Communist State

A communist state, often referred to as a Marxist–Leninist state, is a particular flavor of government. It's characterized by the absolute dominance of a communist party, a strict adherence to Marxist–Leninist ideology, and an official, unwavering commitment to the eventual realization of a communist society. The broader concept of communism itself, as theorized in the 19th century, emerged from the socialist movement in Europe. Its ultimate aim was a utopian vision: a stateless, classless, and moneyless society, a stark contrast to the capitalism it sought to dismantle. However, the practical application of these ideas, particularly through the lens of Marxism–Leninism, truly took root in the Soviet Union under the iron fist of Joseph Stalin.

The 20th century witnessed the proliferation of these communist states. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was the genesis, followed by the establishment of similar regimes in parts of Eastern Europe, Asia, and scattered across the globe, often in the aftermath of World War II. The foundational texts for these states were drawn heavily from the writings of intellectual titans like Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, and of course, Joseph Stalin. Yet, the ideological edifice began to crumble with the reforms of Mikhail Gorbachev, known as Perestroika, coupled with persistent socio-economic woes. This confluence of factors ignited the Revolutions of 1989, which, with the exception of the Soviet Union itself, brought down the communist states of the Eastern Bloc. The reverberations of this collapse rippled outwards, triggering significant political shifts in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and various other non-European communist nations. Today, only five states officially identify as communist: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam.

The theoretical underpinning of communist states, as derived from Marx's theory of the state, posits that all state structures are inherently instruments of a ruling class. Communist states are no exception; the ruling communist party is designated as the vanguard party, representing the most class conscious segment of the working classes, particularly the proletariat. This formulation can, however, extend to include the peasantry, as seen in its Maoist iteration. Communist states typically assert that the working class, under the leadership of the communist party, is the true ruling class, establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat as their class system. This is envisioned as a transitional socialist state) that will eventually "wither away" into a truly communist society free from all forms of oppression. However, not all communist states have strictly adhered to this model. Some, like Laos, have opted for a people's democratic state, where political power is shared among various classes, not solely dictated by the proletariat. The core belief system dictates that communist states must cultivate an economic base that supports this class system, often referred to as the "superstructure" by Marxists. This involves establishing a socialist economy, or at the very least, fostering property relations sufficiently strong to underpin the communist class structure. Through these measures, the communist party aims to solidify Marxism–Leninism as the guiding ideology of the state, a principle often enshrined in the communist state constitution.

The political architecture of these states is founded on the twin pillars of democratic centralism and unified power. Democratic centralism, as theorized by Vladimir Lenin, aims to concentrate power within the highest leadership, theoretically through democratic processes. Conversely, unified power rejects the separation of powers common in liberal democracies. Instead, it consolidates all state authority into a single national representative body, often termed the supreme state organ of power. The ruling communist party typically commands a substantial majority, often two-thirds or more, within this body, granting it virtually unlimited authority, save for self-imposed constitutional constraints. In essence, what might be considered executive or judicial branches in a liberal system are subsumed within this supreme organ. The constitution itself usually formalizes the communist party's leading role in the state.

The communist party wields its influence over the supreme state organ through the rigorous political discipline it imposes on its members, thereby dominating the state apparatus. These ruling parties are typically organized along Leninist lines. The party congress serves as the ultimate decision-making body. Between congresses, the central committee assumes this role. When neither is convened, authority is usually delegated to the politburo, responsible for political strategy, and the secretariat), tasked with implementing decisions. These bodies are populated by the elite figures of both the party and the state. The party leader often holds the title of general secretary, though the actual power vested in this position varies significantly. Some states are marked by the dominance of a single leader and a pronounced cult of personality, while others operate under a collective leadership, characterized by a more distributed distribution of power among senior officials.

These states strive to engage the populace through the "transmission belt" principle, fostering close ties between the party and the masses via various mass organizations designed to encompass broad swathes of society, not just committed communists. Coercion and political campaigns are also employed. Critics argue that these methods are inherently dictatorial, as the communist party remains the undisputed center of power. Conversely, proponents highlight these as examples of functioning political participation) within a Soviet democracy, involving factory committees and trade unions, among other non-party organizations.

Etymology

It's a curious footnote that no state conventionally labeled a "communist state" has ever officially adopted that moniker for itself. Instead, they've historically employed a variety of designations – national-democratic, people's democratic, socialist-oriented, or workers' and peasants' states. These terms were chosen to reflect their self-understanding as polities governed by a communist party, while acknowledging they had not yet achieved the full realization of a communist mode of production. As historian David Ramsay Steele astutely observed, the label "communist state" largely originated with external 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."

The self-designation as socialist states) is rooted in the theoretical distinction within Marxism. Communism, in its purest Marxist conception, implies a stateless society, rendering the term "communist state" an oxymoron. Economist Jozef Wilczynski elaborated on this: "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 withering away of the State."

Scholars like John Barkley Rosser Jr. and Marina Rosser echo this sentiment, emphasizing that Karl Marx himself envisioned communism as the eventual withering away of the state, with the dictatorship of the proletariat serving as a strictly transitional phase. They note, "Well aware of this", Soviet Communists consistently identified their system as socialist, a stepping stone to communism. Raymond Williams traces the terminological divergence to 1918, when the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks)) rebranded itself as the All-Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)). From that point, the distinction between socialist and communist became more pronounced, though communist parties continued to self-identify as socialist and committed to its cause.

