Important thing about communism is that it has clearly demonstrated one alarming and imperative trait related to society and property relations – a possibility of the regress in social and economic evolution – not merely a disintegration and collapse of some particular society, but a long-term regress of the system of property relations. Furthermore, such kind of regress can be brought in forcibly as a result of man’s planning activity and through man’s goal-oriented actions. October revolution in Russia in 1917 was largely an outcome of deeds undertaken by a very small group of individuals, who quite ingeniously adopted themselves and their interests to political realities and societal circumstances. Obviously there were a lot of other objective and subjective reasons and preconditions for Russian revolution, but it certainly was not an evolutionary process, i.e. a substitution of less efficient property relations with the more efficient ones. Even in Marxist’s understanding of social evolution knowing now what it was all about - it cannot be considered as an evolutionary step. There have been certain other (although except for nazism in Germany not so illustrative) cases of regress in the system of property and social relations and quite a majority of them happened in the twentieth century, which suppose to be a century of the triumph of democracy. What is more, very often those cases of social regress were emerging exactly within the representative democracy (including nazi Germany). In their majority those cases were the products of planned human actions based on some kind of emotional motivation and superficial theoretical ideology. In their majority they were connected with the State oriented ideologies including socialism, Marxism and Nazism. Isn’t it a good reason to think a little bit more theoretically about social processes and not to rely only on pragmatism and experience? Otherwise one day we may awake in one big concentration camp and yell - “Look! Experience is showing us, that we really have had some problems with our societal system” or even worse than that - we might not have anymore a planet where to awake. The problem with pragmatism is that if we all follow our interests as of today, according to the present days societal balance of power we are very much going straight to communism. We are already almost there according to share of State in our economy and according to the level of State domination in our society. Such unpleasant and probably also controversial conclusion is based on the simplest logical foundation. Under the “one man – one vote” there is no limit whatsoever for ever growing income redistribution from richer people to the poorer (who are always in majority just like always in majority are the people who would love to make a living on account of the other people) and therefore no any limits for State’s social and economic domination in society coming from enormous and ever growing amount of State managed financial resources intended inclusively for income redistributions. Enormous inflating State, overflowing from societal realities state regulation of economy and society and a constantly shrinking share of private property (and consequentially a constantly shrinking power of private individuals) is exactly what socialism is all about, while only State and no private property is only a marginal evolutionary logical outcome of this process.

We can identify three fundamental forms of conventional property rights dispersion in relation to the State property. Those three forms according to a declining level of property rights imperfections are communism, governmental monopoly or dictatorship and State monopoly under representative democracy. Within each form, conventional property rights dispersion varies significantly among different countries and among different historical periods. State monopoly, however, exists at every historical stage and in every social formation while governmental monopoly only under dictatorships including communism. Severity of social monopolization and of the other types of property rights imperfections under each of the three types of conventional property rights dispersion is not only quantitatively differentiating one type from another but is also having certain specific for every type qualitative characteristics and definitions. Governmental monopoly is well known under the term “dictatorship”. Conventional property rights dispersion or dispersion of real economic claims upon the State property is a fundamental characteristics, which is differentiating State monopoly under representative democracy from governmental monopoly under dictatorship. Communism can be separated into a specific case because not only it comprises governmental monopoly, but is also assimilating into the State property and into the State monopoly an entire economy and all the production factors. On the contrary to other social formations based upon social monopolization of one single production factor, communism, though being based on social monopolization of the State, is in fact incorporating in itself social monopolization of all the other production factors as well. Such statement of things is bringing along absolute restrictions for productive property alternatives, absolute restrictions for competition and consequentially huge limitations of personal freedom based upon unthinkable limitations of economic freedom. Share of the State property in overall national property possessions is coming close to one hundred percent including the entire property under all the production factors. Furthermore, under such a strong and severe dictatorship as communism – even entire personal or non-productive property of particular individuals is subject to a significant State control and various limitations. Access to any economic property within any production factor is restricted for each and every private individual with an exception of communist party leaders. Communism represents a unique social formation where there is only one type of economic property – the State property, and only one microeconomic and social proprietor in the entire economy – communist party chief (at most with few of his closest and most influential associates). There is no any social property rights dispersion in relation to any production factor, except may be for labor, though to a limited degree and mainly at later stages of communism. Labor under communism is a separate case for inquiry. Labor relations on account of exceptionally low substitution possibilities and of direct coercion, sometimes and especially at the earlier stages, are very similar to slavery. Generally, under communism people are allowed to own only one production factor – the labor, and even this kind of possession was more or less allowed only at the later stages of communism – after disappearance of concentration camps. At the initial stages, people were absolutely literally under the slavery type of labor relations with rather limited rights to choose or to change their line of occupation (especially for those in concentration camps) and with all the corresponding applications in terms of social rights violations and in terms of monopolistic income appropriation patterns of the top-level State bureaucracy. Due to a severity of exclusive property rights or to a tremendous strength of the State monopoly, under communism we have a unique price influence situation related both to input (price of labor) and to output (price of goods and services) side of the State monopoly. Even though, applications for appropriation of monopolistic income by the top-level State bureaucracy on each side were different and had their specifics.

