The 21st century “polycrisis – defined as the mutually reinforcing crises of climate collapse, rising fascism and extreme inequality – often renders the fight or a better future futile. What makes the polycrisis especially disheartening is that, as argued by Jayasuriya (2023), it is the result of the fundamental contradictions of capitalism between social reproduction and capital accumulation, meaning that the crisis is baked into the structural framework of the neoliberal world order (pp. 2, 5). Consequently, any attempts to solve these crises that remain within the neoliberal capitalist framework often fail, or only provide temporary relief, and these failures are reflected in the rise of “authoritarian statism” as an attempt to solve the crises through illiberal and authoritarian policies (Jayasuriya, 2023, p. 5). Yet the prevailing narrative insists no alternatives exist besides totalitarianism or utopian fantasy. This paper will attempt to prove the contrary, that communism is not only a viable alternative to the neoliberal polycrisis, but also essential for expanding human freedoms and agency by framing communism through Soren Mau’s definition – not as a utopian ideal of the “good life”, but the “effort to establish institutions that can ensure the highest possible degree of individual freedom and democratic control over those aspects of human life that are, necessarily, shared by the members of society” (2023). Marx’s Crisis Theory and Lenin’s Imperialism will be used to demonstrate how democracy and capitalism do not go hand in hand and that capital accumulation drives inequality and is antithetical to human freedoms. Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto and Weber’s Socialism will then be deployed to illustrate communism’s emancipatory potential. Finally, De Gouges’ Declaration and Mill’s On Liberty will demonstrate how the above definition of communism fits within the broader movements for freedom and equality.
In order to understand the need for communism to extend the limits of human agency and democracy, capitalism’s inherent conflict against freedom and equality must be shown. As the founding figure of the broader communist movement, Marx offers one of the most comprehensive explanations of the fundamental contradictions that exist within capitalism and which produce inequality. The profit motive that exists as the basis of the capitalist mode of production necessarily comes into conflict with the social reproduction of the workers because profits can only be realized through the exploitation of the workers’ surplus value (Marx, 1863/1978, p. 464). Therefore, herein lies capitalism’s fundamental flaw: you cannot make a profit without the extraction of surplus value from the workers, but this extraction conflicts with the need for workers to sustain their own livelihoods and reproduce for the continuation of profits to be made. This demonstrates capitalism’s inherent inequality: owners control workers’ livelihoods by exploiting their surplus value for profit. Workers are thus confined to wages set by their employers and must buy commodities at prices also set by them, a system designed for profit, not for “satisfying the personal needs of its owner” (ibid.). In Lenin’s Imperialism, he expands upon Marx’s analysis of the inherent oppressiveness of capitalism by illustrating how capitalism’s profit motive leads to the concentration of capital into monopolies, taking further economic control away from the working class creators of value, and into smaller and smaller hands of the wealthiest oligarchs (1917/2019, pp. 20-21). Lenin’s analysis demonstrates that although capitalism is driving the socialization of labour and the collective work of the proletariat to produce commodities, the value produced remains the private property of fewer and fewer people as competition drives the formation of monopolies and the concentration of surplus wealth in the hands of fewer. The inequality here is apparent – although the direct producers are creating wealth from their labour, because of the inherent inequalities of capitalism, it is not only the owners of the means of production that in fact exploit the wealth from their labour which drives inequality, but the competition between owners for more wealth that results in economic power being centralized in fewer hands.
Building off of the inherent contradiction and inequalities within capitalism, the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels and Weber’s critique of state-socialism in Socialism illustrate and support the the emancipatory potential of communism to rid society of the class exploitation and oppression. The Communist Manifesto is not only a continuation of Marx’s earlier critiques of capitalism, it is a complete revolutionary guide that acts as the basis for communist thought. Marx and Engels argue that in order for the exploited masses to gain emancipation from the exploitation of their labour, they must revolt against, “the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms,” forming a new society where, “we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” (Marx & Engels, 1848/1978, p.). This framing by Marx and Engels demonstrates how communism at its core is meant to be an emancipating step in human evolution. Serving as the source for Mau’s own conception of communism, Marx and Engels present communism not as what it has come to mean in the 21st century after the experience of actually existing socialist states and anti-communist propaganda, but as it means in its truest definition: the progression of society past the capitalist period of mass inequality and oppression and into a stage of human civilization that prioritizes freedom and liberty over profit incentives and wealth accumulation.
Moreover, although Weber criticizes the effectiveness of socialism in ridding society of class antagonisms and exploitation, his critique in fact reflects a true understanding of communism as Marx and Engels’ intended and reflects Mau’s view of communism as an expansion of freedoms. This can be seen through Weber’s critique of the experience of actually existing socialist (AES) states which, as he correctly predicted, would not move past class exploitation, but would continue the extraction of surplus labour from direct producers by a new class of bureaucrats within the massively expanded bureaucracy (1918/1967, p. 22). Weber even goes as far as to suggest an alternative to this state-socialism which would define the AES experience in the 20th and 21st centuries, presenting a socialism wherein the direct producers create organizations produce not what is driven by a profit motive, but is needed by the state, or more broadly, what is needed by the people themselves (1918/1967, pp. 22-23). Weber thus, through his critique of the continuation of class antagonisms under state-socialism, ends up supporting Marx and Engels’ writings and by consequence Mau’s conception of communism, because it is only the through the emancipation of the working class from their exploitation – weather that be by the bourgeoisie under capitalism or a class of bureaucrats under state-socialism – that communism can actually succeed as an alternative to the oppression and inequalities inherent to capitalism.