From the perspective of Western political science, the term "communist state" remains a useful analytical category due to the shared institutional patterns observed across these regimes. Scholars Stephen White), John Gardner, and George Schöpflin identify four defining characteristics: (1) the official embrace of Marxism–Leninism as state ideology; (2) the dominance of state ownership and centralized economic planning; (3) a one-party state dominated by a disciplined communist party, possibly alongside subordinate parties; and (4) the party's constitutionally guaranteed leading role in all aspects of state and society.

Overview

An anachronistic map illustrating countries that have, at some point, been governed by a one-party Marxist–Leninist state.

Development

The 20th century saw the emergence of the world's first constitutionally communist state in Soviet Russia around late 1917. This entity evolved into the Soviet Union in 1922, incorporating other former territories of the Russian Empire. Post-World War II, the Soviet Army played a pivotal role in installing communist parties in power across much of Eastern Europe, forging alliances within the Warsaw Pact. Notably, Yugoslavia charted a non-aligned course, while Albania also diverged. Following a protracted struggle against Japanese occupation and a subsequent civil war, the People's Republic of China was established in 1949 under Communist leadership. Other communist states emerged in Cambodia, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. The year 1989 marked a turning point, as the communist states of Eastern Europe succumbed to popular movements, aided by the dismantling of the Iron Curtain, a process encapsulated by the Revolutions of 1989. This wave of change ultimately contributed to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. China's socio-economic trajectory has been described as "nationalistic state capitalism," while the Eastern Bloc nations and those in the Third World were often characterized as "bureaucratic-authoritarian systems."

Institutions

Communist states share a common institutional framework, built on the premise that the communist party acts as the vanguard of the proletariat, embodying the long-term interests of the populace. The principle of democratic centralism, originally conceived by Vladimir Lenin for internal party organization, is extended to the entire society. This principle dictates that while leaders should be elected and decisions debated openly, once a decision is made, all individuals are bound to uphold it. Within a party, this aims to prevent factionalism; applied to a state, it solidifies a one-party system. Most communist constitutions formally declare their political systems to be a form of democracy, recognizing popular sovereignty through parliamentary institutions. However, these systems eschew the separation of powers common in liberal republics. Instead, a single legislative body, often referred to as the supreme state organ of power (like the Supreme Soviet in the USSR), holds unitary power, encompassing legislative, executive, and judicial functions, with the ability to delegate these powers.

Legislatures in communist states, while structurally similar to parliaments in liberal democracies, possess key distinctions. Firstly, elected deputies are expected to represent the collective, long-term interests of the entire population, rather than specific constituencies. Secondly, contrary to Karl Marx's counsel, these legislatures typically convene only infrequently, for brief sessions annually. When not in session, their powers are vested in a smaller council, often a presidium, which functions as a collective head of state. In some cases, this presidium comprises key communist party members who translate party resolutions into law.

A defining characteristic of communist states is the proliferation of state-sponsored social organizations. These include associations for journalists, educators, writers, professional groups, consumer cooperatives, sports clubs, trade unions, youth organizations, and women's organizations. These organizations are integrated into the political system, tasked with fostering social unity, acting as conduits between the government and society, and serving as recruitment grounds for new party members.

Historically, many communist governments have maintained a one-party monopoly. While some, like China, Czechoslovakia), or East Germany), have had multiple parties, all subordinate parties were required to follow the communist party's lead. In such systems, criticism of established policies, past or present, is often not tolerated.

State

Within the framework of Marxist–Leninist thought, the state is fundamentally viewed as a repressive institution controlled by a ruling class. This class utilizes the state to enforce its will and oppress other classes, thereby establishing a class dictatorship. Paradoxically, the ultimate objective of the communist state is the abolition of the state itself. The Soviet Russia Constitution of 1918 explicitly stated its aim: "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." The communist state thus represents the dictatorship of the proletariat, with the most advanced elements of the proletariat holding ruling power. In Marxist-Leninist ideology, the socialist state is the final form of a repressive state, preceding the ultimate stage of pure communism, a society devoid of classes and states. Friedrich Engels presciently remarked on the state's eventual demise: "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."

Vladimir Lenin, in his work "The Tax in Kind," articulated the transitional nature of the Soviet economic system, stating, "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." The implementation of the first five-year plan) in the Soviet Union fostered a widespread belief among communists that the withering away of the state was imminent. However, Joseph Stalin cautioned that this process would only occur after the socialist mode of production) had definitively triumphed over capitalism. Soviet jurist Andrey Vyshinsky echoed this sentiment, asserting the necessity of the socialist state "in order to defend, to secure, and to develop relationships and arrangements advantageous to the workers, and to annihilate completely capitalism and its remnants."

Ideology permeates these states profoundly. Peter Tang, a scholar in the field, observed, "[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." Consequently, the primary ideological mission of communist states is the propagation of socialism, guided by Marxism–Leninism. Two primary pathways have been adopted to achieve this: indirect governance through the party (the Soviet model) or direct constitutional commitment to Marxism–Leninism (the Maoist China–Albania model). The Soviet model has proven more prevalent and continues to be employed in China.

