class, but all social strata.[47] Socialist states are committed to establish a classless society use legislatures to show that all social strata, whether you are a bureaucrat, worker or intellectual are committed and have interests in building such a society.[47] At last, as the case is in China, national institutions such as the legislature "must exist which brings together representatives of all nationalities and geographic areas."[47] It does not matter if the legislatures only rubber stamp decisions, because by having them it shows that socialist states are committed to incorporate minorities and areas of the country by included them in the composition of the legislature.[47] At last, in socialist states there is usually a high proportion of members who are government officials.[48] In this instance, it might mean that its less important what legislatures do, and more important who its representatives are.[48] A member of a socialist legislature, at central and local level, are usually either government or party officials or leading figures in their community, or national figures, outside the communist party.[48] This goes to show that legislatures 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.[48]

Military[edit]

Control[edit]

Socialist 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,[49] but in China, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam the armed forces are party-state institutions. This section will explain the differences between the statist (Soviet) model and the party-state model (by using China as an example).

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 defense policies.[50] The party leader was ex officio the Chairman of the Council of Defense.[50] 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.[50] The working organ of the Council of Defense was the General Staff, which was tasked with analysing military and political situations as they developed.[51] 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."[52] The MPD organised political indoctrination and created political control mechanism at the center to the company level in the field.[53] Formally the MPD was responsible for (1) organising party and Komsomol organs as well as subordinate organs within the armed forces; (2) ensuring that the party and state retains control over the armed forces; (3) evaluates the political performance of officers; (4) supervising the ideological content of the military press and (5) supervising the political-military training institutes and their ideological content.[53] The head of the MPD was ranked fourth in military protocol, but was not a member of the Council of Defense.[54] 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.[55]

In the Chinese party-state model, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is a party institution.[56] In the preamble of the Constitution of the Communist Party of China it is stated that "The Communist Party of China (CPC) shall uphold its absolute leadership over the People's Liberation Army and other people's armed forces."[56] The PLA carries out its work in accordance with the instructions of the CPC Central Committee.[57] 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."[58] The Central Military Commission (CMC), is both an organ of the state and the party—it is an organ of the CPC Central Committee and an organ of the national legislature, the National People's Congress.[59] The CPC General Secretary is ex officio party CMC Chairman and the President of the People's Republic of China is by right state CMC Chairman.[59] The composition of the party CMC and the state CMC are identical.[59] The CMC is responsible for the command of the PLA and determines national defense policies.[59] There are 15 departments that report directly to the CMC, that are responsible for everything from political work to administration of the PLA.[60] Of significance here 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 intelligence, the security services and counterespionage work.[61]

Representation[edit]

Unlike in liberal democracies, active military personnel are members and partake in civilian institutions of governance.[62] This is the case in all socialist states.[62] For instance, the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) has elected at least one active military figure to its CPV Politburo since 1986.[63] In the period 1986–2006, active military figures sitting in the CPV Central Committee stood at an average of 9,2 percent.[63] Military figures are also represented in the national legislature, the National Assembly, and other representative institutions.[63] In China, the two CMC vice chairmen have had by right office seats in the CPC Politburo since 1987.[64]

Ruling party[edit]

Leading role[edit]

Every socialist state has been led by a Marxist–Leninist party.[1] This party seeks to represent and articulate the interests of the classes exploited by capitalism.[1] It thus seeks to lead the exploited classes to achieve communism.[1] However, the party cannot be identified with the exploited class in general.[1] It membership is composed of members with advanced consciousness who are above sectional interests.[1] The party therefore 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.[65]

In Foundations of Leninism, Stalin wrote "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."[66] The current Vietnamese constitution is a case in point, which states in Article 4 that "The 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".[67] In similar form, the Communist Party of China describes itself as "the vanguard of the Chinese working class, the Chinese people, and the Chinese nation."[68] As noted by both the CPV and the CPC, the ruling parties of socialist states are vanguard parties. 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 organizing their social life without the bourgeoisie."[69] This idea eventually evolved into the concept of the party's "leading" role in leading the state,[69] as seen above in Vietnam's constitution and CPC's self-description.[67][68] The Yugoslav communists opposed the concept of "the leading role of the party", arguing instead for "a leading role".[70] Arguing that the party had to share the leading role in cooperation with other mass organisations, such as the Socialist Alliance of Working People in their own country.[71]

Internal organisastion[edit]

The Marxist–Leninist governing party organises itself around the principle of democratic centralism, and through it, the state too.[72] It means that (1) all directing bodies of the Party, from top to bottom, shall be elected; (2) that Party bodies shall give periodical accounts of their activities to their respective Party organizations; (3) that there shall be strict Party discipline and the subordination of the minority to the majority and (4) that all decisions of higher bodies shall be absolutely binding on lower bodies and on all Party members.[72]

