{"id":4977,"date":"2026-10-19T13:01:34","date_gmt":"2026-10-19T10:01:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sawtoroba.com\/Eng\/?p=4977"},"modified":"2026-10-19T13:01:34","modified_gmt":"2026-10-19T10:01:34","slug":"does-critique-of-communism-mean-defending-capitalism-by-zakaria-nimr-sudan-translated-by-sawtoroba-october-18-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sawtoroba.com\/Eng\/?p=4977","title":{"rendered":"\u00a0Does Critique of Communism Mean Defending Capitalism?\u200e By Zakaria Nimr -SUDAN Translated by Sawtoroba.\u00a0 October 18\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u200e<\/strong><\/h1>\n

\u00a0Does Critique of Communism Mean Defending Capitalism?\u200e<\/strong><\/h1>\n

By Zakaria Nimr -SUDAN<\/strong><\/h1>\n

Translated by Sawtoroba.\u00a0 October 18\/2026<\/strong><\/h1>\n

<\/h1>\n

\u200eHow many revolutions raised the slogan of human liberation, only for subsequent generations to discover that the road to freedom was more complicated than overthrowing the old regime? How many political projects have been launched to confront poverty and exploitation, achieving important social and economic transformations, yet facing sharp contradictions between their promises and their practices? The tragedy is not only that revolutions make mistakes, but that their mistakes become taboo facts, and that defending the project becomes more important than acknowledging the suffering of the human beings for whom it is said to exist. But reading this statement today requires moving beyond celebrating or condemning revolutionary violence outright and asking a deeper question: How can ideas that stem from demands for justice and equality become institutions capable of achieving their goals? What happens when the necessities of state-building conflict with individual freedoms, or when the leadership becomes convinced that it knows society’s best interests better than society itself?\u200e<\/strong><\/h1>\n

\u200eThe experiments that embraced communism and socialism deserve critical review, but this review is inaccurate if you treat them as one identical paradigm. These experiences differed in their origins, economic structures, international relations, degrees of political openness, and the results they achieved in development, education, health, and industrialization. However, some experiments that linked communism to the party’s monopoly on power remain a key area of criticism, especially when political and economic decisions were concentrated within a closed apparatus, weakening society’s ability to hold leaders accountable. Workers rely on selling their labor. Fundamental questions have been raised about resource ownership, the distribution of production revenues, and the relationship between the economy and power. These questions remain central to contemporary debates about poverty, monopoly, and inequality. But in some historical applications, the problem arose when public ownership was coupled with the absence of independent popular oversight. Nationalizing factories and land alone does not guarantee that workers become decision-makers, and State management of resources does not automatically mean citizens have effective power over how they are distributed. In several one-party regimes, a gap has emerged between discourse affirming working-class rule and the reality in which the party and State apparatus have monopolized key decisions. This was not an inevitable consequence of any socialist conception. Still, it revealed an important institutional danger: when political competition is absent, independent trade unions are restricted, and press freedom is weakened, society struggles to correct the wrongs of power or prevent privileges from forming within the ruling apparatus.\u200e<\/strong><\/h1>\n

\u200eThe problem, then, is not that every form of public property leads to bureaucracy, but that public ownership requires institutions that ensure transparency, accountability, and effective participation. A resource declared to belong to the people may remain beyond the people’s control if the political administration monopolizes the right to dispose of it.Economic Planning: Achievements and Limits. Socialist experiments cannot be evaluated by their failures alone, nor can their policies be exempt from criticism under the pretext of the historical conditions in which they arose.Some countries that adopted centralized planning have mobilized resources for rapid industrialization, infrastructure development, education expansion, and stronger scientific and military capabilities. In societies that have suffered from poverty and economic underdevelopment, these transformations have significantly changed social structures and State capacities. But centralized planning has also faced problems with centralized decision-making, difficulty obtaining accurate information about local needs, weak incentives in some sectors, and delayed responses to economic changes. These problems were not uniform across all experiments or periods, but they became more serious when they were associated with a political environment that discouraged error disclosure. When an official fears admitting the plan’s failure, or being held accountable for announced numbers rather than actual results, economic indicators may become tools to beautify reality. This is where the administrative problem intersects with the political problem: the lack of information does not always result from a technical deficit. Still, it may result from a system that punishes those who transmit unwanted news.\u200e<\/strong><\/h1>\n