Marxism–Leninism found explicit mention in the Soviet constitution. Article 6 of the 1977 Soviet constitution declared: "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." 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." The 1975 Chinese constitution similarly proclaimed in Article 2: "Marxism–Leninism–Mao Zedong Thought is the theoretical basis guiding the thinking of our nation." The 1977 Soviet constitution's preamble also featured phrases such as "building socialism and communism," "on the road to communism," and "to perfect socialist social relations and transform them into communist relations."

People's Democratic State

The people's democratic state) was a political model implemented in Eastern Europe following World War II. It can be characterized as a state and societal structure where feudal remnants were eradicated, and private ownership persisted, though state-owned enterprises in industry, transport, and finance held a dominant position. As articulated by 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." Soviet philosopher N. P. Farberov further elaborated: "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."

National-Democratic State

The concept of the national-democratic state aimed to conceptualize a pathway to socialism that bypassed the capitalist mode of production). While Vladimir Lenin had initially theorized non-capitalist development, this concept's innovation lay in its application to the progressive factions within national liberation movements in the Third World. The term gained traction shortly after Stalin's death, as Stalin himself viewed colonies primarily as pawns of Western imperialism, with limited prospects for socialist movements.

States where national liberation movements assumed power, adopted an anti-imperialist foreign policy, and pursued socialist construction were classified as national-democratic states by Marxist–Leninists. Gamal Abdel Nasser's Egypt, with its commitment to Arab socialism, serves as an example. With the exception of Cuba, these states did not ultimately achieve socialism. Scholar Sylvia Woodby Edington suggests this might explain why the concept of the national-democratic state "never received full theoretical elaboration as a political system." Nevertheless, a key defining feature was that these states were not necessarily led by a Marxist–Leninist party.

Socialist-Oriented State

A socialist-oriented state pursues socialism through non-capitalist development, a concept distinct from the national-democratic state. The primary differentiation lies in the socialist-oriented state's division into two stages: a national-democratic socialist-oriented state and a people's democratic socialist-oriented state. Countries categorized as national-democratic socialist-oriented states were also considered national-democratic states. Examples include Algeria under the National Liberation Front), Ba'athist Iraq, and Socialist Burma. In contrast, people's democratic socialist-oriented states were required to adhere to Marxism–Leninism, embrace its universal tenets, and reject alternative socialist ideologies like African socialism.

Socialist-oriented states were characterized by seven defining features: they were revolutionary democracies, possessed a revolutionary-democratic party, implemented a class dictatorship, defended their socialist orientation, established organs of socialization, initiated socialist construction, and fell into one of the two aforementioned types (national-democratic or people's democratic). The overarching goal of revolutionary democracy was to create the necessary conditions for socialism in nations lacking the requisite social, political, and economic prerequisites. The second crucial element was the establishment of a revolutionary-democratic party that would assert leadership and guide the state using Marxist–Leninist ideology. While democratic centralism was introduced, it was rarely consistently applied.

Unlike capitalism, governed by the bourgeoisie, and socialism, led by the proletariat, the socialist-oriented state represented a broad coalition of classes united by the objective of consolidating national independence. Given that peasants often constituted the largest demographic in these states, their role was frequently emphasized, mirroring the significance of the working class in other socialist models. However, Marxist–Leninists acknowledged that these states could fall under the sway of specific factions, such as the military in Ethiopia. The establishment of legal frameworks and coercive institutions was also considered vital for safeguarding the socialist-oriented nature of the state. The fifth feature mandated state control over media and education, alongside the creation of mass organizations to mobilize the populace. Unlike the Soviet economic model, socialist-oriented states often adopted mixed economies, actively seeking foreign capital and maintaining a private sector. Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev described these states as being in the process of taking control of the commanding heights of the economy and implementing a state-planned economy. According to Soviet sources, Laos was the sole socialist-oriented state that successfully transitioned into a fully socialist state.

Socialist State

A socialist state) is more than a mere form of government; it requires the existence of a socialist economy. Many states have implemented socialist forms of government prior to achieving full socialism. The former socialist states of Eastern Europe, for instance, were established as people's democracies, representing a transitional stage between capitalism and socialism. The Soviet Union classified Marxist–Leninist-ruled nations in Africa and the Middle East not as socialist states, but as socialist-oriented states. While numerous countries reference socialism in their constitutions or are led by long-standing socialist movements, within Marxist–Leninist theory, a socialist state is one governed by a communist party that has successfully instituted a socialist economy. These are the states that define themselves constitutionally as socialist or as being led by a governing Marxist–Leninist party, leading to their frequent designation as communist states.

The State System of Unitary Power

Supreme State Organ of Power

The National People's Congress, the legislative body of China.

