In southern Tajikistan in 2018, a group of Muslim clerics used their congregations’ weekly donations to restore a toppled statue of Vladimir Lenin, returning it to its plinth in the town centre. To many outside observers, this gesture may seem surprising: why would devout Muslims ever take it upon themselves to preserve a monument to a communist leader? After all, religion and communism are often said to be diametrically opposed.

For those puzzled by the actions of the Tajik clerics, this article will hopefully make clear how someone could find meaning in both communism and Islam. It will focus on three areas where the two traditions converge, namely, economics, the question of state power, and world outlook.

It is worth noting that, in this article, communism refers to the thought of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. My understanding of Islam is based primarily on the Quran, the word of God as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, and the Nahj al-Balagha, a collection of sermons, prayers, and sayings attributed to Imam Ali.

Economics:

Some of the most obvious common ground between Islam and communism can be found in the sphere of economics.

It is useful to begin with Marx’s theory of surplus value, as it forms the foundation of the communist critique of capitalism. The central idea is that a labourer produces the equivalent of their daily wages within only a few hours of work, while the remainder of the working day creates profit for the capitalist. The value produced by the labourer but appropriated by the capitalist is known as “surplus value”, and the appropriation of this surplus value forms the beating heart of the capitalist political economy.

Under capitalism, Marx argued, appropriation is concealed by the monetary form: “The Roman slave was held by fetters: the wage labourer is bound to his owner by invisible threads. The appearance of independence is kept up by means of a constant change of employers, and by the fictio juris of a contract.”[1] So while workers may appear to be fully compensated for their labour under capitalism, the wages they receive are always lower than the value they produce so that the capitalist can extract profit. Wage labour is therefore a system of exploitation, and Marx called not merely to reform this system but to transcend it entirely.

Although Marx was reluctant to write “cookbooks for the future,” he nevertheless offered some indications of how society might develop beyond capitalism in Critique of the Gotha Programme. Marx described communism as a historical process divided into two distinct stages. The lower stage (often referred to as socialism) would retain certain “birthmarks” of capitalism, while the higher stage would constitute a fully developed communist society.

In the lower stage of communism, distribution follows the principle of “to each according to his work.” For example, many workers in the early Soviet Union were paid under a “progressive piece-rate system”, where wages were tied to how much each worker produced above or below the established norm.

Only in the higher stage of communism can the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” be fully realised. But that does not mean communism seeks to deny people the fruits of their own labour. As Marx and Engels wrote, “Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.”[2] Under this principle, people can still enrich themselves through the fruits of their own labour; what they cannot do is enrich themselves through the exploitation of others.

Much like Marxism, Islam forbids building wealth through exploitation rather than hard work. The idea that wealth should be tied to one’s own labour is reflected in the Quranic teachings: “Man shall have nothing but what he endeavours towards”[3] and “Whoever revives dead land, it belongs to him.”[4] Even beyond this, Imam Sadiq confirmed that cultivating land creates a stronger claim to ownership than legal title alone: “Any man who comes to an uncultivated, ruined land, digs its rivers, and cultivates it, must pay alms on it. If the land had belonged to a man before him, but he went away and abandoned it, so that it became ruined, then later came back to claim it, the land belongs to God and to the one who cultivates it.”[5] In Islamic thought, therefore, labour forms the basis of ownership.

Islamic teachings have long held that hard work is the only legitimate means of sustenance. God, for example, described David as an “excellent servant” were it not that he ate from the public treasury rather than working with his “own hands”. God then softened iron for David so that he could forge a coat of mail each day and earn his livelihood independently of the public treasury.[6]

In the same spirit, Imam Sadiq was once asked by a companion on a hot summer’s day: “May I be sacrificed for you. You have a prominent position before God, are closely related to the Messenger of God, and yet you still strive on a day like this?” Imam Sadiq replied: “I came out in search of my sustenance so that I would not need to spread my hands before humankind for help.”[7] Clearly, Islam discourages people from living off the labour of others and encourages them to sustain themselves through their own work. So central is this principle to Islam that the Quran calls on people to reflect continually on the source of their sustenance: “Let man look at his food.”[8]

This principle is also reflected in the Quranic prohibition against riba (or usury). Considered alongside other Quranic teachings – such as the commands to “give full measure” and “not defraud people of their due”[9] – the prohibition against riba extends beyond merely charging interest on loans and encompasses all transactions where capital increases without labour being involved.

Thus, both Islam and Marxism reject the idea that a small elite should be able to live off the labour of others rather than engage in productive work themselves.

State power:

Similarities between Islam and communism can also be seen in how each school of thought understands state power.

From the communist perspective, the state apparatus – including the police, courts and cultural institutions – is monopolised by the capitalist class and functions as a tool for the oppression of working people. The state apparatus is never turned against the elites. The release of the Epstein files, for example, has yet to result in the prosecution of Epstein’s powerful associates. As Marx said: “The state is an organ of class domination, an organ of oppression of one class by another.”[10]

Communists regard the capitalist electoral system as a way of obscuring the reality that the state is dominated by a dictatorship of the elites. As Marx wrote: “The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class shall represent and repress them.”[11] No matter who is elected, the capitalist state continues to serve the interests of the elites over those of the workers. The historic aim of communists has always been to “smash” the dictatorship of the elites and replace it with a dictatorship of the working class or, in other words, a people’s democratic dictatorship.

To those unfamiliar with communism, it may seem strange that a dictatorship could also be described as democratic, so it is worth clarifying this point. In Marxist thought, a people’s democratic dictatorship is democratic because it serves the interests of the great majority by enabling workers to establish their own state and elect their own government. At the same time, it is dictatorial because the state suppresses the elites when they act in a self-serving or disturbing manner. Put simply, communists want to establish a state that treats the elites in the same oppressive manner that they have historically always treated working people.

A practical example of a people’s democratic dictatorship was the Soviet Union. The first soviet (or council) was officially established in 1905 to represent textile workers in their struggle against their employers. Soviets soon spread across Russia, becoming a new form of local authority. After the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks decreed that all power across the country would pass into the hands of these soviets.

Deputies to the soviets were elected on the basis of universal suffrage, and anyone over the age of 18 could stand as a candidate.[12] Deputies received instructions from the people, which were compiled into mandates. If the deputies failed to fulfil these instructions, they could be recalled at any time, regardless of rank, by a two-thirds majority of the electorate. The Soviet Union was therefore a form of democracy in which the vast majority of people were empowered, for the first time, to participate in the administration of the state – a democracy where, in the words of Lenin, “every cook must learn to govern.”

