Communism and Individual Freedoms
Do Communists Care About Individual Freedoms?
This article began as a reply that became too long. I wanted to address a challenge to my previous article about the dangers of both left-wing and right-wing extremism.
Rebecca made a point that I found worth responding to:
Ultimately, one of the fundamental differences between liberal democracy and communism is the emphasis on individual rights and freedoms. Liberal democracies, at least in principle, protect personal freedoms and encourage pluralism—though they may fall short in practice. Communism, as historically implemented, has often allowed totalitarian governments to intervene in virtually every aspect of life indefinitely, subordinating individual liberty to a perceived “collective” good.
Defining Socialism and Communism
Before diving into the debate, it's important to clarify terminology. Socialism has historically had two branches: social democracy and communism.
Social democrats advocate for achieving socialism through gradual reforms within a democratic system.
Communists believe in more radical means, such as armed revolution, to bring about a rapid transformation of society.
Despite differences in approach, both social democrats and communists aim for a democratic socialist society. The real debate is not about whether socialism is democratic but rather about how to reach that goal.
The Role of Historical Traditions in Totalitarianism
A key issue with Rebecca’s argument is that it attributes the suppression of individual freedoms in communist states to communism itself, rather than to the historical and political traditions of those countries.
Russia and China, before their communist revolutions, were deeply authoritarian societies. The oppressive governance seen in these countries under communism was not a communist invention—it was an extension of their long-standing political traditions.
Take Russia as an example. It is no longer communist, yet it still exhibits disregard for individual rights. The continuity of oppression suggests that ideology alone does not explain the persistence of authoritarianism. Instead, centuries of extreme brutality—going back to the Mongol rule of the Golden Horde—shaped Russia's political culture long before communism emerged.
America's Misconception of National Transformation
Americans often view nations as blank slates, as if writing a new constitution is enough to make a country democratic overnight (I just mention America as my readers are so often approaching this from an American perspective). This belief aligns with American mythology: the U.S. revolted, drafted an enlightened constitution, and became a beacon of democracy. However, the reality is more complex.
America inherited most of its institutions and values from the most democratic countries in Europe at the time.
Dutch Influence: New York, a major center of American culture and politics, was influenced by Dutch traditions, which emphasized liberty and religious freedom.
British Influence: Britain had a parliamentary system dating back to the Magna Carta, and local elections were common in the American colonies.
Contrast this with Russia, where serfdom persisted until the late 19th century, essentially keeping the majority of the population as slaves. Economic and political stagnation persisted for centuries before the Soviet Union. When communists took over, they inherited a deeply oppressive system and a vastly underdeveloped society.
Soviet Communism: Context Matters
The Soviet Union is often used as proof that communism inherently leads to tyranny. However, this ignores the country's starting conditions.
Pre-Soviet Russia was an overwhelmingly poor, illiterate peasant society with almost no economic development.
The USSR endured massive destruction in World War II, with tens of millions killed, yet still managed to industrialize and send a man into space within a few decades.
The Soviet government, despite its authoritarianism, vastly improved literacy, scientific research, and industrial capacity compared to what existed before.
Was the USSR a model of personal freedom? No. But compared to Tsarist Russia, it arguably provided better protections and opportunities for ordinary people. In contrast, democratic nations like Norway had more benign histories, with less oppression and more economic stability, making them better suited for gradual democratic socialist reforms.
The Nordic Model as a Better Example of Socialism
If we want to understand how socialism functions in modern democracies, we should look at the Nordic countries rather than the USSR.
Norway and its neighbors have had socialist-led governments for over 70 years.
These countries maintain strong protections for individual rights, arguably better than those in the United States.
Unlike the Soviet model, Nordic socialism operates within a framework of democracy, civil liberties, and market economies with strong welfare states.
Conclusion
The claim that communism inevitably leads to the suppression of individual rights oversimplifies history. Authoritarianism in communist states often reflects pre-existing political traditions rather than the ideological principles of communism itself. Meanwhile, democratic socialist countries like Norway demonstrate that socialism can coexist with strong personal freedoms. If we want to understand socialism’s impact on individual rights, we should look to modern, democratic examples rather than authoritarian regimes shaped by centuries of oppression.
I should clarify since this point is often misunderstood: Norway is a mixed economy, not an actual socialist state. No country has ever been socialist. Plenty have called themselves socialist, just as North Korea calls itself democratic. Such labels were little but propaganda.
So when I talk about socialism and individual freedom in a Norwegian context I am referring to the fact that a government made up of socialists never undermined democracy or individual freedom.
And frankly I think the idea of socialism is as a well defined end state is silly. We are beyond that today. Modern socialist parties, such as SV in Norway, describe socialism as a direction rather than a destination.
I actually think that is how we should see most ideologies. They are just a way to say what we want more of and what we want less of.
I have never read anything sensible that starts with “fundamental difference” so far. This includes the comment that sparked this article. Liberal democracies—which, whatever that means, might now be considered the biggest sham ever known—are evaluated based on the promises they make in theory, while what they face is measured by lived experiences—even though the person using these experiences as tools usually hasn’t directly experienced them. Don’t these liberal democracies, whose true nature remains unclear, have any real-world counterpart? Or do those writing this hold a kindergarten-level logic that nothing negative about liberalism can be linked to it if there is any good liberalism at all?
By the way - we know Nazi counts bc they lost the war.