All communist political systems operate under the principle of unitary state power. This signifies that the legislature, typically designated as the supreme state organ of power, holds combined executive, legislative, and judicial authority, with the ability to intervene in these areas unless legally prohibited. Both Marx and Lenin harbored a deep aversion to the parliamentary systems of bourgeois democracy, yet neither advocated for the complete abolition of the legislature. Lenin himself argued that developing proletarian democracy would be impossible "without representative institutions." Both thinkers admired the governing model of the Paris Commune of 1871, where executive and legislative functions were merged. Crucially, Marx lauded its election process, characterized by "universal suffrage in the various wards and towns." While the institution of such a legislature might not be inherently significant, it plays a vital role in the rhetoric and literature of ruling parties, serving as a symbol of their connection to the masses, their purported understanding of the people's interests, and their commitment to social justice and socialist democracy through the mass line. This rationale empowers communist legislatures to intervene in any state institution, provided the legislature itself has not enacted laws restricting such actions. This stands in stark contrast to the separation of powers found in liberal democracies, where no institution can legally impose checks and balances on the legislature. The legislature, as the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality, drafts and amends the constitution, meaning its own acts cannot be deemed unconstitutional. Consequently, concepts like judicial independence in communist states differ significantly from their liberal counterparts; it signifies the cessation of interferences not sanctioned by law, rather than a prohibition on interference itself.

The Supreme Soviet served as the precursor to socialist legislatures, and its model was adopted across communist states. Convening biannually for brief sessions, it was one of the most frequently convened legislatures globally during its existence. This pattern of infrequent meetings was common in Eastern Bloc countries and persists in modern China. China's legislature, the National People's Congress (NPC), mirrors the Soviet structure. Like the Supreme Soviet, the NPC is the supreme state authority, responsible for electing its Standing Committee (analogous to the Soviet Presidium), the government (known as the State Council in China and the Council of Ministers) in the USSR), the Supreme Court (such as the Supreme Court of East Germany), the Supreme Procuratorate (like Vietnam's Supreme People's Procuracy), the Chairman of the National Defence Council (for instance, Vietnam's Council for National Defense and Security)), and national supervisory bodies like China's National Supervisory Commission. Crucially, in all communist states, the ruling party holds either a clear majority, as in China, or a complete monopoly of seats, as was the case in the Soviet Union's Supreme Soviet. This legislative dominance ensures the centralized and unified control of the ruling Marxist–Leninist party over the state.

By maintaining these legislatures, Marxist–Leninist parties seek to reconcile the ideological commitment to representative institutions with the imperative of preserving the party's paramount role. Legislatures serve as a crucial link between the rulers and the ruled. These bodies are designed to be representative, often reflecting the population's ethnicity and language, though "with occupations distributed in a manner skewed towards government officials." Unlike in liberal democracies, communist legislatures are not intended as platforms for articulating demands or representing specific interests, primarily due to their infrequent meetings. This might explain the absence of terms like "delegates" and "trustees," which would empower legislators to vote according to their judgment or constituency's interests. Scholar Daniel Nelson observed a parallel with pre-17th-century British parliaments, where legislative bodies physically represented the "realm" ruled by "kings." Members "represent" the population to whom rulers speak, convening a broader "segment of society" than the court itself. However, the party, rather than the legislature, typically assumes the primary role in communication with the populace.

The ideological function of legislatures is also significant, serving to demonstrate that communist states represent not only the working class but all social strata. In pursuit of a classless society, legislatures are utilized to showcase the commitment of various groups—bureaucrats, workers, intellectuals—to this goal. National institutions like legislatures, as seen in China, are vital for bringing together representatives from all nationalities and regions. Even if legislatures primarily function as rubber stamp) bodies, their existence symbolically incorporates minorities and diverse regions into the national political structure. A high proportion of government or party officials typically comprise these legislatures, suggesting that the composition of the legislature, rather than its specific actions, holds greater symbolic weight. These representatives often campaign and disseminate party policies, reinforcing the government's legitimacy.

Western researchers have historically paid limited attention to legislatures in communist states, partly due to their diminished role as agents of political socialization compared to their liberal democratic counterparts. While political leaders may be elected to legislative positions, these roles are often secondary to their advancement within the party structure. The specific functions of legislatures vary. In the Soviet Union, the Supreme Soviet largely "listened to statements from Soviet political leaders and legitimized decisions already made elsewhere." In contrast, legislatures in Poland, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia have exhibited more active engagement in the rule-making process.

Constitution

Role of Constitutions

Marxist–Leninists view the constitution not as a limitation on state power, as in liberal democracies, but as a fundamental legal instrument and an apparatus of force. The constitution is the ultimate source of law and legality, designed to empower the state, which is seen as an organ of class domination and law as the expression of the dominant class's interests. Constitutions in communist states are thus conceived as tools to solidify the socialist character of the state and to combat its adversaries, a stark departure from the liberal ideal of constitutionalism where "law, rather than men, is supreme."

Unlike the relatively stable constitutions of democratic states, Marxist–Leninist constitutions are dynamic documents, subject to change reflecting societal evolution. Andrey Vyshinsky, former Procurator General of the Soviet Union, described Soviet constitutions as "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." This perspective holds that the constitution encapsulates past achievements and lays the groundwork for future progress. The Chinese Communist Party shares this view, asserting that "the Chinese Constitution blazes a path for China, recording what has been won in China and what is yet to be conquered." A constitution in a communist state possesses a defined telos. The preamble to the 1954 Chinese constitution outlined the historical objectives of 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."