In much the same way, Islam advocates a form of state power that draws the masses into the decision-making process in practice, not merely in words.

In the Quran, God instructs the Prophet Muhammad to consult with others before making decisions.[13] Imam Ali insisted that even society’s most marginalised voices should be included in this process of consultation: “No person, however great his status in the sight of God, and however advanced his distinction in religion may be, is above needing assistance with the obligations placed on him by God. And no man, however insignificant in the eyes of others or looked down upon, is too low to offer assistance.”[14]

It is worth mentioning that, throughout Islamic history, important disputes were argued not behind closed doors but before the people themselves. Lady Fatimah, for example, challenged Abu Bakr’s refusal to recognise her claim to the fertile lands of Fadak by bringing her case directly to the people.[15] Imam Ali took a similar approach in his dealings with Talha and Zubayr, the Kharijites, and Muawiyah – presenting the facts to the people, clarifying matters for them, and seeking their verdict. In one letter, Imam Ali even went so far as to identify the voice of the masses as the judgment of God: “Surely, the virtuous are known by the reputation that God circulates for them through the tongues of His creatures.”[16] In this respect, true Islamic leadership should be guided by the views of the great majority of people rather than relying exclusively on the opinions of elites or experts.

Imam Ali embodied the humility expected of Islamic leaders: “Do not abstain from speaking the truth or pointing out a matter of justice, because I do not regard myself as above erring.”[17] As these statements make clear, Islam envisions a relationship between the leadership and the masses that is collaborative rather than mechanical and one-sided. Leaders are not only responsible for teaching the people, but must also learn from them.

Imam Ali’s approach bears a striking resemblance to that of Mao Zedong, who argued: “We should go to the masses and learn from them, synthesise their experience into better, articulated principles and methods, then do propaganda among the masses, and call upon them to put these principles and methods into practice so as to solve their problems and help them achieve liberation and happiness.”[18] Both Islam and communism therefore advocate a form of government where the masses are empowered to participate in the decision-making process.

World outlook:

The communist world outlook is defined by two fundamental theories: dialectics and materialism.

Materialism relates to how matter is interpreted. While idealism treats consciousness as the source of all that exists on earth, materialism recognises that matter exists independently of consciousness. This does not mean to say that materialists deny the active role that consciousness can play in the world, but that we recognise consciousness as operating within limits imposed by matter. For example, revolutions fail when they adopt incorrect plans and succeed when they adopt correct ones. Revolutionary movements must therefore ground themselves in material reality and in the objective laws that govern the world.

From the materialist perspective, man liberates himself through his interactions with the material world, he is not liberated through acts of “divine providence”. While it is therefore difficult to argue that belief in the creation of the world by God is compatible with materialism, it is possible to argue that an idealist outlook towards the world’s creation does not necessarily prevent someone from having a materialist outlook towards social change. In other words, religion does not require believers to passively wait and see what God will do next.

In fact, the Islamic faith constantly reiterates the need for social practise, in clear distinction to purely idealist religions that regard faith a mental exercise empty of any substance. Imam Ali, for example, disapproved of those who claim Islam in word but fail to uphold it in practice, asking: “How is it that his hope does not appear through his actions? For anyone who hopes in something, that hope is known through his actions.”[19] In the economic sphere, the Quran labels those who “repulse the orphan”, “do nothing to encourage the feeding of the poor”, and “refuse to give even the simplest of aid” as unbelievers, regardless of whether they perform prayers.[20] Elsewhere, the Quran condemns those who claim to follow Islam but withhold their wealth, identifying true Muslims as only those who “strive with their wealth and their lives in the cause of God.”[21] It is therefore clear that Islam sees social practice as the ultimate criterion for measuring the authenticity of faith.

It is not unimportant to point out that the prophets, more than anyone else, struggled against the exploiting classes of their time. Muhammad, for example, took real steps to uproot the tribal hierarchies of Mecca and to advance a more equal economic order. Moses also dedicated his life to liberating the oppressed from the tyrannical rule of Pharaoh. Similarly, Jesus devoted himself to defending the most marginalised of Rome and sacrificed his life in the process. Despite their complete trust in God, the prophets understood that certain outcomes could only be achieved through their own effort and action. In this respect, Islam recognises man as the causal agent behind historical developments, and therefore approaches social change in a way that is compatible with a materialist worldview.

Dialectics is the second fundamental feature of the communist world outlook. It is a theory of development that regards nature not as dead and rigid, but as living, changing, and passing through a real history. Marx and Engels admired Darwin because he showed that “the organic world of today, plants and animals, and consequently man too, is all a product of a process of development that has been in progress for millions of years.”[22]

Dialectics explains development in terms of internal contradictions – as “the ‘struggle’ of opposites” to borrow the words of Lenin.[23] For example, in the organic world organisms develop through a cycle of life and death, which is driven forwards by the contradiction between the formation of cells on one hand and their inevitable decay on the other.

Applying the dialectical approach to the social sciences, Marx concluded that human history is driven forwards by the contradiction between two key elements: first, the productive forces (the tools, skills, machinery, technology, and techniques of labour) and second, the relations of production (the social systems man creates to produce and distribute goods). As the productive forces develop, the relations of production become “fetters” upon their further development. At this stage, the class whose interests lie in resolving the contradiction between the forces and relations of production must lead a revolution to reorganise society and free it from these contradictions. Thus, one epoch gives way to another. “The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord,” wrote Marx, “the steam-mill gives you society with the industrial capitalist.”[24]

Islamic texts do not present Islam metaphysically, that is, as something one-sided or isolated from other phenomena. Rather, they explain Islam dialectically, in terms of its relationship to other phenomena – to its opposites.

