Friedrich Engels once defined the state as “an instrument of oppression of one class over another.” This definition, given by Engels, a lifelong collaborator of Karl Marx and one of the references in the theoretical framework of the communist movement worldwide, has become so well-known and established that almost anyone with minimal knowledge of the left has read or heard of it. However, when we look at what leftist movements and parties around the world, including in Afghanistan – which frequently refer to Marx and Engels in theorizing about any issue to assert the legitimacy of their argument – it becomes clear that they not only haven’t attached much importance to Engels’ famous statement in practice but have established even more oppressive governments and spared no effort to preserve them. Marx and Engels, in this context, have been misused or misunderstood, often being seen more as victims than as accomplices in this regard. Marx, in particular, did not delve deeply into what he termed the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” leaving room for different interpretations and conflicting theories regarding the issue of the state. However, it can be confidently stated that Marx was an irreconcilable opponent of the state and never advocated for the establishment of regimes akin to those formed in the Soviet Union and China.
Even from his very concise remarks in the “Critique of the Gotha Programme,” it’s evident that Marx only refers to “a transitional political phase” out of necessity. He not only didn’t advocate for the creation of an overarching repressive state that would control all aspects of citizens’ lives and leave no room for the growth and institutionalization of democracy but harbored a clear and profound hostility towards such political regimes. Fundamentally, Marx and Engels’ political project was anti-state rather than statist. They advocated for the swift abolition of the state in favor of establishing a self-governing and horizontal society. With this brief explanation, I aim to address a more historical and specific question: why did leftist movements and political parties, despite their strange reverence for Marx and Engels, resort to creating repressive states contrary to the teachings of their major theoretical references? And if we were to focus on Afghanistan, why did the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), which seized power with unwavering support from the Soviet Union, not only fail to contribute to the growth and flourishing of leftist politics but instead became a source of infamy and ultimately led to the collapse of the leftist project altogether?
After the deaths of Marx and Engels, the responsibility for interpreting the thoughts and beliefs of these two great thinkers fell into the hands of those it shouldn’t have. They never predicted that a proletarian revolution would occur in Russia or China. Marx and Engels only considered some European countries as conditions ripe for the emergence of a proletarian revolution; countries where industrial capitalism had reached a stage of growth and development conducive to communist transformation. However, contrary to the predictions of these two radical thinkers, the workers’ revolution in Russia, a less developed country compared to Europe, took place. The Russian Communists, who were deeply embroiled in the leadership of this great historical transformation and faced with economic crises, were forced to develop new and even contradictory theories to Marx and Engels’ views, given the conditions of Russia at the time. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the leader of the Russian Communists, attempted to theorize the circumstances of his country and the challenges in a way that justified the necessity of maintaining the state. It seemed there was no other solution.
There was no longer any talk of the “transitional political phase” that Marx had in mind. The “workers’ state” was established to endure and build socialism, but this socialism differed significantly from what Marx and Engels had envisioned. The crises that arose after the victory of the October Revolution in 1917, including the civil war ignited by European countries, left Lenin and Trotsky with no choice but to resort to policies of repression and intimidation to preserve what they called the “dictatorship of the proletariat” – which was essentially a party dictatorship. However, what made the tragedy deeper and more enduring was the death of Lenin. He led one of the greatest and most influential revolutions in world history in very exceptional and pivotal times. However, in very sensitive and critical circumstances, when Stalin took control and was just beginning to take the first steps to undermine the achievements of the October Revolution, Lenin passed away. With Lenin’s death, the communist project, which he staunchly defended, also fell into competition with Stalinism, which was seizing control of the Communist Party.
Stalin, by launching symbolic trials and systematically purging all of Lenin’s comrades – those who played a much greater role than Stalin himself in the victory of the October Revolution – on baseless charges of betrayal of the revolution, removed them and established an absolute dictatorship that bore no resemblance to what Marx and Lenin had envisioned. This tragedy, however, became a model for all the movements and parties that considered themselves communist: that it is permissible to commit any crime to preserve the desired state. Statism had become the primary policy of leftist parties, which, of course, cannot solely be blamed on Stalin. Even before Stalinism’s rise to power within the Soviet Communist Party, statism was considered one of the important tasks of the Communists. What distinguishes Stalin is that he turned statism into the absolute and central goal of the Communists and was even willing to assassinate all the Communists to preserve his desired state. Here is where Stalin is recognized as the main culprit in the failure of the liberating politics that Lenin and Trotsky supported.
Now, looking at the case of Afghanistan, when the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan seized power through a coup rather than a revolution, it implemented policies of repression and intimidation to maintain itself in power as long as it could. The massacres and the regime’s terror tactics under the rule of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan had long been compared to Stalinism and continued to be prevalent and pervasive. The massacre of leftists was part of the daily routine of the People’s Democratic Party in Afghanistan, just as one of Stalin’s main daily tasks in the Soviet Union was managing communist purges.
In the end, neither Stalinism nor the People’s Democratic Party, its Afghan version, could last long in the political arena. The Afghan version of Stalinism collapsed much sooner than its Russian counterpart, which resulted in the complete collapse of the entire leftist project. Therefore, one of the main factors contributing to the failure of leftist politics is its statism; a challenge that Russian-Chinese Marxism tried hard to overcome, but ultimately this challenge dealt the final blow to real socialism in the Soviet Union and its mercenary states in other countries, including Afghanistan.
This experience teaches us that when leftist political parties come to power, they lose their vitality and dynamism and instead transform into repressive and criminal forces. Statism is a sign of the crisis of the left. When the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan gained governmental power, it began to disintegrate from the very beginning. Statism is not a sign of the left’s victory; it is a sign of its downfall. Stalinism in governance employs the same logic that fascism employs at its worst and liberalism at its best: maximum repression to control the people. However, if situations don’t align with their desires, people will resort to rebellion and resistance.
The state-centric left has reached its end. No more useful experience than the collapse of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan proves this claim. We must present a fresh interpretation of the left, and one of these interpretations could be that the left necessarily and inevitably must be anti-state. Even a temporary government, as experience has shown, becomes permanent and enduring and has no alternative other than repression to survive. If the left wants to remain vibrant and alive, it must be anti-state. This is not a utopian or theoretical statement. We have copied capitalism in all aspects and engaged in politics similar to it, so much so that we have forgotten that there is a completely distinct and different kind of politics specific to leftist thinking, which unfortunately has been neglected, abandoned, and even vilified by the elder left. This politics, which arises from empowerment, teaches us that genuine and liberating politics is not vertical, representative, or state-centric; it is the opposite: anti-state, horizontal, self-sustaining, and based on absolute democracy.
[1]. Marx, Karl. (n.d.). Critique of the Gotha Program, translated by A.M., Tehran: Pazhwak Publications, p. 33.
[2]. The failure of the project of the Democratic People’s Party of Afghanistan does not solely involve the left aligned with the Soviet Union but also encompasses Maoist and anti-imperialist factions. While they stood opposed to the Democratic People’s Party and had no significant role in its negative track record, the irony lies in the fact that with the collapse of the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan – shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union itself – the leftist anti-imperialist project also suffered a catastrophic failure. Following the downfall of the last leader of the Democratic People’s Party, essentially the entire leftist project collapsed, and the involvement of Maoist organizations in the Soviet-American war, referred to as the “national resistance war,” resulted only in isolation and complete alienation of the left.
You can read the Persian version of this analysis here:
بحران چپ؛ چرا دولتگرایی به شکست سیاست رهاییبخش میانجامد؟