Authoritarian socialism, or socialism from above, is an economic and political system supporting some form of socialist economics while rejecting political liberalism. As a term, it refers to a set of economic-political systems describing themselves as socialist and rejecting the liberal democratic concepts of multi-party politics, freedom of assembly, habeas corpus and freedom of expression, whether due to fear of the counter-revolution or as an end in itself. Several countries, most notably the Soviet Union, China and their allies, have been described by journalists and scholars as authoritarian socialist states.
|Part of a series on|
Opposed to the anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and libertarian wing of the socialist movement, authoritarian socialism also encompasses some forms of African, Arab and Latin American socialism. Although considered an authoritarian or illiberal form of state socialism, often referred to and conflated as socialism by right-wing critics and argued as a form of state capitalism by left-wing critics. these states were ideologically Marxist–Leninist and declared themselves to be workers' and peasants' or people's democracies.
Socialism from above
Authoritarian socialism is derived from the concept of socialism from above. Hal Draper defined socialism from above as the philosophy which employs an elite administration to run the socialist state. The other side of socialism is a more democratic socialism from below. Draper viewed socialism from below as being the purer, more Marxist version of socialism. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were devoutly opposed to any socialist institution that was "conducive to superstitious authoritarianism". Draper makes the argument that this division echoes the division between "reformist or revolutionary, peaceful or violent, democratic or authoritarian, etc." and identifies elitism as being one of the six major varieties of socialism from above, arguing:
We have mentioned several cases of this conviction that socialism is the business of a new ruling minority, non-capitalist in nature and therefore guaranteed pure, imposing its own domination either temporarily (for a mere historical era) or even permanently. In either case, this new ruling class is likely to see its goal as an Education Dictatorship over the masses – to Do Them Good, of course – the dictatorship being exercised by an elite party which suppresses all control from below, or by benevolent despots or Savior-Leaders of some kind, or by Shaw's "Supermen," by eugenic manipulators, by Proudhon's "anarchist" managers or Saint-Simon's technocrats or their more modern equivalents – with up-to-date terms and new verbal screens which can be hailed as fresh social theory as against "nineteenth-century Marxism."
The first advocates of socialism favoured social levelling in order to create a meritocratic or technocratic society based on individual talent. Henri de Saint-Simon is regarded as the first individual to coin the term socialism. Saint-Simon was fascinated by the enormous potential of science and technology and advocated a socialist society that would eliminate the disorderly aspects of capitalism and would be based on equal opportunities. He advocated the creation of a society in which each person was ranked according to his or her capacities and rewarded according to his or her work. The key focus of Saint-Simon's socialism was on administrative efficiency and industrialism and a belief that science was the key to progress. This was accompanied by a desire to implement a rationally organised economy based on planning and geared towards large-scale scientific progress and material progress.
The first major fictional work that proposed an authoritarian socialist state was Edward Bellamy's novel Looking Backward which depicted a bureaucratic socialist utopia. Bellamy distanced himself from radical socialist values and in many ways his ideal society still imitated many of the systems in late 19th century United States. However, his book served as the inspiration for a mass political movement called nationalism within the United States in the late 1800s. These Nationalist Clubs, so called because of their desire to nationalize industry, were strong supporters of the populists, who wanted the nationalization of the railroad and telegraph systems. Despite their propaganda and involvement in politics, the nationalist movement began to decline in 1893 due to the financial difficulties of its main publications and Bellamy's failing health and essentially disappeared by the turn of the century.
In the society depicted in the novel, private property has been abolished in favor of state ownership, social classes were eliminated and all work which was minimal and relatively easy was done voluntarily by all citizens between the ages of 21 and 45. Workers were rewarded and recognized via a ranking system based on the army. Most importantly, the government is the most powerful and respected institution, necessary for providing and maintaining this utopia. Arthur Lipow identifies the bureaucratic ruling of this ideal society as a quasi-military organization of both economic and social relations. Bellamy elevated the modern military as a catalyst for national interest.
The biggest critique of Bellamy's society is that it is based on the idea of socialism from above. The regime is imposed on the people by an expert elite and there is no democratic control or individual liberty. Lipow argues that this inherently leads to authoritarianism, stating: "If the workers and the vast majority were a brutish mass, there could be no question of forming a political movement out of them nor of giving them the task of creating a socialist society. The new institutions would not be created and shaped from below but would, of necessity, correspond to the plan laid down in advance by the utopian planner".
Austrian and Chicago schools of economics
Friedrich Hayek, an Austrian-born economist, was one of the leading academic critics of collectivism in the 20th century. He recognized and was acutely critical of the trends of socialism from above in collectivism, including theories that were based in voluntary cooperation. Unlike Bellamy who praised the idea of elites implementing policies, Hayek made the argument that socialism inherently leads to tyranny, claiming that "[i]n order to achieve their ends, the planners must create power – power over men wielded by other men – of a magnitude never before known. Democracy is an obstacle to this suppression of freedom which the centralized direction of economic activity requires. Hence arises the class between planning and democracy". Despite fascism and its variants such as Nazism and Falangism, among others, being considerated by political scientists a far-right, anti-socialist ideology that largely adopted corporatist, liberal market economic policies and economic planning was relegated to war efforts, Hayek argued that both fascism and socialism are based in central economic planning and value the state over the individual. According to Hayek, it is in this way that becomes possible for totalitarian leaders to rise to power as happened in the years following World War I. Austrian School economists such as Hayek and his mentor Ludwig Mises also continually used the word socialism as a synonym for authoritarian socialism, central planning and state socialism, conflating it with fascism, with Hayek stating: "Although our modern socialists' promise of greater freedom is genuine and sincere, in recent years observer after observer has been impressed by the unforeseen consequences of socialism, the extraordinary similarity in many respects of the conditions under "communism" and "fascism". Chicago School economists such as Milton Friedman also conflated socialism with centralized economic planning as well as authoritarian socialist states and their command economies, instead equating capitalism with the free market.
Although Hayek wrote that the state can play a role in the economy, specifically in creating a social safety net, criticizing the right and conservatism and also inspiring some towards a form of market socialism or Hayekian socialism, Mises went so far as to criticize and mischaracterize left-leaning, social liberal policies such as progressive taxation as socialism, getting up during a Mont Pelerin Society meeting and stating: "You're all a bunch of socialists". Instead, Hayek advocated "some provision for those threatened by the extremes of indigence or starvation due to circumstances beyond their control". He argued that the "necessity of some such arrangement in an industrial society is unquestioned—be it only in the interest of those who require protection against acts of desperation on the part of the needy", with some also nothing that "he advocated mandatory universal health care and unemployment insurance, enforced, if not directly provided, by the state" and that "Hayek was adamant about this". Mises also conflated central banking with socialism and central planning. According to Mises, central banks enable the commercial banks to fund loans at artificially low interest rates, thereby inducing an unsustainable expansion of bank credit and impeding any subsequent contraction. However, Hayek disagreed and stated that the need for central banking control was inescapable. Likewise, Friedman concluded that the government does have a role in the monetary system and believed that the Federal Reserve System should ultimately be replaced with a computer program. While critical of social welfare, especially Social Security, arguing that it had created welfare dependency, Friedman was supportive of the state provision of some public goods that private businesses are not considered as being able to provide, advocated a negative income tax in place of most welfare and his views were grounded in a belief that while "market forces [...] accomplish wonderful things", they "cannot ensure a distribution of income that enables all citizens to meet basic economic needs. Following Mises, other Austrian School economists such as Murray Rothbard and Walter Block argued that policies supported by Hayek and Friedman constitued a form of socialism.
Hayek, Mises and Friedman have been criticized for hypocrisy due to claiming to oppose authoritarianism yet supporting liberal dictatorships such as that of the military dictatorship of Chile under Augusto Pinochet. For instance, Mises comments about fascism have been criticized, although others have defended him. Likewise, Hayek's involvement in dictatorships has been criticized. For instance, he has stated: "As long term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. […] Personally I prefer a liberal dictatorship to democratic government devoid of liberalism. My personal impression – and this is valid for South America – is that in Chile, for example, we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government". Hayek defended himself arguing that he had "not been able to find a single person even in much maligned Chile who did not agree that personal freedom was much greater under Pinochet than it had been under [Salvador] Allende", the democratic socialist Chilean President democratically elected in 1970 as the first ever Marxist to be elected president in a country with liberal democracy and ousted in a CIA-backed military coup. For Hayek, the distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism has much importance and he was at pains to emphasise his opposition to totalitarianism, noting that the concept of transitional dictatorship which he defended was characterised by authoritarianism, not totalitarianism. For example, when he visited Venezuela in May 1981, Hayek was asked to comment on the prevalence of totalitarian regimes in Latin America. In reply, Hayek warned against confusing "totalitarianism with authoritarianism" and said that he was unaware of "any totalitarian governments in Latin America. The only one was Chile under Allende". For Hayek, the word totalitarian signifies something very specific, namely the intention to "organize the whole of society" to attain a "definite social goal" which is stark in contrast to "liberalism and individualism".
Friedman's involvement in the Chilean military dictatorship has also been criticized as he served as economic advisor. Under Pinochet, Chile followed the economic policies of Friedmam and his Chicago Boys. While Friedman did not criticize Pinochet's dictatorship at the time, nor the assassinations, illegal imprisonments, torture, or other atrocities that were well known by then, he defended his unofficial adviser position, arguing: "I do not consider it as evil for an economist to render technical economic advice to the Chilean Government, any more than I would regard it as evil for a physician to give technical medical advice to the Chilean Government to help end a medical plague". Although Friedman criticized Chile's political system, he argued that "free markets would undermine [Pinochet's] political centralization and political control", that criticism over his role in Chile missed his main contention that freer markets resulted in freer people and that Chile's unfree economy had caused the military government. Friedman advocated for free markets which undermined "political centralization and political control". However, some economists have argued that the experience of Chile in this period indicated a failure of Friedman's policies, claiming that there was little net economic growth from 1975 to 1982 (during the so-called "pure Monetarist experiment"). After the crisis of 1982, the state controlled more of the economy than it had under the previous socialist regime and sustained economic growth only came after the later reforms that privatized the economy while social indicators remained poor. Pinochet's dictatorship made the unpopular economic reorientation possible by repressing opposition to it. Rather than a triumph of the free market, it has been described as "combining neo-liberal sutures and interventionist cures". By the time of sustained growth, the Chilean government had "cooled its neo-liberal ideological fever" and "controlled its exposure to world financial markets and maintained its efficient copper company in public hands".
In explaining why he is not an Austrian School economist, Bryan Caplan argues that while the economic calculation problem is a problem for socialism, he denies that Mises has shown it to be fatal, or that it is this particular problem that led to the collapse of authoritarian socialist states, arguing: "Austrians have overused the economic calculation argument. In the absence of detailed empirical evidence showing that this particular problem is the most important one, it is just another argument out of hundreds on the list of arguments against socialism. How do we know that the problem of work effort, or innovation, or the underground economy, or any number of other problems were not more important than the calculation problem?"
Theory and rationale
|Part of a series on|
|Part of a series on|
Authoritarian socialism is a political-economic system that can be generally described as socialist, but one that rejects the liberal democratic concepts of multi-party politics, freedom of assembly, habeas corpus and freedom of expression. Other features that are common to modern authoritarian socialist states (starting in the 20th century) include an emphasis on heavy industry for development, a single-party system to propel the goals of the state forward, the extensive use of propaganda to do the same and more. Soviet advocates and socialists responded to these criticisms by highlighting the ideological differences in the concept of freedom. For instance, it was noted that "Marxist–Leninist norms disparaged laissez-faire individualism (as when housing is determined by one's ability to pay), also [condemning] wide variations in personal wealth as the West has not. Instead, Soviet ideals emphasized equality—free education and medical care, little disparity in housing or salaries, and so forth". When asked to comment on the claim that former citizens of socialist states now enjoy increased freedoms, Heinz Kessler, former East German Minister of National Defence, replied: "Millions of people in Eastern Europe are now free from employment, free from safe streets, free from health care, free from social security".
Formation of industry
As authoritarian powers enforce socialist economics, the process often goes hand in hand with supporting the growth of heavy industry as a means of reaching industrialization (as can be seen with Joseph Stalin's control of the Soviet Union). Stalin's goals brought about a rapid industrialization of the Soviet economy that increased the urban population up by another 30 million people by 1930 and the production of automobiles to 200,000 per year by 1940. Outside of the Soviet Union, two rising global participants of the early 20th century were the young states of Germany and Italy. Although many of the policies put in place by German fascist Adolf Hitler and Italian fascist Benito Mussolini, who also formed these cults of personality, were contradictory and poorly understood, there were a few centrally planned work projects under their states. The Reichsautobahn in Nazi Germany was an example of this. The construction of the Autobahn and industries surrounding highway construction elevated the percentage of employed Germans throughout the construction. In Fascist Italy, projects like the Battle for Grain or the Battle for Land are public work projects that socialist would traditionally support. However, the Axis powers, among other fascist regimes, favored corporatist market economic policies rather than socialism and were all radical anti-communists, anti-Marxists and anti-socialists. Rather, they have been described as an example of authoritarian and totalitarian capitalism. For instance, Mussolini chose to link private businesses and the state to organize economic policies. Another thing in common was autarky, but it was pursued for vastily different reasons. Authoritarian socialist states pursued autarky to reach a post-scarcity economy to guarantee a communist society whereas fascist regimes pursued it for nationalist and imperialist goals (see Nazi Germany's living space), with fascist and far-right movements claiming to strive for autarky in platforms or in propaganda, but in practice they crushed existing movements towards self-sufficiency and established extensive capital connections in efforts to ready for expansionist war and genocide while allying with traditional business and commerce elites. Authoritarian socialist states and fascist regimes also differed in that the latter shifts a focus on class conflict to a focus on conflict between nations and races.
Aside from Russia and a number of former Eastern Bloc members, many post-Soviet states and other authoritarian socialist states are not categorized as industrialized countries. A Marxist societal analysis puts forth that the process of industrialization in the 19th century placed the current metropoles in their current positions of power. In theory, industrialization should allow the regime of non-metropoles to raise the standard of living and competitiveness of their populations to be on economic par with these metropoles.
Authoritarian socialist states often oppose the multi-party system to instill power of the government into a single party that could be led by a single head of state. The rationale behind this being that elites have the time and resources to enforce socialist theory because in this socialist state the interests of the people are represented by the party or head of the party. Hal Draper referred to this as socialism from above. According to Draper, socialism from above comes in six strains or forms that rationalize and require an elite group at the top of a socialist system. This differs from a Marxist perspective that would advocate for socialism from below (a more pure and democratically run form of socialism). Outside of Europe, Eritrea, Mozambique and Vietnam stand as examples of states that were socialist and ruled by a single-party at some point in the 20th century. In Eritrea, the ruling party emerging in 1970 was the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF) and with control of the state the EPLF began work on socialist ideals such as broadening women's rights and expanding education. In Mozambique, the single-state rule of FRELIMO occurred while the state was still ideologically socialist right after Portuguese rule was ending in 1975. In Vietnam, the Communist Party of Vietnam considers itself to be in transition to socialism and also the "vanguard of the working people and the whole nation".