Imam Ali, for example, argued that true Islam could only be revealed through a dialectical approach: by becoming familiar with the forces that stand in opposition to Islam, and recognising that Islam’s authentic message can only be revealed in its struggle against these forces: “You should know that you will never know guidance unless you know who has abandoned it, you will never abide by the pledges of the Qur’an unless you know who has broken them, and you will never cling to it unless you know who has forsaken it.”[25]

In the context of class society, Islam likewise adopts a dialectical approach. By examining the tension between the exploited and exploiting classes, the Quran concludes that the role of the oppressed is one of leadership and guidance: “And We wanted to confer favour upon those who were oppressed in the land and make them leaders and inheritors.”[26] Thus, the exploited class are the force that leads society towards a higher stage of development. With this in mind, it is unsurprising that the prophets not only engaged in social action but also aligned themselves with the oppressed classes of their time. The Quran describes how the elites denigrated the followers of the Prophet Noah as the “lowliest of people”,[27] and how the message of the Prophet Salih resonated with the “lowly believers” while being disdained by the “arrogant chiefs”.[28] The prophets therefore embraced the exploited classes as the force capable of leading human society toward higher and more harmonious stages of development.

Conclusion:

This article has hopefully shown that communism and Islam are not as contradictory as is often assumed. In fact, on many fundamental questions the two schools of thought reach similar conclusions. It is perhaps for this reason that the Tajik clerics saw no contradiction between their faith and their admiration of Lenin.

Yet common ground exists not only in theory, but also in historical experiences. Both Islam and communism have been subject to relentless distortions, abuses, and misinterpretations with the purpose of obscuring their revolutionary content and rendering them politically harmless.

In the Muslim world, many leaders stand idly by while Israel carries out a genocide in Palestine. Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, condemned Islamic governments that, “except for rare cases”, failed to stand beside the Iranian people in their revolutionary struggle against Israel. Larijani asked: “What kind of Islam is this? Which side do you stand on?”

As many leaders of the Muslim world have endeavoured to strip Islam of its revolutionary content and transform it into an individualistic identity, Communism has undergone a comparable transformation. In many cases, those claiming communism’s mantle have reduced what was once a mass movement dedicated to uplifting the working-class into a subculture centred around “alternative lifestyles”.

But neither Islam nor communism will be defeated by these distortions. Both traditions possess such a wealth of history and richness of content to be reduced to falsifications. Thus, communism and Islam are capable of resisting these distortions and, in time, overcoming them.

[1] Marx, Capital Vol. 1

[2] Marx and Engels, Communist Manifesto

[3] Surah An-Najm, 53:39

[4] Irwa al-Ghalil, 1550; al-Tirmidhi, 1379; Ibn Ḥibban, 1139

[5] Furu al-Kafi, vol. 5

[6] Furu al-Kafi, vol. 5

[7] Furu al-Kafi, vol. 5

[8] Surah Abasa, 80:24

[9] Surah Hud, 11:85

[10] Marx quoted in Lenin, The State and Revolution

[11] Marx quoted in Lenin, The State and Revolution

[12] Although before 1936 voting took place by show of hands and some exclusions had been made towards those who lived on unearned income.

[13] Surah Al-Imran, 3:159

[14] Nahj al-Balagha, 216

[15] The Sermon of Fadak

[16] Nahj al-Balagha, letter 53

[17] Nahj al-Balagha, 214

[18] Mao, Get Organized!

[19] Nahj al-Balagha, 158

[20] Surah al-Ma’un, 107

[21] Surah Al-Hujurat, 49:15

[22] Engels quoted in Stalin, Dialectical and Historical Materialism

[23] Lenin, On the Question of Dialectics

[24] Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy

[25] Nahj al-Balagha, 147

[26] Surah Al-Qasas, 28:5

[27] Surah Hud, 11:27; see also Surah ash-Shu’ara, 26:111

[28] Surah al-A’raf, 7:75-76

Within the communist movement, there is a leftist trend of disdain for national sentiments, a disregard of symbols of national identity like the flag, a wilful ignorance of our nation’s working-class history, conditions, and sentiments, and sometimes even an outright contempt for our nation altogether.

Leftist ‘communists’ argue that those who uphold the synthesis of patriotism with socialism and communism are ‘chauvinistic’ and stand against the internationalist principles espoused by Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Yet, a deeper examination of the Marxist tradition reveals that it is rooted in patriotism.

The basis of communist patriotism:

Marxists-Leninists recognise that there are two antithetical forms of national pride, both with their own class characteristics.

The first is bourgeois nationalism, a hollow form of nationalism that seeks to channel national pride towards imperialist ends. It is characterised by those politicians who describe themselves as “patriots” yet commit the most fundamentally unpatriotic acts like endangering British lives through acts of war against Russia or dragging our nation’s name through the dirt by supporting the Israeli genocide of Palestinians.

The second form of national pride is patriotism, which entails a genuine love for one’s country, a desire for it to fully flourish, and a sense of pride about its revolutionary history and traditions. Following the Marxist principle that “no nation can be free while it continues to oppress other nations”, patriotism necessitates standing against the oppression of other nations.

Patriots view their nation as a living project to be nurtured and guided towards development and progress. Marxists are unique in that we understand that this development can only be achieved through the struggle for socialism and a multipolar world.

Harry Pollitt made this point clear in 1935 when he stated that communists must “destroy the slanderous canard that ‘the Communists are friends of every nation but their own.’ […] We must prove that we love our country so well that our lives are dedicated to removing all the black spots on its name – to removing poverty, unemployment, and the bloody oppression of colonial peoples.”

Therefore, the Marxist-Leninist position is to reject bourgeois nationalism and embrace patriotism. Many of those who criticise our position on this matter conflate these two terms and, in doing so, do not address our actual ideas but rather the figments of their own imagination.

Lenin’s attitude towards patriotism:

Lenin, in one of his earliest writings claimed, “Capitalist domination is international. That is why the workers’ struggle in all countries for their emancipation is only successful if the workers fight jointly against international capital.” However, this argument is often misrepresented by leftist ‘communists’ to mean that patriotism, therefore, has no place within the communist movement.

Much to the contrary, Lenin’s emphasis on the importance of patriotism is made evident through his 1914 speech ‘On the National Pride of the Great Russians’, from which we can derive four key points.

Firstly, Lenin believed that those who feel most connected to their nation are particularly aware of the need to uplift its working class and stand against oppression: “Is a sense of national pride alien to us, Great-Russian class-conscious proletarians? Certainly not! We love our language and our country, and we are doing our very utmost to raise her toiling masses (i.e., nine-tenths of her population) to the level of a democratic and socialist consciousness. To us, it is most painful to see and feel the outrages, the oppression, and the humiliation our fair country suffers at the hands of the tsar’s butchers, the nobles, and the capitalists.”

