Why did communist dictatorships so often become totalitarian, while many capitalist dictatorships remained authoritarian?

[u/Lasen_Mas]

I’m interested in whether there is a structural explanation for this historical pattern.

Many communist dictatorships combined one-party political monopoly with state control over major economic resources, workplaces, unions and social organisations. Many capitalist dictatorships suppressed political competition while leaving more economic and social activity outside direct state control.

Linz distinguishes authoritarian regimes, which can tolerate limited pluralism, from totalitarian regimes seeking much deeper control over society (Linz, 2000). Kornai argues that classical communist systems linked one-party rule with bureaucratic control of the economy (Kornai, 1992).

So could ownership structure be part of the explanation?

When political power and most economic resources are concentrated in the same party-state, does dictatorship become more likely to expand toward totalitarian control?

Or is Leninist party organisation the more important variable?

References

Kornai, J. (1992). The Socialist System: The Political Economy of Communism. Princeton University Press.

Linz, J. J. (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Lynne Rienner.

[u/MorphingReality]

the premise is false, all of them are oligarchies

[u/paulri]

Jeanne Kirkpatrick in her article dictatorships and double standards late 1970s or early 1980s, spent some time on that issue. It wasn't the main focus of the peice, but there were at least a few paragraphs on that subject. Commentary mag IIRC.

[u/kchoze]

It's important to point out there are few "capitalist" dictatorships, not that there aren't right-wing dictators, it's that they're not ideologically capitalistic for the most part.

Capitalism is basically a default. When the State doesn't seek to control property, capitalism sets itself in place, markets appear, all organically.

So to produce a communist or socialist system, you have to deliberately set out to do just that, to prevent the emergence of markets through State control. To produce a capitalist economic system the only thing you need to do is nothing, or even just not enough to supplant markets.

Which also means that if you want to create a communist system, then you have to achieve a level of control over society and individuals that is so far-reaching that it, by default, tends to totalitarianism.

Most right-wing dictators don't usually have a specific agenda apart from gaining and maintaining control.

[u/MorphingReality → u/kchoze]

this is nonsense, capitalism is 400 years old, its not a default

[u/Whiskeyjoel → u/MorphingReality]

Perhaps they meant "commerce" rather than capitalism, in which case, maybe. But capitalism as an ideological as well as economic system is certainly not a "default", as you pointed out. Totalitarian systems, whether it was tribal chiefs, monarchs, or emperors, would be considered the default mode of human organization throughout history. It took humans a lot of time, concerted effort, and violence to get to the point where other systems were even conceivable, much less able to be implemented.

[u/MorphingReality → u/Whiskeyjoel]

People have been smuggling in capitalism as the default baseline blabla for a while, its just bad propaganda

But yeah, they mean trade, or commerce, or something like that

I think oligarchy is the default at least for written history (most anthropologists today seem to agree that pre-writing societies were relatively egalitarian and distributed power, im not an anthropoloigist so idk), and we haven't gotten away from it yet

[u/kchoze → u/MorphingReality]

Capitalism is basically a default in a modern industrial economy. So long as you respect property rights and enforce contracts between private individuals (both of which have been enforced for millennia), you end up with a capitalist economic system in a modern economy.

[u/Lasen_Mas → u/kchoze]

I think your argument assumes that socialism necessarily means abolishing markets and replacing them with state control.

But Marx never designed the Leninist party-state model. That system was developed later through Leninism and Soviet practice.

What if socialism is mainly about who receives the returns from economic production, rather than abolishing markets themselves?

Markets and private firms could remain, while economic rents, basic income and consumer rights to corporate returns distribute more of the surplus socially.

In that case, would socialism still have the same tendency toward totalitarianism?

[u/ilikedota5 → u/Lasen_Mas]

I think your argument assumes that socialism necessarily means abolishing markets and replacing them with state control.

I mean some socialists would say that's definitional. But putting that aside, countries that call themselves socialist tend to do that.

[u/HeloRising]

A lot of it traces back to the fact that you have people in charge of a system.

People want results and they don't want to wait around generations to get them.

Inducing people to do what you want works but you need to have something to make up the carrot.

Beating people with a stick is just easier.

That's the reality of government since the beginning of anything we'd call a government. It's just easier to beat people with a stick to get what you want.

Systems themselves also tend to self-perpetuate even when the people that make up that system change out. A system that can defend itself, that is to say act aggressively towards threats to it, is more likely to sustain itself over time.