Departments of propaganda are not at all rare in these regimes. The extensive use of propaganda is spills into art, cinema, posters, newspapers, books. In the Soviet Union, a byproduct of strict censorship was the blossoming of Russian science fiction and fantasy as well as socialist realism. In Latin America, Che Guevara represented and acted on the idea that socialism was an international struggle by operating Radio Rebelde and having his station transmitted from Cuba to as far north as Washington D.C.
Socialist economics refers to the economic theories, practices and norms of hypothetical and existing socialist economic systems. There are elemental characteristics of the authoritarian socialist economic system that distinguish it from the capitalist or market economy:
- The communist party has a concentration of power in representation of the working class. The party's decisions are so integrated into public life that its economic and non-economic decisions are part of their overall actions.
- State ownership of the means of production in which natural resources and capital belong to society.
- Central economic planning, the main characteristic of an authoritarian, state socialist economy. The market is planned by a central government agency, generally a state planning commission.
- Socially-equitable distribution of the national income in which goods and services are provided for free by the state that supplement private consumption.
This economic model is greatly characterized by the government's central planning. Ideally, society would be the owner as in the social ownership of the means of production, but in practice the state is the owner of the means of production. If the state is the owner, the idea is that it would work for the benefit of the working class and society as a whole. In practice, society is the owner only in theory and the political institutions governing society are completely set up by the state.
While Marxist–Leninists maintain that workers in the Soviet Union and other socialist states had genuine control over the means of production through institutions such as trade unions, democratic and libertarian socialists argue that these states had only a limited number of socialist characteristics and in practice were state capitalists that followed the capitalist mode of production. In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Friedrich Engels argued that state ownership does not do away with capitalism by itself, but rather it would be the final stage of capitalism, consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state. It has also been argued that authoritarian socialist states did not follow a planned economy, but were rather described as administrative command economies, a term that highlights the central role of hierarchical administration and public ownership of production in guiding the allocation of resources in these economic systems, where important allocation decisions are made by government authorities rather than by the workers themselves and are imposed by law. This goes against the Marxist understanding of conscious planning.
In a centrally planned economy, there is a central planning authority usually named the State Planning Commission that is in charge of acting within the framework of social goals and the priorities designated by the party. The planning was done under the idea that leaving market indicators would allow for social advancement. The central planning authority is responsible for five specific tasks:
- Determining the criteria for the economic calculations of the planning decisions.
- Determining and quantifying targets to be achieved within the a specified period.
- Coordinating targets to ensure the plan is consistent and reliable.
- Determining the methods to ensure the realization of the plan.
- Revising targets in accordance to changing economic calculations.
The planning process involved the creation of one-year plans, five-year plans and long-term plans. The one-year plans contained schedules and details that addressed current production and market equilibrium issues. The five-year plans integrated the political, military and economic strategy that would be pursued in the next five years as well as changes in capacity and production rates. It was done by a team of around the fifty leading experts from all the departments, ministries, professional and scientific organizations. The long-term plans encompassed a global strategy development. This plan was about goals for the state and society, not about individual responsibilities. Structural changes were a main theme. Nevertheless, it has been claimed that centrally-planned economies provided a better quality of life than market economies at the same level of economic development in nearly all cases. It has also been argued that the major reason for the economic shortcomings of authoritarian socialist states which adopted Soviet-type planning was due to their authoritarian administrative, command nature rather than socialism or planning as a whole. For instance, economic planning and government direction of the economy through non-coercive means have been practiced with success during the post-war consensus. Furthermore, it has been argued that authoritarian socialist states failed because they did not create rules and operational criteria for the efficient operation of state enterprises in their administrative, command allocation of resources and commodities and the lack of democracy in the political systems that the authoritarian socialist economies were combined with. Therefore, a form of competitive socialism that rejects dictatorship and authoritarian allocation of resources in favor of economic democracy could work and prove superior to the market economy. Others have argued that a central deficiency of such economic planning was that it was not premised on final consumer demand, but that such a system would be increasingly feasible with advances in information technology.
Economy of the Soviet Union
The essence of Soviet economics is that the communist party is the sole authority of the national interest. The party makes all the decisions, but they should take into account the desires of the population and these desires were then to be weighted into the decision making. According to Article 11 of its 1977 Constitution, the main goal of the Soviet Union was to "raise the material and cultural standards of the working people". Marxist thought and its interpretation by the Soviet Union dictated that private ownership was to be banned and the nationalization of all aspects of production a necessity, yet some things were not nationalized for the sake of economic efficiency or production targets. There was an emphasis on rapid industrialization, the development of heavy industry, relegation of consumer production as non-essential and collectivization of agriculture. Soviet-type economies also used a larger proportion of their resources on investment than do market economies. The issue with this was that current consumption was undercut because of the over-investment. All these actions supported the purposes of the state, not the people.
During the 1940s–1970s, the economy of the Soviet Union grew at a rate that outpaced that of Western European nations, but by the 1980s the Soviet economy was in shambles. This has been attributed to the Era of Stagnation, a more tolerant central government and increasing military spending caused by the nuclear arms race with the United States, especially under Ronald Reagan, whose administration pursued more aggressive relations with the Soviet Union instead of détente that was preferred in the 1970s. The end to the post-war consensus and Keynesianism in the 1970s and the rise of neoliberalism and economic globalization in the 1980s also caused problems as they forced the Soviet Union and other countries to adapt and reform themselves. Unlike China, the Soviet's failure to do so further contributed to its dissolution in December 1991. Despite the attempts of the Soviet Union to guarantee employment to all of its labor force, it did not satisfy the human desires of its laborers because "people want land, not collectivization. Consumers want goods, not gigantic industrial enterprise. Workers want better wages and higher living standards, not citations and medals. [And] an economy cannot be politically tailored to perfection". A main problem of the Soviet Union was that it pushed agriculture to the bottom of its priorities and that its central planning scheme inhibited technological innovation. The Soviet Union had a poor overall performance—although it had high growth rates in productions, many enterprises operated with losses.
Nevertheless, the Soviet Union's growth in GDP per capita compared favorably with Western Europe. In 1913, prior to both World War I and the Russian Revolution, the former Soviet Union had a GDP per capita of $1,488 in 1990 international dollars which grew 461% to $6,871 by 1990. After its dissolution in December 1991, this figure fell to $3,893 by 1998. By comparison, Western Europe grew from a higher base of $3,688 international dollars by a comparable 457% to $16,872 in the same period and reached $17,921 by 1998. From the Stalin era to the early Brezhnev era, the Soviet economy grew faster than the United States and maintained itself as the second largest economy in both nominal and purchasing power parity values for much of the Cold War until 1988, when Japan took the second place. Furthermore, it is claimed that the Soviet model provided a better quality of life than market economies at the same level of economic development in nearly all cases.
Economy of the Eastern Bloc
The initial move for socialism was in 1963 after a Central Committee meeting, these countries became the Comecon countries. There were countries that chose to introduce the new economic system gradually (Bulgaria, East Germany and Poland) and countries that decided to first prepare theoretically, then experimentation at different levels and then in a large scale (Hungary and Romania). Czechoslovakia was set apart because the first stage of its transition consisted of economic recovery and then socialism was gradually implemented. Yugoslavia differed from other Eastern European countries in that after 1950 it modified its economic system by making self-management the base of enterprise activity. There were also a few differences between the economic model of the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries such as East Germany and Poland. Czechoslovakia and East Germany were administered along regional lines. Poland retained a centralized system similar to the Stalinist centralization of the Soviet Union. The Eastern European countries differed from the Soviet Union in that they had greater flexibility in the management of subordinate firms, the market was assigned a greater importance, accessible foreign trade and liberalization of the exchange of capital goods. There was also less bureaucracy than in the Soviet Union involved in the planning of the countries.
The Eastern Bloc countries achieved high rates of economic and technical progress, promoted industrialization and ensured steady growth rates of labor productivity and rises in the standard of living despite experiencing misdevelopment by central planners. During the 1950s–1960s, growth rates were high, progress was rapid by European standards and per capita growth within the Eastern European countries increased by 2.4 times the European average, accounting for 12.3 percent of European production in 1950 and 14.4 in 1970, but most of their economies were stagnant by the late 1970s and 1980s as the system was resistant to change and did not easily adapt to new conditions. For political reasons, old factories were rarely closed, even when new technologies became available. As a result, growth rates within the Eastern Bloc experienced relative decline after the 1970s. This has also been attributed to the 1970s energy crisis (see also the 1973 oil crisis, the 1979 energy crisis and the 1980s oil glut) the post-war displacement of Keynesianism and the rise of neoliberalism and economic globalization. Countries like China that did not isolate and instead reformed themselves thrived, but this did not happen in most Eastern Bloc countries as they depended upon the Soviet Union, especially for significant amounts of materials. From the end of the World War II to the mid-1970s, the economy of the Eastern Bloc steadily increased at the same rate as the economy in Western Europe, with the least none-reforming Stalinist nations of the Eastern Bloc having a stronger economy then the reformist-Stalinist states. While most Western European economies essentially began to approach the GDP per capita levels of the United States during the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Eastern Bloc countries did not, with per capita GDPs trailing significantly behind their comparable Western European counterparts.
Following the fall of the Eastern Bloc with the Revolutions of 1989, the economies of post-Soviet states quickly fell apart and took a long time to return to pre-1989 levels. Not only growth plummeted following the fall of the Soviet Union in December 1991, but also living standards declined, drug use, homelessness and poverty skyrocketed and suicides increased dramatically. Growth did not begin to return to pre-reform-era levels for approximately fifteen years. As a result, many scholars have claimed that the Soviet model's industrialization and modernization laid the groundwork for their later economic growth, without which their current market-oriented economy may have not thrived or growth as much, or that it provided a better quality of life than market economies. The 1991 Soviet Union referendum has also been cited to argue that a vast majority of people did not want the Soviet Union dissolved, but rather more autonomy for the states within the union instead of a separation and the massive privatizations which had disastrous effects including giving rise to powerful oligarchs, especially in Russia and Ukraine. Mikhail Gorbachev himself, the last Soviet leader, supported Scandinavian social democracy, or the Nordic model. As a result, post-Soviet states have seen a growing nostalgia. A certain number of people have expressed a longing for the Soviet period and its values since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The level of post-Soviet nostalgia varies across the former republics and certain groups of people may blend the Soviet and post-Soviet experience in their daily lives. Polls have also showed that a majority of post-Soviet states viewed the collapse of the Soviet Union negatively and felt that it could have been avoided and an even greater number would openly welcome a revival of the Soviet system. While most prominent in Russia and with older people, this nostalgia has appeared in the former Eastern Bloc as well.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991 was followed by a rapid increase in poverty, crime, corruption, unemployment, homelessness, rates of disease and income inequality, along with decreases in calorie intake, life expectancy, adult literacy and income. As a result, many people in post-Soviet states felt that their lives were worse off after 1989, when capitalist markets were made dominant. Subsequent polls and qualitative research across post-Soviet states "confirmed these sentiments as popular discontent with the failed promises of free-market prosperity has grown, especially among older people".
Economy of China
The Maoist economic model of China was designed after the Stalinist principles of a centrally administered, command economy. Mao Zedong condemned Stalinism at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the flaws in the Marxist–Leninist movement that peaked with the Hungarian Uprising of 1956. This gave Mao space in which to experiment with departure from the Soviet socialist economy. The Maoist economic model was reliant on High Tide of Socialism in the Chinese Countryside, How to Handle Contradictions Among the People and Ten Great Relationships. Mao modeled the Chinese socialist economy in such a way that it led to the Great Leap Forward and the Commune Movement. In High Tide of Socialism in the Chinese Countryside, Mao focused on the industrialization and mechanization of the countryside; in How to Handle Contradictions Among the People wrote about his thoughts on the problems of socialist states as well as the conflicts of interest in the Chinese socialist society; and in Ten Great Relationships wrote about his vision of China's economy.
The Maoist model had a dual economic goal, namely the industrialization of the countryside and the socialization of its people. It differed from the Soviet Union's goals in that Mao emphasized the class struggle against the bourgeois class while the Soviet Union started advocating peaceful coexistence. China also allowed for more flexibility and experimentation than the Soviet Union and the countryside was at the center of its policies. Supporters argue that life expectancy greatly improved under Mao and that he rapidly industrialized China and laid the groundwork for the country's later rise to become an economic superpower while critics see many of Maoist economic policies as impediments to industrialization and modernization that delayed economic development and claim that China's economy underwent its rapid growth only after Maoist policies had been widely abandoned. All in all, both supporters and critics alike generally agree that the human cost has been staggering.
Systematic economic challenges
The problem with the central planning of authoritarian, statist socialist states is that as the state develops, it also grows in complexity and the possible errors grow and the possibilities of dis-allocations and waste of resources. As commented by Karl Marx, capitalism works because it is a system of economic force, but in socialist economics this force is insufficient to provide enough incentive. Human needs should be taken into account to make a socialist society function, but there is no necessary connection between the accumulation of capital and human satisfaction. Some of the issues that emerged during the socialist phase of Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and Maoist China included:
- Inflation: for example, Yugoslavia raised its industrial prices by 17% and its agricultural prices by 32% from 1964 to 1965 while Czechoslovakia raised the prices of foodstuffs and services by 20% in 1966 and by 1967 prices were up by 30%.
- Lagged consumption: there was a lag between when products were fabricated and when they were accessed to by the population, goods tended to stockpile. The production of consumer products also diminished and in Yugoslavia the share of consumer products fell from 70% before World War II to 31% in 1965.
- Fixing prices: prices were fixed under the premise that it would force producers to behave more efficiently and as such the price-controlled products were produced in lower quantities. In Yugoslavia, the market distortion caused by the price fixing was realized and led to the un-freezing of prices in 1967. Hungary also had frozen prices and slowly unfroze them over a period of ten to fifteen years because otherwise the structural disproportions of the Hungarian economy would spin prices out of control.
- Production structure: many factories were kept running through government subsidies and protection despite any economic losses of the factories. This decreased overall efficiency of the socialist economies and also increased the financial losses of those economies.
- Disproportionality: there was a disproportionate amount of available jobs and manpower. As written by Ljubo Sirc, the "Soviet Union and other communist countries have the worst of both worlds: some enterprises or operations are inefficient because they are too capital-intensive, other enterprises or operations because they are too labour-intensive".