Secondly, Lenin believed that a genuine sense of national pride entails pride in your nations revolutionary history: “We are full of national pride because the Great-Russian nation, too, has created a revolutionary class, because it, too, has proved capable of providing mankind with great models of the struggle for freedom and socialism, and not only with great pogroms, rows of gallows, dungeons, great famines, and great servility to priests, tsars, landowners, and capitalists.”

Thirdly, Lenin believed that national pride meant opposing the oppression of other nations, demonstrating the link between patriotism and internationalism: “We are full of a sense of national pride, and for that very reason, we particularly hate our slavish past (when the landed nobility led the peasants into war to stifle the freedom of Hungary, Poland, Persia, and China), and our slavish present, when these self-same landed proprietors, aided by the capitalists, are loading us into a war to throttle Poland and the Ukraine, crush the democratic movement in Persia and China, and strengthen the gang of Romanovs, Bobrinskys, and Purishkeviches, who are a disgrace to our Great-Russian national dignity.”

Fourthly, Lenin believed that internationalism is not tied up in superficial ‘humanitarianism’ but in national interests: “’No nation can be free if it oppresses other nations,’ said Marx and Engels, the greatest representatives of consistent nineteenth-century democracy, who became the teachers of the revolutionary proletariat. And, full of a sense of national pride, we Great-Russian workers want, come what may, a free and independent, a democratic, republican and proud Great Russia, one that will base its relations with its neighbours on the human principle of equality, and not on the feudalist principle of privilege, which is so degrading to a great nation.”

These passages make clear that the Leninist position is one of both patriotism and internationalism which, far from contradicting one another, are intrinsically connected, and actually complement one another.

Lenin’s position was proven correct by the collapse of the Soviet Union, which occurred after the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) deviated from Lenin’s teachings on patriotism and adopted a nihilistic attitude towards the revolutionary history of their nation. In 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping posed the question “Why did the Soviet Union collapse?” to the Communist Party of China. After investigation, the leading cause was identified as historical nihilism; “They repudiated their history, repudiated Lenin and Stalin. They succumbed to historical nihilism. This caused ideological confusion. The Party lost effectiveness at all levels. The army was no longer under Party leadership. In the end, the CPSU and the USSR fell apart. Let this be a lesson for us all.”

Dimitrov and the consequences of national nihilism:

Writing on the subject of ‘the ideological struggle against fascism’ and drawing on ‘On the National Pride of the Great Russians’, Georgi Dimitrov stressed the importance of embracing patriotism. Dimitrov warned that if communists were to disregard their nation’s revolutionary heritage, they would effectively be ceding the narrative of history to reactionary forces. This was particularly important with the rise of fascism in the early 20th century, when many Marxists advocated internationalism while opposing patriotism of any kind, creating a situation where the ‘nationalist’ elements of fascism could be played up against the ‘national nihilism’ of Marxists.

Dimitrov explained how such attitudes served the exclusive interests of fascism: “The fascists are rummaging through the entire history of every nation so as to be able to pose as the heirs and continuators of all that was exalted and heroic in its past. […] Communists who suppose that all this has nothing to do with the cause of the working class, who do nothing to enlighten the masses on the past of their people in a historically correct fashion, in a genuinely Marxist-Leninist spirit, who do nothing to link up the present struggle with the people's revolutionary traditions and past –voluntarily hand over to the fascist falsifiers all that is valuable in the historical past of the nation, so that the fascists may fool the masses.

[…] We Communists are the irreconcilable opponents, in principle, of bourgeois nationalism in all its forms. But we are not supporters of national nihilism and should never act as such. The task of educating the workers and all working people in the spirit of proletarian internationalism is one of the fundamental tasks of every Communist Party. But anyone who thinks that this permits him, or even compels him, to sneer at all the national sentiments of the broad masses of working people is far from being a genuine Bolshevik and has understood nothing of the teaching of Lenin on the national question.”

The correctness of this position was proved in practice by the triumph of fascism over the more national nihilistic German left in 1933, as opposed to the victory of the patriotic communists in China who drove out the Japanese invaders in 1945, later to defeat the Kuomintang and found the People’s Republic of China in 1949.

Socialism in One Country:

One of the most prominent lines of the Communist Manifesto is: “The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationalities. The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got.” However, this does not undermine the importance of national movements. The Manifesto also emphasises that the proletariat must first assert itself as a national force: “Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national” and “the proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.”

When the theories of Marx and Engels were put into practice by the Bolsheviks, the question of building socialism in one country became paramount. In 1915, Lenin recognised that, “Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone.” In 1918, he wrote, “To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.”

As revolutions across the advanced capitalist world failed to materialise, Stalin began placing greater emphasis on “Socialism in One Country,” believing it possible to develop socialism within the Soviet Union with “the sympathy and support of the proletarians of other countries, but without the preliminary victory of the proletarian revolution in other countries.”

During the Second World War, this correctness of Stalin’s approach was proved by the Soviet Union’s rapid industrialisation, which enabled the Red Army to defeat the Nazi forces on the Eastern Front. As British Communist Betty Reid explained, “Had the Soviet Government and the CPSU shared Trotsky’s panic, had they turned away from the colossal task of building socialism in a backward country, ravaged by war and imperialist invasion, encircled by enemies, the object of hatred and plotting by the capitalist world. Had they waited for the workers in other lands to save them, then indeed world fascism would not have been halted. The fascist armies would not have been destroyed, nor a great section of the world be removed from the orbit of imperialism, and a tremendously powerful socialist state created as the focal point of future struggle against imperialism.”

Much to the contrary of ‘opposing internationalism,’ it is only through the process of building socialism in one country that the working class can set the stage for the eventual elimination of national hostilities altogether, where, as the Manifesto states, “the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.”

Relevance to Britain today:

Within the context of Britain today, Marxist-Leninists must show ourselves to be the genuine champions of the interests of our nation and our people. We must reclaim patriotism from the forces of reaction, exposing their hollow ‘nationalism’ which, in reality, considers our national interests as an afterthought. Instead of investing in our own domestic development, our ruling class opts to lavish billions on appeasing foreign warmongers like Zelensky.

It is our duty to carry forward the revolutionary history of Britain. From the peasants’ revolt of 1381, when Wat Tyler, Robert Cave, and John Ball protested against the Poll Tax and royal tyranny, to Oliver Cromwell’s bourgeois revolution of 1649, which opened Britain’s way to capitalist development, and to the Chartist movement of 1835, which championed universal suffrage, secret ballots, annual Parliaments, and the removal of property qualifications for voting – these are just a few of the revolutionary moments in British history, and there are many more to come.