Under communism, the phenomenon of State is finding its complete self-realization and self-expression. From the point of view of property relations, communism is characterized by an immense share (close to one hundred percent) of the State property in overall combined property possessions of the entire nation and, first of all, in total economic or productive property. Share of State property in overall national property possessions is one of the main indicators imperative for evaluation of the role and influence of the State upon economy and society. Such evaluation is basically our major objective in this chapter and, first of all, from this point of view we are examining the nature of communism. At the same time share of State property (income) in overall national property (income) is not a single indicator, which has to be taken into consideration in order to evaluate a level of State domination in society. Significantly important is also a degree of social (based upon power and coercion) control over private property, economy, society and private individuals realized by the State. Generally speaking, the State control over economy and society can be expressed by three fundamental criteria – share of the State property in overall national property possessions, share of State revenues (or of the State expenditures) in GDP and State’s direct coercive regulatory control over private property, economy and society. Latter criteria incorporates a large variety of actions and measures such as direct social control through laws and regulations, indirect control through particular economic and social incentives, macroeconomic regulation, taxation, social security regulation, labor regulation, contracts enforcement, specific industrial and environment regulations, sanitary and veterinary regulations, etc., etc., etc.

Diagram 6 is illustrating a correlation between State control over economy and society and between various social theories and ideologies, which are trying to explain the nature of State from one side, while from the other are trying to propose adequate social and economic policies based on this explanation. Extreme outcomes are represented by pure anarchism with close to zero percent share of the State in society and pure communism with close to one hundred percent State control over economy and society. We have to bear in mind that if we are talking about the share of State property in overall national property possessions then one hundred percent outcome is hardly possible even under communism. However, if we are thinking about the share of State property in overall national economic or productive property such outcome is much more realistic and was practically achieved under the communism in former Soviet Union. In any event, all the inside figures on our scale - between zero and one hundred percent - are certainly feasible and were materializing in different times and in different countries. Outcomes close to zero percent represent what is generally known as a “free market” and what we defined in this book as a society with a virtual lack of property rights imperfections. On the other hand, outcomes close to one hundred percent are suggesting a pure case of communism. In-between are positioned all kinds of economies and all kinds of societies, which are reflecting social, economic and political ideals of various schools of social science as well as those of correlated political parties – conservative, libertarian, liberal, socialist, national-socialist, communist, etc.  

Diagram 6. Social Theories Spectrum

Communism being evolutionary inferior is not emerging from the preceding structure of society or from the preceding social formation naturally. Each and every time it establishes itself relying exclusively on power and coercion including through revolutions or foreign invasions. In every particular society there are usually very few people who are willing to give away all their property possessions (whatever insignificant they might be) in consequence of the introduction of communist economy. Those are typically rather poor and uneducated parts of population with very limited or close to zero quantitative amounts of property, which are hoping to gain from communism more than they possess. We are not talking now about revolutionary leaders, who are either motivated by personal ambitions or by potential perspectives of property redistributions and income appropriations. Exactly on account of a relatively small number of supporters, ideally communism in a premeditated way cannot be established through parliamentary system under representative democracy and so far can only materialize through the acts of external or internal violence and coercion. On the contrary to various types of dictatorships, which are usually introduced by co-interested individuals and social groups, communism so far was never established by the most associated with the State monopoly social group – State bureaucracy. Communism is rather an artificial formation emerging exclusively owing to a misapprehension of the nature of State as of production factor monopoly. All other dictatorships are normally established with a direct participation of certain groups from within the State bureaucracy, including military hierarchy. Communism, however, is not instituted in the interests of ruling under preceding social formation social groups; rather vice a versa it is destroying a previous type of State, old social formation and linked with them State bureaucracy. Instead it creates a new bureaucracy, new State and new type of social relations. Nevertheless, private property rights upon the State and associated model of income distribution under any form of dictatorship generally and under communism in particular are so simple and self-evident that they have to be thoroughly hidden under the most emotional, extra moralistic and sometimes (particularly in the case of communism) even under the highly theoretical social infrastructure in order to disallow any rational grasp of reality. For some time it works, but an experience of the former communist countries shows that not for long. If other social formations, such as slavery or feudalism, have existed for hundreds of years, communism managed to stay intact for only about seventy years. Although, there are several communist countries left even in our days, the end of communism is already in the past. Other dictatorships in modern history are usually unable to rely on such sophisticated theoretical, emotional and moralistic infrastructure and they certainly do not possess a huge economic and social power of the communist State. Their duration is much shorter.