Finally, by analyzing the intersectionality between communism and the struggle for liberty and freedom, Soren Mau’s definition of communism can be seen as the logical progression from De Gouges’ Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen and Mill’s On Liberty. In De Gouges’ Declaration, she argues that the emancipation of women from the domination of men requires the destruction of the prevailing institutional inequalities in order to be free from oppression. De Gouges stresses this point in her 16th article wherein she explains that a society that does not guarantee the rights of all members within it, its constitution is invalid because the majority of society must take part in its creation (1791/2016, p. 51). This democratic principle fits impeccably within Mau’s framework De Gouges identifies that without the masses’ participation in political decisions, structural inequalities and the disrespect of rights will necessarily persist. This also echoes the themes presented by Marx and Engels, which form the basis for Soren Mau’s communism, as she addresses the need for the whole of society to have agency and self-determination over their own livelihoods in order to protect their inalienable rights, which goes hand in hand with the notion of class antagonisms between the few bourgeoisie and many proletariat and the call for the emancipation of class exploitation in order to create a less unequal society in the Communist Manifesto.
Mill’s On Liberty continues to fit within Mau’s communist framework. Mill’s harm principle can be applied very congruently with the emancipatory potential of communism as explained by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Weber and further Mau. By arguing that a person should have the liberty to do anything they please, except to inflict harm upon others, Mill is in a position not far from the idea espoused by Mau’s communism of democratic control over the parts of the human experience that are shared by members of a society. Mill explains that the infringing upon the rights of others and by doing harm against them is a morally reprehensible action because it strips the victim of their duty to themselves of self-respect and self-development (1859/2008, p. 87). Thus, with this understanding of the harm principle, does communism not fit within its confines? If communism is to be understood as the increase of democratic control over the aspects of human life which are shared by a community, this goes hand in hand with the idea of not infringing upon an individual’s right to self-determination because it replaces private control, which inherently harms through exploitation, with democratic control, which requires the collective consent of all. Following this, it can be argued that capitalism breaks the harm principle because it removes the inalienable right of a person’s agency over their own development as a human through the exploitation of labour as explained by Marx and Engels (1848/1978). Therefore, in the arguments for human liberation from oppression presented by De Gouges and Mill, Mau’s communism proves to be an encompassing movement for the progression towards a society in which humans are able to experience the most democracy and freedom.
The inherent contradictions of capitalism have produced the polycrisis, marking a fundamentally flawed system. These crises are not temporary failures, but signs of a dead end requiring an alternative. This paper has argued that Soren Mau’s definition of communism – as the effort to establish institutions that maximize individual freedoms through democratic control of the collective aspects of humanity – is not only a viable alternative, but one that is necessary. Through Marx and Lenin, it has been demonstrated how the inherent structure of capitalism acts against genuine democracy and equality through the exploitation of labour and centralization of power in few hands. Through Marx, Engels, and a nuanced reading of Weber, this paper has demonstrated communism’s emancipatory potential to create a society that prioritizes the democratization of the human experience rather than oppressive bureaucratic control. Finally, in placing this vision in dialogue with De Gouges and Mill, communism can be seen as the logical continuation and culmination of the historical struggle for liberty. The choice, therefore, is not between capitalism and totalitarianism, but between a failing system that produces crisis and a democratic, collective control over the shared human existence. Communism, as defined by Mau, is thus not rooted in a utopian fantasy, but is the practical alternative needed to solve the crises inherent to our current system.
De Gouges, O. (2016). Olympe de Gouges (1748-1793), Declaration of the Rights of Women and the Female Citizen, 1791. In C. Warman (Ed.), Tolerance: The Beacon of the Enlightenment. Open Book Publishers. (Original work published 1791).
Jayasuriya, K. (2023). Polycrisis or crises of capitalist social reproduction. Global Social Challenges Journal 2(2): 203-211. https://doi.org/10.1332/KNJY6381.
Lenin, V. I. (with Woods, A.). (2019). Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Wellred Books. (Original work published 1916).
Marx, K. (1978). Crisis Theory. In R. C. Tucker (Ed.), The Marx-Engels Reader (pp. 443-465). W. W. Norton & Company. (Original work published 1863).
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1978). Manifesto of the Communist Party. In R. C. Tucker (Ed.), The Marx-Engels Reader (pp. 469-500). W. W. Norton & Company. (Original work published 1848).
Mau, S. (2023, July 18). Communism is Freedom. Verso Books. https://www.versobooks.com/en-ca/blogs/news/communism-is-freedom.
Mill, J. S. (2008). On Liberty. In J. Gray (Ed.), On Liberty and Other Essays (pp. 1-128). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1859).
Weber, M. (with Dickie-Clark, H. F.). (1967). Socialism. Durban. (Original work published in 1918).