The Stalinist economic model in which the socialist economies were based did not allow for a decrease in growth rates. It did not allow for the flexibility needed to keep up with growing economies. Despite these shortcomings, the Soviet Union's growth in GDP per capita compared favorably with Western Europe. In 1913, the former Soviet Union had a GDP per capita of $1,488 in 1990 international dollars, which grew 461% to $6,871 by 1990. Following the fall of the Soviet Union in December 1991, this figure fell to $3,893 by 1998. By comparison, Western Europe grew from a higher base of $3,688 international dollars by a comparable 457% to $16,872 in the same period and reached $17,921 by 1998. It is also claimed that such economies provided a better quality of life and human development than market economies at the same level of economic development in nearly all cases. For instance, it has been noted that such states compared favorably with Western states in some health indicators such as infant mortality and life expectancy, making some significant gains and that "one thought [...] bound to occur is that communism is good for poverty removal". The dissolution of the Soviet Union was followed by a rapid increase in poverty, crime, corruption, unemployment, homelessness, rates of disease and income inequality, along with decreases in calorie intake, life expectancy, adult literacy and income. Furthermore, supporters have cited the 1991 Soviet Union referendum (77% on an 80% turnout voted to preserve the Soviet Union and all Soviet republics voters voted in favor, with the Turkmenia Republic showing the most support at 98% and the lowest in the Russian Republic at 73%) that a majority of people did not want the Soviet Union dissolved and as a result a certain number of people have expressed a longing for the Soviet period and its values ever since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The level of post-Soviet nostalgia varies across the former republics and certain groups of people may blend the Soviet and post-Soviet experience in their daily lives. Polls have showed that a majority of post-Soviet states viewed the collapse of the Soviet Union negatively and felt that it could have been avoided and an even greater number would openly welcome a revival of the Soviet system. This is most prominent in Russia and with older people. Nostalgia for the Soviet Union or Soviet nostalgia has also appeared in the former Eastern Bloc.
Critics argue that neoliberal policies of liberalization, deregulation and privatization "had catastrophic effects on former Soviet Bloc countries" and that the imposition of Washington Consensus-inspired "shock therapy" had little to do with future economic growth. As a result, many people in post-Soviet states felt that their lives were worse off after 1989, when capitalist markets were made dominant. Subsequent polls and qualitative research across post-Soviet states "confirmed these sentiments as popular discontent with the failed promises of free-market prosperity has grown, especially among older people". Finally, it has been argued that the establishment of welfare states in the West in the early 20th century could be partly a reaction by elites to the Bolshevik Revolution and its violence against the bourgeoisie which feared violent revolution in its own backyard. The welfare states gave rise to the post-war consensus and the post-war economic boom, where the United States, the Soviet Union and Western European and East Asian countries in particular experienced unusually high and sustained economic growth, together with full employment. Contrary to early predictions, this high growth also included many countries that had been devastated by the war such as Japan (Japanese post-war economic miracle), West Germany and Austria (Wirtschaftswunder), South Korea (Miracle of the Han River), France (Trente Glorieuses), Italy (Italian economic miracle) and Greece (Greek economic miracle).
Authoritarian socialism is best understood through an examination of its developmental history, allowing for the analysis and comparison of its various global examples. Although authoritarian socialism was by no means restricted to the Soviet Union, its ideological development occurred in tandem with the Stalinist regimes. As the Soviet Union was a developmental model for many socialist states in the post-World War II era, Soviet authoritarian socialism was adopted by a diverse range of states and continued to develop well into the 20th century in the Middle East and North African regions. These regions, characterized by authoritarian traits such as uncontested party leadership, restricted civil liberties and strong unelected officials with non-democratic influence on policy, share many commonalities with the Soviet Union. Furthermore, most authoritarian socialist states were ideologically Marxist–Leninist (the state ideology of the Soviet Union that is often referred to as Communism, a specific form of communism that arose in Russia within the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party) or one of its variants and revisions such as Maoism, among others. As a result, many that reference to the system of authoritarian socialism and its states may not call it as such, but nonetheless refer to the concept. Much like the Soviet Union, authoritarian socialist states feature external controls such as violent repression and forms of artificial socialization. In other words, the implementation of these authoritarian forms of socialism traditionally is accomplished with a dogmatized ideology reinforced by terror and violence. Ultimately, the combination of these external controls serves to implement a normality within an authoritarian country that seems like illusion or madness to someone removed from its political atmosphere. For many authoritarian socialist countries, regimes were a mix of this form of external-control based totalitarianism (for intellectually and ideologically active members of society) and traditional or cultural authoritarianism (for the majority of the population).
Despite the Marxian basis of Vladimir Lenin's socialism, the realities of his system were in fact in direct opposition to Karl Marx's belief in the emancipation and autonomy of the working class. These contradictions stem primarily from Lenin's implementation of a vanguard or regimented party of committed revolutionaries "who knew exactly what history's mandate was and who were prepared to be its self-ordained custodians". The function of this party was meant to be primarily transitional, given that Lenin believed that the working class was politically unprepared for rule and Russia was not yet industrially poised for socialism. As such, Lenin adopted state capitalist policies. However, on seeing the Soviet Union's growing coercive power in 1923, a dying Lenin said Russia had reverted to "a bourgeois tsarist machine [...] barely varnished with socialism". Ironically, Marx himself coined the term barracks communism (German: Kasernenkommunismus) to refer to what is now known as authoritarian socialism in which all aspects of life are bureaucratically regimented and communal. Originally, Marx used the expression to criticize the vision of Sergey Nechayev outlined in "The Fundamentals of the Future Social System" which had a major influence on other Russian revolutionaries like Lenin and others like Pyotr Tkachev. The term barracks here does not refer to military barracks, but to the workers' barracks-type primitive dormitories in which industrial workers lived in many places in the Russian Empire of the time. Later, political theorists of the Soviet Union applied this term to China under Mao Zedong. Still later during the Soviet perestroika period, the term was used to apply to the history of the Soviet Union itself.
Marx chronicled a history of development through a capitalist age of industrialization that resulted in the manipulation of the working class. This development culminated in the empowerment of a proletariat which could benefit from the fruits of industrialization without being exploited. Although he meant his ideology to appeal to the disenfranchised working class of an industrialized society, it was widely accepted by developing countries that had yet to successfully industrialize. This resulted in stagnant economies and socialist states without the necessary organization and structure to industrialize. Seeing the failure of these models, Lenin concluded that socialism in Russia had to be constructed from above through the dictatorship of the proletariat. Because the working class accounted for only 15% of the population, Lenin was forced to appeal to the much greater peasant class (accounting for nearly 80%) to propel the Bolshevik faction of Russian Social Democratic Labour Party that under Lenin eventually became the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) due to a split with social democracy. The Bolsheviks promised "Bread, Peace, and Land" to the peasants and delivered, redistributing land from the landlords and increasing the number of farms in Russia from 427,000 in 1917 to 463,000 in 1919.
Lenin's legacy was one of violent terror and concentration of power in the hands of few. Lenin intentionally employed violence as a means to manipulate the population and tolerated absolutely no opposition, arguing that it was "a great deal better to 'discuss with rifles' than with the theses of the opposition". He worked for the ideological destruction of society as a whole so that it could easily adopt the rhetoric and political ideals of the ruling party. Lenin's use of terror (instilled by a secret police apparatus) to exact social obedience, mass murder and disappearance, censoring of communications and absence of justice was only reinforced by his successor Joseph Stalin. Some support this thesis whereas others have disputed this characterization and separated Lenin from Stalin and Leninism from Stalinism. A controversial figure, Lenin remains both reviled and revered, a figure who has been both idolised and demonised. This has extended into academic studies of Lenin and Leninism which have often been polarised along political lines. While there have been both sympathetic and expressly hostile Lenin's biographies, some instead sought to avoid making either hostile or positive comments about Lenin, thereby evading politicized stereotypes.
While various historians have characterized Lenin's administration as totalitarian, a police state and many have described it as a one-party dictatorship with Lenin as its dictator whilst noting differences between Lenin and Stalin in that under the first there was a dictatorship of the party and under the latter that of one man, others argued against the view that Lenin's government was a dictatorship, viewing it instead as an imperfect way of preserving elements of democracy without some of the processes found in liberal democratic states, further arguing that "the personal qualities that led Lenin to brutal policies were not necessarily any stronger than in some of the major Western leaders of the twentieth century". While Stalin's colleagues described him as Asiatic and Stalin himself told a Japanese journalist that "I am not a European man, but an Asian, a Russified Georgian", Lenin identified ethnically as Russian, believed that other European countries, especially Germany, were culturally superior to Russia which he described as "one of the most benighted, medieval and shamefully backward of Asian countries" and from his youth had wanted Russia to become more culturally European and Western.
Stalin sought to rapidly industrialize the Soviet Union, but perhaps in a way that was unrealistic, given the aggregate skill level and capital of the population and Stalin's argument that the Soviet Union had to accomplish in a decade what England had taken centuries to do in terms of economic development in order to be prepared for an invasion from the West. Acknowledging this inadequacy, Stalin ordered that resources slotted for consumption be redirected to production or exported as a temporary sacrifice on the part of the population for the sake of rapid growth. The model was successful initially, with ideology and nationalism promoting morale despite shortages in resources such as food and construction materials for housing. Presumably, the exploited classes believed that once the rapid and successful industrialization of Russia had taken place, power would be relinquished by the vanguard party and communism would ensue. However, Stalin continued to demand even more far-reaching sacrifices. Because of his control over both political and economic arenas which historians argue gave his vanguard party an amount of control surpassing that of Russia's tzars or emperors, citizens were unwilling to challenge his decrees, given that aspects of their lives such as medical care, housing and social freedoms could be restricted according to the discretion of the party.
Despite failures, Stalin's expectations remained uncontested by the working class and the model was adopted by a multitude of emerging socialist states during that era. For example, the Soviet attempt to collectivize agriculture, transforming the Soviet Union from one of the world's largest exporters of grain to the world's largest importer of grain, was widely replicated despite its failure. Many historians claim that extermination was the fate of a wide variety of people during Stalin's regime such as political opponents, ideological rivals, suspect party members, accused military officers, kulaks, lower-class families, former members of the societal elites, ethnic groups, religious groups and the relatives and sympathizers of these offenders. These deaths occurred as a result of collectivization, famine, terror campaigns, disease, war and mortality rates in the Gulag. As the majority of excess deaths under Stalin were not direct killings, the exact number of victims of Stalinism is difficult to calculate due to lack of consensus among scholars on which deaths can be attributed to Stalin. However, it is far lower than the estimates of 20 million or above which were made before access to the archives. Regarding the Holodomor, part of the greater Soviet famine of 1932–1933, the consensus argues that while Stalin's policies contributed significantly to the high mortality rate, it rejects the view that Stalin or the Soviet government consciously engineered the famine.
Stalin's legacy is largely negative, with the Soviet Union under him characterised as a totalitarian state and Stalin its authoritarian leader. Various biographers have described Stalin as a dictator, an autocrat, an Oriental despot, or accused him of practicing Caesarism. A man who "perhaps [...] determined the course of the twentieth century" more than any other individual, described as "one of the most notorious figures in history" and possessing "that rare combination: both 'intellectual' and killer", the "ultimate politician" and the "most elusive and fascinating of the twentieth-century titans" and "one of the most powerful figures in human history", Stalin initially ruled as part of the party oligarchy which he turned into a personal dictatorship in 1934 and became absolute dictator between March and June 1937. As such, Stalin built a "personal dictatorship within the Bolshevik dictatorship", concentrated an "unprecedented political authority in his hands" and being described "closer to personal despotism than almost any monarch in history". However, contemporary archival research shows that the motivation behind the purges was not Stalin attempting to establish his own personal dictatorship. Rather, evidence suggests he was committed to building the socialist state envisioned by Lenin. The real motivation for the terror was an exaggerated fear of counter-revolution. Others also cautioned against "over-simplistic stereotypes" that portrayed Stalin as an omnipotent and omnipresent tyrant who controlled every aspect of Soviet life through repression and totalitarianism, noting that "powerful though he was, his powers were not limitless" and that Stalin's rule depended on his willingness to conserve the Soviet structure he had inherited. It has also been observed that Stalin's ability to remain in power relied on him having a majority in the Politburo at all times. Furthermore, it was noted that at various points, especially in his later years, there were "periodic manifestations" in which the party oligarchy threatened his autocratic control. Stalin denied to foreign visitors that he was a dictator, stating that those who labelled him as such did not understand the Soviet governance structure. Several historians have criticized the totalitarian twins concept and comparisons between communism/socialism and fascism or Stalinism and Nazism as Cold War concepts that focus upon the upper levels of society and which use have obscured the reality of the system.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the release of the archives, some of the heat has gone out of the debate and politicization has been reduced. For instance, it has been argued that the Soviet political system was not completely controlled from the center and that both Lenin and Stalin only responded to political events as they arose. Some also questioned the previously published findings that Stalin organized himself the murder of Sergey Kirov to justify his campaign of Great Terror. Others argued that mass deaths from famines are not a "uniquely Stalinist evil" and compared the behavior of the Stalinist regime vis-à-vis the Holodomor to that of the British Empire (towards Ireland and India) and even the G8 in contemporary times, arguing that the latter "are guilty of mass manslaughter or mass deaths from criminal negligence because of their not taking obvious measures to reduce mass deaths" and that a possible defense of Stalin and his associates is that "their behaviour was no worse than that of many rulers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries". Despite the criticism, Stalin has been considered an outstanding and exceptional politician as well as a great statesman and state-builder, with some suggesting that without Stalin the Soviet Union might have collapsed long before 1991 as he strengthened and stabilized the country. In under three decades, Stalin transformed the Soviet Union into a major industrial world power, one which could "claim impressive achievements" in terms of urbanisation, military strength, education and Soviet pride. Under his rule, the average Soviet life expectancy grew due to improved living conditions, nutrition and medical care as mortality rates also declined.
Although millions of Soviet citizens despised him, support for Stalin was nevertheless widespread throughout Soviet society. Citing these achievements and highlighting crimes committed by the Western world and its leaders during the colonization and imperialist period as well as war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the 20th century whilst arguing that Stalin's hatred came mainly from General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" read during the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in February 1956, some have attempted to rehabilitate Stalin and its legacy, or otherwhise gave a more neutral and nuanced view, but such attempts have been criticized and most of its authors labelled as neo-Stalinists. In spite of this, more than half of Russians view Stalin positively and many support restoration of his monuments either dismantled by leaders or destroyed by rioting Russians during the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Stalin's popularity has tripled among Russians in the last twenty years and the trend accelerated since Vladimir Putin has come to power.
Following the fall of the elite, land-owning class of the early 20th century, China began its Communist Revolution through the countryside. As relationships between agrarian masses and state-controlled programs splintered, the Communist Party of China led by Mao Zedong began seizing power. In his 1949 essay On People's Democratic Dictatorship, Mao committed himself and the Chinese state to the creation of a strong state power with increased economic control. He stressed the importance of an authoritarian state, where political order and unity could be established and maintained. Mao committed himself to unification in the vein of complete system overthrow. As party chairman, Mao allowed himself complete control over the structure and execution of the party with his own cult of personality, an almost mythical position as a guardian of wisdom and charisma.
