Varieties of Communism: Internal Variation and Authoritarian Diversity

Abstract

Communism had a significant impact on the 20th century, and its shadow continues to loom over a considerable part of the world, either as a historical starting point for systemic transformations or as the still dominant state doctrine of, for example, China. Yet comparative political science has developed no systematic framework for analysing the internal diversity of communist systems. While research into authoritarianism is booming, the varieties of communist governance remain undertheorized, with these regimes typically classified as a monolithic category within institutionalist accounts defined by single-party rule and state-controlled economies. Following the paradigm of “Varieties of Capitalism” by Peter A. Hall and David W. Soskice, this panel systematically captures communist regime types as distinct institutional configurations of authoritarian rule. The experts gathered on the panel will show from different geographical and historical perspectives how communist systems differed, and continue to differ, from other forms of authoritarianism, but also from each other. A three-part working definition of communism serves as the basis for analysis: (1) Monopoly of the communist party over political contestation. (2) Party-state supremacy over economic distribution mechanisms. (3) De jure control of social organizations by the party state. This definition makes it possible to distinguish communist systems from other autocratic regimes and to systematically capture internal variance. It remains compatible with both planned economies and contemporary state capitalism. Points two and three are particularly revealing, as they allow for greater divergence. These differences can be explained primarily along several dimensions. The first refers to the influence of the timing of the seizure of power and historical developments over almost 100 years, for example, in terms of political repression, legitimation patterns, or economic policy. The second highlights how, despite similar institutions, informal practices emerged as a distinguishing feature. This results in multiple axes of comparison: (1) Differences between the communist systems in their early years, shaped by indigenous revolutionary struggle versus external imposition. (2) Increasing differentiation over time, distinguishing regimes maintaining doctrinal orthodoxy from those adapting while preserving party supremacy. (3) Informal practices, which explain increasing heterogeneity despite very similar institutional structures. (4) Economic organization, ranging from central planning through market socialism to state capitalism. (5) Legitimation patterns, from revolutionary mobilization requiring ideological commitment to ritualized conformity. The aim of the panel is to make these varieties of communist systems systematically comparable and, at the same time, to highlight their relevance for current debates on authoritarianism, political transformation and regime durability. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, communism has proven to be resilient and ideologically effective. Understanding these varieties remains essential: contemporary communist systems govern over 20 percent of the global population, demonstrating adaptive capacity that challenges prevailing theories of authoritarian fragility.

Title	Details
Post-Crisis Adaptation in Communist Regimes	View Paper Details
The Ideocratic Trap: Communist Regimes and the Structural Pattern of Elite Cohesion	View Paper Details
The Socialism of the 21 Century in Latin America: the Chavista Model and its Regional Dimension	View Paper Details
Varieties of Communist Civil Society: Comparing Forms of Engagement in the GDR and the Polish People’s Republic	View Paper Details
Limited Ties, Lasting Effects: Asymmetrical Party Networks and Communist Party Adaptation in Late Cold War Europe	View Paper Details