The Transformation of the Totalitarian Model of State: Communism After 1945
Despite fascism’s failure and defeat in World War II, the democratic model of the state did not go on to prevail throughout the world, by any means. One of World War II’s great victors was the Soviet Union, which espoused a totalitarian model of the state utterly anathema to a market economy.
The paradox is that Stalin, after having been allied with Hitler from 1939-1941, ended up on the side of the triumphant Allies, associated with the United States and the European democracies, the United Kingdom and France foremost among them. This coalition would prove short-lived, as the totalitarian model of the state, based on party discipline and central planning, and the liberal system, based on democratic processes and free markets, were, of course, irreconcilable.17.9.1 The Marshall Plan and the Raising of the Iron Curtain
The fragile alliance between the democratic nations and the totalitarian Soviet Union would end up rupturing after the launch of the Marshall Plan (June 5, 1947), as Stalin refused to accept the reestablishment of democracy and market economies[1080] in that portion of Europe which had fallen under his control (Roberts 2006, 317). The confrontation started with the dramatic Berlin Airlift (June 24, 1948-May 12, 1949), the first episode in a process that ended up splitting Europe into two blocks: Western Europe, in which the democratic model of the state was recovered; and Eastern Europe, in which Soviet-style totalitarianism prevailed until 1989 (Roeder 1994, 61-101). The Berlin Wall (Berliner Mauer), erected in 1961, would become the most tangible and dramatic symbol of this state of affairs.
In fact, the split affected the whole world after the Korean War (1950-1953) (Fousek 2000, 62-186). This was the Cold War period, defined by the ongoing struggle between the liberal, capitalist West, led by the United States, and the communist East, headed by the Soviet Union (Engerman 2010, I, 20-43).
For over four decades (1945-1989), these two political, economic, and ideological juggernauts would remain at loggerheads, generating a perpetual state of international tension and rivalry that at times sparked armed conflicts in which the two superpowers squared off, though by proxy, providing support to their respective allies. During this protracted confrontation the democratic nations of Europe founded NATO for their common defense from the communist threat posed by the Soviet Union, which responded by creating an analogous entity, the Warsaw Pact.[1081] The Soviet bloc had begun with bold and ambitious plans for the strengthening of the Soviet state and the spreading of communist revolution around the world, but over time it became evident that the Soviet Union was failing to export its model internationally, and that the country itself was coming apart at the seams because of its ineffectual economic policies and widespread yearning for greater freedoms amongst its people.[1082]17.9.2 The Expansion of Communism After 1945
The Soviet Union was, however, not the only state in the world that had embraced a totalitarian, communist regime. In 1919, Lenin had founded the Kommintern to expand Communism internationally, as a result of which communist regimes would eventually develop in different regions around the globe. The Soviet model spread during the era of decolonization above all in Asia, where in 1945, Ho Chi Minh founded the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (Olsen 2006, 1-12). In 1947, in response to the Marshall Plan, Stalin created a new version of the Kommintern, the Kominform, for the international expansion of the Soviet model of the state (Mastny 2010, 30-34). The Soviets would go on to provide support to North Korean dictator Kim Il-sung during the Korean War (1950-1953), which left Korea divided into a communist north and democratic south (Gardner 2004, 126-143), and for the ensuing decades, during which the dictator would remain in power.
In China, meanwhile, Mao Tse-tung rose to power (Brown 2009, 179-193) and headed the People’s Republic of China from its establishment in 1949,[1083] governing the country as Chairman of the Communist Party of China until his death in 1976.[1084] Mao transformed China into a thoroughly communist state controlled by one party, with industry nationalized and sweeping communist reforms undertaken to govern every aspect of life. Stalin’s death did not mark the end of Communism’s expansion, as “revolution” would also cross the Atlantic in Cuba with the triumph of the revolution led by Fidel Castro against dictator Fulgencio Batista (January 1, 1959),[1085] while other Latin American revolutionaries, such as Che Guevara, would also seek to spread communist revolts throughout the Americas during the 1960s.[1086]
The signs of Communism’s erosion became increasingly evident during the 1980s (Eley 2002, 363), though even then the considerable importance which communist parties enjoyed in democratic European states should not be overlooked, as these parties were integrated into the Communist International, and their general secretaries continued to receive instructions from Moscow.[1087] All of this, nevertheless, came crashing down like a house of cards after the Soviet Union’s demise in 1991, when President Mikhail Gorbachev opted to pursue vital and sweeping economic and political reform (perestroika) while at the same time opening up Russia to the international community (glasnost) (Brown 2009, 481502). The stunning result was the total collapse of the Soviet Union, followed by the vanishing of Eastern Europe’s communist regimes (Suny 2011, 469-485) in what Cornelius Castoriadis has called the “pulverization of Marxism-Leninism” (Castoriadis 2009, 58-69).
17.9.3 The Transformation of the Communist Model of State: The Chinese Example
The collapse of the Berlin Wall (1989) and the Soviet Union (1991) did not, then, do away with communist autocracies, as there still remain Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, and the People’s Republic of China.
It has to be pointed out, however, that some of these countries have adopted—in practice, if not in theory—new models of the state, such as the People’s Republic of China. Chinese Communist regime, after suffering the final years of Mao’s rule, marked by an extremely violent and convulsive period during the Cultural Revolution (1968-1976)—whose excesses have been officially recognized and condemned-, took a very different direction, when Mao’s successor, Deng Xiaoping (1904-1997), decided to undertake massive economic transformation while leaving the country’s communist political structures (MacFarquhar 2011, 246-336) intact, during the crucial period of 1978-1992, in what he called “Market Socialism” (Dittmer 1993, 3-35), a Socialism with Chinese characteristics (Goodman 2002, 99-101).
While Beijing’s regime remains nominally and officially communist, after Mao’s death it has not only joined the community of free market economies, but also has, ironically, evolved into the world’s premier industrial power. Needless to say, the meaning of the dictatorial state has shifted, as rather than attempting to suppress the market system it has actually ended up fomenting it, creating a state- administrated form of capitalism (Amin 2005, 128-149), coated with economic imperialism, and not devoid of a certain trace of revenge for the colonial era during which China was dominated by the west. Such is the “Chinese model” (Tian 2005, 1-6).[1088]
The path taken by China has, without any doubt, yielded dramatic results, as the country has become an economic superpower. Its industrial and financial might has forced the leaders of democratic regimes around the world to express respect for and tolerance of the Chinese regime, even though it is clearly a police state that continues to perpetrate executions of purported criminals and to relentlessly suppress free expression and protest. China and states like it are, in short, autocratic states ruled by isolated elites who adopt euphemistic descriptions of themselves as “socialist”, “democratic”, and “popular”, despite the glaring fact that they are so far none of these things.[1089]
17.10