Read on Substack (canonical source).

Communism has never been tried. The first article in this series established that. But that conclusion, once you sit with it long enough, opens something more uncomfortable than the original debate. If it has never been tried, why not? Capitalism’s resistance from outside is part of the answer. The blockades, the coups, the funded civil wars. That part is documented and the first article covered it. But external resistance alone does not explain everything. There were moments where the external pressure was manageable and the project still bent toward the same point of failure. The same concentration of power. The same institutional rigidity. The same distance between the people the revolution claimed to serve and the people who ended up serving the revolution. The other part of the answer lives somewhere more uncomfortable. Not in geopolitics but in what happens to human beings when they accumulate power with the genuine intention of eventually giving it up. That is what this article is about. The first article in this series established what communism actually means. A stateless society where the coercive state has withered away and the organising principle is from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. This article asks a question that is simpler and harder at the same time. If that is the destination, why has every road toward it collapsed at the same point? Marx was not naive about the road. He understood that the transition would require an intermediate stage. A socialist state where the working class held power and dismantled the structures of capital before the state itself became unnecessary. The logic is coherent. You cannot dismantle a system of concentrated power without temporarily concentrating power to do it. The state does not disappear on the first day of the revolution. It withers. Gradually. The problem is that no state in history has ever willingly withered. Not because the people who built them were uniquely corrupt or ambitious. But because power generates its own logic of survival independently of the intentions of the people who hold it. Institutions designed to be temporary develop interests in their own permanence. The road toward a stateless society requires a state, and that state, by the nature of what states are, does not know how to stop being one. This is not a critique of Marx. It is the question Marx left open. And every socialist project in history has collided with it at exactly the same point. In 2015, Svetlana Aleksiévich won the Nobel Prize in Literature for a body of work that does not look like literature. No characters. No plot. Just voices. Hundreds of them, speaking about what it felt like to live inside the Soviet project and what it felt like to watch it collapse. Her book The End of Homo Sovieticus is the closest thing we have to a collective autopsy of that experience. And what it reveals is not what either side of the debate wants to hear. One voice describes what happened to the gaze after the perestroika. Before, a janitor and an engineer occupied different rungs of the same ladder. The janitor’s salary was smaller but it covered the theatre, the books, the summer holiday. Dignity was not exclusively purchased. After the collapse, the poor did not just have less money. They became less. The market had arrived and with it the conviction that your value as a human being was equivalent to your purchasing power. Another voice says something impossible to improve upon: there was no time for feelings anymore . Everyone was busy earning money. That sentence is not nostalgia. It is a precise description of what capitalism does to human time when it arrives without constraints. The time available for friendship, for culture, for political thought, for grief, gets absorbed into the logic of survival. A population with no time for feelings has no time for organizing. That is not a coincidence. It is a mechanism. But the book does something the left finds equally uncomfortable. The younger voices did not experience the collapse as loss. They experienced it as liberation. The freedom to buy, to own, to accumulate. Two generations. Two irreconcilable definitions of freedom. The older one: freedom as the collective guarantee of a dignified life. The younger one: freedom as individual access to the market. Neither generation was wrong about what freedom meant to them. But only one of those definitions serves the people who already have everything. And that is the one that won. The Soviet Union did not arrive at Stalinism because Stalin was an exceptionally evil man. That explanation is comfortable because it locates the problem in an individual. History does not support that reading. The architecture that made Stalin possible was built before Stalin held any significant power. In 1921, Lenin faced a convergence of crises. The civil war had destroyed the economy. The peasantry was exhausted. International solidarity had not materialized. At the Tenth Party Congress he made two decisions that would define the Soviet project for the rest of its existence. The first was the New Economic Policy. A partial reintroduction of market mechanisms. It was pragmatic and it worked. The second was the resolution on party unity. It banned factions within the Bolshevik party. Presented as a temporary emergency measure. Never temporary. That same year, the sailors of Kronstadt rose up. These were not class enemies. They were the heroes of 1917 demanding more soviet democracy and genuine representation of the working class the revolution claimed to serve. Lenin crushed them militarily. Trotsky, who would later become the symbol of opposition to Stalinist authoritarianism, directed the repression. What happened in 1921 is not a story of betrayal. It is a story of a genuinely difficult situation producing decisions that were locally rational and historically catastrophic. Lenin was not building Stalinism. He was trying to survive a crisis. But the structure he built to survive it, a party without internal dissent, a revolution that had eliminated its own internal critics, was precisely the structure Stalin needed. The seed was not planted by a bad man. It was planted by a good man under impossible pressure. And a structure with no mechanism for self correction does not need a Stalin to become Stalinist. It just needs time. This pattern is not only history. It is also news. In 2021, Gabriel Boric was elected president of Chile on the back of the largest social uprising the country had seen since the return of democracy. The estallido of 2019 had put millions in the street demanding exactly what the older generation in Aleksiévich’s book had taken for granted. Dignity that was not purchased. Facing a hostile parliament, a media ecosystem controlled by two or three powerful economic groups, and a middle class frightened by a carefully constructed narrative of insecurity, Boric made concessions framed as political pragmatism. The most consequential was on security. His government