The highest organ of a Marxist–Leninist governing party is the party congress.[73] The congress elects the central committee and, often but not always, either a auditing commission and a control commission (or both).[73] The central committee, as the party's highest decision-making organ in between party congresses, elects a politburo and a secretariat amongst its members, as well as the party's leader.[73] When the central committee is not in session, the politburo is the highest decision-making organ of the party, and the secretariat the highest administrative organ.[73] 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.[73]

Economic system[edit]

This section will give an overview of the economic systems used in the socialist states. The market economy currently existing in four of the remaining states, and its rationale, as well as the Soviet-model of state planning and the Yugoslav social economic system of workers' self-management.

Market economy[edit]

Further information: Market socialism

China, Laos and Vietnam have introduced a market economy with mixed ownership, dominated by the state. This system differs from the one introduced in Yugoslavia, which albeit using market mechanism was based on social ownership.

The concept of the socialist market economy was adopted at the 14th CPC National Congress in 1992.[74] The Chinese notes that, similar to the Yugoslav communists, that the dividing line between capitalism and socialism is not the market economy.[74] The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences defines the socialist market economy as a system in which "public ownership plays the central role in the economy, and the Communist Party leads politics."[74] It notes that the system recognises the "superiority of publicly owned enterprises in efficiency and vitality over the private enterprises."[74] The Communist Party of Vietnam adopted the term socialist-oriented market economy at the its 9th National Congress in 2001.[75] However, the economy is not deemed socialist because Vietnam "is still in the stage of transition to socialism."[75] Similarly, China is in the primary stage of socialism, and contends it will be in this stage for about a 100 years.[76]

Planned economy[edit]

Main article: Soviet-type economic planning

Many followers of Marx and Engels drew, from reading their works, the idea that the socialist economy would be based on planning and not market mechanism.[77] These ideas later developed into the belief that planning was superior to market mechanism.[78] The Bolsheviks upon seizing power began advocating a national state planning system.[78] The 8th Congress of the Soviet party resolved to institute "the maximum centralisation of production ... simultaneously striving to establish a unified economic plan."[78] 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.[79] On introducing the planning system, it became common belief in the international communist movement, that the Soviet planning system was a more advanced form of economic organisation then capitalism.[80] This led to the system being introduced voluntary in countries such as China, Cuba and Vietnam for instance, and in some cases imposed by the Soviet Union.[80]

The socialist state planning system had five main characteristics.[81] First, with the exception of the field consumption and employment, practically all decisions were centralised at the top.[81] The system was hierarchical—the center formulated a plan, which sent down to the level below, which would imitate the process and send the plan further down the pyramid.[81] Thirdly, the plans were binding in nature; everyone had to follow and meet the goals set forth in it.[81] The predominace of calculating in physical terms, to ensure planned allocation of commodities were not incompatible with planned production.[81] At last, since the planners focused on physical allocation, money played a passive role within the state sector.[81]

In a planned economy, according to Michael Ellman, "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."[81] The private ownership of the means of production still exist, but play a fairly insignificant role.[82] Since the class struggle is caused in capitalism 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 considering as a tool to end class struggle and to empower the working class.[83]

Social economy[edit]

After the Tito-Stalin split, Yugoslavia replaced the Soviet planning system with the social ownership of the means of production.[84] Private ownership of the means of production made up Very little of the country's activity, and technically there was no state ownership of the economy.[34] The state being replaced by workers' self-management.[84] Yugoslavia still had a planning system, which it referred to as indicative planning.[84] The other socialist states referred to the Yugoslav model as a system of planned guidance.[84] The Yugoslav economic system was based upon market mechanisms.[85] The League of Communists of Yugoslavia contended that state ownership of the economy, as in the Soviet model, led to the development of "state bureaucratism" and "state capitalism".[86] While accepting the need to nationalise the economy after a socialist revolution, this was considered to be the lowest form of socialism.[86] Putting more and more power in the control of the workers were necessary to further construct socialism.[86]