.

Kate W

Introduction

Prior to 1949, after a century of aggression and humiliation at the hands of foreign powers, China was one of the poorest countries in the world. However, all this was to change when the PRC was established in 1949. Inheriting a backward, semi-feudal economy with virtually no industry, the Communist Party of China (CPC) worked to solve the problems of feeding and employing the population, stabilising commodity prices, and unifying financial and economic work, all in turn leading to huge economic development. During the Mao-era, life expectancy rose by thirty-one years, the fastest-ever increase in a major country in human history; calorie intake doubled, annual income quintupled, going from sixty billion yuan to 300 billion yuan; and the economy grew by sixty-four percent each decade, surpassing the economic growth of the Soviet Union which lagged behind at fifty-four percent. However, towards the end of the 1970s, industrial expansion was beginning to slow, and the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution had caused major economic setbacks. Despite huge progress since 1949, China was still a hugely impoverished nation with widespread poverty.

The CPC determined that to develop productive forces and fight poverty they would need to forge their own path instead of continuing to emulate the Soviet model. Subsequently, in 1978, they permitted the re-emergence of a small private sector and opened up to foreign investments. After these changes, China transformed from a low-income to an upper-middle income country, and since 1981, has seen 800 million people lifted out of internationally defined poverty within its borders, accounting for seventy-five percent of all reduction in world poverty during this period.

Regardless of these achievements, cynics from both the left and the right continue to misrepresent and condemn modern-day China. The purpose of this article is to address some of the major accusations, namely that China is undemocratic, an international aggressor, and has ceased to be socialist since the period of reform and opening up.

Chinese Democracy

A common misconception amongst Western academics is the idea that China has no form of democracy. According to Stein Ringen’s book The Perfect Dictatorship, “The present Chinese regime is less strong, more dictatorial, and more of its own kind than the world has mostly wanted to believe”, he alleges that Xi Jinping has “scaled back collective leadership for a new kind of one-person rule, complete with a touch of person cult around the supreme leader.”

While Ringen is correct to call China a “dictatorship”, he is incorrect in the sense that the word is traditionally understood in the West, that is, the absolute rule of one person or a small group. The Chinese state is what Marxists refer to as a dictatorship of the proletariat, in other words, a democracy for the workers, the majority, who impose a dictatorship over the now-dispossessed exploiters, the minority.

As Xi Jinping states, “Whether a country is a democracy or not depends on whether its people are really the masters of the country.” China fulfils this criterion through a Whole-Process People’s Democracy, which allows citizens to participate in the political process at all levels through a system of people’s congresses, not merely by voting in the occasional election as we do in the West.

Local People’s Congresses exist at all levels, ranging from village to provincial, and serve as the regional organs of state power. Made up of 2.6 million deputies from all regions, ethnicities, and social groups, these congresses ensure the enforcement of the Constitution, laws, and administrative regulations; have the authority to adopt resolutions and decide local economic, cultural, and public service development plans and budgets; and can elect and remove governors, mayors, deputy heads, municipal district heads, alongside many other important positions. The Local People’s Congresses of ethnic autonomous areas also have the authority to formulate autonomous and region-specific regulations that align with the political, economic and cultural characteristics of the ethnic groups in their area.

China’s highest governing congress is the National People's Congress (NPC), made up of some 3,000 deputies drawn in from all backgrounds, with frontline workers and farmers accounting for 15.7 percent of the total, and all fifty-six ethnic groups represented. The primary functions of the NPC are to amend the constitution and oversee its implementation; enact and revise basic laws; appoint and remove senior officials, including the president and vice president; and make important decisions regarding China’s national and social development. To maintain a network of communication with the people, NPC outreach offices operate throughout ten provincial-level regions. In 2015, the outreach office in Hongqiao, Shanghai received a proposal regarding the draft Anti-Domestic Violence Law, calling for community-level organizations to be able to apply for personal safety protection orders. This proposal then became enshrined into law. By June 2021, outreach offices had conveyed nearly 6,600 pieces of advice on 109 draft laws and legislative plans, many of which were accepted.

The Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) is another important democratic channel, comprised of representatives from all eight democratic parties; all ethnic groups; various regions, including overseas Chinese; a range of people’s organisations; as well as specially invited individuals. Through the means of CPPCC consultations, opinions on major state policies and important decisions are received from people from every walk of life, allowing the various perspectives of social groups and minorities to be accounted for within state policy.

Centralisation of government in the policy-making sphere is further counterbalanced by decentralisation in the work of Party cadres, which are appointed to all geographical areas and tasked with soliciting and fulfilling people’s needs. The cadres report their findings to the Party, allowing centrally determined decisions and economic plans to be consistent with the needs of society.

The NPC Outreach Offices, the CPPCC and the Party Cadres serve as communication networks linking the masses with the CPC, allowing the state to fully represent the will of the people on a national level. Simultaneously, at a regional level, the People’s Congresses uphold the practise of grassroots decision making. Clearly, claims that the Chinese system is undemocratic, or even more nonsensical, a “one-person rule”, are fundamentally incorrect.

Chinese Foreign Policy

The EPP Group, the largest political group in the European Parliament, argues that “Beijing behaves as a global free rider, pursuing an aggressive and even hostile competition policy that ignores international rules and ruthlessly pursues its interests... [China is] threatening not only its neighbours and the rule-based global order but also our European interests and allies.” This rhetoric is commonly used to rally public opinion in favour of an aggressive European foreign policy against China.

To truly comprehend China’s foreign policy, it is necessary to grasp Xi Jinping’s theory of a Shared Future of Humanity, which takes its roots in the Marxist theory of the socialisation of labour. According to Marx, when labour is highly socialised and multiple producers contribute to a final product in the form of intermediate goods, productivity increases. Following this logic, a greater international socialisation of labour or, in other words, an international community, serves to increase productivity and improve living standards for the world as a whole. Therefore, differences between nations are not a disadvantage, as labour is more productive when it is divided, and subsequently when it is different. For more information on this subject, see section four of John Ross’ book, China’s Great Road.

Taking the vision of the Shared Future for Humanity as its guiding principle, the CPC seeks to build an international community based on greater cooperation between nations, and where differences are celebrated and used to the advantage of the international community, rather than vilified.