\u200eSome of the policies implemented under Mao Zedong, especially the Great Leap Forward, illustrate the seriousness of this overlap. The campaign was linked to a catastrophic famine between 1959 and 1961, and its outcomes were shaped by agricultural and economic policies, political pressure, and distorted information. Acknowledging this catastrophe does not mean denying China’s other social and industrial transformations. Still, it asks how to prevent centralized decision-making from turning mistakes into large-scale disasters. This lesson goes beyond communist ideology itself: an economic system needs reliable information, correction mechanisms, accountability for officials, and the ability to adjust policies when results conflict with stated goals. Why can’t the communist experience be reduced to a single model? Historical comparison reveals different paths. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 after a buildup of economic, political, national, and institutional crises that interacted with international pressures and internal leadership conflicts. But the collapse of this model alone does not prove the impossibility of every socialist policy, just as the persistence of other regimes does not prove the success of all of their policies. Some countries that have maintained Communist Party leadership have introduced market mechanisms, private investment, and openness to global trade while retaining varying degrees of State control. These shifts have helped to achieve significant economic growth in some cases, but they have raised new questions about wealth inequality, workers’ rights, and the limits of political participation. These different trajectories make generalizations misleading. Not every communist experiment can be considered a copy of the Soviet experience; democratic socialism cannot be equated with a one-party system, nor can we assume that every economic failure is caused by ideology alone, in isolation from wars, international isolation, domestic decisions, and institutional structures. But differences in circumstances do not negate the necessity of criticism. Evaluate each experiment by its actual results, its ability to correct its mistakes, the extent to which it protects rights, and the nature of the relationship between the State and society.\u200e<\/strong><\/h1>\n

\u200eThe communist experiment did not develop in an international vacuum; it emerged amid strategic competition, an arms race, military alliances, and a struggle for economic influence. In some cases, external pressures, isolation, and sanctions have increased economic burdens, while international competition has led some governments to prioritize security and military industries over civilian needs. But using these circumstances to explain every failure is no less misleading than ignoring them entirely. External challenges may narrow the State’s options, but they do not alone explain the monopoly of power, the suppression of dissent, or weak accountability mechanisms. Domestic decisions are also inseparable from the international context in which they were made. Another contradiction arose when the protection of the revolution from external threats was used to justify restricting the domestic political sphere. In some experiments, opposition has been linked to opponents’ interests, and domestic criticism has come to be treated as a security risk. Thus, the State has sometimes conflated security with the party’s survival, even though the State and society are broader than any political organization. This issue shows that national independence is not achieved simply by confronting external influence; it also requires internal institutions that prevent a monopoly on decision-making and ensure that foreign policy serves the public interest, not the survival requirements of the ruling elite. The failure of some communist experiments does not make capitalism a system free of contradictions, nor do market problems necessarily prove the validity of comprehensive central planning.\u200e<\/strong><\/h1>\n

\u200eCapitalist economies may achieve high levels of innovation and production, but they may also face monopolies, economic inequality, and the influence of wealth in political decision-making. In contrast, progressive taxation, public services, and social protection can reduce some imbalances, without abolishing private property or economic competition. The most useful debate, therefore, is not about declaring an ideological victory outright, but about designing institutions that combine economic efficiency, social justice, and political rights. These institutions can include an effective public sector, regulated markets, independent unions, an independent judiciary, a media capable of exposing corruption, and democratic mechanisms for regime change. The criterion is not how much the State proclaims the justice of its project, but how much citizens can influence its decisions, monitor its resources, and hold those responsible accountable. Public property without control may become bureaucratic power; a market without fair rules may allow the concentration of economic power; and in both cases, institutions that limit monopoly become necessary to protect society. The most important lesson from the history of socialist revolutions and experiments is not that every project of equality is doomed to failure, nor that every radical change necessarily leads to tyranny. Indeed, ideas, whatever their stated goals, cannot guarantee their results on their own. Their success depends on the institutions that turn them into policies, their ability to learn from mistakes, and their willingness to accept criticism.\u200e<\/strong><\/h1>\n

\u200eThe revolution is not a tea party, but it is also not a permanent mandate of the victor. Major transformations may require difficult sacrifices and struggles, but that does not make the sacrifice valuable in itself, nor does it give the leadership the right to defer rights indefinitely. If the revolution aims to free man from exploitation, it must ensure that the State apparatus itself does not become a source of exploitation, and that the party it professes to represent does not become an authority that society cannot review. The success of a political project is not measured by the purity of its slogans or the sacrifices its supporters make, but by its ability to build accountable institutions, deliver tangible improvements in people’s lives, and protect their right to disagree and dissent.\u200e<\/strong><\/h1>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u200e \u00a0Does Critique of Communism Mean Defending Capitalism?\u200e By Zakaria Nimr -SUDAN Translated by Sawtoroba.\u00a0 October 18\/2026 \u200eHow many revolutions raised the slogan of human liberation, only for subsequent generations to discover that the road to freedom was more complicated than overthrowing the old regime? How many political projects have been launched to confront poverty …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":4978,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[51],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4977","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sawtoroba.com\/Eng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4977","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sawtoroba.com\/Eng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sawtoroba.com\/Eng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawtoroba.com\/Eng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawtoroba.com\/Eng\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4977"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sawtoroba.com\/Eng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4977\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4979,"href":"https:\/\/sawtoroba.com\/Eng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4977\/revisions\/4979"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawtoroba.com\/Eng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/4978"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sawtoroba.com\/Eng\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4977"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawtoroba.com\/Eng\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4977"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawtoroba.com\/Eng\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4977"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}