From Marx’s Theory to 21st Century Syste

From Marx’s Theory to 21st Century Systems Or: What an Idea Has Become, How It Has Degenerated

A few decades ago, the son of my friend Misha found a badge at my place depicting the head of an orangutan. He looked at it and said: "Karlo Marlo." We burst out laughing. The child, then 3 or 4 years old, saw this in the image—undoubtedly influenced by his family environment. For him, a hairy head, similar to what he had seen on a few book-covers at home, could be none other than Karl Marx.

I often recall this memory, and with it, a thought that has occupied me for decades: how can Marxism, or Communism, be defined? Why has Marx’s idea become "Karlo Marlo" in the world’s common parlance? What have we come to—we, humanity! As I see it, we have arrived at the level of a four-year-old child—hooray!

Recently, stumbling upon Bertrand Russell's essay "Scylla and Charybdis, or Communism and Fascism" on the internet, the story of Misha's son came to mind again, and I decided to gather my thoughts on this matter.

Here they are!

Starting Point: Karl Marx’s Theory

Karl Marx did not work out a functioning theory of the state, nor did he write a "Communism Handbook." What he provided was a philosophy of history and economic analysis, not an execution program. The focus of his analysis was the internal contradictions of capitalism: class struggle, capital accumulation, exploitation, and the historical determination of production relations. In addition, Marx outlined a normative end state: a classless society, the withering away of the state (not its strengthening), and common ownership of the means of production.

What Marx did not define: a detailed description of a transitional political system, a party-state, secret police, a one-party system, or a practical model for a planned economy. For Marx, "Communism" appears as a historical tendency, not as an execution order, since dialectical theory is an open framework of thought that is critical and transcends itself.

Supplement to the above: The Communist Manifesto (and misunderstandings regarding it)

One of the most common misunderstandings regarding Marxism stems from the fact that many consider the text of the Communist Manifesto to be Marx's political "magnum opus," and some interpretations even read it as a call for dictatorship or the violent exercise of power.

This interpretation is historically and generically inaccurate. First: The Communist Manifesto is not a theoretical main work, but a political pamphlet. Its very title indicates its genre: a manifesto, the aim of which is not theoretical detailing but political mobilization. Its rhetoric is deliberately edgy, simplifying, and provocative, as it was born in a specific historical moment (during the revolutionary wave of 1848) and served the self-definition of a then-marginal movement.

The center of gravity of Marx's theoretical work is not found here, but in works such as Das Kapital, the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, or The German Ideology. It is in these that the dialectical, analytical thinking appears, which is Marx's true contribution to social theory. The Manifesto, by contrast, is not a theory of the state, not a governance plan, and certainly not a detailed description of a dictatorial establishment.

Second: The Communist Manifesto is not exclusively Marx's work. He wrote the text jointly with Friedrich Engels, and in several elements, it relies specifically on Engels' preparatory works. Engels' contribution to Marx's oeuvre was not merely co-authorship but of structural significance: he brought empirical experience regarding industrial capitalism (The Condition of the Working Class in England), financially supported Marx's work, enabling his theoretical deepening, and numerous conceptual and stylistic elements (especially the journalistic tone of the Manifesto) can be linked to Engels.

It is important to emphasize: neither Marx nor Engels developed a detailed dictatorial state model. The later concept of "proletarian dictatorship" was for Marx a transitional, historical category, not a normative ideal, and certainly not identical to the party-state dictatorship that was established in Marx's name in the 20th century. In summary: the Communist Manifesto does not call for dictatorship but condenses the essence of a historical-philosophical diagnosis into political language. The dictatorial practice did not follow from this text, but from later political reinterpretations that transformed Marxism from a theory into a technology of power. This distinction is fundamental to separating Marx's thinking from what was later committed in his name.

The Turn: Lenin (Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov)

Lenin transformed Marx’s theory into a political-technical program. This was not a mere mapping, but a radical reinterpretation. The decisive differences:

Vanguard Theory: Marx envisioned the self-liberation of the proletariat; Lenin envisioned a narrow, disciplined party elite leading the masses.
The Role of the State: Marx envisioned the withering away of the state; Lenin envisioned the strengthening of the state as a revolutionary tool.
Conditions for Revolution: Marx saw it in developed capitalism (Western Europe); Lenin saw it as feasible even in a backward agrarian country.

With this, Marxism-Leninism is born, which is an independent ideology, not a continuation of Marx’s teaching.