With such power, Mao was able to influence popular opinions, allowing his agenda support without going through state-controlled measures. During the Great Leap Forward, an initiative to develop China from an agrarian sector a major industrial powerhouse, Mao relied greatly on his prestige to influence the people. However, the Great Leap Forward proved a failure as widespread crop and irrigation failures led to the 1959–1961 Great Chinese Famine. There was no suggested end to the revolution—it was meant to be a continuing process of empowerment of the peasant class. With the aggressive failure of his Cultural Revolution, Chinese support for the party and for Mao waned. Continuing struggles after his death would undermine his socialist system, allowing a more democratic yet still one-party ruled system to continue into today. As result, Mao is a controversial figure as there is little agreement over his legacy both in China and abroad, but who is regarded as one of the most important and influential individuals in modern world history.
Supporters credit Mao with driving imperialism out of China, modernizing the nation and building it into a world power, promoting the status of women and improving education and health care as well as increasing life expectancy as China's population grew from around 550 million to over 900 million under his leadership, among other achievements. Conversely, his regime has been called autocratic and totalitarian and condemned for bringing about mass repression and destroying religious and cultural artifacts and sites. It was additionally responsible for vast numbers of deaths, with estimates ranging from 30 to 70 million victims through starvation, prison labour and mass executions. While some critics argue that Mao was dismissive of the suffering and death caused by his policies, or that he was well aware that his policies would be responsible for the deaths of millions, others have disputed this.
Praised as a political intellect, theorist, military strategist, poet and visionary, Mao has been variously described as a "great historical criminal", "both monster and a genius", who was also "a great force for good", a "great leader in history" and a "great criminal" as well as "one of the great tyrants of the twentieth century", comparable to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, with a death toll surpassing both. However, others reject such comparisons, arguing that whereas the deaths caused by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were largely systematic and deliberate, the overwhelming majority of the deaths under Mao were unintended consequences of famine, noting that the landlord class was not exterminated as a people due to his belief in redemption through thought reform. Instead, Mao has been compared to 19th-century Chinese reformers who challenged China's traditional beliefs in the era of China's clashes with Western colonial powers as well as to United States President Andrew Jackson. Maoist economics polices are likewise controversial, with supporters arguing that life expectancy greatly improved under Mao and that such policies rapidly industrialized China and laid the groundwork for the country's later rise to become an economic superpower while critics argue that policies such as the Great Leap Forward and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution were impediments to industrialization and modernization that delayed economic development and claim that China's economy underwent its rapid growth only after Maoist policies had been widely abandoned. All in all, both supporters and critics alike generally agree that the human cost has been staggering.
Maoism is largely an adapted, Sino-centric version of Marxism–Leninism. While believing in democratic centralism, where party decisions are brought about by scrutiny and debate and then are binding upon all members of the party once implemented, Mao did not accept dissenters to the party's decisions. Through the Cultural Revolution and the Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries, Mao attempted to purge any subversive idea—especially capitalist or Western threat—with heavy force, justifying his actions as the necessary way for the central authority to keep power. At the same time, Mao emphasized the importance of cultural heritage and individual choice as a way of creating this national unity. He described his ideal system as "a political situation in which there is both centralism and democracy, both discipline and freedom, both unity of purpose and personal ease of mind and liveliness to facilitate the socialist revolution". While the system advocates contradiction, Mao believed the state above all could provide the masses with the tools for their own expression, but his own brand of self-expression was wholly manufactured, built largely on replacing traditional practices and artifacts with his own. Through this, transformation of the people towards an internal party collectiveness was possible.
Notably, Mao's authoritarianism was rooted in a collective bottom-up style of empowerment. In his system, the proletariat and peasantry were responsible for rising up against the bureaucracy and capital of the state. Joining the peasant class with the bourgeoisie of the countryside (the land-holding, local farmers), the group was able to stifle the claims to power by the wealthier, urban landowners through the banner of communism. Only when this collection of peasants and petty bourgeoisie existed could Mao grow his own, custom bureaucracy. Once this unity was established, Mao argued that the people were the ones who could control the state, but his government's intense control over the citizenry emphasizes the contradiction in his theory—a contradiction, he maintained, was a necessary reality of their specialized system
Socialism was introduced into the Middle East in the form of populist policies designed to galvanize the working class into overthrowing colonial powers and their domestic allies. These policies were held by authoritarian states interested in the rapid industrialization and social equalization of Arab nations and often were characterized by redistributive or protectionist economic policies, lower class mobilization, charismatic leaders and promises to improve national living standards. These states were progressive in terms of the colonial development that had occurred thus far. They allowed important political and economic gains to be made by workers, encouraged land redistribution, unseated oligarchical political powers and implemented import-substituting industrialization development strategies.
With the collapse of the Eastern Bloc following the Revolutions of 1989 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991 as well as the push for democratization, many Arab states have moved toward a model of fiscal discipline proposed by the Washington Consensus. Although authoritarian leaders of these states implemented democratic institutions during the 1980s and 1990s, their multi-party elections ultimately created an arena in which business elites could lobby for personal interests while largely silencing the lower class. Furthermore, economic liberalization in these regions yielded economies and therefore led to regimes built on the support of rent-seeking urban elites. However, political opposition invites the prospect of political marginalization and even retaliation.
Resistance to democratization
A great deal of debate has been paid by the field of comparative politics to how the Arab region was able to avoid the third wave of democratization. A number of arguments have been offered by professionals in the field, ranging from a discussion of prerequisites not supported by the Arab culture to a lack of democratic actors initiating the necessary democratic transition.
Marsha Pripstein Posusney argues that the "patriarchal and tribal mentality of the culture is an impediment to the development of pluralist values", rendering Arab citizens prone to accept patriarchal leaders and lacking the national unity that many argue is necessary for democratization to be successful. Eva Bellin concedes that the prevalence of Islam is a distinguishing factor of the region and therefore must contribute to the region's exceptionalism, "given Islam's presumed inhospitality to democracy". Posusney argues that this "intrinsic incompatibility between democracy and Islam" remains unproven given that efforts to test this association quantitatively have failed to produce conclusive results. Ethnic divisions in the area have also been cited as a factor as well as a weak civil society, a state-controlled economy, poverty, low literacy rates and inequality.
In his book Debating Arab Authoritarianism: Dynamics and Durability in Nondemocratic Regimes, Oliver Schlumberger has argued that there is in fact an international ambivalence toward authoritarianism in the Middle East given that stability is preferred over the uncertainty of democratization due to the region's oil and gas supplies and the strategic importance of its geopolitical location.
During the 1945 Pan-African Conference, calls for increased organization, development and self-determination in the poverty stricken African continent put the impetus on colonial powers to negotiate national sovereignty. While there were few Marxist movements into the continent, Soviet Union activity spurred anti-imperialist and globalization movements from African countries. The congress established national liberation as the main topic of their sessions, emphasizing the elimination and exploitation by the imperialist powers over authentic national sovereignty. However, they did not establish clear social or political parameters for this new liberation.
African leaders consistently viewed socialism as a direct rejection of the colonial system and in turn dismissed the notion of creating independent capitalist systems throughout the continent. Instead, the leaders attempted to infuse various forms of socialism—some Marxist–Leninist, others democratic—into tailored ideologies specific to each country. Once these systems were in place, countries developed towards a "focal institutional" society, per sociologist William Friedland. In other words, societies adopted a totalitarian vision of rule, allowing one-party systems and institutions to "penetrate every sphere of private or public activity".
Senegalese President Leopold Sedar Senghor was among the first and most vocal African advocates for socialism. Before elected President, Senghor served as one of nine African delegates to the 1945 French Constituent Assembly, negotiating for the transfer of self-governing and policy-making power through locally elected councils. The measure shortly failed, keeping autonomy from the colonies until the independence movements of the 1960s.
After Senegalese independence in 1960, Senghor's Union Progresiste Senegalaise, a derivative of the French Socialist Party, grew massive support throughout the continent. Much of his party's success hinged on his revisionist version of Marxism–Leninism, where he argyed that "the major contradiction of Marxism is that it presents itself as a science, whereas, despite its denials, it is based on an ethic". By framing it as an ethic, Senghor was able to remove the strict determinism from the ideology, allowing it to be molded towards an Afro-centric model. His revision proved similar to that of Benito Mussolini as he called on a national movement from and for his one-party-ruled government, arguing: "In a word, we must awaken the National Consciousness. [...] But the government cannot and must not do it all. It must be helped by the party. [...] Our party must be the consciousness of the masses".
In the same vein as Senghor, socialist leader Kwame Nkrumah sought to advance this one-party, nationalized form of socialist obedience. Nkrumah stressed the importance of government-owned property and resources. He maintained that "production for private profit deprives a large section of the people of the goods and services produced", advocating public ownership to fit the "people's needs". To accomplish this, Nkrumah emphasized the importance of discipline and obedience towards the single socialist party. If people submitted and accepted the singular party's program, he said, political independence would be possible. By 1965, his one-party rule had produced an Assembly entirely made up of his own party members
Nkrumah saw law as a malleable weapon of political power, not as a product of a complex system of political institutions. As such, Ghanaian power structures were dominated and controlled by his hand. However, elite landowners questioned the legitimacy of Nkrumah's power. These elites were only afforded one choice, namely to align with their government if they wanted access to the state. Gradually, those who were not granted or did not desire entrance into the party created regions blocs. For example, the Asante emerged as a regional force capable political sway. With the power to set the agenda, the authoritarian party often clashed with these emerging regional groups, ultimately undermining the one-party system.
- Promote the Tanzanian economy.
- Secure state control over development.
- Create a sole political party called the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU) which would be under his control.
- Share the benefits of all gathered income.
The system—called ujaama—became a tool for nationalization of the Tanzanian people. In the system, all Tanzanains were encouraged to run for office, with no campaign funding allowed. Speeches in the election would not focus on the national issues, but rather the quality of the individual, each of whom would be closely controlled by TANU. Structurally, the power was shared along regional boundaries, giving increased policy making power and resource allocation to these regions. Local institutions were downplayed, with leadership organizations often facing subversion from higher governmental structures. The first wave of elections in the Tanzanian general election produced a 100% voting rate for TANU officials.
Socialism of the 21st century is an interpretation of socialist principles first advocated by German sociologist and political analyst Heinz Dieterich and taken up by a number of Latin American leaders. Dieterich argued in 1996 that both free-market industrial capitalism and 20th-century authoritarian socialism have failed to solve urgent problems of humanity like poverty, hunger, exploitation, economic oppression, sexism, racism, the destruction of natural resources and the absence of a truly participative democracy. While having democratic socialist elements, it primarily resembles Marxist revisionism. Leaders who have advocated for this form of socialism include Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Néstor Kirchner of Argentina, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Evo Morales of Bolivia and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil. Because of the local unique historical conditions, it is often contrasted with previous applications of socialism in other countries, with a major difference being the effort towards a more decentralised and participatory planning process.
Critics claim that this form of socialism in Latin America acts as a façade for authoritarianism. The charisma of figures like Hugo Chávez and mottoes like "Country, Socialism, or Death!" have drawn comparisons to the Latin American dictators and caudillos of the past. According to Steven Levitsky, only under "the dictatorships of the past [...] were presidents reelected for life", with Levitsky further stating that while Latin America experienced democracy, citizens opposed "indefinite reelection, because of the dictatorships of the past". Levitsky then noted how in Nicaragua, Venezuela and Ecuador "reelection is associated with the same problems of 100 years ago". The Washington Post also stated in 2014 that "Bolivia's Evo Morales, David Ortega of Nicaragua and the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez [...] used the ballot box to weaken or eliminate term limits". The sustainability and stability of economic reforms associated with governments adhering to such socialism have also been questioned. Latin American countries have primarily financed their social programs with extractive exports like petroleum, natural gas and minerals, creating a dependency that some economists claim has caused inflation and slowed growth. Although socialists have welcomed a socialism of the 21st century, they have been skeptical of Latin America's examples and criticized their authoritarian qualities and occasional cults of personality. While citing their progressive role, they argue that the appropriate label for these governments is populism rather than socialism.
While elections won by Hugo Chávez were certified as being free and legitimate by Organization of American States and the Carter Center, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela under Chávez and his Bolivarianism moved toward authoritarian socialism. Although Chávez began openly proclaiming by January 2005 the ideology of socialism of the 21st century (a new term that was used to contrast the democratic socialism which he wanted to promote in Latin America from the authoritarian socialism that had been spread by socialist states like the Soviet Union and China during the 20th century, arguing that the latter had not been truly democratic, suffering from a lack of participatory democracy and an excessively authoritarian governmental structure), something that was distinct from his earlier forms of Bolivarianism which had been social democratic in nature, merging elements of capitalism and socialism, the Bolivarian government used "[c]entralized decision-making and a top-down approach to policy formation, the erosion of vertical power-sharing and concentration of power in the presidency, the progressive deinstitutionalization at all levels, and an increasingly paternalist relationship between state and society" in order to hasten changes in Venezuela. The various attempts, including the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt and the Venezuelan general strike of 2002–2003, at overthrowing the Bolivarian government from power and end his Bolivarian Revolution may explain Chávez's radicalization.
Using record-high oil revenues of the 2000s, his government nationalized key industries, created participatory democratic Communal Councils and implemented social programs known as the Bolivarian missions to expand access to food, housing, healthcare and education. Venezuela received high oil profits in the mid-2000s, resulting in improvements in areas such as poverty, literacy, income equality and quality of life occurring primarily between 2003 and 2007. However, these gains started to reverse after 2012 and it has been argued that government policies did not address structural inequalities.
On 2 June 2010, Chávez declared an economic war due to shortages in Venezuela, beginning the crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela. By the end of Chávez's presidency in the early 2010s, economic actions performed by his government during the preceding decade such as deficit spending and price controls proved to be unsustainable, with Venezuela's economy faltering while poverty, inflation and shortages increased. His use of enabling acts and his government's use of Bolivarian propaganda were also controversial. In 2015, The Economist stated that the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela—now under Nicolás Maduro after Chávez's death in 2013—was devolving from authoritarianism to dictatorship as opposition politicians were jailed for plotting to undermine the government, violence was widespread and opposition media shut down. Chávez and Maduro's economic policies led to shortages, a high inflation rate and a dysfunctional economy. However, the Chávez and Maduro governments have attributed Venezuela's economic problems to the decline in oil prices, sanctions imposed by the United States and economic sabotage by the opposition. Western media coverage of Chávez and other Latin American leaders from the 21st-century socialist movement has been criticized as unfair by their supporters and left-leaning media critics.
Anarchist and Marxist criticism
Many democratic and libertarian socialists, including anarchists, mutualists and syndicalists, deride it as state socialism for its support of a workers' state instead of abolishing the bourgeois state apparatus outright. They use the term in contrast with their own form of socialism which involves either collective ownership (in the form of worker cooperatives) or common ownership of the means of production without centralized state planning. Those libertarian socialists believe there is no need for a state in a socialist system because there would be no class to suppress and no need for an institution based on coercion and therefore regard the state being a remnant of capitalism. Most also hold that statism is itself antithetical to true socialism, the goal of which is the eyes of libertarian socialists such as William Morris, who wrote as follows 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".