Communism embraces quite a combination of both microeconomic and macroeconomic inefficiencies, although when there is only one economic proprietor in society it is rather difficult to differentiate between microeconomic and macroeconomic inefficiency. In case of the State property both malfunctioning of the State as of economic agent (microeconomic inefficiency) and associated with the State exclusive property rights (macroeconomic inefficiency) are significantly interconnected and are very often indistinguishable among themselves owing to the State’s single integral nature of production factor monopoly. Because all productive or economic property belongs to one single person or at most to a small group of his associates, State property under communism transforms into a microeconomic commercial private property of the communist party leader. There is only one employer, only one producer and only one economic agent in the entire society. Every member of society at the end of the day is nothing else but an employee of the communist party leader. Communist party leader cannot simply hire those workers, peasants or engineers in a common market correlated way. They might very much object and wonder why cannot they organize their own business - alternative to the communist party leader’s one or alternative to the State. In order to suppress or to postpone such kind of objections people in power or the real State proprietors have to accomplish two tasks. First and probably the most important they have to propose some “big idea” or to sell some convincing ideology and to persuade people to slave for one particular exclusive employer. Secondly – they have to create certain mechanisms for coercion of dissatisfied and for oppression of any opposite ideas. Their ability and capacity to do both things will determine the duration of their private property claims upon the State. It is difficult to say which one among these tasks is more expensive, but we can easily imagine that taken together they are enormously costly for the communist dictator and for the communist State especially under absolutely inefficient and wasteful communist economy.

Communism represents a showcase of social monopolization. Everywhere we look there are only monopolies. Entire spectrum of structural and production factor monopolies can be clearly detected and identified within communist social formation including all kinds of small, medium-size and large-scale vertical and horizontal monopolies. These monopolies are organic parts of one genuine State monopoly on every production factor and on every economic resource. In the most severe case of former Soviet Union there is only one employer, one seller and one proprietor. Precisely the same outcome can be observed in political, social, cultural, educational and in all other areas. All these factors together attribute to the State an exclusive authority to absolutely uncontrollably distribute or rather redistribute the entire national income, not to mention an exclusive price influence power. It is exactly due to its nature of a huge, comprehensive and all-embracing social monopoly communism is evidently the most inefficient and the most unjustifiable kind of social construction.

Communism already (or may be rather “so far”) is a history. For the time being it is profoundly defeated and will not be able to regain its ideological power or at least its universal attraction in the nearest future. Communism perhaps vanished, but social institution, which has created and benefited from communism, nazism and from any other kind of dictatorship, is still alive and prospers not only in the least developed and in former communist countries, but in the most economically advanced countries as well and probably here even more and ever more. Primary and original source of all the societal troubles of humanity is not the communism, nazism or any other dictatorial regime for that matter. Those are only particular social derivatives of concrete underlying the State non-socialized interests. While it is exactly the State itself what always tends to bring various repulsive types of governance regime and deficient social formations. Tremendous inefficiency and unprecedented injustice of communism stand precisely in the enormous consolidation and enrichment of the State monopoly, in the extraordinary enlargement of volume and share of the State property and in the colossal enhancement of non-socialized State power. But the State generally and underlying it material interests under communism are in no way any different from those under the most advanced modern democracies. The difference is only in the level of social counteraction to power of State, which has finally crystallized in the modern system of social and property relations and in brought by it modern democratic institutions, whatever imperfect they might be. All other types of dictatorships are less inefficient and less unfair than the communism exactly because a role of the State and of the State property under those dictatorships is less critical. On account of that, there exists, first of all, an economic opposition to monopolistic State property and to non-socialized State interests, which simultaneously and automatically generates social and political opposition to the State generally.

During recent era of competition between the two opposite social systems or between the two opposite systems of property relations, communism always supplied an awful and frightening example of extreme State domination in society. Today communism vanished and traditional capitalism seduced by the State domination transformed into some kind of socialism. Without communism, people, especially young and especially in economically developed countries, who have a very insignificant and indirect experience of social, economic and political dictatorships are no more frightened and may be even no more believe that their nice homemade welfare friend can be like that terrible monster from grandfather’s fairy tales. However, nature and interests underlying our welfare friend are absolutely the same as under governance system of Stalin’s communism and that of a Nazi Germany. Only more sophisticated people’s counteraction (which is permanently diminishing under the pressure of socialist ideas), so far is not allowing the State to establish its absolute and all-destroying social, economic and political domination.

^{36 “}We have next to notice the rise of this idea — that Reason directs the World — in connection with a further application of it, well known to us, — in the form, viz. of the religious truth, that the world is not abandoned to chance and external contingent causes, but that a Providence controls it.” Hegel. The Philosophy of History