Since 1953, Chinese foreign policy has been underpinned by Zhou Enlai’s five principles of peaceful coexistence which are enshrined into the constitution; mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. In accordance with these principles, China has peacefully settled land boundary issues with twelve of its fourteen neighbours, and established a Code of Conduct to diplomatically address disputes in the South China sea between members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. In Africa, China has funded vital infrastructure projects considered too unprofitable by Western capitalists; contributed emergency food assistance to Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Eritrea; provided 189 million doses of vaccines to twenty-seven countries; and waived twenty-three interest-free loans for seventeen nations. China actively contributes to the common prosperity of developing nations through win-win investments in infrastructure projects such as the Belt and Road Initiative, with more than 150 countries and over thirty international organizations joining it in the ten years since it was launched.

These policies stand in stark contrast to institutions like the IMF and World Bank, which use predatory lending practices as battering rams to impose US economic interests on emerging economies, keeping them indebted and demanding the adoption of neoliberal Structural Adjustment Programmes as a condition for loans. During the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1992, real wages in Mexico rapidly declined, working conditions worsened and a brain drain developed.

Whilst China maintains one oversees military base in Djibouti, primarily to safeguard trade routes against piracy, the US has 750 overseas military bases in more than eighty countries, and Britain has 145 across forty-two countries. The US and Britain continue to build up their military encirclement of China, with the US maintaining 313 military bases in East Asia alone, and Britain maintaining bases in Singapore, Brunei, Australia, Nepal and Afghanistan. Additionally, whilst China favours diplomatic discussions over military confrontation when addressing disputes and concerns, the West addresses disagreements through destructive and deadly military interventions, often on the false pretence of “human rights abuses”. Even today, no senior US officials have been held accountable for crimes against humanity in Iraq including the unlawful detention, torture and indiscriminate killing of civilians. Clearly, the accusation that China is an international aggressor, made by Western officials and political groups, exposes a glaring hypocrisy.

Has China turned away from socialism?

Since Reform and Opening Up, the socialist nature of China’s economy has been questioned, with many anti-socialist pundits wrongfully attributing its success to capitalism, distorting the structure and essence of China’s Political Economy. According to one Forbes article, “China’s success provides clear evidence of the power of capitalism”. This is reiterated by the Japan Research Institute, which claims “If we accept the view that the state-owned enterprises are the cornerstone of the socialist economy, then we can conclude that contemporary China has already lost its socialist mainstay”, pointing to the reduction in the market-share of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) since the period of reform and opening up to indicate this point.

Despite this argument, in 2021, SOEs constituted nearly sixty percent and total assets nearly seventy percent of China's GDP, a hardly insignificant percentage. Regardless, what truly matters isn't the percentage market-share of SOEs, but that they occupy the leading role within the economy.

The leading role of SOEs is not exclusive to the post-Mao era. In early-20^th-century China, the national bourgeoisie not only played a crucial role in the movement against imperialism, feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism but also became actively involved in the economic reconstruction of China. In 1949, the policy was adopted to encourage and assist “the active operation of all private economic enterprises beneficial to the national welfare and the people’s livelihood and shall assist in their development.” At the same time, the state-owned economy retained the leading role, making it impossible for the national bourgeoisie to lead China towards capitalism. This approach was taken in respect to Mao Zedong’s distinction between the expropriation of the bourgeoisie’s economic capital and political capital. The latter should be carried out to the end, while the former, if not contained within clear limits, risks undermining the development of the productive forces. If the bourgeoisie’s economic capital can serve the development of the economy, and thus the cause of socialism, its total expropriation is unnecessary. Evidently, the approach of enabling a private economy to exist under the leadership of a state-owned economy was not exclusive to the Deng era, but in fact took its roots in Mao Zedong Thought.

The leading role of SOEs in China’s economy has far-reaching effects. The CPC can regulate investment levels; allowing for much needed investments during economic slumps, and into projects rejected as unprofitable by private enterprises, such as infrastructure, public facilities, and the riskier spheres of scientific and technological innovation.

The CPC also has greater influence over micro-economics, i.e., the activities of individuals and firms, than Western capitalist nations. The state-owned sector is empowered to influence the activities of enterprises operating under different ownership structures, typically collective, cooperative, or mixed. Additionally, in order guide the activities of the private sector, the CPC maintains an active presence of party cells within private businesses. A survey conducted by the Central Organisation Department found that sixty-eight percent of private businesses had party cells by 2016, and seventy percent of foreign enterprises. Those that fail to adhere to CPC guidelines risk being shut down completely and absorbed by the party. On the other hand, preferential treatment is shown to businesses that contribute to the goal of building common prosperity, such as tax reductions for those prepared to take on more innovative projects. The CPC also imposes penalties on individual billionaires who violate regulations relating to foreign investment and shareholding, borrowing of public funds, concealment of personal shareholding, and buying and selling stocks.

Unlike free-market capitalist economies, China’s economic development adheres to medium and long-term economic plans, which are determined based on socio-economic tends and projections of the performance of the economy as a whole. One such example is the five-year plans, the blueprint of China’s economic development, which currently champions urbanisation and rural revitalisation.

China’s banking system is another important sphere of state regulation, with the CPC taking measures to prevent any possible manipulation in favour individuals or interest groups. As a result, the substantial growth in China's national wealth over the past few decades serves to enrich society as a whole, rather than a few individuals.

Additionally, land in China is publicly owned. In urban areas, land is owned directly by the state, and is possible to lease for a certain period, but only following approval from the CPC and with additional government stipulations. In rural areas, land is owned by collectives and is limited to agricultural use.

The difference between socialist market-economies and free-market economies becomes abundantly clear when comparing China to India, both developing nations with large populations. Since 1978, China has sustained an average growth rate double that of India, and has successfully lifted its people out of poverty, while most Indians remain in absolute poverty.

Evidently, China has not “lost its socialist mainstay” as critics claim, as SOEs continue to play the leading role within the economy, directing development towards the realisation of socialism, and private capital remains subordinated to the CPC.

The Theoretical Basis of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics

Even among the left, some put forward the belief that ‘Socialism with Chinese Characteristics’ has abandoned the core principles of Marxism, pointing to the CPC’s acceptance of private enterprises and markets as evidence of this point.

