Could Communism Have Worked If Authoritarianism Was Temporary?
Even without authoritarianism, communism would have failed due to its structural flaws. Progress depends on leadership, incentives, and competition—none of which collectivism fosters.
1. Introduction: The Core Question
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the failure of 20th-century communist states have been widely attributed to authoritarianism. The usual explanation goes like this: Marx envisioned a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat to dismantle capitalist structures, after which the state would naturally wither away, leaving behind a harmonious, stateless utopia. But in reality, the dictatorship never ended, and communist regimes hardened into rigid authoritarian structures that stifled progress, crushed dissent, and ultimately led to economic and social stagnation.
This raises a fundamental question:
🛑 Was authoritarianism the reason communism failed, or was communism doomed from the start—regardless of how much repression was used?
Most arguments against communism focus on the excesses of totalitarian rule—the purges, the forced labor camps, the mass surveillance. But what if we removed those factors? What if communist governments had truly transitioned away from authoritarianism, evolving into a democratic, self-governing system where workers truly controlled production?
Would communism have thrived in that scenario, or would it still have failed?
The conclusion I will argue here is that even if communist regimes had eliminated fear-based control, the system itself would have stagnated and collapsed for a different reason: the absence of individualism as a driving force of progress.
🔹 Key claim:
The failure of communism was not just about dictatorship; it was about a deep flaw in the system’s assumptions about human nature. A society without strong individual incentives lacks the ability to:
Create innovation.
Adapt to changing conditions.
Encourage leadership and initiative.
Even in the best-case scenario—where communism functioned without terror and repression—it would still have failed to develop a dynamic, forward-moving society because progress depends on individual ambition, and communism inherently suppresses it.
Why This Question Matters Today
At first glance, this might seem like a historical debate—relevant only for scholars dissecting the fall of the Soviet Union. But in reality, this question is highly relevant to modern economic and political theory:
Could a future form of socialism work?
Can a society be truly collective without stagnating?
Is individualism necessary for economic and technological progress?
Some theorists argue that with modern technology, AI-driven planning, and new governance models, a more refined version of socialism could work. But if we look at history, we see that even in non-authoritarian socialist experiments, the lack of strong personal incentives has consistently led to inefficiency, corruption, and stagnation.
This essay explores the alternative history of what could have happened if communism had truly transitioned into a non-authoritarian system. Would it have worked, or was it doomed from the start?
2. Could Communism Have Transitioned into a Non-Authoritarian System?
The Marxist Theory vs. Reality
Marxist thought was deliberately vague on the practical details of transitioning from capitalism to communism. The theory rested on two key assumptions:
Once capitalism collapsed, a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat would be necessary to suppress the old ruling class and restructure the economy.
Over time, as class divisions disappeared, the need for the state itself would vanish, leaving behind a cooperative society where people worked freely for the common good.
Marx left one enormous question unanswered: What force would drive this transition forward?
In capitalism, the incentive for progress is competition—companies and individuals innovate because they want to outperform others and gain rewards.
In communism, with no competition, what motivates progress?
Marx believed that workers, freed from capitalist exploitation, would naturally become creative, industrious, and collectively motivated. But history tells a different story: when responsibility is shared equally among everyone, it often becomes no one’s responsibility at all.
Could Leadership and Initiative Have Emerged Without Fear?
One of the strongest arguments against authoritarianism is that it kills leadership and initiative. In the Soviet Union, for example:
The best scientists and thinkers were often silenced or imprisoned if their ideas challenged the official ideology.
Workers were punished for showing too much independence, as this was seen as a threat to the Party’s control.
Entrepreneurship was banned outright, meaning any attempt to innovate outside of state control was illegal.
In a non-authoritarian communist system, this repression wouldn’t exist. People wouldn’t fear taking initiative. But would that have actually led to more progress, or would people still have lacked motivation?
🔹 Research Insight:
Studies on post-communist societies show that even after decades of repression ended, people were slow to develop leadership instincts and initiative (Marková, 1997).
The reason? Generations of centralized control had conditioned people to expect decisions to be made from above, rather than taking responsibility themselves.
This suggests that even if fear had been removed, the habit of waiting for collective approval before acting would have slowed progress to a crawl.
The Collectivism Paradox: Why Shared Ownership Kills Innovation
Communism assumes that because workers collectively own production, they will be naturally motivated to improve it. But ownership without competition is meaningless.
Think about this:
If everyone in a workplace is paid the same, regardless of effort, what drives someone to work harder?
If innovation benefits the entire group equally, but risks fall on the individual, what incentive does anyone have to take risks?
🔹 Historical Example: The Soviet Science Dilemma
The USSR made enormous scientific advances in military and space technology—but these were directed by the state with clear goals and rewards.
In contrast, consumer technology, medicine, and industrial efficiency lagged far behind. Why? Because these sectors relied on individual initiative and creativity, which were absent in a collectivist system.
Without a system that rewarded innovation, progress slowed.
Could Decentralized Decision-Making Have Worked?
A common argument in favor of non-authoritarian communism is that centralized state planning was the problem—not communism itself. Some theorists suggest that a decentralized, cooperative form of communism—where local worker councils ran their own industries—could have functioned efficiently.
But this leads to another paradox:
If local communities controlled their own resources, how would large-scale industries be managed?
Who would resolve disputes between groups with conflicting interests?
