[antiutopian]

Interesting article. I don't agree with a lot of it, one point I think is straightforward to respond to as a Marxist:

"Marxist interpretation of the 20th century is much more convincing in both its explanation of World War I (imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism) and fascism (an attempt by the weakened bourgeoise to thwart left-wing revolutions). But Marxist view is entirely powerless to explain 1989, the fall of communist regimes, and hence unable to provide any explanation for the role of communism in global history. The fall of communism, in a strict Marxist view of the world, is an abomination, as inexplicable as if a feudal society having had experienced a bourgeois revolution of rights were suddenly to “regress” and to reimpose serfdom and the tripartite class division. Marxism has therefore given up trying to provide an explanation for the 20th century history."

It's true that the dogma of the official communist parties has no explanation for this, but their theory degenerated and became distorted by the need to justify all the twists and turns of USSR foreign and domestic policy. A genuine Marxist view of the 20th century is that the world revolution began in 1917 in Russia, the "weakest link" of capitalism, but was not able to be completed in the industrial centers. There were a number of reasons for this, for example the growth of reformism in the German SPD, but the result is in reality a failed revolution that won a few outposts and held on to them for 70 years. As a useful example, the Paris Commune is another example of a failed revolution, although it only held out for a few months. It's not a Marxist view that a single country can "go socialist" in a world dominated by capitalism. So there was no "regression" back to capitalism.

[spaceheeder]

It's literally not possible for one economic system to simultaneously "take over" the entire planet, so if a socialist or communist revolution ever took place there would absolutely be a first single country or group of countries to "go socialist." The USSR and its allies were, at the time of their existence and the height of their influence, recognized as being fundamentally communist in nature by communist scholars. Whatever deviations from that ideal caused them to fail are no greater in magnitude (or relevance) than the deviations current nation-states have from capitalism that libertarians use to No-True-Scottsman actually-existing-capitalism.

If communism 2.0 is a better system and wouldn't fail for the same reasons that the USSR did, then talk about those differences. When talking about communism 1.0 (and the many, many socialists/communists living today who basically have not deviated from the mindsets of the revolutionaries of the past), drop the special pleading and take the L.

[claudiawerner]

> recognized as being fundamentally communist in nature by communist scholars

I'm familiar with that scholarship, and no, they weren't. The main reason being is that the USSR never claimed to be communist. The USSR based its ideology on Marx and Lenin, and Lenin invented this distinction, that "socialism" is a stage preceding communism, and communism is a stateless society (etc. etc. as Marx described it). The USSR claimed to be a union of socialist soviets. They used "socialist" in this sense.

By Communist party-affiliated scholars, there was some disagreement as to whether the USSR really was socialist. By academics in universities, there was more doubt cast on that.