Constitutions in communist states serve as analytical tools for understanding societal development. The governing Marxist–Leninist party is expected to analyze the correlation of forces, particularly the prevailing class structure, before enacting constitutional changes. Legal theorists in this tradition have coined various terms to describe different developmental stages, including new democracy, people's democracy), and the primary stage of socialism. This dynamic understanding explains why constitutional amendments are sometimes insufficient, necessitating entirely new constitutions to reflect fundamental shifts in class structure.

Following Nikita Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalinist practices in his "Secret Speech" and the Chinese Communist Party's subsequent revision of certain Maoist policies, Marxist–Leninist legal theories began to place greater emphasis on the "formal, formerly neglected constitutional order." Deng Xiaoping, in the period following Mao Zedong's death, stated, "[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." These developments in legal thought were mirrored in Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam in subsequent years, leading to the emergence of the concept of socialist rule of law, distinct from its liberal counterpart. More recently, Xi Jinping, the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, reiterated the importance of the constitution as a binding legal document in 2013, stating, "[n]o organisation or individual has the privilege to overstep the Constitution and law."

Constitutional Supervision

Following the death of Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union's General Secretary, several communist states experimented with forms of constitutional supervision. These mechanisms were intended to safeguard the legislature's supreme authority against circumvention by political leaders. Romania pioneered this approach with the establishment of a Constitutional Committee in 1965, elected by the legislature and comprising leading jurists. However, its advisory role limited its effectiveness, failing to prevent Nicolae Ceaușescu's manipulation of the Great National Assembly) after the implementation of the July Theses.

Hungary and Poland introduced constitutional supervision in the early 1980s. Hungary established the Council of Constitutional Law, elected by the legislature and composed of prominent jurists. This council possessed the authority to review the constitutionality and legality of statutes and administrative regulations. However, if an agency disregarded its advice, the council had to petition the legislature. In 1989, the Soviet Union created the Constitutional Supervision Committee, operating "subordinate only to the USSR constitution." This committee was empowered to examine the constitutionality and legality of various state acts, including laws, decrees, republic constitutions, central administrative orders, and Supreme Court rulings. While it could flag unconstitutional actions by the legislature, the legislature retained the power to reject its findings with a two-thirds majority. Despite its constitutional authority, the committee lacked enforcement mechanisms and ultimately failed to uphold the constitution during the coup attempt against Mikhail Gorbachev.

The Chinese leadership has expressed reservations about establishing similar constitutional supervisory bodies, associating them with the downfall of European communist states. None of the surviving communist nations—China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam—had implemented constitutional supervision outside their existing legal frameworks until 2018, when the Constitution and Law Committee of the National People's Congress was granted the power of constitutional review.

Government as the Highest Administrative Agency of State Power

The government in communist states is typically defined as the "executive organ of the highest state organ of power" or the "highest administrative agency of state power," functioning as the executive arm of the legislature. This model, with variations, has been adopted by all communist states. For most of its history, the Soviet government was known as the Council of Ministers), a designation shared by the governments of Albania, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. While independent of other central agencies like the legislature, the Supreme Soviet retained the ultimate authority to address any issue. The Soviet government was accountable to the legislature and, between sessions, reported to its standing committee. This standing committee could reorganize and hold the government accountable but lacked the power to issue direct instructions.

In communist states, the government bore responsibility for the overall economic system, public order, foreign relations, and defense. The Soviet model was largely replicated in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania, with minor exceptions. Czechoslovakia, for instance, had a president rather than a collective head of state. Bulgaria's State Council, uniquely, held the power to instruct the Council of Ministers.

Judicial Organs and Socialist Law

In every communist state, judicial and procuratorial organs function as extensions of the legislature. For example, China's Supreme People's Court is described as the "legislative organ of governance that manages the judicial system in the name of the" National People's Congress, and by extension, the Chinese Communist Party. These bodies report their activities to the legislature, as exemplified by the annual work report delivered by Vietnam's Prosecutor-General to the National Assembly. Furthermore, communist states have historically operated within a civil law system. Eastern European nations inherited civil law traditions from the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, German Empire, and Russian Empire. Cuba's legal system was shaped by Spanish civil law, while China integrated civil law with Confucian principles, and Vietnam adopted French legal frameworks. Since the Soviet Union's inception, a debate has persisted regarding whether socialist law constitutes a distinct legal system or falls within the broader civil law tradition. Legal scholar Renè David argued 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." Similarly, Christoper Osakwe concluded that socialist law is "an autonomous legal system to be essentially distinguished from the other contemporary families of law." Proponents of socialist law as a separate legal system identify several key characteristics:

The eventual disappearance of socialist law with the withering away of the state.
The supremacy of the Marxist–Leninist party.
The subordination of socialist law to changes in the economic order, marked by the absorption of private law by public law.
A perceived religious character of socialist law.
The prerogative nature of socialist law over its normative aspects.

Legal scholars offer differing perspectives. 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." This view shifted with the advent of the command economy and the introduction of the term "socialist law" in the 1930s. Hungarian legal theorist Imre Szabó acknowledged similarities between socialist and civil law but argued for four distinct legal types: slave, feudal, capitalist, and socialist societies. Applying Marxist historical materialism, Szabó contended that socialist law belonged to a separate category due to fundamental differences in material structure, necessitating a corresponding divergence in its superstructure (the state). In essence, law serves as a tool for the ruling class. Renè David observed that socialist jurists' insistence on the originality of their legal system stemmed less from a strictly legal viewpoint and more from their philosophical and Marxist interpretations. However, some, like Romanian jurist Victor Zlatescu, differentiated between types and families of law, suggesting that socialist law, while distinct in type, was not a separate family from civil law.

