(Thanks to David McMullen for permission to share this. I recommend his substack ‘David’s Political Substack‘)
Platypus Review 187 | June 2026
WHEN A RADICAL LEFT worth its salt eventually sees the light of day, one of its tasks will be to put up a strong case against the prevailing belief that communism has gone to a well-deserved grave. The narrative that it was an inherently flawed project will have to be matched by a tale of unfavorable terrain, ill-equipped forces, and treacherous commanders — and how future class contests will take place on ground far better prepared by capitalism, with the benefit of past lessons learned. This article aims to be a modest contribution to this effort.
The reversion to capitalism by the “socialist camp” was certainly an eye-opener. It laid bare the fact that society had not undergone a fundamental transformation in the relations of production and the social superstructure. There was nothing comparable to the way capitalism had made itself immune to a relapse into feudalism or something similar.
What was particularly remarkable was the lack of interest in carrying out this task, with the rulers who emerged leading the way in this respect. Instead, what we saw was the development of a system which possessed a dubious veneer of “socialism” but in fact made capitalism look good in comparison. Socialism was lipstick on a pig.
The political cover for this counter-revolution was what has been called the theory of the productive forces. According to this thinking, “communist man” would magically appear sometime down the track simply by achieving a sufficiently high level of economic development. This was wrong on two levels. Firstly, no amount of economic development will in itself transform a society where the “intelligentsia” pursues pelf and place, and the rank-and-file masses have turned apathy into an art form. Secondly, this kind of behavior, to which capitalism is much better adapted, becomes an increasingly serious drag on production in a socially owned economy where a very different spirit is required. With a return to revolution ruled out by the lack of a revolutionary working class — and by security forces ready to crush it if there had been one — capitalism was the only response to the malaise.
In the early 1990s, the leadership in the Soviet Union abandoned all pretense and introduced a klepto-mafia variant of capitalism. Not long before, the regimes in Eastern Europe had collapsed as soon as Gorbachev had made it clear that he would not militarily intervene to prop them up. The Chinese and Vietnamese regimes, after seeing what had happened in the Soviet bloc, decided that it would be more “politically stable” to carry out “reforms” while still waving the red flag. Their timid introduction of commodity relations became a torrent as capitalism was rebranded a preliminary stage of socialism.
This is all very grim, but does it augur badly for the future? Revolutions down the track will no doubt have their own particular problems. However, they will differ from these past episodes in ways that should make them far more able to stay the course, and defeat the turncoats and phonies. Of special importance is the fact that the revolutions will have a full-blown proletarian character.
In the Russian Revolution, the working class was not the main force behind the consolidation of power. While that class was decisive in October 1917, the victory in the subsequent civil war was due to the much larger peasantry being, on the whole, less keen on the alternatives. By the end of the war, what had already been a small working class had effectively disappeared through deaths and the destruction of industry. The Bolsheviks then had to create a new, roughly hewn working class out of the peasantry.
In China and Vietnam, peasants were predominant from the start. In the eastern European countries, the working class was larger, but the new regimes were primarily the product of the continued presence of the Soviet Red Army — after the defeat of Nazi Germany — rather than local revolutionary zeal.
Unlike these past revolutions, those in the future will occur in societies that are overwhelmingly working class (i.e., wage- and salary-earners), and will only take off if a large section of this class has decided that they have had enough of the present system and have been strongly drawn to the only society that can replace it — namely, one taking the road to a classless society based on common ownership of the means of production. Once this large mass of revolutionaries has removed the capitalists and their supporters from power, it is reasonable to expect that it would commit itself to the step-by-step transformation of society. It is hard to imagine these people enduring the bitter struggle to dislodge the bourgeoisie just to leave the job unfinished and let conditions ripen for a restoration. Indeed, many of them will make the success of this ongoing revolution a primary mission in life.
With the capitalists out of the way, workers will now have a chance to bring about changes that are necessary but were previously impossible. Put simply, they will eliminate a society based on dog-eat-dog competition and create one based on mutual regard and cooperation. You might call this changing human nature — or alternatively, learning to behave in ways that are more in tune with our true nature. But no matter how you characterize it, this change will not simply happen in a smooth, uncontested fashion. It will have to be fought over.
Central to everything will be the transformation of work and how we relate to each other in production. This is where capitalism creates a road block to a better society. The task is to end our alienation from the production process, from the final product of our labor, and from the people we work with. This will enable us to develop and exercise our talents and increasingly thrive. Work will become something we normally want to do, and when we see that society is working with us rather than against us, we will be keen to contribute the best we can to the common pot.
Starting from a far greater level of economic development will be a major advantage over past revolutions. As a rule, work is becoming increasingly less arduous and tedious, and is generally more cerebral and sociable. Furthermore, labor productivity is far higher and bound to shoot up with innovations such as AI. So, equality will not mean shared poverty and endless toil, but rather shared affluence: work fit for humans and ample free time. The devastation from war may undo this to some extent. However, if workers still have their knowledge and abilities, they should be able to rebuild fairly quickly. Also, in the decades ahead we can expect the global South to continue its not-always-hasty emergence from backwardness. With these advanced productive forces, the revolution will then be able to transform work in ways that capitalism cannot. It will eliminate the old and no longer necessary division of labor, and also change how we generally treat each other in our work dealings.