supported legislation that criminalized forms of protest the estallido had used as its primary language. Lenin banned factions to survive a crisis. Boric criminalized protest to survive politically. Neither intended the consequences that followed. But intentions are not the unit of historical analysis. Structures are. The structure Boric built will outlast his government. The next administration, which arrived with 60 percent of the vote and a congressional majority, inherited a legal architecture already calibrated to suppress dissent. They did not need to build it. It was handed to them by the government the estallido produced. The population that should be in the street is not in the street. Not because they stopped wanting what they wanted in 2019. Precarious employment means you cannot risk your job to protest. Debt means you cannot afford the consequences of arrest. Exhaustion means there is no time for feelings. The system did not need to be brutal to win. It only needed to be patient and to have a little help from the people who were supposed to dismantle it. If the previous section is the diagnosis and Chile is the proof that the diagnosis is current, China is the most serious attempt at a response the socialist tradition has produced since 1917. And it is an incomplete one. Deng Xiaoping came to power having survived two purges. He had watched what happened when power concentrated without institutional limits. When he initiated reform and opening up in 1978 he was not abandoning the socialist project. He was trying to solve the problem Lenin’s 1921 decisions had left unresolved. Separate economic flexibility from political control. Allow markets to function as instruments of development while the party retained strategic direction. And crucially, institutionalize the succession of power. Limit terms. Build the mechanisms the Soviet party had explicitly prohibited in 1921. It worked for longer than any previous attempt. China’s development between 1978 and 2012 is the most sustained reduction of poverty in recorded history under a system that was neither capitalist nor Soviet. But the cycle closed. In 2018, Xi Jinping eliminated presidential term limits. The institutional constraints Deng had built precisely to prevent the concentration of power that destroyed the Soviet project were removed by a single constitutional amendment. Jack Ma criticised the financial regulatory system in 2020 and disappeared from public life for months. China proves something more hopeful and more sobering than either side wants to admit. More hopeful because it demonstrates that the socialist project can produce real human development at a scale no purely capitalist economy has matched. More sobering because it demonstrates that the institutional problem identified at Kronstadt in 1921 has not been solved. It has only been deferred. The destination keeps receding. Not because it is unreachable in principle. But because the road requires a vehicle that inevitably develops an interest in the journey never ending. There is a word that has been used as a weapon so effectively and for so long that recovering it requires a deliberate act of intellectual archaeology. Liberty. The older generation in Aleksiévich’s book understands liberty as the collective guarantee of a dignified life. The freedom to be sick without losing everything. The freedom to grow old without becoming a burden. The freedom to read and think on a janitor’s salary. A definition that locates freedom not in the absence of constraint but in the presence of real conditions that make a fully human life possible. The younger generation understands liberty as individual access to the market. The freedom to buy, to invest, to accumulate without the state redistributing what you earn. These are not two versions of the same idea. They are two irreconcilable conceptions of what a human life is for. The right understood this before the left did. The project was not to argue against the first definition. It was to make the second so naturalized that the first stopped being legible. That it began to sound not like an alternative conception of freedom but like dependency. Like weakness. In Chile the right speaks constantly of liberty. Liberty to choose your health provider. Liberty to choose your pension fund. What it never speaks of is the liberty to be poor and still live with dignity. Those liberties are not on the menu. They have been so thoroughly removed from the available political vocabulary that demanding them sounds radical when it is the most basic possible demand a human being can make. Every time a left wing government accepts the right’s definition of liberty as the framework for debate, it does not just lose the argument. It loses the language. A population that has internalized the market definition of liberty will experience collective guarantees not as rights but as handouts. Will vote against its own material interests not out of ignorance but out of a coherent if imposed value system. The exhausted population that is not in the street is not apathetic. It is fluent in a language it did not choose and cannot easily unlearn. That is a more complete form of defeat than any electoral result. The first article answered a question. Communism has not failed. It has never been tried. This article has tried to answer the harder one. Why not. The answer has two parts. The first is external. Every time a socialist project began to consolidate, it was dismantled from outside. Documented, declassified, beyond serious dispute. The second is internal. Every time a socialist project began to consolidate, it also began to reproduce the concentration of power it had set out to eliminate. The character of the people inside the structure is irrelevant. Saints and tyrants produce the same result when the structure has no institutional limits. Power without counterweights does not need bad intentions to become dangerous. It only needs time. Lenin knew this. And then in 1921, under genuine crisis, he built the architecture that made it inevitable anyway. China tells us the economic problem is solvable. And then tells us the institutional problem remains open. Chile tells us this is not ancient history. The question that remains is the one Marx left open and no socialist project has answered. - How do you build a world without concentrated power by using concentrated power to build it? - How do you construct a state designed to wither when states do not wither voluntarily? These are not rhetorical questions. They are the questions the communist project of the twenty first century has to answer before it can ask anything else of anyone. They cannot be answered by pointing at the enemy. They require looking at the road itself and asking honestly why it keeps arriving at the same place. The destination has not been proven impossible. It has been proven difficult in ways that require more honesty than the tradition has so far managed. That honesty is where the third article begins.

Read the full post on Substack.