Yugoslav jurist Borislav Blagojević noted the persistence of numerous civil law institutions and legal relations within socialist law, deeming their retention justified if aligned with the interests of the ruling class. Notably, socialist law retained civil law's methodologies and organizational structures. This is evident in East Germany, which maintained the 1896 German civil code until 1976, and Poland, which utilized existing Austrian, French, and Russian civil codes until adopting its own in 1964. Scholar John Quigley observed that socialist law preserved the inquisitorial trial style, legislative dominance in law creation, and a significant role for legal scholarship in interpreting codes.

Military

Control

Communist states have developed two primary models for civil-military relations. The armed forces in most socialist states have historically been state institutions modeled on the Soviet system. However, in China, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam, the armed forces are integrated party-state institutions. Significant distinctions exist between the statist (Soviet) and party-state (China) models. In the Soviet model, the Soviet armed forces were led by the Council of Defense, an organ of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, while the Council of Ministers formulated defense policy. The party leader served ex officio as Chairman of the Council of Defense. Below this council was the Main Military Council, responsible for strategic direction. Party control was exerted through the Main Political Directorate (MPD) of the Ministry of Defense), a state organ operating with the authority of a department of the CPSU Central Committee. The MPD oversaw political indoctrination and established control mechanisms throughout the armed forces. Its formal responsibilities included organizing party and Komsomol organs, ensuring party and state control over the military, evaluating officer performance, supervising military media, and overseeing political-military training institutions. The head of the MPD, though ranking fourth in military protocol, was not a member of the Council of Defense. The Administrative Organs Department of the CPSU Central Committee was responsible for implementing party personnel policies and supervised the KGB, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the Ministry of Defense.

In China's party-state model, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is fundamentally a party institution. The preamble to the Constitution of the Chinese Communist Party explicitly states: "The Communist Party of China (CPC) shall uphold its absolute leadership over the People's Liberation Army and other people's armed forces." The PLA operates under the directives of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. Mao Zedong famously articulated this principle: "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." The Central Military Commission) (CMC) serves as both a party and state organ, functioning as part of the CCP Central Committee and the national legislature, the National People's Congress. The CCP General Secretary holds the position of party CMC Chairman) ex officio, while the President of the People's Republic of China serves as state CMC Chairman. The composition of both CMCs is identical. The CMC is responsible for commanding the PLA and shaping national defense policy. Fifteen departments report directly to the CMC, overseeing everything from political work to PLA administration. Significantly, the CMC's authority surpasses that of the CPSU Administrative Organs Department, and its Chinese counterpart supervises not only the military but also intelligence and security services.

Representation

Unlike in liberal democracies, active military personnel in communist states are frequently members of civilian governing institutions. This is a consistent feature across all communist states. The Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) has consistently included active military figures in its CPV Politburo since 1986. Between 1986 and 2006, military representatives constituted, on average, 9.2% of the CPV Central Committee. Military figures also hold seats in the national legislature (the National Assembly) and other representative bodies. In China, the two CMC vice chairmen have automatically held seats in the CCP Politburo since 1987.

Ruling Party

Leading Role

A Marxist–Leninist party has been the guiding force in every communist state. This party's primary objective is to represent and articulate the interests of those exploited under capitalism, leading them toward the ultimate goal of communism. However, the party is not simply a reflection of the exploited class; its membership comprises individuals with an advanced level of consciousness, transcending narrow sectional interests. Thus, the party acts as the vanguard, interpreting the universal laws of history to guide the exploited classes towards communism.

In his seminal work, Foundations of Leninism (1924), Joseph Stalin emphasized the party's critical role: "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." The current Constitution of Vietnam explicitly states in Article 4: "[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." Similarly, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) defines itself as "the vanguard of the Chinese working class, the Chinese people, and the Chinese nation." As both parties acknowledge, ruling communist parties function as vanguard parties. Vladimir Lenin theorized 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." This concept evolved into the formal doctrine of the party's leading role in state governance, as reflected in the CCP's self-description and Vietnam's constitution.

Internal Organisation

The Marxist–Leninist governing party structures itself and, by extension, the state, according to the principle of democratic centralism. This entails that all directing party organs, from the highest to the lowest level, are elected; party bodies provide regular reports on their activities to their respective organizations; strict party discipline is maintained with the subordination of the minority to the majority; and all decisions made by higher organs are absolutely binding on lower organs and all party members.

The party congress stands as the supreme organ of a Marxist–Leninist governing party. The congress is responsible for electing the central committee and, typically, an auditing commission and a control commission. The central committee serves as the party's highest decision-making body between congresses and elects a politburo and a secretariat from among its members, along with the party leader. When the central committee is not convened, the politburo assumes the role of the highest decision-making organ, and the secretariat functions as the supreme administrative body. In some parties, a standing committee of the politburo is elected to act as the ultimate decision-making authority between sessions of the politburo, central committee, and congress. This hierarchical leadership structure extends down to the most basic party organization.