To ensure the withering away of the state, and since state control was considered a danger to socialist construction, the Yugoslav communists conceived of "a higher form of socialism in which the state would begin to wither away."[87] The concept of social property was introduced, and defined as national ownership of the means of production rather than state ownership—the state did not control property relations that is.[87] This concept was accompanied by the decentralisation of decision-making and the elimination of most state agencies responsible for directing the economy.[87] In their place workers' self management was introduced; "councils elected by workers in each factory organize production and dispose of proceeds of their work by and large according to their own wishes."[87] The Yugoslav equivalent of the Soviet state planning agency was not dissolved, but its function curtailed.[87] It formulated a social plan which was scholar Fred Warner Neal "little more then estimates of production, not legally binding on individual producing units, which themselves planned and carried out their output, prices and wages."[87] The Yugoslav state was to lead the economy indirectly through state investment funds of taxes and credits, and foreign trade.[87] The Yugoslav economy, while not privatised, become an enterprising economy.[87]

Judicial system[edit]

Constitution[edit]

Role of constitutions[edit]

Marxist–Leninists view the constitution as a fundamental law and as a instrument of force.[88] The constitution is the source of law and legality.[89] Unlike in liberal democracies, the Marxist–Leninist constitution is not a framework to limit the power of the state.[89] 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.[89] It is the belief of Marxist–Leninists that all national constitutions do this, to ensure that countries can strengthen and enforce their own class system.[89] 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.[89] This contrasts with the liberal conception of constitutionalism that "law, rather than men, is supreme."[90]

A Marxist–Leninist constitution is ever changing, unlike the fixed nature of liberal democratic constitutions.[91] Andrey Vyshinsky, a Procurator General of the Soviet Union during the 1930s, notes that the "Soviet constitutions represent the sum total of the historic path along which the Soviet state has traveled. At the same time, they are the legislative basis of subsequent development of state life."[91] That is, the constitution sums up what already has been achieved.[92] This belief is also shared by the Communist Party of China; "the Chinese Constitution blazes a path for China, recording what has been won in China and what is yet to be conquered."[91] A constitution in a socialist state has an end.[93] For instance, the preamble of the 1954 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."[93]

The constitution was therefore a tool to analyse the development of society.[94] The Marxist–Leninist party in question would have to study the correlation of forces, literally society's class structure, before enacting changes.[94] Several terms were coined for different developmental states by Marxist–Leninists legal theorists; new democracy, people's democracy, socialist state and the primary stage of socialism for instance.[92] This is also why amendments to constitutions are not enough; major societal changes needs a constitution which corresponds with the reality of the new class structure.[92]

With Khrushchev's repudiation of Stalin's practices and the Communist Party of China repudiation of Mao, Marxist–Leninist legal theories began to emphasise "the formal, formerly neglected constitutional order".[95] Deng Xiaoping, not long after Mao's death, noted "Democracy has to be institutionalised and written into law, so as 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."[96] Li Buyan, in 1986, 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."[97] These legal developments have been 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 disctint) to the liberal term of the same name.[98] The emphasise has more squarely, in the last years, on the constitution as both a legal document and a paper which documents society's development, as noted by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2013; "No organisation or individual has the privilege to overstep the Constitution and law."[99]

Constitutional supervision[edit]

After Stalin's death, several socialist states have experimented with some sort of constitutional supervision.[100] These organs were designed to safeguard the supreme power of the legislature.[100] Romania was the first to experiment with constitutional supervision, when it established a Constitutional Committee in 1965.[100] It was elected by the legislature, and leading jurists sat in the committee, but it was only empowered to advice the legislature.[100] Keith Hand comments that "It was not an effective institution in practice."[100] Hungary and Polen experimented with constitutional supervision in the early 1980s.[100] Hungary established the Council of Constitutional Law, which was elected by the legislature and consisted of several leading jurists.[100] 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 it advice it needed to petition the legislature.[100] The Soviets established the Constitutional Supervision Committee in 1989, which "was subordinate only to the USSR constitution."[101] 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 legislature], decrees of the Supreme Soviet’s Presidium, union republic constitutions and laws, some central administrative decrees, Supreme Court explanations, and other central normative documents."[101] If the committee deemed the legislature to have breached legality, the legislature was obliged to discuss the issue but could reject it if more than 2/3 voted against the findings of the Constitutional Supervision Committee.[101] While it was constitutionally powerful, it lacked enforcement powers, was often ignored and it failed to defend the constitution during the coup against Mikhail Gorbachev.[102]

The Chinese leadership has argued against establishing a constitutional supervisory committee, due to their association with failed socialist states of Europe.[103] More noteworthy, as of 2018, none of the surviving socialist states (Cuba China, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam) have experimented with constitutional supervision committees or constitutional supervision of anykind outside the existing framework.[104]

Legal system[edit]