Classical and orthodox Marxists also view state socialism as an oxymoron, arguing that while an association for managing production and economic affairs would exist in socialism, it would no longer be a state in the Marxist definition which is based on domination by one class. Preceding the Bolshevik-led revolution in Russia, many socialist groups—including reformists, orthodox Marxist currents such as council communism and the Mensheviks as well as anarchists and other libertarian socialists—criticized the idea of using the state to conduct planning and nationalization of the means of production as a way to establish socialism. Lenin himself acknowledged his policies as state capitalism and on seeing the Soviet Union's growing coercive power said that Russia had reverted to "a bourgeois tsarist machine [...] barely varnished with socialism".
Critical of the economy and government of socialist states, left communists such as the Italian Amadeo Bordiga said that their socialism was a form of political opportunism which preserved rather than destroyed capitalism because of the claim that the exchange of commodities would occur under socialism; the use of popular front organisations by the Communist International; and that a political vanguard organised by organic centralism was more effective than a vanguard organised by democratic centralism. The American Marxist Raya Dunayevskaya also dismissed it as a type of state capitalism because (i) state ownership of the means of production is a form of state capitalism; (ii) the dictatorship of the proletariat is a form of democracy and single-party rule is undemocratic and (iii) Marxism–Leninism is neither Marxism nor Leninism, but a composite ideology which socialist leaders like Joseph Stalin used to expediently determine what is communism and what is not communism among the Eastern Bloc countries.
Libertarian socialist criticism
A variety of non-state, libertarian communist and socialist positions reject the concept of a socialist state altogether, believing that the modern state is a byproduct of capitalism and cannot be used for the establishment of a socialist system. They reason that a socialist state is antithetical to socialism and that socialism will emerge spontaneously from the grassroots level in an evolutionary manner, developing its own unique political and economic institutions for a highly organized stateless society. Libertarian communists, including anarchists, councillists, leftists and Marxists, also reject the concept of a socialist state for being antithetical to socialism, but they believe that socialism and communism can only be established through revolution and dissolving the existence of the state. Within the socialist movement, there is criticism towards the use of the term socialist states in relation to countries such as China and previously of Soviet Union and Eastern and Central European states before what some term the "collapse of Stalinism" in 1989.
Anti-authoritarian communists and socialists such as anarchists, other democratic and libertarian socialists as well as revolutionary syndicalists and left communists claim that the so-called socialist states actually presided over state capitalist economies and cannot be called socialist. Those socialists who oppose any system of state control whatsoever believe in a more decentralized approach which puts the means of production directly into the hands of the workers rather than indirectly through state bureaucracies—which they claim represent a new elite or class. This leads them to consider state socialism a form of state capitalism (an economy based on centralized management, capital accumulation and wage labor, but with the state owning the means of production) which Engels stated would be the final form of capitalism rather than socialism.
Some Trotskyists following on from Tony Cliff deny that it even is socialism, calling it instead state capitalism. Other Trotskyists agree that these states could not be described as socialist, but deny that they were state capitalist. They support Leon Trotsky's analysis of pre-restoration Soviet Union as a workers' state that had degenerated into a bureaucratic dictatorship which rested on a largely nationalized industry run according to a plan of production and claimed that the former Stalinist states of Central and Eastern Europe were deformed workers' states based on the same relations of production as the Soviet Union. Trotsky himself believed that regardless of their intellectual capacity, central planners operate without the input and participation of the millions of people who participate in the economy that can understand and respond to local conditions and changes in the economy. Because of this, Trostky and some of his followers criticized central state planning as being unable to effectively coordinate all economic activity.
Right-wing criticism is mainly related to communist party rule as well as anti-communism, anti-Marxism and anti-socialism. Authoritarian socialist states and state socialism are often conflated to and referred to by detractors simply as socialism. For example, Austrian School economists such as Ludwig Mises and Friedrich Hayek continually used the word socialism as a synonym for authoritarian socialism and its command economy. The attributive state is usually added by socialists with a non-state based method for achieving socialism to criticize state socialism. Another criticism is the economic calculation problem, followed by the socialist calculation debate.
- Draper, Hal (1963). "Two Souls of Socialism".
- Huntington, Samuel P. (1970). Authoritarian Politics in Modern Society: The Dynamics of Established One-party Systems. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0465005697.
- Lowy, Michael (1986). "Mass organization, party, and state: Democracy in the transition to socialism". Transition and Development: Problems of Third World Socialism (94): 264.
- Amandae, Sonja (2003). Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy: The Cold War Origins of Rational Choice Liberalism. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226016542.
- Mushkat, Marion (June 1972). "African Socialism Reappraised and Reconsidered". Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente. 2: 151–153.
- Gregor, A. James (July 1967). "African Socialism, Socialism and Fascism: An Appraisal". The Review of Politics. 29 (3): 324–353. doi:10.1017/s0034670500032745.
- Posusney, Marsha Pripstein (2005). Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Regimes and Resistance. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. ISBN 978-1-58826-317-9.
- Nation, R. Craig (1992). Black Earth, Red Star: A History of Soviet Security Policy, 1917-1991. Cornell University Press. pp. 85–6. ISBN 978-0801480072. Retrieved 19 December 2014.
- Young, James D. (1988). Socialism Since 1889: A Biographical History. Totowa: Barnes & Noble Books. ISBN 978-0-389-20813-6.
- "Adam Smith". Macrohistory. Retrieved 2 June 2010.
- "Birth of the Socialist Idea". Australian National University. Retrieved 2 June 2010.
- Newman, Michael (2005). Socialism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280431-6.
- Bellamy, Edward (1888). Looking Backward: 2000-1887. Houghton Mifflin.
- Lipow, Arthur (1991). Authoritarian Socialism in America: Edward Bellamy and the Nationalist Movement. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520075436.
- Ebenstein, Alan (2003). Friedrich Hayek: A Biography (University of Chicago Press ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226181509.
- Tebble, Adam; Meadowcroft, John (2013). F.A. Hayek (Paperback ed.). London: Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1441109064.
- Hayek, Friedrich (1994). The Road to Serfdom (50 anniversary ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-32061-8.
- Mises, Ludwig (1922). Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis.
- Mises, Ludwig (1927). Liberalism.
- Hayek, Friedrich (1944). The Road to Serfdom.
- Hayek, Friedrich (1944). The Road to Serfdom. "Security and Freedom".
- Friedman, Milton (1962). Capitalism and Freedom.
- Hayek, Friedrich (1976). Law, Legislation and Liberty. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 87. ISBN 978-0-226-32083-0. "There is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all, protection against severe deprivation in the form of an assured minimum income, or a floor below which nobody need to descend. To enter into such an insurance against extreme misfortune may well be in the interest of all; or it may be felt to be a clear moral duty of all to assist, within the organised community, those who cannot help themselves. So long as such a uniform minimum income is provided outside the market to all those who, for any reason, are unable to earn in the market an adequate maintenance, this need not lead to a restriction of freedom, or conflict with the Rule of Law."
- Klein, Ezra (9 July 2010). "Hayek on Social Insurance". The Washington Post. Retrieved 22 June 2019. "There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."
- Hayek, Friedrich (1960) . The Constitution of Liberty. "Why I am Not a Conservative".
- Cottrell, Allin; Cockshott, Paul (1993). Towards a New Socialism (PDF). Coronet Books Inc.
- Epstein, Richard A. (1999). "Hayekian Socialism" (PDF). Retrieved 22 June 2019.
- "Best of Both Worlds (Interview with Milton Friedman)" (June 1995). Reason.
- Hayek, Friedrich (2011) . Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Constitution of Liberty (definitive ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 405. ISBN 978-0-226-31539-3. "There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained [that security against severe physical privation, the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all; or more briefly, the security of a minimum income] should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. There are difficult questions about the precise standard which should thus be assured [...] but there can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. Indeed, for a considerable part of the population of England this sort of security has long been achieved.
Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist [...] individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. [...] [And] there is no incompatibility in principle between the state's providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken."
- Wapshott, Nicholas (2011). Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 291.
- Harcourt, Bernard (12 September 2012). "How Paul Ryan enslaves Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 27 December 2014.
- Rothbard, Murray (1963). America's Great Depression.
- White, Lawrence H. (1999). "Why Didn't Hayek Favor Laissez Faire in Banking?" (PDF). History of Political Economy. 31 (4): 753–769. doi:10.1215/00182702-31-4-753. Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 April 2013. Retrieved 11 April 2013.
- Friedman, Milton; Schwartz, A. J. (1986). "Has government any role in money?". Journal of Monetary Economics. 17 (1): 37–62.
- Friedman, Milton (30 January 1999). "Mr. Market". Hoover Institution. Archived from the original on 23 September 2018. Retrieved 22 September 2018.
- Friedman, Milton (2002) , Capitalism and Freedom (40th anniversary ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-26421-9.
- Frank, Robert H. (23 November 2006). "The Other Milton Friedman: A Conservative With a Social Welfare Program". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Archived from the original on 1 July 2017. Retrieved 22 February 2017.
- Block, Walter (2013). "Was Milton Friedman A Socialist? Yes".
- Mises, Ludwig (1927). Liberalism. " The Argument of Fascism". "It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error."
- Raico, Ralph (1996). "Mises on Fascism, Democracy, and Other Questions". Journal of Libertarian Studies. 12 (1): 1–27.
- Seymour, Richard (2010). The Meaning of Cameron. London: Zero Books. p. 32. ISBN 1846944562.
- Hülsmann, Jörg Guido (2007). Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism. Mises Institute. ISBN 978-1-933550-18-3.
- Farrant, Andrew; McPhail, Edward; Berger, Sebastian (2012). "Preventing the "Abuses" of Democracy: Hayek, the "Military Usurper" and Transitional Dictatorship in Chile?". American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 71 (3): 513–538.
- Caldwell, Bruce; Montes, Leonidas (26 September 2014). "Friedrich Hayek and his visits to Chile" (PDF). The Review of Austrian Economics. 28 (3): 261–309. doi:10.1007/s11138-014-0290-8.
- Avnôn, Dan (1999). Liberalism and its Practice. Routledge. p. 56. ISBN 0415193540.
- Grandin, Greg (2006). Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism. New York: Metropolitan. pp. 172–173. ISBN 0805077383.
- Winn, Peter (2004). Victims of the Chilean Miracle: Workers and Neoliberalism in the Pinochet Era, 1973–2002. Duke University Press. p. 16.
The Allende government that Pinochet overthrew in 1973 had been elected in 1970 on a platform of pioneering a democratic road to a democratic socialism.
- Patsouras, Louis (2005). Marx in Context. iUniverse. p. 265.
In Chile, where a large democratic socialist movement was in place for decades, a democratic socialist, Salvadore Allende, led a popular front electoral coalition, including Communists, to victory in 1970.
- Medina, Eden (2014). Cybernetic Revolutionaries: Technology and Politics in Allende's Chile. MIT Press. p. 39.
[...] in Allende's democratic socialism.
- Mabry, Don (1975). "Chile: Allende's Rise and Fall". Archived 30 October 2006 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 12 July 2019.
- "Profile of Salvador Allende". BBC News. 8 September 2003. Retrieved 12 July 2019.
- Harvey, David (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0199283279.
- Letter from Arnold Harberger to Stig Ramel as reprinted in The Wall Street Journal on 12 October 1976.
- Friedman, Milton (31 August 1984). Iceland Television Debate (Flash video) (Television production). Reykjavík: Icelandic State Television. Event occurs at 009:48:00. Archived from the original on 23 April 2016. Retrieved 27 June 2010.
- Friedman, Milton; Friedman, Rose D. (1998). Two Lucky People: Memoirs. pp. 598–599.
- "Commanding Heights: Milton Friedman". PBS. 10 January 2000. Retrieved 22 June 2019.
- Mask II, William Ray (May 2013). The Great Chilean Recovery: Assigning Responsibility For The Chilean Miracle(s). Fresno: California State University. hdl:10211.3/105425.
- "Chile and the "Chicago Boys". Hoover Institution. Stanford University. Retrieved 22 June 2019.
- O'Shaughnessy, Hugh (11 December 2006). "General Augusto Pinochet". The Independent. Retrieved 22 June 2019.
- Newsweek of 14 June 1976.
- Friedman, Milton (1980). Free to Choose. 5. "Created Equal". See also his 1980 debate on YouTube.
- Friedman, Milton (1991). "Economic Freedom, Human Freedom, Political Freedom".
- "Interview with Jeffery Sachs on the "Miracle of Chile". PBS. Archived from the original on 22 February 2008. Retrieved 20 February 2008.
- "Commanding Heights: Milton Friedman". PBS. Archived from the original on 28 December 2008. Retrieved 29 December 2008.
- "Milton Friedman interview". PBS. Archived from the original on 9 January 2011. Retrieved 20 February 2008.
- Santiso, Javier (2007). Latin America's Political Economy of the Possible: Beyond Good Revolutionaries and Free-Marketeers. ISBN 9780262693592.
- "How Chile cooled its ideological fever". Financial Times. 30 July 2006. Retrieved 3 January 2018.
- Caplan, Bryan. "Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist".
- McFarland, Sam; Ageyev, Vladimir; Abalakina-Paap, Marina (1992). "Authoritarianism in the former Soviet Union". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 63 (6): 1004–1010. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.397.4546. doi:10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.114.
- Parenti, Michael (1997). Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism. San Francisco: City Lights Books. p. 118. ISBN 978-0-87286-330-9.
- Tucker, Robert C. Stalin in Power: The Revolution from Above, 1928-1941. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 96.
- "Benito Mussolini". Encyclopædia Britannica.
- Gartman, David. From Autos to Architecture: Fordism and Architectural Aesthetics in The Twentieth Century. Princeton Architectural Press. p. 148.
- Gat, Azar (1 July 2007). "The Return of Authoritarian Great Powers". Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 8 June 2019.
- Blinkhorn, Martin. Mussolini and Fascist Italy. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415262071.
- Van Oudenaren, John (1991). "7: Economics". Détente in Europe: The Soviet Union and the West Since 1953. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press. p. 255. ISBN 9780822311416. Retrieved 28 March 2019.
After veering toward autarky under war communism, in the 1920s the Soviet authorities began restoring business relations with traditional partners.
- De Grand, Alexander J. (2000) . Italian fascism: Its Origins and Development (3rd ed.). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0803266223. OCLC 42462895.
- Edwin, Black (2001). IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation (1st ed.). New York: Crown Publishers. ISBN 978-0609607992. OCLC 45896166.
- Paxton, Robert O. (2005). The Anatomy of Fascism (1st Vintage books ed.). New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-1400033911. OCLC 58452991.
- Griffin, Roger (18 August 1993). UMI Research Press; First Edition Thus edition (1985). Routledge. pp. 222–223.
- Draper, Hal. "9. Six Strains of Socialism-From-Above". The Two Souls of Socialism.