Economic System

The works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels led many adherents to believe that a socialist economy would be founded on planning rather than market mechanisms, a notion that evolved into the conviction that planning was inherently superior. Upon seizing power, the Bolsheviks began advocating for a national state planning system. The 8th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)) resolved to implement "the maximum centralisation of production... simultaneously striving to establish a unified economic plan." Institutions like Gosplan (the State Planning Commission) and the Supreme Soviet of the National Economy were established during the 1920s amidst the New Economic Policy. The introduction of this planning system fostered a widespread belief within the international communist movement that the Soviet model represented a more advanced form of economic organization than capitalism, leading to its voluntary adoption in countries such as China, Cuba, and Vietnam, and in some instances, its imposition by the Soviet Union.

The state planning system in communist states exhibited five key characteristics: (1) near-total centralization of decision-making, with the exception of field consumption and employment; (2) a hierarchical structure where plans flowed downwards from the center; (3) binding plans that mandated adherence to set goals; (4) a predominance of calculation in physical terms to ensure planned commodity allocation aligned with planned production; and (5) a passive role for money within the state sector, as planners focused on physical allocation.

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." While private ownership of the means of production persisted, it played a subordinate role. The Marxist principle that class struggle arises from the division between owners of the means of production and laborers posits that state ownership (termed "property of the people") serves as a tool to end this struggle and empower the working class.

Analysis

Countries like the Soviet Union and China faced criticism from various sources concerning their lack of representative multi-party liberal democracy, alongside other divergences from Western societies. Socialist societies were typically characterized by state ownership or social ownership of the means of production, managed through communist party organizations, democratically elected councils and communes, or cooperative structures—a direct contrast to the liberal democratic capitalist free-market model of private ownership and corporate control. Communist states also drew criticism for the pervasive influence of their ruling parties on society, the limited recognition of Western legal rights and liberties such as the right to own property and restrictions on the right to free speech. Early economic development policies in these states were often criticized for prioritizing heavy industry.

Communist party rule has been characterized as authoritarian or totalitarian due to the suppression and killing of political dissidents and social classes deemed "enemies of the people," religious persecution, ethnic cleansing, forced collectivisation, and the use of forced labor in concentration camps. Accusations of genocidal acts have been leveled against communist regimes in Cambodia, China, Poland, and Ukraine, although the classification of the Holodomor as genocide remains a subject of scholarly debate. Particularly in the West, criticism of communist rule has also stemmed from economic critiques, with economists like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman arguing that state ownership and planned economy characteristic of Soviet-style communist rule led to economic stagnation and shortage economies, stifling individual productivity and entrepreneurship. The Anti-Stalinist left and other left-wing critics have viewed these regimes as examples of state capitalism and labeled them as red fascism, fundamentally at odds with leftist ideals. Other leftists, including Marxist–Leninists, have criticized the repressive state actions while acknowledging certain advancements such as egalitarian achievements and modernisation under these states. Counter-criticism points to biased or exaggerated anti-communist narratives, with some academics advocating for more nuanced analyses of communist party rule.

Soviet advocates and socialists countered criticism by highlighting differing conceptions of freedom. McFarland and Ageyev noted that "Marxist–Leninist norms disparaged laissez-faire individualism... also [condemning] wide variations in personal wealth as the West has not. Instead, Soviet ideals emphasised equality—free education and medical care, little disparity in housing or salaries, and so forth." When questioned about the increased freedoms experienced by citizens of former communist states, Heinz Kessler, former East German Minister of National Defence), retorted: "Millions of people in Eastern Europe are now free from employment, free from safe streets, free from health care, free from social security."

Economist Michael Ellman of the University of Amsterdam, in his analysis of Marxist–Leninist states, observed that they often outperformed Western nations in certain health indicators, such as infant mortality and life expectancy. A 1986 study in the American Journal of Public Health and a 1992 study in International Journal of Health Services similarly concluded 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." Philipp Ther argues that living standards improved across Eastern Bloc countries due to modernization programs under communist governments. Likewise, Amartya Sen's analysis of international life expectancy data indicated significant gains in several Marxist–Leninist states, leading him to remark, "one thought that is bound to occur is that communism is good for poverty removal."

Socialist scholar Michael Parenti posits that communist states achieved greater economic development than they might otherwise have, or that their leaders were compelled to adopt stringent measures to defend against the Western Bloc during the Cold War. Parenti also argues that communist party rule provided certain human rights, specifically economic, social and cultural rights, that were less prevalent in capitalist states, such as universal equal treatment regardless of education or financial standing, guaranteed employment, and more equitable resource distribution. Professors Paul Greedy and Olivia Ball report that communist parties advocated for the inclusion of economic rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Professor David L. Hoffmann suggests that many actions undertaken by communist party regimes were rooted in responses to Western governments during World War I and subsequently became institutionalized. While acknowledging "its brutalities and failures," Milne argues that the rapid industrialization, mass education, job security, and significant advances in social and gender equality achieved under these regimes are often overlooked, and the dominant narrative fails to explain how communist regimes revitalized themselves after 1956 or why Western leaders perceived them as a potential rival well into the 1960s.