Under the present system, there is a division of labor that excessively separates thinking and deciding from execution. As a result, work is oppressive and narrow. This makes perfect sense under capitalism. Unwilling wage slaves have to be supervised and told what to do; a hierarchical career structure is needed to give a middle stratum an investment in the system, and sometimes capitalists want to take charge of production decisions directly.
These old ways of doing things cannot be changed overnight. It will take time for the rank-and-file to take on this larger role. They will have to raise their level of education, struggle up all kinds of learning curves, break down fears, and gain confidence. And while they are doing this, they will have to contend with people who want to discourage them and slow down the process. Resistance and foot-dragging will come from various quarters. These include die-hard opponents: the old management that cannot be immediately dispensed with, people who are simply comfortable with how things are and find change too messy, and supposed revolutionaries who simply want to take over the old positions and not really change anything.
Personal relations between workers will also have to be put on a much more human footing if work is to be something we are generally keen about and become a place where we thrive and develop. We have a lot to learn when it comes to creating productive and congenial relations with others — we lack social skills, self-awareness, and empathy. We are not that good at clearing up misunderstandings or resolving conflicts. We are not always helpful. On top of that, there are people who have specific behavioral problems, often with a clinical diagnosis attached. Some individuals have anxieties and other disorders that cause their interactions to be disturbing for themselves and others. Then there are toxic people who engage in bullying, scheming, and lying, and who in many cases can be described as control freaks, narcissists, sociopaths, or psychopaths. This last group will include serious opponents of the revolution.
The large and determined revolutionary movement we mentioned earlier will have to lead the charge in this struggle for change. It will be their task to constitute a critical mass of people of sufficient size to get round the collective-action problem. Everyone knows that their individual efforts are worthwhile because they know that there are a whole lot of other similarly committed people, and that they are all contributing to the large pool of combined efforts. These are not isolated acts of futility swamped by reverse currents. And success encourages more people to come on board.
The effectiveness of revolutionaries will depend on developing a whole range of strengths as they steel themselves in stormy seas. These include self-confidence, emotional intelligence, and the whole range of social skills. They will also need to lead the way in casting off the passive, submissive, and weak-spirited behavior that results from life as subordinates under capitalism.
Fortitude and commitment will also be required to deal with difficult situations when it would be easier to keep quiet or find another job. Contending with bad actors will demand moral courage because they are bound to retaliate in devious ways. They may set you up, claim that you are the problem and not them, take advantage of your mistakes, and use any position of authority they may have.
Dealing with people in authority or of high standing who have started to be a hindrance rather than a help will be particularly tricky and indeed will be the most critical and difficult struggle. Even though subordination will progressively decline in extent and grimness, one can expect that for some time there will still be many occasions where subordinates will need to question or disobey dubious instructions or policies from people who can hit back in nasty ways. Guts will be required.
When work lets more of the sunshine in, and builds strengths rather than weaknesses, it is of course bound to impact how we relate to people in other realms, including the more personal. We can expect less domestic and social maladies, and better management of them. And of course the more congenial and fruitful our relations outside work, the keener we will be to serve others with our labors.
In the social “superstructure” there will have to be just as much class struggle as there is in the economy. The various cultural strongholds will have to be captured from their present incumbents. Revolutionaries in large numbers will have to invade the zone with works inspiring optimism and resolve, and we will need a strong and growing brigade of intellectuals capable of taking on reactionaries past and present.
Politics at the highest local and central levels will matter more than anything. For quite some time, considerable power and policy direction will be concentrated there. Retaining and consolidating control will be critical. If conservative elements make their way into the leadership and have a significant social base willing to follow them, there will be a serious problem that requires an urgent rallying of radical forces.
Democracy and free speech will be critical for success. The development of the best policy and practice requires exposure to the bracing winds of questioning and criticism. Ensuring that subordinates can keep an eye on their superiors will require an open and free society. This will require considerable transparency and free access to information, plus limited room for the suppression of criticism.
Democracy was not possible in the 20th-century revolutions because, as we have mentioned, they were not based on majority support. And, of course, this situation did not improve over time because the regimes had veered well off the flight path and were clearly not leading people to something better than capitalism and therefore worth supporting. Capitalism also has a problem with democracy. It dispenses with it when those near the levers of power consider that it is taking society into what, for them, are dangerous waters, or when they think that tyranny will reap them material rewards.
Talking positively about the prospects of proletarian revolution will be considered very much in poor taste. But in these “interesting” times, more than a few people may begin to recognize this remedy as the elephant in the room. And with the sparring between conservatives and liberals presently hogging the ideas space, their united hostility to such an apparition would be a blunt reminder that there is no substantial difference between them, and that they will be brothers in arms when it comes to the crunch.
C21st Left 