In the words of Jiang Zemin, Socialism with Chinese Characteristics “is the product of the integration of the fundamental tenets of Marxism-Leninism with the reality of present-day China and the special features of our times, a continuation and development of Mao Zedong Thought, a crystallization of the collective wisdom of the entire Party membership and the whole Chinese people, and an intellectual treasure belonging to them all.”

As the period of transition between ‘dying capitalism’ and ‘nascent Communism’, the form Socialism takes will differ based on the peculiarities of every nation and its material conditions. Taking a dialectical approach, Marx and Engels rejected rigid and immutable definitions of Socialism, with Engels stating that “like all other social formations, it [Socialism] should be conceived in a state of constant flux and change.” In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels that the development of socialism depends, “everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing.”

Marx did not believe that higher stages of development could be achieved by bypassing or rushing through lower stages. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx outlined communism as a process divided into two distinct stages. The lower stage would retain some of the “birthmarks” of capitalism, while the higher stage represented a fully developed communist society. Based on this understanding, Chinese economists have also envisioned socialism as a multi-stage process, with China situated in the primary, underdeveloped, stage of socialism. As a result, emphasis has been placed on the urgent tasks of developing the productive forces and improving the living standards of the most impoverished members of society.

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels argued that “The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.” As John Ross clarifies in his book China’s Great Road, the use of the term “by degree” indicates that Marx and Engels envisioned the transition to communism to be a prolonged period in which state-owned and private property would co-exist, just like China's economy. Engels reaffirmed this in 1890, that the gradual building of a socialist society seemed to him “quite feasible”. Lenin echoed this point in 1918, critiquing dogmatic conceptions of Socialism, he stated that “the transition from capitalism to communism takes an entire historical epoch.” Clearly, the idea that socialism can be constructed in one-stroke deviates from the writings of Marx and Engels and not vice-versa.

According to Marx, distribution within a socialist society operates on the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work” and within a communist society on the principle of “for each according to his ability to each according to his needs”. In China, distribution predominantly corresponds to the quality and quantity of someone’s work, particularly for those employed within the state-owned sector. The constitution of China states that “the State upholds the basic economic system in which the public ownership is dominant and diverse forms of ownership develop side by side and keeps to the distribution system in which distribution according to work is dominant and diverse modes of distribution coexist.”

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics represents a creative interpretation of Marxism applied to China’s unique material conditions rather than an abandonment of its principles. This does not mean to say that contradictions between the state-owned sector and private-owned sector have ceased to exist in China, further challenges will undoubtedly arise, but the CPC, armed with the science of Marxism, can take on these challenges and overcome them.

Title: Is Marxism “leftist”?

The Marxist Approach to Morals

Many self-styled communists view Marxism-Leninism more as a set of moral and ethical values than a science firmly grounded in material reality. To them, Marxism is the ultimate embodiment of liberal and ‘progressive’ values, while those with more conservative values are nothing more than ‘chauvinists’ who should be excluded from the cause.

However, this moral interpretation of Marxism is inconsistent with Marx's own understanding, which asserts that the driving force behind human society is contradictions between classes, rather than a moral battle between ‘good’ and ‘evil’. In this respect, Marx did not abstract capitalism outside of its historical context but instead showed that it could be both historically progressive and regressive depending on its stage of development. Within its early stages, the progressive nature of capitalism is tied up with its need to constantly revolutionise the instruments of production, the relations of production, and therefore also the whole relations of society. This, in turn, replaces the scattered, less-effective feudal mode of production with capitalist production and allows production to be carried out at an unprecedented scale.

However, the regressive nature of capitalism becomes clear as it matures, and the proletariat grows into a fully developed class concentrated together in huge numbers. At this point, a contradiction arises between the social process of production and the private ownership of production. This is demonstrated through recurrent crises, during which huge amounts of goods and machinery are needlessly destroyed and wasted. Capitalism’s incompatibility with the future development of society can only result in a revolution led by the class capable of bringing about a higher mode of production, that is, the modern working class. Therefore, the inevitability of the socialist revolution is not tied up in capitalism’s moral shortcomings, but on the objective laws governing the development of human society.

In a similar vein, Engels criticised, “every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatsoever as an eternal, ultimate, and forever immutable moral law on the pretext that the moral world too has its permanent principles which transcend history and the differences between nations”, and disapproved of a theory of morals “designed to suit all periods, all peoples, and all conditions” arguing that “precisely for that reason it is never and nowhere applicable.” Both Marx and Engels upheld that the communist movement unified workers based on the material conditions of their life; their nation, their workplace, and their commonly experienced exploitation as proletarians, not on the basis of a shared set of moral values.

Therefore, those within the communist movement who uphold their personal morals as eternally and indisputably correct, or, even worse, seek to elevate their personal morals to the position of communist morals in general, clearly do not view morals in a materialist way. Nor do they approach it in an anti-imperialist way, with notions of moral superiority giving way to imperialist interventions on the countries alleged to be morally inferior, often on the basis of their cultural and religious values.

What is Marxism?

Marx understood that changes in society, like changes in the natural world, are far from accidental and follow certain laws. This understanding made it possible to work out a scientific theory of human society; to study why it is the way it is, why it changes, and what changes are to come. The scientific method of Marxism, dialectical materialism, regards the world as both a living organism in a state of constant development and composed of matter existing beyond human perception.

Like all sciences, Marxism is based on the material world around us. Therefore, it is not a finished theory or a dogma, but must be continuously applied to new conditions, new problems, and new discoveries to draw from them the correct conclusions. The value of Marxism lies in its ability to form conclusions capable of changing the world, just as all scientific discoveries can be used to change the world.

Defining Left and Right

While Marxism historically belongs to the definite left tradition, that is, it finds much of its origins in the Jacobin radical left of the French Revolution, today’s leftism is understood more as an indefinite set of moral values than a clearly defined ideology.

Delineating what values belong to the left and what values belong to the right is a challenging task given that these terms mean different things within different contexts. One study found that conservatism can be associated with a left-wing or right-wing orientation depending on the cultural, political, and economic situation of the society in question. Another study found that, within the former Soviet republics, “traditionalism, rule-following, and needs for security are more strongly associated with the old (left-wing) ways of doing things than with right-wing preferences. It is also possible that openness would be associated with a right-wing political orientation in Eastern Europe, rather than with a left-wing orientation, as in the West.” In other words, in the former Soviet republics, the Soviet Union is often associated with values the West considers to be right-wing.