Left-Wing Criticism

Left-wing critics contend that states governed by communist parties evolved into forms of state capitalism and engaged in imperialism, populism, nationalism, and social democracy. Rather than embodying a truly socialist planned economy, the Soviet model, in practice, has been characterized as either a form of state capitalism or a non-planned, command economy. The fidelity of various socialist revolutionaries, leaders, and parties to the works of Karl Marx and other socialist thinkers remains a subject of intense debate, with many Marxists and socialists rejecting these regimes' claims. Some academics and socialists criticize the conflation of all leftist and socialist ideals with the excesses of authoritarian socialism.

Many democratic and libertarian socialists, including anarchists, mutualists), and syndicalists, refer to communist states as examples of state socialism. They oppose this system for its support of a workers' state rather than the outright abolition of the bourgeois state apparatus. They contrast state socialism with their own vision of socialism, which entails either collective ownership (through worker cooperatives) or common ownership of the means of production without state central planning. These libertarian socialists argue that a state is unnecessary in a socialist system, as there would be no class to suppress and no need for an institution based on coercion, viewing the state itself as a remnant of capitalism. They maintain that statism is antithetical to genuine socialism. For instance, libertarian socialist William Morris wrote in a Commonweal article: "State Socialism? — I don't agree with it; in fact I think the two words contradict one another, and that it is the business of Socialism to destroy the State and put Free Society in its place."

American Marxist Raya Dunayevskaya dismissed communist states as a form of state capitalism, believing that state ownership of the means of production represented state capitalism rather than socialism. She argued that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a form of democracy, and that single-party rule is inherently undemocratic. Dunayevskaya further contended that Marxism–Leninism was neither true Marxism nor true Leninism, but rather a synthesized ideology that socialist leaders like Joseph Stalin manipulated to expediently define what constituted communism within the Eastern Bloc countries.

Memory

Monuments commemorating the "victims of communist states" are present in nearly every Eastern European capital. Museums dedicated to documenting communist rule include 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 of which also cover Nazi atrocities. In Washington D.C., a bronze statue inspired by the 1989 Tiananmen Square Goddess of Democracy sculpture was unveiled as the Victims of Communism Memorial in 2007, following authorization by the United States Congress in 1993. The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation plans to establish an International Museum on Communism in Washington. As of 2008, Russia had 627 memorials and plaques dedicated to victims of communist states, primarily erected by private citizens, lacking a national monument or museum. The Wall of Grief in Moscow, inaugurated in October 2017, stands as Russia's first monument to victims of political persecution under Stalin. In 2017, Canada's National Capital Commission approved plans for a memorial to communism's victims in Ottawa. Estonia's Victims of Communism 1940–1991 Memorial was inaugurated in Tallinn on August 23, 2018, by President Kersti Kaljulaid. The memorial, funded by the state, is managed by the Estonian Institute of Historical Memory and its opening coincided with the official European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism.

According to Laure Neumayer, this narrative functions as an anti-communist discourse, employing specific categories and figures to condemn "Communist state violence (qualified as 'Communist crimes', 'red genocide' or 'classicide')" and honor the persecuted as "victims of Communism" and "heroes of anti-totalitarian resistance." Anthropologist Kristen Ghodsee suggests that efforts to institutionalize the narrative of victims of communism, drawing a moral equivalence between the Nazi Holocaust (race murder) and victims of communism (class murder), particularly the push for commemoration in Europe following the 2008 financial crisis, can be interpreted as a response by economic and political elites to fears of a resurgence of the left amidst the devastation of economies and extreme inequalities in both the East and West, attributed to the excesses of neoliberal capitalism. Ghodsee argues that discussions of achievements under communist states, such as advancements in literacy, education, women's rights, and social security, are often suppressed, with discourse on communism narrowly focused on Stalin's crimes and the double genocide theory.

In the decades following the Revolutions of 1989, a resurgence of nostalgia for defunct Marxist governments and the communist ideal has been observed among segments of the population in the former Soviet Union and much of Eastern Europe. Russian-American author and cultural theorist Svetlana Boym noted that outbreaks of nostalgia often follow periods of political upheaval. She observed that memory narratives surrounding life under socialism in former communist states can be polarized, with some recalling only economic stagnation while others valued a perceived sense of stability and national strength.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union was followed by a sharp increase in poverty, crime, corruption, unemployment, homelessness, disease rates, infant mortality, and income inequality. The region also experienced a significant rise in excess deaths.

According to Kristen Ghodsee, a researcher specializing in post-communist Eastern Europe:

"Only by examining how the quotidian aspects of daily life were affected by great social, political and economic changes can we make sense of the desire for this collectively imagined, more egalitarian past. Nobody wants to revive 20th century totalitarianism. But nostalgia for communism has become a common language through which ordinary men and women express disappointment with the shortcomings of parliamentary democracy and neoliberal capitalism today."

Ekaterina Kalinina, a sociologist at the University of Copenhagen, found that positive narratives of life under socialism were often driven by the loss of social benefits and the collapse of the extensive welfare state that many residents of former communist states had enjoyed. Kalinina pointed out that nostalgia for the Soviet Union held the greatest appeal for those "who find themselves in more vulnerable economic and social positions" in Russia after 1991, expressing nostalgia for "economic security and social welfare."