Main article: Socialist law

All socialist states have been established in countries with a civil law system.[105] The countries of Eastern Europe had formally been governed by the Russian Empire, German Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire—all of whom had civil law legal system.[105] Cuba had a civil law system imposed on them by Spain, China introduced civil law to overlay with Confucian elements and Vietnam used French law.[105] 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.[105] 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."[106] Similarly, Christoper Osakwe concludes that socialist law is "an autonomous legal system to be essentially distinguished from the other contemporary families of law."[107] Proponents of socialist law as a separate legal system, have identified the following features;[107]

  1. that socialist law is to disappear with the withering away of the state;[107]
  2. the rule of the Marxist–Leninist party;[107]
  3. that socialist law is subordinate, and reflect changes to, the economic order (the absorption of private law by public law);[107]
  4. that socialist law has a religious character, and[108]
  5. that socialist law is prerogative rather than normative.[108]

Legal officials argue differently for their case than Westerners.[109] For instance, "The 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."[109] This changed with the introduction of the planned economy, and the term "socialist law" was conceived to reflect this in the 1930s.[109] Hungarian legal theorist Imre Szabó acknowledged similarities between socialist law and civil law, but noted that "four basic types of law may be distinguished: the laws of the slave, feudal, capitalist and socialist societies."[110] Using the Marxst 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, their superstructure (state) has to reflect these differences.[111] In other words, law is a tool by the ruling class to govern.[111] 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."[112] However, some socialist legal theorists differentiated between type of law and family of law, such as Romanian jurist Victor Zlatescu "The 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 appears in certain writings of Western comparatists."[113] In other words, socialist law is civil law, but its a different type of law for a different type of society.[113]

Yugoslav jurist Borislav Blagojevic noted "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."[114] Importantly, socialist law has retained civil law institutions, methodology, and organisation.[115] This can be discerned by the fact that East Germany for instance retained the 1896 German civil code until 1976 while Polen used existing German, French, Austrian and Russian civil codes until its adoption of its own civil code in 1964.[116] Scholar John Quigley writes that "Socialist law retains the inquisitorial style of trial, law-creation predominantly by legislatures rather than courts, and a significant role for legal scholarship in construing codes."[115]

Alternative conceptions of the socialist state[edit]

References[edit]