- Connell, Dan. Rethinking Revolution: New Strategies for Democracy & Social Justice. The Experiences of Eritrea, South Africa, Palestine & Nicaragua. Red Sea Pr; 1st Rea Sea Press, Inc. pp. 31–32.
- "Mozambique: One-party rule, socialism and civil war (1975-1986)". Electoral INstitute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa. Archived from the original on 27 March 2015.
- "Political System". Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
- McGuire, Patrick L. Red Stars: Political Aspects of Soviet Science Fiction (Studies in Speculative Fiction). UMI Research Press; First Edition Thus edition (1985).
- "About Us". Radio Rebelde. Retrieved 21 June 2019.
- Wilczynski, J. (1977). The Economics of Socialism: Principles Governing the Operation of the Centrally Planned Economies in the USSR and Eastern Europe Under the New System . London: Allen and Unwin. pp. 22–23; 33–34; 34–41.
- Arnold, N. Scott (1994). The Philosophy and Economics of Market Socialism. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 43–45.
- Hunt, R. N. Carew (1930). Theory and Practice of Communism: An Introduction. New York: Macmillan. p. 73.
- Costello, Mick (1977). Workers' Participation in the Soviet Union.
- Chomsky, Noam (1986). "The Soviet Union Versus Socialism". Our Generation. Retrieved 20 October 2015.
- Howard, M. C.; King, J. E. (2001) "'State Capitalism' in the Soviet Union".
- Wolff, Richard D. (27 June 2015). "Socialism Means Abolishing the Distinction Between Bosses and Employees". Truthout. Retrieved 9 July 2015.
- Engels, Friedrich (1880). "III: Historical Materialism". Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
- Wilhelm, John Howard (1985). "The Soviet Union Has an Administered, Not a Planned, Economy". Soviet Studies. 37 (1): 118–30. doi:10.1080/09668138508411571.
- Zimbalist, Andrew; Sherman, Howard J. (October 1988). Comparing Economic Systems: A Political-Economic Approach. Harcourt College Pub. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-15-512403-5.
Almost all industry in the Soviet Union is government owned and all production is directed, in theory, by a central plan (though in practice much is left for local discretion and much happens that is unplanned or not under government control).
- Ellman, Michael (2007). "The Rise and Fall of Socialist Planning". In Estrin, Saul; Kołodko, Grzegorz W.; Uvalić, Milica (eds.). Transition and Beyond: Essays in Honour of Mario Nuti. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-230-54697-4.
In the USSR in the late 1980s the system was normally referred to as the 'administrative-command' economy. What was fundamental to this system was not the plan but the role of administrative hierarchies at all levels of decision making; the absence of control over decision making by the population [...].
- Rosser, Mariana V.; Rosser, J. Barkley (23 July 2003). Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy. MIT Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-262-18234-8.
In a command economy the most important allocation decisions are made by government authorities and are imposed by law.
- Mandel, Ernest (September–October 1986). "In defense of socialist planning". New Left Review. I (159): 5–37.
Planning is not equivalent to 'perfect' allocation of resources, nor 'scientific' allocation, nor even 'more humane' allocation. It simply means 'direct' allocation, ex ante. As such, it is the opposite of market allocation, which is ex post.See also the PDF version.
- Schweickart, David; Lawler, James; Ticktin, Hillel; Ollman, Bertell (1998). "Definitions of Market and Socialism". Market Socialism: The Debate Among Socialists. New York: Routledge. pp. 58–59. ISBN 978-0-415-91967-8. "For an Anti-Stalinist Marxist, socialism is defined by the degree to which the society is planned. Planning here is understood as the conscious regulation of society by the associated producers themselves. Put it differently, the control over the surplus product rests with the majority of the population through a resolutely democratic process. [...] The sale of labour power is abolished and labour necessarily becomes creative. Everyone participates in running their institutions and society as a whole. No one controls anyone else."
- Sirc, Lujbo (1969). Economic Devolution in Eastern Europe. New York: Praeger.
- Sejna, Jan (1986). Decision-Making in Communist Countries: An Inside View. Washington: Pergamon-Brassey's.
- Cereseto, Shirley (June 1986). "Economic Development, Political-Economic System, and the Physical Quality of Life". American Journal of Public Health. 76 (6): 661–666. doi:10.2105/ajph.76.6.661. PMC 1646771. PMID 3706593.
- Gregory, Paul; Stuart, Robert (2003). Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First. South-Western College Pub. p. 152. ISBN 0-618-26181-8.
- Mandel, Ernest (1986). "In Defence of Socialist Planning".
- Cottrell, Allin; Cockshott, Paul (1993). "Socialist planning after the collapse of the Soviet Union".
- Ader, Emile Bertrand (1970). Communism, Classic and Contemporary. Woodbury: Barron's Educational Series.
- Wellisz, Stanislaw (1964). The Economies of the Soviet Bloc: A Study of Decision Making and Resource Allocation. New York: McGraw. pp. 12–27; 26–27.
- Bardhan, Pranab K.; Roemer, E. John (1993). Market Socialism: The Current Debate. New York: Oxford University Press. 1993. p. 191.
- Lavigne, Marie (1974). The Socialist Economies of the Soviet Union and Europe. White Plains: International Arts and Sciences Press. pp. 32–36; 80–98.
- Maddison, Angus (2001). "The World Economy Volume 1: A Millennial Perspectve". p. 183.
- Shiryayev, Y.; Sokolov, A. (1976). CMEA and European Economic Cooperation. Novosti Press Agency Pub. House.
- Hardt, John Pearce; Kaufman, Richard F. (1995). East-Central European Economies in Transition. M. E. Sharpe. ISBN 978-1-56324-612-8.
- Turnock, David (1997). The East European Economy in Context: Communism and Transition. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-08626-4.
- Teichova, Alice; Matis, Herbert (2003). Nation, State, and the Economy in History. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-79278-3.
- Ther, Philipp (2016). Europe Since 1989: A History. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691167374. Archived from the original on 2 April 2019. Retrieved 13 March 2019.
- Klein, Naomi (2008). The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Picador. p. 276. ISBN 978-0312427993.
- Whyman, Philip; Baimbridge, Mark; Mullen, Andrew (2012). The Political Economy of the European Social Model (Routledge Studies in the European Economy. Routledge. p. 108. ISBN 978-0415476294.
In short, Gorbachev aimed to lead the Soviet Union towards the Scandinavian social democratic model.
- Kaprans, M. (2009). "Then and now: Comparing the Soviet and Post-Soviet experience in Latvian autobiographies".
- Espova, Neli; Ray, Jule (19 December 2013). "Former Soviet Countries See More Harm From Breakup". Gallup. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
- "Why Russia Backs The Eurasian Union". Business Insider. 22 August 2014. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
- Taylor, Adam (21 December 2016). "Why do so many people miss the Soviet Union?". The Washington Post. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
- "The Fall of the Soviet Union". Levada-Center. 9 January 2017. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
- Balmforth, Tom (19 December 2018). "Russian nostalgia for Soviet Union reaches 13-year high". Reuters. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
- Nikitin, Vadim. (5 March 2014). "Putin is exploiting the legacy of the Soviet Union to further Russia's ends in Ukraine". The Independent]. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
- Taylor, A. (9 June 2014). "Calls for a return to 'Stalingrad' name test the limits of Putin's Soviet nostalgia". The Washington Post. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
- "Most Russians regret USSR collapse, dream of its return, poll shows". RT. 19 April 2016. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
- "Nostal'giya po SSSR" Ностальгия по СССР [Nostalgia for the USSR] (in Russian). Levada-Center. 19 December 2018. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
- "Back to USSR: Record number of Russians regret collapse of Soviet Union". RT. 19 December 2018. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
- Maza, Christina (19 December 2018). "Russia vs. Ukraine: More Russians Want the Soviet Union and Communism Back Amid Continued Tensions". Newsweek. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
- "Kapitan Żbik na tropie oranżady" [Captain Żbik on the trail of orangeade]. Wprost (in Polish). 14 March 2003. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
- Lindstrom, Nicole (January 2005). "Yugonostalgia: Restorative and reflective nostalgia in former Yugoslavia". East central Europe. L'Europe du centre-est. 32 (1–2): 227–237.
- Murawska, Renata (6 March 2005). "Of the Polish People's Republic and its Memory in Polish Film". KinoKultura (2).
- Ekman, Joakim; Linde, Jonas (September 2005). "Communist nostalgia and the consolidation of democracy in Central and Eastern Europe". Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics. 21 (3): 354–374. doi:10.1080/13523270500183512.
- Boyer, Dominic (2006). Ostalgie and the Politics of the Future in Eastern Germany. Duke University Press.
- Esche, Christine; Mossiah (formerly Timm), Rosa Katharina; Topalska, Sandra. "Lost and Found: Communism Nostalgia and Communist Chic Among Poland's Old and Young Generations" (2009). Humanity in Action. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
- Todorova, Maria; Gille, Zsuzsa (2010). Post-communist Nostalgia. Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-1-84545-671-9.
- Luthar, Brenda; Puznik, Marusa (2010). Remembering Utopia: The Culture of Everyday Life in Socialist Yugoslavia. Washington, D.C.: New Academia Publishing.
- Bartmanski, Dominik (2011). "Successful icons of failed time: rethinking post-communist nostalgia". Acta sociologica. 54 (3): 213—231. doi:10.1177/0001699311412625.
- Anghel, Stefan Costin (3 June 2014). "Would Romanians Vote for Ceaușescu If He Were Alive Today?". Vice. Retrieved 28 January 2019.
- Prusik, Monika; Lewicka, Maria (October 2016). "Nostalgia for Communist Times and Autobiographical Memory: Negative Present or Positive Past?". Political Psychology. 37 (5). doi:10.1111/pops.12330.
- Golinowska, Karolina (Autumn 2016). "Nostalgia for the PRL in contemporary Poland". Twentieth Century Communism (11).
- Ghodsee, Kristen; Mead, Julia (2018). "What Has Socialism Ever Done For Women?" (PDF). Catalyst. 2 (2): 108. Retrieved 26 June 2019. See also Ghodsee's "Dr. Kristen Ghodsee, Bowdoin College - Nostalgia for Communism" at WAMC's The Academic Minute.
- McAaley, Alastair. Russia and the Baltics: Poverty and Poverty Research in a Changing World. Archived from the original on 23 January 2017. Retrieved 18 July 2016.
- "An epidemic of street kids overwhelms Russian cities". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 17 July 2016.
- Targ, Harry (2006). Challenging Late Capitalism, Neoliberal Globalization, & Militarism.
- Gerber, Theodore P.; Hout, Michael Hout (1998). "More Shock than Therapy: Market Transition, Employment, and Income in Russia, 1991–1995". AJS. 104 (1): 1–50.
- Volkov, Vladimir. "The bitter legacy of Boris Yeltsin (1931-2007)".
- "Cops for hire". The Economist. 2010. Retrieved 4 December 2015.
- "Corruption Perceptions Index 2014". Transparency International. Retrieved 18 July 2016.
- Hardt, John (2003). Russia's Uncertain Economic Future: With a Comprehensive Subject Index. M. E Sharpe. p. 481.
- Alexander, Catharine; Buchil, Victor; Humphrey, Caroline (12 September 2007). Urban Life in Post-Soviet Asia. CRC Press.
- Smorodinskaya. Encyclopaedia of Contemporary Russian. Routledge.
- Galazkaa, Artur (2000). "Implications of the Diphtheria Epidemic in the Former Soviet Union for Immunization Programs". Journal of Infectious Diseases. 181: 244–248. doi:10.1086/315570. PMID 10657222.
- Shubnikov, Eugene. "Non-communicable Diseases and Former Soviet Union countries". Retrieved 18 July 2016.
- Wharton, Melinda; Vitek, Charles (1998). "Diphtheria in the Former Soviet Union: Reemergence of a Pandemic Disease". Emerging Infectious Diseases. 4 (4): 539–550. doi:10.3201/eid0404.980404. PMC 2640235. PMID 9866730. Retrieved 18 July 2016.
- Hoepller, C (2011). "Russian Demographics: The Role of the Collapse of the Soviet Union". Undergraduate Research Journal for the Human Sciences. 10 (1).
- Poland, Marshall. "Russian Economy in the Aftermath of the Collapse of the Soviet Union". Archived from the original on 8 July 2016. Retrieved 18 July 2016.
- "End of Communism Cheered but Now with More Reservations". Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project. 2 November 2009. Archived from the original on 19 May 2018. Retrieved 14 May 2018.
- "Confidence in Democracy and Capitalism Wanes in Former Soviet Union". Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project. 5 December 2011. Archived from the original on 20 May 2018. Retrieved 14 May 2018.
- Ghodsee, Kristen R.; Sehon, Scott (22 March 2018). "Anti-anti-communism". Aeon. Archived from the original on 25 September 2018. Retrieved 26 September 2018.
- Marangos, John (2004). Alternative Economic Models of Transition. Aldershot; Burlington: Ashgate.
- Nove, Alec; Nuti, D. M. (1972). Socialist Economics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. pp. 491–510.
- Hoffmann, Charles (September 1971). "The Maoist Economic Model". Journal of Economic Issues. 5 (3): 12–27.
- O'Brien, Patrick Karl (2002). Atlas of World History. Oxford University Press. p. 254. ISBN 0-19-521921-X.
- Gao, Mobo (2008). The Battle for China's Past: Mao and the Cultural Revolution. London: Pluto Press. ISBN 978-0-7453-2780-8.
- Ebrey, Patricia Buckley (2010). The Cambridge Illustrated History of China. Cambridge University Press. p. 327. ISBN 978-0-521-12433-1.
- Galtung, Marte Kjær; Stenslie, Stig (2014). 49 Myths About China. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-4422-3622-6.
- "Mao Tse Tung: China's Peasant Emperor" (2005). Biography. A&E Network. ASIN B000AABKXG.
- Ollman, Berell; Schweickart, David; Lawler, James; Ticktin, Hillel (1998). Market Socialism: The Debate Among Socialists. New York: Routledge. pp. 60–62.
- Ellman, Michael (2014). Socialist Planning. Cambridge University Press. p. 372. ISBN 1107427320.
- Wilkinson, Richard G. (1996). Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality. Routledge. p. 122. ISBN 0415092353.
- "Sowjetunion, 17. März 1991 : Weiterbestand der UdSSR als Föderation gleichberechtigter und souveräner Staaten" (in Russian). Direct Democracy. 17 March 1991. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
- Taylor, Matt (22 February 2017). "One Recipe for a More Equal World: Mass Death". Vice. Retrieved 9 April 2017.
- "The Golden Age of Capitalism: Reinterpreting the Postwar Experience".
- "Post-war reconstruction and development in the Golden Age of Capitalism".
- "The Golden Age of Capitalism: Reinterpreting the Postwar Experience".
- Nugent, Margaret Latus (1992). From Leninism to Freedom: The Challenges of Democratization. Boulder: Westview Press. ISBN 978-0-8133-8524-2.
- Schulman, Jason (2006). "The Case for Socialism in the Twenty-First Century". Democratic Left. 47.