In this respect, understandings of left and right are subjective and vary widely depending on time and place. Therefore, it is important to clarify that this article will be considering values associated with modern “leftism” in the West today. The cultural values considered in this article are liberation through love, openness, and equal rights, and the policy matters considered are equality, government intervention, and high taxes.

Love and inclusivity

Notions of love as an all-liberating force find popularity among leftists, an outlook prevalent among 18^th and 19^th-century philosophers and revitalised during the counterculture movement of the 1960s and 70s. Engels, however, criticised the “religion of love” and, in the End of Classical German Philosophy, denounced Feuerbach’s idea that mankind could be liberated through love alone instead of the economic transformation of production. To Engels, the idea that love could function as a reconciling force for all differences “regardless of distinctions of sex or estate” had no plausibility.

Despite what leftists proclaim, the act of loving one another, including beyond traditional boundaries, does not inherently constitute a revolutionary act. Engels reinforced this idea in On the History of Early Christianity, which disapproved of the pacification of Early Christianity and its transformation from a revolutionary, working-class religion of “undiluted revenge” into a petit-bourgeois religion of “love your enemies, bless them that curse you.”

The same principles Engels applied to the “religion of love” can be applied to the leftist values of openness and inclusivity. The proponents of these ideas suggest that the working class should be accepting and accommodating to the ideas, values, traditions, and mindsets of everyone, including the class exploiting them. In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels deemed this position as belonging to the “socialistic bourgeoisie,” and criticised the belief “that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.” Therefore, Marxism has little to do with absolute ‘inclusivity’ and notions of ‘liberation through love’, making it distinct from the leftist counterculture movement borne out of the 1960s and 70s.

Equal rights

One of the most misunderstood aspects of Marxism is its stance on the concept of equal rights. Despite the prevalent use of ‘equal rights’ as a leftist buzzword, Marx’s work, the End of Classical German Philosophy, outlines that, within bourgeois society, equal rights are, in fact, formally recognised. However, social satisfaction does not depend upon equal rights but material rights – and “capitalist production takes care to ensure that the great majority of those with equal rights shall get only what is essential for bare existence.” In this respect, if the interests of classes in conflict are irreconcilable, the material rights of one class impede on the material rights of another. Therefore, better conditions are not brought about through platitudes of equal rights, but through material rights and the abolition of classes. In Anti-Dühring, Engels traced the origins of the demand for “equal rights” to the bourgeoisie’s struggle against feudalism. During this period, the bourgeoisie called for the abolition of “class privileges” and the proletariat demanded the abolition of classes themselves.

Furthermore, while leftists uphold equal rights on the basis that all people, by virtue of being human, should be treated the same, Marxism recognises that, within class society, individuals do not relate to each other solely as humans but also as members of a class. In this respect, during the epoch of capitalism, the bourgeoisie uses the state apparatus to suppress the working class. Likewise, during the epoch of socialism, the new state apparatus is used by the working class to suppress the bourgeoisie.

Moreover, socialism and communism does not seek to enforce completely equality in the everyday life of members of society regardless of how driven and hardworking one might be over another. As per Marx and Engels in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, “Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.” Thus, Communism allows for individuals to enrich themselves over others, so long as this enrichment does not come at anyone else’s expense. Therefore, it is a widespread misconception that hard works reaps no reward under socialism and communism – in fact, hard work can only truly be rewarded under socialism and communism.

The state & taxes

Another policy often associated with leftists is ‘big government’, that is, that the government should play a more active role within society. However, as Marx and Engels explained in the Communist Manifesto, as the proletariat raises itself to the position of ruling class, it sweeps away the conditions of class antagonisms and classes generally, abolishing its own supremacy as a class. At this stage, the state, which functions as an organ of class domination, becomes obsolete as classes do not exist. Consequently, communism does not involve government intervention into the personal lives of members of society. While the early stage of socialism requires a strong state to centralise production and defend the gains of the revolution, as socialism develops, the state is increasingly stripped back.

In practice, efforts to shift power away from the state into the hands of the people is reflected within Mao Zedong’s little red book, which was published and distributed with the aim of strengthening the peoples understand of Marxism, thus empowering them as the real movement in charge of building a communist society – bottom up, not top down.  

Leftists also often advocate for high taxation as the grand solution to all domestic problem without realising, however, that the scale and direction of taxation is determined first and foremost by the class characteristic of the state.

Under capitalism, the state serves the interests of the bourgeoisie, and is parasitic in that it sustains a superfluous class of individuals who do not produce material value for society such as the bourgeois police; the military; the whole judicial apparatus; members of parliament, who get paid disproportionately high salaries; etc. Additionally, the state revenue necessary for war and overseas military bases is generated through taxing the working class, while monopolies pile up war profits. Only a fraction of revenue is allocated to production, and to things like the maintenance of roads, railways, buildings, hospitals, schools, etc.

On the other hand, under socialism, the state serves the interests of the working class and functions mainly to administer economic life. The socialist state is concerned with the production and distribution of goods, the advancement of the wellbeing of working people, and the maintenance of a limited military apparatus to protect the gains of the revolution.

In the Civil War in France, Marx described the Paris Commune as having made the “catchword of bourgeois revolutions – cheap government – a reality by destroying the two greatest sources of expenditure: the standing army and state functionarism.” The ‘cheap government’ of socialism is financed partly through state owned industry and trade, money which would overwise be retained as private profit under capitalism, and partly through taxation. However, as the state becomes stripped back to the minimum of its functions, taxation is still considerably low as there is no superfluous, parasitic class living off the state as there is under capitalism.

Furthermore, in the Critique of the Gotha programme, Marx stated that “taxes are the economic basis of the government machinery and of nothing else.” Therefore, as socialist society progresses towards communism and the state, along with its government machinery, gradually withers away, high taxes cease to have an economic basis. For example, no great war machinery is necessary under communism as the international community has a shared future with common interests. In this respect, while a heavy income tax serves as a progressive demand within capitalist society, socialism and communism eventually leads to a society free from the burden of high taxes on working people.

As the writings of Marx and Engels do not align with, or go beyond, many leftist cultural and economic values, the idea that Marxism is a leftist ideology in the popular understanding of the term should, at the very least, be questioned. Marxism should instead be upheld by communists as a scientific method of analysis existing outside of the political spectrum.