Without some form of hierarchy, how would decisions be made efficiently at a national scale?
🔹 Research Insight:
Decentralized governance experiments (such as the Yugoslav worker self-management model) struggled because without a clear chain of command, coordination between industries collapsed (Bova, 1995).
This suggests that even in a non-authoritarian communist system, decentralization alone wouldn’t have been enough—a governing body would still have been needed, reintroducing some form of hierarchy.
3. The Structural Flaws of a Leaderless System
Even if the dictatorship of the proletariat had truly been temporary and communism had transitioned into a non-authoritarian system, there remains a deeper issue: without clear leadership structures and individual incentives, how would a society function effectively? The failure of 20th-century communist states was not just about repression—it was about the structural impossibility of a collectivist system scaling up without stagnation.
To explore this, let’s examine the three core structural flaws that made a transition to a truly functional communist society impossible, even under ideal conditions.
1. The Paradox of Collective Ownership: When Everyone Owns Everything, No One Owns Anything
One of the most fundamental assumptions of communism is that collective ownership of resources and production would ensure fairness and equality. But in practice, it created an unexpected paradox: without private ownership or personal accountability, incentives disappeared.
Consider how humans behave in shared-resource environments:
Tragedy of the Commons: When a resource is shared by everyone, individuals have no direct responsibility for maintaining it. Overuse and neglect occur unless strong social incentives or external enforcement mechanisms exist.
Diffusion of Responsibility: If everyone is equally in charge, then no one feels a personal stake in taking initiative. In capitalist societies, individuals are rewarded for solving problems—in communism, innovation is often viewed as a collective duty with no personal upside.
🔹 Research Insight:
Studies show that economic productivity is closely linked to personal incentives (Bova, 1995).
Even when resources are shared equally, people tend to contribute less unless there is a clear mechanism for rewarding effort (Halman & Sieben, 2014).
This means that even in a non-authoritarian communist society, productivity and innovation would likely have been lower than in competitive systems.
📌 Key Question: If workers are not directly rewarded for their individual contributions, what drives motivation?
2. The Lack of a Natural Leadership Selection Process
Leadership in capitalist societies is largely self-selecting: entrepreneurs, business leaders, and political figures emerge naturally because people with ambition, intelligence, and drive have incentives to take risks.
In contrast, a pure collectivist system removes those selection mechanisms, meaning:
There is no clear way to identify and empower competent leaders, since personal ambition is discouraged.
Leadership becomes more bureaucratic, since decisions are made by committees rather than dynamic individuals.
Without competition, ineffective leaders face no pressure to improve or step aside.
🔹 Historical Example: The Soviet Leadership Crisis
One of the biggest problems in the USSR was the absence of strong leadership after Stalin.
Instead of competitive elections or meritocratic promotion, the Party bureaucracy stagnated, with uninspiring, risk-averse leaders like Brezhnev ensuring stability at the cost of progress.
If the USSR had transitioned to a non-authoritarian system, who would have led it? The very nature of communism discouraged the emergence of bold, decisive leaders.
📌 Key Question: Can a society function without strong leadership, or does collectivism inherently create bureaucratic stagnation?
3. The Lack of a Mechanism for Adaptation and Change
Capitalism has a built-in feedback loop:
Bad companies fail; good companies succeed.
Inefficient industries are replaced by more productive ones.
Leaders who make bad decisions lose power; those who make good decisions gain influence.
A communist system—even without authoritarianism—lacks this adaptive mechanism.
🔹 Research Insight:
Adaptive governance models like China’s hybrid market-socialist system succeeded because they incorporated market-based competition, while fully planned economies failed due to rigidity (Tismăneanu, 2013).
This suggests that even if communism had transitioned away from dictatorship, it would have struggled to evolve—because without a natural mechanism for weeding out inefficiencies, stagnation was inevitable.
📌 Key Question: Can a society progress without competition and adaptation?
4. Conclusion: Could Communism Have Ever Worked?
The Best-Case Scenario
Let’s imagine the ideal case:
The dictatorship of the proletariat ends within a decade.
Workers truly own and control production.
Fear, repression, and surveillance are eliminated.
Would communism have succeeded in this world?
At first, yes. Without oppression, people might have been more engaged, more willing to lead, and more open to collaboration. But over time, the system would still have suffered from:
Lack of personal incentives → Productivity and innovation decline.
Lack of strong leadership selection → Decision-making becomes bureaucratic and inefficient.
Lack of adaptive mechanisms → The system stagnates rather than evolving.
This means that even in the best possible version of history, communism still fails—not because of repression, but because of its structural flaws.
The Final Verdict: Why Individualism is Essential
The great irony of communism is that it sought to eliminate individualism, yet individualism is precisely what makes societies thrive.
🔹 Three reasons why individualism is necessary for progress:
Creativity and innovation require personal incentives.
Leadership and initiative emerge naturally when ambition is rewarded.
Adaptive, evolving systems only work when inefficient ideas can be discarded and replaced.
Even without authoritarianism, a purely collective society would still have stagnated because it lacked these forces.
📌 Final Answer: Could communism have worked without dictatorship? No. It would still have collapsed—not from repression, but from stagnation.
The lesson? Any future attempt at a post-capitalist system must incorporate individual incentives—because without them, human societies cannot evolve.
 | A guest post by
|