- Grawert, Elke (2009). Departures From Post-Colonial Authoritarianism: Analysis of System Change With A Focus On Tanzania. Frankfurt am Main.
- Germani, Gino (1978). Authoritarianism, Fascism, and National Populism. New Brunswick: Transaction Books. ISBN 978-0-87855-642-7.
- Brzezinski, Zbigniew (1989). The Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century (1st original ed.). New York: Scribner. ISBN 9780684190341.
- Lenin, Vladimir (1917). "Chapter 5". The State and Revolution.
- Lenin, Vladimir (February—July 1918). Lenin Collected Works Vol. 27. Marxists Internet Archive. p. 293. Quoted by Aufheben Archived 2004-03-18 at the Wayback Machine.
- Lenin, Vladimir (1921). "The Tax in Kind".
- Pena, David S. (21 September 2007). "Tasks of Working-Class Governments under the Socialist-oriented Market Economy". Political Affairs. Archived 5 September 2008 at the Wayback Machine".
- Serge, Victor (1937). From Lenin to Stalin. p. 55.
- "Казарменный коммунизм" (in Russian). Great Soviet Encyclopedia.
- Duncan, Graeme Campbell (1973). Marx and Mill: Two Views of Social Conflict and Social Harmony. p. 194.
- Marxism versus Anarchism (2001). p. 88.
- Glavnyye osnovy budushchego obshchestvennogo stroya (Главные основы будущего общественного строя). According to Marx, it was printed in the second issue of Narodnaya rasprava available in Geneva in December 1869, but it was labelled "St.Petersburg, winter 1870".
- Clellan, Woodford Mc (1973). "Nechaevshchina: An Unknown Chapter". Slavic Review. 32 (3): 546–553. doi:10.2307/2495409. ISSN 0037-6779. JSTOR 2495409.
- Mayer, Robert (1993). "Lenin and the Concept of the Professional Revolutionary". History of Political Thought. 14 (2): 249–263. ISSN 0143-781X. JSTOR 26214357.
- "The Influences of Chernyshevsky, Tkachev, and Nechaev on the political thought of V.I. Lenin". ResearchGate. Retrieved 25 March 2019.
- Сергей Нечаев: "темный чуланчик" русской революции. МирТесен – рекомендательная социальная сеть (in Russian). Retrieved 25 March 2019.
- Kimball, Alan (1973). "The First International and the Russian Obshchina". Slavic Review. 32 (3): 491–514. doi:10.2307/2495406. ISSN 0037-6779. JSTOR 2495406.
- Read, Cristopher (2004). "Lenin: A Revolutionary Life" (PDF). Retrieved 25 March 2019. Cite journal requires
- Busgalin, Alexander; Mayer, Günter (2008). "Kasernenkommunismus". Historisch-kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus. 7: I. Spalten. pp. 407–411 (PDF text)
- Leggett, George (1981). The Cheka: Lenin's Political Police.
- "Lenin: Individual and Politics in the October Revolution". Modern History Review. 2 (1): 16–19. 1990.
- Pipes, Richard (1995). Three Whys of the Russian Revolution.
- Radzinsky, Edvard (1997). Stalin: The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives. Anchor.
- Pipes, Richard (2001). Communism: A History.
- Applebaum, Anne (14 October 2014). "Understanding Stalin". The Atlantic. Retrieved 4 April 2015.
- Deutscher, Isaac (1959). Trotsky: The Prophet Unarmed.
- Medvedev, Roy (1981). Leninism and Western Socialism. Verso.
- Gill, Graeme J. (1998). Stalinism. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Lewin, Moshe (2005). Lenin's Last Testament. University of Michigan Press.
- Ryan, James (2012). Lenin's Terror: The Ideological Origins of Early Soviet State Violence. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-81568-1.
- Read, Christopher (2005). Lenin: A Revolutionary Life. Routledge Historical Biographies. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-20649-5.
- Liebman, Marcel (1975) . Leninism Under Lenin. Translated by Pearce, Brian. London: Jonathan Cape. ISBN 978-0-224-01072-6.
- Lee, Stephen J. (2003). Lenin and Revolutionary Russia. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-28718-0.
- Fischer, Louis (1964). The Life of Lenin. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
- Shub, David (1966). Lenin: A Biography (revised ed.). London: Pelican.
- Leggett, George (1981). The Cheka: Lenin's Political Police. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-822552-2.
- Volkogonov, Dmitri (1994). Lenin: Life and Legacy. Translated by Shukman, Harold. London: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-00-255123-6.
- Lewin, Moshe (1969). Lenin's Last Struggle. Translated by Sheridan Smith, A. M. London: Faber and Faber.
- Rigby, T. H. (1979). Lenin's Government: Sovnarkom 1917–1922. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-22281-5
- Service, Robert (2000). Lenin: A Biography. London: Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-333-72625-9.
- Sandle, Mark (1999). A Short History of Soviet Socialism. London: UCL Press. doi:10.4324/9780203500279. ISBN 978-1-85728-355-6.
- Pipes, Richard (1996). The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-06919-8.
- Pipes, Richard (1990). The Russian Revolution: 1899–1919. London: Collins Harvill. ISBN 978-0-679-73660-8.
- Rieber, Alfred J. (2005). "Stalin as Georgian: The Formative Years". In Davies, Sarah; Harris, James (eds.). Stalin: A New History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 18–44. ISBN 978-1-139-44663-1.
- Petrovsky-Shtern, Yohanan (2010). Lenin's Jewish Question. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-15210-4. JSTOR j.ctt1npd80.
- Rice, Christopher (1990). Lenin: Portrait of a Professional Revolutionary. London: Cassell. ISBN 978-0-304-31814-8.
- Stalin, Joseph (4 February 1931). "The Tasks of Business Executives".
- Getty, J. Arch; Rittersporn, Gábor; Zemskov, Viktor (1993). "Victims of the Soviet penal system in the pre-war years: a first approach on the basis of archival evidence" (PDF). American Historical Review. 98 (4). doi:10.2307/2166597. JSTOR 2166597.
- Wheatcroft, Stephen G. (1996). "The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930–45" (PDF). Europe-Asia Studies. 48 (8): 1319–1353. doi:10.1080/09668139608412415. JSTOR 152781.
- Rosefielde, Steven (1996). "Stalinism in Post-Communist Perspective: New Evidence on Killings, Forced Labour and Economic Growth in the 1930s". Europe-Asia Studies. 48 (6).
- Ellman, Michael (2002). "Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments" (PDF). Europe-Asia Studies. 54 (7). doi:10.1080/0966813022000017177.
- Davies, Robert; Wheatcroft, Stephen G. (2004). The Industrialisation of Soviet Russia Volume 5: The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture 1931-1933. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-23855-8.
- Healey, Dan (1 June 2018). "Golfo Alexopoulos. Illness and Inhumanity in Stalin's Gulag". The American Historical Review. 123 (3): 1049–1051. "New studies using declassified Gulag archives have provisionally established a consensus on mortality and "inhumanity." The tentative consensus says that once secret records of the Gulag administration in Moscow show a lower death toll than expected from memoir sources, generally between 1.5 and 1.7 million (out of 18 million who passed through) for the years from 1930 to 1953". Retrieved 23 September 2018. doi:10.1093/ahr/123.3.1049.
- Snyder, Timothy (2010). Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-1-4070-7550-1.
- Naimark, Norman M. (2008). "Stalin and the Question of Soviet Genocide". In Hollander, Paul (ed.). Political Violence: Belief, Behavior, and Legitimation. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 39–48. ISBN 978-0-230-60646-3.
- Kuromiya, Hiroaki (2008). "The Soviet Famine of 1932–1933 Reconsidered". Europe-Asia Studies. 60 (4): 663–675. doi:10.1080/09668130801999912.
- Tauger, Mark B. (2001). "Natural Disaster and Human Actions in the Soviet Famine of 1931–1933". The Carl Beck Papers in Russian and East European Studies (1506). doi:10.5195/CBP.2001.89. ISSN 2163-839X.
- Davies, Robert; Wheatcroft, Stephen G. (2006). "Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33: A Reply to Ellman" (PDF). Europe-Asia Studies. 58 (4). doi:10.1080/09668130600652217. JSTOR 20451229.
- Ghodsee, Kristen (2014). "A Tale of "Two Totalitarianisms": The Crisis of Capitalism and the Historical Memory of Communism" (PDF). History of the Present. 4 (2): 115–142. doi:10.5406/historypresent.4.2.0115. JSTOR 10.5406/historypresent.4.2.0115.
- McDermott, Kevin (2006). Stalin: Revolutionary in an Era of War. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-333-71122-4.
- Service, Robert (2004). Stalin: A Biography. London: Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-333-72627-3.
- Khlevniuk, Oleg V. (2015). Stalin: New Biography of a Dictator. Translated by Favorov, Nora Seligman. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-16388-9.
- Kotkin, Stephen (2014). Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928. London: Allen Lane. ISBN 978-0-7139-9944-0.
- Montefiore, Simon Sebag (2007). Young Stalin. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 978-0-297-85068-7.
- McCauley, Martin (2003). Stalin and Stalinism (third ed.). Harlow and London: Pearson. ISBN 978-0-582-50587-2.
- Conquest, Robert (1991). Stalin: Breaker of Nations. New York and London: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-016953-9.
- Volkogonov, Dimitri (1991). Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy. Translated by Shukman, Harold. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. ISBN 978-0-297-81080-3.
- Montefiore, Simon Sebag (2003). Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 978-1-84212-726-1.
- Harris, James (26 July 2016). "Historian James Harris says Russian archives show we've misunderstood Stalin". History News Network. Retrieved 1 December 2018. "So what was the motivation behind the Terror? The answers required a lot more digging, but it gradually became clearer that the violence of the late 1930s was driven by fear. Most Bolsheviks, Stalin among them, believed that the revolutions of 1789, 1848 and 1871 had failed because their leaders hadn't adequately anticipated the ferocity of the counter-revolutionary reaction from the establishment. They were determined not to make the same mistake".
- Fitzpatrick, Sheila (October 1986). "New Perspectives on Stalinism". The Russian Review. 45.
- Fitzpatrick, Sheila (October 1986). "Afterword: Revisionism Revisited". The Russian Review. 45.
- Laqueur, Walter (1987). The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet History from 1917 to the Present. New York: Scribner's.
- Parenti, Michael (1997). Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism. City Lights Books. ISBN 978-0872863293.
- Fitzpatrick, Sheila (1999). Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Traverso, Enzo (2001). Le Totalitarisme: Le XXe siècle en débat. Poche. ISBN 978-2020378574.
- Geyes, Michael; Sheila, Fitzpatrick, ed. (2008). Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism Compared.
- Hobsbawm, Eric J. (2012). Revolutionaries. Abacus. ISBN 0-34-912056-0.
- Sarah Davies; James Harris (8 September 2005). Stalin: A New History. Cambridge University Press. pp. 3–5. ISBN 978-1-139-44663-1.
- Lenoe, Matt (2002). "Did Stalin Kill Kirov and Does It Matter?". The Journal of Modern History. 74 (2): 352–380. doi:10.1086/343411. ISSN 0022-2801.
- Wheatcroft, Stephen (1999). "The Great Leap Upwards: Anthropometric Data and Indicators of Crises and Secular Change in Soviet Welfare Levels, 1880–1960". Slavic Review. 58 (1): 27–60. doi:10.2307/2672986. JSTOR 2672986.
- Ellman, Michaesl (2002). "Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments" (PDF). Europe-Asia Studies. 54 (7): 1151–1172. doi:10.1080/0966813022000017177.
- Young, Cathy (31 October 2015). "Russia Denies Stalin's Killer Famine". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 18 May 2019.
- Losurdo, Domenico; Giacomini, Riggero, ed. (1999). URSS: bilancio di un'esperienza. Atti del Convegno italo-russo. Urbino, 25-26-27 settembre 1997. Urbino: Quattro venti. ISBN 88-392-0512-8.
- Giacomini, Ruggero (2005). Stalin nella storia del Novecento. Teti Editore. p. 139.
- Losurdo, Domenico (2008). Stalin: History and Criticism of A Black Legend. Rome: Carocci. ISBN 978-8843077007.
- Liguori, Guido (10 April 2009). Lettere su Stalin. Archived 2 April 2012 at the Wayback Machine
- Evangelisti, Valerio (14 April 2009). "Domenico Losurdo: Stalin. Storia e critica di una leggenda nera" (in Italian). Retrieved 18 May 2019.
- Jünke, Christoph (August 2000). "Auf zum letzten Gefecht? Zur Kritik an Domenico Losurdos Neostalinismus" (in German). Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. Retrieved 18 May 2019.
- Jünke, Christoph (2007). Der lange Schatten des Stalinismus. Sozialismus und Demokratie gestern und heute (in German). Köln: ISP. p. 123. ISBN 978-3-89 900-126-6.
- Jünke, Christoph (2014). "Zurück zu Stalin!? Domenico Losurdos Feldzug gegen die Entstalinisierung". Emanzipation (in German). 4 (2): 57–73.
- Wolfe, Ross (12 April 2017). "Moar like Absurdo, amirite?". The Charnel-House. Retrieved 18 May 2019.
- Pozdnyaev, Mikhail; Izvestia, Novye (5 March 2008). "Glamurnyy tiran: Kul't lichnosti Stalina perezhivayet v Rossii vtoroye rozhdeniye" Гламурный тиран: Культ личности Сталина переживает в России второе рождение [The Glamorous Tyrant: The Cult of Stalin Experiences a Rebirth] (in Russian). Levada-Center. Archived from the original on 11 May 2008. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
- "Segodnya ispolnyayetsya 55 let so dnya smerti Stalina" Сегодня исполняется 55 лет со дня смерти Сталина [Today marks 55 years since Stalin's death] (in Russian). Caucasian Knot. 5 March 2008. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
- "Re-Stalinization of Moscow subway sparks debate". The Washington Post. 27 October 2009. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
- "Joseph Stalin's approval rating hits historic high – poll". RT. 16 April 2019. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
- "Most Russians Say Soviet Union 'Took Care of Ordinary People' – Poll". The Moscow Times. 24 June 2019. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
- Osborn, Andrew (5 September 2009). "Josef Stalin 'returns' to Moscow metro". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
- "Putin Says Stalin No Worse Than 'Cunning' Oliver Cromwell". Sputnik. 19 December 2013. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
- Meisner, Maurice (1999). Mao's China and After: A History of the People's Republic. New York: Simon and Schuster.
- Fetzer, James A. (April–May 1985). "Mao Zedong: A Justification of Authoritarian Practice". The High School Journal. 68 (4): 296–300.
- Webley, Kayla (4 February 2011). "Top 25 Political Icons". Time. Retrieved 9 June 2019.
- "Mao Zedong". The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World. Archived from the original on 21 March 2006. Retrieved 23 August 2008.
- "Chinese Leader Mao Zedong / Part I". Retrieved 2 April 2015.
- Short, Philip (2001). Mao: A Life. Owl Books. ISBN 978-0-8050-6638-8.