The Soviet System: Political Practice

The later Soviet leadership—especially Stalin—further instrumentalized "Marxist" concepts. The technique of power (party-state, terror, planned economy) definitively broke away from the Marxian final goal. In this system, "Communism" was a language of legitimation, an ideological cover story, not an emancipation project. The system became a self-sustaining bureaucracy.

Summary:

Historical communism is not a direct mapping of Marx’s theory, but a Leninist construction that utilized Marxian theses but subordinated them to a logic of political power. Marx wrote theory. Lenin made power technology out of it. The Soviet system spoke Marx’s language but did not follow Marx’s goals.

Bertrand Russell and the "Communism as Religion" Thesis

In his works The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism and Scylla and Charybdis, or Communism and Fascism, Russell analyzes in detail the Soviet Communist Party as a "church," Marx's writings as unquestionable revelations, and the lack of critical thinking among the faithful.

However, he conflated the Marxian world of ideas with the Soviet ideology developed at that time. Bertrand Russell's critique of totalitarianism was early and sharp, but his specific analogy regarding communism proved to be a conceptual error with long-term consequences. (Naturally, an analysis of fascism is not part of this writing, as the subject of my writing is the communism/communist label used as a brand.)

According to Bertrand Russell, communism is built on dogmas, proclaims unquestionable truths, separates heretics and believers, attributes moral superiority to its own followers, and promises a salvation history. This is a classic political religion model.

The question is not whether Russell is right, but which communism we are talking about. In contrast, Marx’s theory and method are analytical and critical, not revelatory, not built on moral myths, and do not refer to transcendent authority. For him, communism is not a moral reward, but a structural consequence. Marx was explicitly anti-religious ("religion is the opium of the people" – a diagnosis, not propaganda). Conclusion: Russell’s critique is excessive if applied to Marx’s original theory.

The Lenin–Soviet Practice in Russell’s Model

Here, Russell’s assertion applies with complete accuracy.

Religious Element -> Soviet Equivalent
Holy Text -> Canonized writings of Marx–Engels–Lenin
Priesthood -> Party leadership, ideologues
Heresy -> Deviation from the Party line
Inquisition -> Purges, Gulag
Salvation History -> The coming of Communism.

In this system, error is not a matter for correction, but a sin. Moral truth is not debatable, but designated. This is a kind of secular political religion.

Was There Ever a Communist Society in the Marxian Sense?

The Eastern European systems did not create either the true common ownership of the means of production or the cessation of classes; their operation was much more a bureaucratically centralized system.

Today’s "Communist" Systems

The political models of today's China, Cuba, and North Korea can be described as secular religions; this is the survival mechanism of 21st-century ideologies.

One of the most interesting phenomena of today's Chinese political system is not what it claims about itself, but what the outside world allows to be claimed about it.

Despite the Chinese establishment being communist in neither the Marxian nor the Stalinist sense, the name "Chinese Communist Party" is accepted almost reflexively by Western states, international organizations, and academic and media discourses, rarely questioned. This is not an intellectual error. This is functional silence.

The Word "Communist" as a Political Tool

The Strategic Value of the Pejorative Label In Western political language, the term "Communist" is a historically loaded, emotionally mobilizing, simplifying category. Therefore, it is an excellent external label. As long as China is "Communist": one does not have to describe exactly what it actually is, one does not have to face the fact that it is an effective authoritarian capitalism, and one does not have to create a new concept. The label allows for intellectual laziness and is politically convenient.

External Enemy – Internal Order The image of "Communist China" is a usable enemy image in Western politics and a usable identity image in Chinese domestic politics. This is a rare coincidence. Maintaining the label is in the interest of both parties; no one would gain if a more precise definition were born.

The Danger of Conceptual Clarification What would happen if the truth were spoken? If a state or leader were to openly declare: "China is not communist, but a one-party authoritarian capitalism," then several unpleasant consequences would follow: the Cold War language would collapse (new concepts would be needed), the system’s performance would be revalued (not as an ideological remnant, but as a competitive model), and it would hold an unpleasant mirror to the West (why does a non-democratic capitalism work effectively?). Therefore, accuracy is a political risk.

China’s Interest: Maintaining the Misunderstanding For China, the "Communist" label provides historical legitimacy (revolutionary continuity), internal disciplinary power (Party = History), and an external interference filter (no need to explain). Therefore, it does not refute, clarify, or update it. The misunderstanding is strategic stability. Final Statement: Communism here is no longer an ideology, but a role that everyone knows and no one wants to rewrite.