Footnotes[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e f Harding 1981, p. 27.
  2. ^ a b Tang 1980, pp. 42–43.
  3. ^ Wilczynski 2008, p. 21, 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.
  4. ^ Steele 1999, p. 45, 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. ^ Rosser 2003, p. 14, 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..
  6. ^ a b c d e Guns 1950, p. 187.
  7. ^ a b Guns 1950, pp. 187–188.
  8. ^ Iman 1986, p. 383.
  9. ^ a b Guns 1950, p. 188.
  10. ^ Guns 1950, pp. 188–189.
  11. ^ a b c d Tang 1980, p. 43.
  12. ^ a b Tang 1980, p. 41.
  13. ^ a b c Tang 1980, p. 42.
  14. ^ Skillings 1961, p. 16.
  15. ^ a b c Skillings 1961, p. 21.
  16. ^ a b c d Poelzer 1989, p. 13.
  17. ^ a b c d Poelzer 1989, p. 14.
  18. ^ a b c d e Poelzer 1989, p. 16.
  19. ^ a b Poelzer 1989, p. 15.
  20. ^ Poelzer 1989, p. 22.
  21. ^ Poelzer 1989, p. 23.
  22. ^ Poelzer 1989, p. 24.
  23. ^ a b Poelzer 1989, p. 25.
  24. ^ a b Poelzer 1989, p. 26.
  25. ^ Poelzer 1989, p. 44.
  26. ^ Poelzer 1989, pp. 50–52.
  27. ^ Poelzer 1989, pp. 54–55.
  28. ^ Poelzer 1989, p. 61.
  29. ^ a b c Feldbrugge 1985, p. 202. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFFeldbrugge1985 (help)
  30. ^ a b White, Gardner & Schöpflin 1987, p. 86.
  31. ^ a b Staar 1988, p. 36 (Bulgaria), 65 (Czechoslovakia), 133 (Hungary), 161 (Romania), 195 (Poland).
  32. ^ Feldbrugge 1985, pp. 202–203. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFFeldbrugge1985 (help)
  33. ^ a b c Feldbrugge 1985, p. 203. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFFeldbrugge1985 (help)
  34. ^ a b Starr 1987, p. 64.
  35. ^ Dimitrov 2006, p. 170.
  36. ^ a b c d e f Hand 2016, p. 2.
  37. ^ Hazard 1985, p. 163.
  38. ^ White, Gardner & Schöpflin 1987, p. 91.
  39. ^ White, Gardner & Schöpflin 1987, pp. 114–115.
  40. ^ White, Gardner & Schöpflin 1987, p. 114.
  41. ^ White, Gardner & Schöpflin 1987, p. 115.
  42. ^ White, Gardner & Schöpflin 1987, p. 82.
  43. ^ a b c d e Nelson 1982, p. 1.
  44. ^ a b c d e f g Nelson 1982, p. 7.
  45. ^ Nelson 1982, p. 6.
  46. ^ a b c d Nelson 1982, p. 8.
  47. ^ a b c d Nelson 1982, p. 9.
  48. ^ a b c d Nelson 1982, p. 10.
  49. ^ Kramer 1985, p. 47.
  50. ^ a b c Snyder 1987, p. 28.
  51. ^ Snyder 1987, p. 30.
  52. ^ Loeber 1984, p. 13.
  53. ^ a b Staff writer 1980, p. 1.
  54. ^ Staff writer 1980, p. 3.
  55. ^ Kokoshin 2016, p. 19.
  56. ^ a b Mulvenon 2018, p. 3.
  57. ^ Mulvenon 2012, p. 251.
  58. ^ Blasko 2006, p. 6.
  59. ^ a b c d Blasko 2006, p. 27.
  60. ^ Garafola, Cristina L. "People's Liberation Army Reforms and Their Ramifications". RAND Corporation. Retrieved 15 May 2018.
  61. ^ Kokoshin 2016, p. 23.
  62. ^ a b Staff writer 1980, p. 7.
  63. ^ a b c Thayer 2008, p. 68.
  64. ^ Miller 2018, p. 4.
  65. ^ Harding 1981, pp. 27–28.
  66. ^ Steiner 1951, p. 58.
  67. ^ a b Bui 2016, p. 223.
  68. ^ a b Li 2017, p. 219.
  69. ^ a b Evans 1993, p. 20.
  70. ^ Neal, p. 55.
  71. ^ Neal, pp. 55–56.
  72. ^ a b White, Gardner & Schöpflin 1987, p. 131.
  73. ^ a b c d e Staff writer. "Central Committee". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
  74. ^ a b c d Ebashi 1997, p. 55.
  75. ^ a b Elliott 2012, p. 209.
  76. ^ Yamaguchi 2017, p. 3.
  77. ^ Ellman 2014, pp. 1–2.
  78. ^ a b c Ellman 2014, p. 2.
  79. ^ Ellman 2014, p. 9.
  80. ^ a b Ellman 2014, p. 11.
  81. ^ a b c d e f g Ellman 2014, p. 22.
  82. ^ Ellman 2014, p. 23.
  83. ^ Ellman 2014, p. 25.
  84. ^ a b c d Starr 1987, p. 232.
  85. ^ Neal, pp. 47–48.
  86. ^ a b c Neal, p. 53.
  87. ^ a b c d e f g h Neal, p. 54.
  88. ^ Chang 1956, p. 520.
  89. ^ a b c d e Chang 1956, p. 521.
  90. ^ Chang 1956, p. xi.
  91. ^ a b c Chang 1956, p. 522.
  92. ^ a b c Chang 1956, p. xii.
  93. ^ a b Chang 1956, p. 524.
  94. ^ a b Triska 1968, p. xii.
  95. ^ Chang 1956, p. xiii.
  96. ^ Keith 1992, p. 112.
  97. ^ Keith 1992, p. 114.
  98. ^ Keith 1992, p. 118.
  99. ^ Wan, William; Qi, Li (3 June 2013). "China's constitution debate hits a sensitive nerve". The Washington Post. Retrieved 3 May 2018.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  100. ^ a b c d e f g h Hand 2016, p. 3.
  101. ^ a b c Hand 2016, p. 4.
  102. ^ Hand 2016, p. 5.
  103. ^ Hand 2016, p. 15.
  104. ^ Hand 2016, p. 16.
  105. ^ a b c d Quigley 1989, p. 781.
  106. ^ Quigley 1989, p. 782.
  107. ^ a b c d e Quigley 1989, p. 783.
  108. ^ a b Quigley 1989, p. 784.
  109. ^ a b c Quigley 1989, p. 796.
  110. ^ Quigley 1989, pp. 798–99.
  111. ^ a b Quigley 1989, p. 799.
  112. ^ Quigley 1989, p. 797.
  113. ^ a b Quigley 1989, p. 800.
  114. ^ Quigley 1989, p. 802.
  115. ^ a b Quigley 1989, p. 803.
  116. ^ Quigley 1989, p. 801.

Bibliography[edit]

General[edit]

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

Articles and journal entries[edit]

Books[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Trust_Is_All_You_Need/Socialism&oldid=841683556"