- Fenby, J (2008). Modern China: The Fall and Rise of a Great Power, 1850 to the Present. Ecco Press. p. 351. "Mao's responsibility for the extinction of anywhere from 40 to 70 million lives brands him as a mass killer greater than Hitler or Stalin, his indifference to the suffering and the loss of humans breathtaking". ISBN 978-0-06-166116-7.
- Courtois, Stéphane; Margolin, Jean-Louis; et al. (1999). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-07608-7.
- Lynch, Michael (2004). Mao (Routledge Historical Biographies). Routledge. p. 230.
- Chang, Jung; Halliday, Jon (2005). Mao: The Unknown Story. London: Jonathan Cape. ISBN 978-0-224-07126-0.
- Watts, Jonathan (2 June 2005). "China must confront dark past, says Mao confidant". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 June 2019.
- Duncan, Maxim (28 September 2009). "Granddaughter Keeps Mao's Memory Alive in Bookshop". Reuters. 10 June 2019.
- Dikötter, Frank (2010). Mao's Great Famine: The History of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958–62. London: Walker & Company. ISBN 978-0-8027-7768-3.
- Becker, Jasper (25 September 2010). "Systematic genocide". The Spectator. Archived 11 April 2012 at the Wayback Machine.
- Bernstein, Thomas III (July 2006). "Mao Zedong and the Famine of 1959–1960: A Study in Wilfulness". The China Quarterly. 186: 421–45. doi:10.1017/S0305741006000221.
- MacFarquhar, Roderick; Schoenhals, Michael (2006). Mao's Last Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. p. 471. "Together with Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler, Mao appears destined to go down in history as one of the great tyrants of the twentieth century". ISBN 978-0-674-02748-0.
- Wasserstrom, Jeffrey N. (2010). China in the 21st Century: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199974962.
- Esherick, Joseph W. (January 1979). "On the "Restoration of Capitalism": Mao and Marxist Theory". Modern China. 5 (1): 41–77. doi:10.1177/009770047900500102.
- King, Stephen J. (2009). The New Authoritarianism in The Middle East and North Africa. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
- Schlumberger, Oliver (2007). Debating Arab Authoritarianism: Dynamics and Durability in Nondemocratic Regimes. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-5776-8.
- Dimier, Veronique (February 2004). "For a Republic 'Diverse and Indivisible'? France's Experience from the Colonial Past". Contemporary European History. 13 (1): 45–66. doi:10.1017/S0960777303001462. JSTOR 20081191.
- Nkrumah, Kwame (1963). Africa Must Unite. New York: Frederick A. Praeger. p. 119.
- Bretton, Henry L. (1966). The Rise and Fall of Kwame Nkrumah. New York: Frederick A. Praeger.
- Riedl, Rachel (February 2014). Authoritarian Origins of Democratic Party Systems in Africa. Cambridge University Press. p. 108.
- Pratt, Cranford (1999). "Julius Nyerere: Reflections on the Legacy of His Socialism". Canadian Journal of African Studies. 33 (1): 139.
- Hyden, Goran; Anthony, Constance G. (1980). Beyond Ujamaa in Tanzania: Underdevelopment and an Uncaptured Peasantry. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 51–54.
- Nohlen, Dieter; Krennerich, Michael; Thibaut, Bernhard (1999). Elections in Africa: A Data Handbook. pp. 880–884. ISBN 0-19-829645-2.
- "Tanzania: The 1965 One-Party Elections". Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa. Archived 2 September 2010 at the Wayback Machine
- Dieterich, Heinz. Socialism of the 21st Century.
- Burbach, Roger; Fox, Michael; Fuentes, Federico (2013). Latin America's Turbulent Transitions. London: Zed Books. ISBN 9781848135697.
- Partido dos Trabalhadores. Resoluções do 3º Congresso do PT (PDF). 3º Congresso do PT.
- "Venezuela after Chávez: Now for the Reckoning". The Economist. 9 March 2013. Retrieved 4 May 2013.
- "Does Ecuador's leader aspire to a perpetual presidency?". The Christian Science Monitor. 11 April 2014. Retrieved 10 July 2015.
- Miroff, Nick (15 March 2014). "Ecuador's popular, powerful president Rafael Correa is a study in contradictions". The Washington Post. Retrieved 10 July 2015.
- Roth, Charles (6 March 2013). "Venezuela's Economy Under Chávez, by the Numbers". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 4 May 2013.
- Munck, Ronaldo (2012). Contemporary Latin America. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 119.
In a broad historical sense Chávez has undoubtedly played a progressive role but he is clearly not a democratic socialist [...].
- Iber, Patrick (Spring 2016). "The Path to Democratic Socialism: Lessons from Latin America". Dissent. "Most of the world's democratic socialist intellectuals have been skeptical of Latin America's examples [including Chavez and Correa], citing their authoritarian qualities and occasional cults of personality. To critics, the appropriate label for these governments is not socialism but populism".
- Cannon, Barry (2009). Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution: Populism and Democracy in a Globalised Age. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-7771-5.
- Block, Elena (2015). Political Communication and Leadership: Mimetisation, Hugo Chavez and the Construction of Power and Identity. Routledge. ISBN 9781317439561.
- Harrison, Lawrence E. (2013). Jews, Confucians, and Protestants: Cultural Capital and the End of Multiculturalism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9781442219632.
- Maingon, Thais; Welsch, Friedrich (2009). "Venezuela 2008: hoja de ruta hacia el socialismo autoritario". Revista de Ciencia Política. 29 (2): 633–656.
- James, Ian (4 October 2012). "Venezuela vote puts 'Chavismo' to critical test". Yahoo. Archived from the original on 4 September 2014. Retrieved 2 February 2013.
- Devereux, Charlie; Collitt, Raymond (7 March 2013). "Venezuelans' Quality of Life Improved in UN Index Under Chavez". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on 7 November 2014. Retrieved 7 March 2013.CS1 maint: unfit url (link)
- Social Panorama of Latin America 2014 (PDF). ECLAC. March 2014. pp. 91–92. Retrieved 15 June 2015.
- Montilla K., Andrea (23 April 2014). "Hoy se inicia consulta nacional para el currículo educativo". El Nacional. Archived from the original on 24 April 2014. Retrieved 24 April 2014.
- "Estrategia de Cooperación de OPS/OMS con Venezuela 2006–2008" (PDF) (in Spanish). Pan American Health Organization. June 2006. pp. p. 54. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 October 2006. Retrieved 31 December 2006.
- Márquez, Humberto (28 October 2005). "Venezuela se declara libre de analfabetismo" (in Spanish). Inter Press Service. Archived from the original on 4 September 2014. Retrieved 29 December 2006.
- "Propaganda, not policy". The Economist. 28 February 2008. Archived from the original on 4 September 2014. Retrieved 3 May 2014.
- Weisbrot, Mark; Rosnick, David (May 2008). "'Illiteracy' Revisited: What Ortega and Rodríguez Read in the Household Survey" (PDF). Retrieved 3 May 2014.
- "Banco de la Vivienda transfirió 66 millardos para subsidios". El Universal (in Spanish). 10 November 2006. Retrieved 29 December 2006.
- Nagel, Juan Cristóbal (4 June 2014). "Poverty Shoots Up in Venezuela". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 26 October 2015.
- Alonso, Juan Francisco (24 February 2010). "IACHR requests the Venezuelan government to guarantee all human rights". El Universal. Archived from the original on 14 May 2013. Retrieved 25 February 2010.
- Smilde, David (14 September 2017). "Crime and Revolution in Venezuela". NACLA Report on the Americas. 49 (3): 303–08. doi:10.1080/10714839.2017.1373956. ISSN 1071-4839.
Finally, it is important to realize that the reductions in poverty and inequality during the Chávez years were real, but somewhat superficial. While indicators of income and consumption showed clear progress, the harder-to-change characteristics of structural poverty and inequality, such as the quality of housing, neighborhoods, education, and employment, remained largely unchanged.
- "Chávez declara "guerra económica" a burguesía en Venezuela". El Universo (in Spanish). 2 June 2010. Retrieved 16 July 2018.
- Siegel, Robert (25 December 2014). "For Venezuela, Drop In Global Oil Prices Could Be Catastrophic". NPR. Retrieved 4 January 2015.
- Scharfenberg, Ewald (1 February 2015). "Volver a ser pobre en Venezuela". El Pais. Retrieved 3 February 2015.
- Corrales, Javier (7 March 2013). "The House That Chavez Built". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 6 February 2015.
- Gallagher, J. J. (25 March 2015). "Venezuela: Does an increase in poverty signal threat to government?". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 29 March 2015.
- Corrales, Javier (7 May 2015). "Don't Blame It On the Oil". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 10 May 2015.
- Barreiro C., Raquel (4 March 2006). "Mercal es 34% más barato". El Universal (in Spanish). Retrieved 29 December 2006.
- "Venezuela's economy: Medieval policies". The Economist. 20 August 2011. Retrieved 21 April 2014.
- "Las principales causas de la escasez en Venezuela". Banca & Negocios. 27 March 2014. Archived from the original on 22 April 2014. Retrieved 21 April 2014.
- "El ascenso de la escasez". El Universal. 13 February 2014. Retrieved 21 April 2014.
- "¿Por qué faltan dólares en Venezuela?". El Nacional. 8 October 2013. Archived from the original on 22 April 2014. Retrieved 21 April 2014.
- "2014 Panorama Social de América Latina" (PDF). United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. United Nations. Retrieved 24 October 2015.
- "Venezuela's economy: Medieval policies". The Economist. 20 August 2011. Retrieved 23 February 2014.
- "Leyes habilitantes". Correo del Orinoco. Retrieved 19 May 2014.
- "Enabling laws in The Economist". The Economist. 28 December 2010. Retrieved 19 May 2014.
- Moloney, Anastasia (29 January 2007). "Photo Feature: Chavez's Propaganda". World Politics Review. Retrieved 10 March 2012.
- Grant, Will (23 November 2010). "Venezuela bans unauthorised use of Hugo Chavez's image". BBC News. Retrieved 26 April 2012.
- Romero, Simon (4 February 2011). "In Venezuela, an American Has the President's Ear". The New York Times. Retrieved 26 April 2012.
- Lakshmanan, Indira (27 July 2005). "Channeling his energies Venezuelans riveted by president's TV show". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 14 April 2012.
- "A slow-motion coup. The authoritarian regime is becoming a naked dictatorship. The region must react". The Economist. 28 February 2015. Retrieved 12 June 2015.
- "Venezuela toilet paper shortage an anti-Bolivarian conspiracy, gov't claims". CBS News. 16 May 2013. Retrieved 18 March 2015.
- Martin, Abby (22 June 2017). "Empire Files: Venezuela Economy Minister — Sabotage, Not Socialism, Is the Problem". Truthout. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
- "Oliver Stone Interview: There's a Specter Haunting Latin America, the Specter of 21st Century Socialism".
- Hart, Peter. "NYT Debates Hugo Chavez- Minus the Debate". Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR). Retrieved 4 May 2013.
- William Morris (17 May 1890). "The 'Eight Hours' and the Demonstration". Commonweal. 6 (227). p. 153. Retrieved 4 November 2019.
- Screpanti, Ernesto; Zamagni, Stefano (2005). An Outline on the History of Economic Thought (2nd ed.). Oxford. p. 295.
It should not be forgotten, however, that in the period of the Second International, some of the reformist currents of Marxism, as well as some of the extreme left-wing ones, not to speak of the anarchist groups, had already criticised the view that State ownership and central planning is the best road to socialism. But with the victory of Leninism in Russia, all dissent was silenced, and socialism became identified with 'democratic centralism', 'central planning', and State ownership of the means of production.
- Bordiga, Amadeo (1952). "Dialogue With Stalin". Marxists.org. Retrieved 11 November 2019.
- Bordiga, Amadeo. "Theses on the Role of the Communist Party in the Proletarian Revolution". Communist International. Retrieved 25 March 2019.
- Howard, M. C.; King, J. E. "State capitalism" in the Soviet Union". Archived 2 November 2018 at the Wayback Machine.
- Lichtenstein, Nelson (2011). American Capitalism: Social Thought and Political Economy in the Twentieth Century. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 160–161.
- Ishay, Micheline (2007). The Human Rights Reader: Major Political Essays, Speeches, and Documents from Ancient Times to the Present. Taylor & Francis. p. 245.
- Todd, Allan (2012). History for the IB Diploma: Communism in Crisis 1976–89, p. 16.
- Committee for a Workers' International (June 1992). "The Collapse of Stalinism". Retrieved 4 November 2019.
- Ted Grant (1996). "The Collapse of Stalinism and the Class Nature of the Russian State". Retrieved 4 November 2019.
- Anthony Arnove (Winter 2000). "The Fall of Stalinism: Ten Years On". International Socialist Review. 10. Retrieved 4 November 2019.
- Walter Daum (Fall 2002). "Theories of Stalinism's Collapse". Proletarian Revolution. 65. Retrieved 4 November 2019.
- "4. State Capitalism". International Communist Current. 30 December 2004. Retrieved 25 June 2019.
- Cliff, Tony (1948). "The Theory of Bureaucratic Collectivism: A Critique".
- Mandel, Ernest (1979). "Why The Soviet Bureaucracy is not a New Ruling Class".
- Taafee, Peter (1995). The Rise of Militant. "Trotsky and the Collapse of Stalinism". "The Soviet bureaucracy and Western capitalism rested on mutually antagonistic social systems".
- Trotsky, Leon (1936). The Revolution Betrayed. Maxrsists.org. Retrieved 11 November 2019.
- Trotsky, Leon (1938). "The USSR and Problems of the Transitional Epoch". In The Transitional Program. Marxists.org. Retrieved 11 November 2019.
- "The ABC of Materialist Dialectics". From "A Petty-Bourgeois Opposition in the Socialist Workers Party" (1939). In Trotsky, Leon (1942). In Defense of Marxism.
- Frank, Pierre (November 1951). "Evolution of Eastern Europe". Fourth International. Marxists.org. Retrieved 11 November 2019.
- Trotsky, Leon. Writings 1932-33. p. 96.
- Barrett, William, ed. (1 April 1978). "Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy: A Symposium". Commentary. Archived PDF.
- Von Mises, Ludwig (1990). Economic calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth (PDF). Mises Institute. Retrieved 11 November 2019.
- Hayek, Friedrich (1935). "The Nature and History of the Problem"; "The Present State of the Debate". Collectivist Economic Planning. pp. 1–40, 201–243.
- Durlauf, Steven N.; Blume, Lawrence E., ed. (1987). The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Online. Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved 2 February 2013. doi:10.1057/9780230226203.1570.
- Biddle, Jeff; Samuels, Warren; Davis, John (2006). A Companion to the History of Economic Thought, Wiley-Blackwell. p. 319. "What became known as the socialist calculation debate started when von Mises (1935 ) launched a critique of socialism".
- Levy, David M.; Peart, Sandra J. (2008). "socialist calculation debate". The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Second Edition. Palgrave Macmillan.