In the case of Cuba, dialectical thinking was historically present but has by now been exhausted. The contradictions (poverty, emigration, economic failure) are obvious but do not become the basis for theoretical or political correction. The system is unable to transcend its own failure, only to explain it. This is the freezing of dialectics: no progress, no negation, only repetition.

North Korea has nothing to do with Marx, even in a theoretical sense. There is no dialectics, no historical materialism, no class theory. The language of Marxism has completely disappeared, replaced by mythology.

Religious Element and its North Korean Equivalent:

God = Kim Dynasty
Holy Text = The Leader’s speeches
Heresy = Thoughtcrime
Salvation = Redemption of the nation
Transcendence = Immortality of the Leader

This is not an ideology, but a total belief system.

It can be stated: The more dialectical thinking disappears, the more the ideology becomes a religion. Marx’s theory does not live on in these systems. What remains is not communism, but the political religion described by Russell at various stages of development.

Just one more train of thought to add to what has been written so far. Perhaps I should have started with this, because the situation in today's world is becoming increasingly depressing – so:

The Use of "Communism" as a Modern Weapon

Introduction

In contemporary public discourse, the use of the adjective "communist" is widespread, yet it appears mostly not as a substantive definition, but as a negative qualification.

The function of the expression often ends at expressing rejection, suspicion, or moral stigmatization, regardless of whether the person, position, or proposal in question has any substantive connection to the historical theories or practices of communism. In this usage, "calling someone a communist" is not analysis, but a rhetorical tool: it does not explain, but closes off; it does not interpret, but excludes.

This rhetorical short-circuit builds decisively on the historical experience of the Soviet-type practice and 20th-century dictatorships. The meaning of the concept is determined retrospectively not by its theoretical content, but by the authoritarian operation of the Soviet Union and Eastern European state socialism.

It is as if political oppression, the party-state structure, and mass violations of rights were the necessary and exclusive consequences of "communism." This identification, however, does not explain but distorts: it blurs ideological theory, historical experiments, and their concrete power practices, while ignoring context, internal debates, and alternative interpretations.

In this way, the "communist" label becomes a deterrent sign built on the memory of dictatorship, activating emotional reflexes instead of rational deliberation. Consequently, the concept loses its descriptive and analytical function and transforms into a mere negative adjective that delegitimizes the addressed party before the debate even begins. This phenomenon is not an isolated linguistic distortion, but part of a broader discursive strategy in which historical concepts—especially "communism" and "liberalism"—operate as weapons in the service of political mobilization and enemy creation.

The conceptual confusion is not new: Marx himself, according to a famous anecdote, upon seeing how French "Marxists" were misinterpreting his teachings, told his son-in-law, Paul Lafargue: "Ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas marxiste" (What is certain is that I am not a Marxist). By this, he meant that Marxism is not a dogmatic belief system, but an method of analysis.

Historical concepts, if stripped of their context and simplified into moral caricatures, become effective tools for political mobilization and enemy creation. Bertrand Russell—regardless of his intentions—reinforced an interpretive pattern that increasingly turned into a weapon in later eras; this phenomenon is intentional conceptual sabotage. The aim of the method is not clarification, but the elimination of rationality by turning words from descriptive tools into stigmatizing badges.

The expression "communism" in contemporary authoritarian discourse is the most illustrative example of this technique, unfolding in three distinct steps:

Elimination of Historical Context: The term is systematically detached from Marx’s theories and social goals. The focus is placed on Soviet abuses and Cold War fear. The concept thus no longer signifies a theory, but a danger.
Moral Recoding: The "communist" political identity becomes a moral judgment: "anti-national," "irrational," "dangerous," "immoral." In this logic, criticism identifies not an error, but moral deviance.
Use as a Discursive Weapon: The goal is no longer to debate divergent viewpoints, but the denial of legitimate debate. The labeled actor is placed outside the political community: their views are not merely flawed, but illegitimate by origin.

Summary

Based on the above, it can be stated that in today's extremely polarized political environment, politicians and opinion leaders use once-weighty concepts as stigmatizing phrases. Those who do not possess adequate background knowledge easily get lost in this war of words and give credence to false claims. I hope that many will be able to interpret what has been written properly and, incorporating it into their thinking, pass these perspectives on.

Finally, since I am a proponent of dialectical thinking—and I am aware that there is no absolute truth—I welcome the observations of every doubting reader who formulates a counter-opinion.