Is there any fundamental difference between communism and corporations?

Question

I was just thinking that essentially, a communist country like Maoist China did not seem very different than a very large corporation. Both are centrally managed, tightly control their citizens/employees, and own all property of their citizens/employees.

The only major difference is that within current laws, corporations do not have a monopoly on force, so cannot control the entire lives of their employees.

Is there any other significant difference between a communist country and a corporate entity?

Answer 1

You are not the first one to notice that there are states which officially follow a communist agenda but do in practice behave very similar to capitalist corporations. The Soviet Union and China are commonly cited examples. The Marxist term for the system used by such states isn't "Communism" but "State Capitalism".

The term was coined by communist philosopher Wilhelm Liebknecht in 1896 who used it as a fighting word against the German social-democrats who advocated for socialism under government control. The Marxist view is that both Communism and State Capitalism seek to remove the power of privately owned capital over the working class. But while Marxist Communism wants to give the power to the working class ("Dictatorship of the proletariat"), State Capitalism replaces oppression through privately controlled capital with oppression through government controlled capital.

Answer 2

I'll start this answer by clarifying, there is no such a thing as a common agreed definition on what a "communist country" is, different regimes through time have called themselves communist while enforcing different politics, some argue not a single one of these are/was a real communist regime, some argue that most of them are/were.

That said, if we look at previous communist regimes like the USSR, the main easy difference to spot regarding a corporation is that these countries enforce the relationship of Country-Citizen while corporations enter a consensual relationship with their workers, a worker is (sometimes with certain penalties) free to end the relationship at any time and thus holds some power in a negotiation.

This difference is not absolute of course, communist regimes can allow certain freedom to emigrate and Corporations can abuse the job market to enforce the relationship (if you can't get a new job and you don't have any other means, quitting is not an option either).

Answer 3

If we follow Marx's reasoning, nations like the PRC and the USSR are socialist regimes, not communism, and socialist regimes are an intermediary stage. Socialist regimes do not change the capitalist form of production; they merely nationalize the capitalist form of production, so that it is controlled and administered by the state — ostensibly in the name of the working class — not by private individuals. As Marx saw it, socialist regimes will generally decay into a new class structure, in which the ruling party takes on the role of the old capitalist class and reinstates the same conditions that led to the revolution that put them in power.

With that in mind, it makes perfect sense that a socialist regime would mirror the structure of a capitalist corporation; the first inherited the structures of the second when it took over, and then amplified them.

Answer 4

Yes, there is an overriding authority at the top, and the rank and file have little to say (which would also be true of an absolute monarchy/theocracy/dictatorship so your claim of equivalence is of fairly limited specificity).

The similarities are far outweighed by differences:

• you can easily leave a corporation's employment

• a corporation has very limited rights to coerce its employees, outside of employment law and even less to coerce non-employees

• corporate rules are subject to override by national laws, whereas a country really is a stand-alone entity and its laws subject to very limited oversight (North Korea's treatment of its citizens in Gulags may be "illegal" by international law and moral standards, but that matters very little to inmates for now).

• a corporation does not own all property of their citizens/employees

Now, you can always make claims of dysfunctional corporate powers and argue that, in fact, corporations have more powers than they ought to. But that needs to be argued on a country by country / corporation by corporation basis and arguably none would really meet the level of coercion exercised by the USSR/China/NK et all, except for historical entities like the Congo Free State or the VOC which were operating in a colonial setting, i.e. a setting already characterized by wanton disregard for the well-being of the local populations.

Answer 5

As others have pointed out, from a Marxist perspective, there are a few fundamental differences between state capitalism and a communist state:

• As I pointed out in a previous answer, Marx's idea of socialism/lower stage communism described in the Critique of the Gotha Program has the working class take control of the state and all of the means of production to make sure everything is publicly owned, only pay people in personal property by "each according to his contribution" (an idea created by Trotsky that Marx's commented on in Critique of the Gotha Program and saw as a something to implement in lower-stage communism), and only having public property be utilized by those who are part of the worker's council. Meanwhile, a state capitalist nation usually has the government own some degree of property, resources, money, etc. , but corporations and private owners usually have some degree of extensive power and ownership over the means of production. Those with enough money and financial support from a large company or overseas benefactor can have just as much, if not more, power than the state and force the state to have to change their stance on issues based on what corporations have to say- not the other way around with all .
• Most forms of lower-stage communism like the USSR and Maoist China have a command economy. Many communists and Marxists see their version of socialism as incompatible with market economics based on the writings of Karl Marx. Meanwhile, capitalism according sources like Encyclopedia Britannica describe a market economy as a necessity for capitalism, so you can't have a capitalist economy without having some kind of market.
• The end goal of lower-stage communism/Marxist socialism is for the state to last long enough to defeat capitalism and naturally erode away through a final revolution or natural human development, leading to the last stage of communism and a clean, stateless society that would implement Marx's idea of 'each according to his need' - giving people resources based on what they needed to survive and enjoy the lives they want. The end goal of many capitalist is to create a society with an idea form of private ownership based on the version of capitalism described in Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations with a potential reduction in state authority to create a minarchist government & allow for maximum economic freedom, a very similar but different end-goal to Marx's ideal finale for the state.
• In a Marxist socialist state, anyone who is removed from the state/worker's union/medium of collective ownership no longer has anymore direct say in how the means of production are used than any other regular person. Also, the only ones who can have a direct say in the means of production are members of the community who work there way up through the collective ownership mechanism. In state capitalism or a corporation, people with enough capital can leave and still have there own personal means of production & use personal finances to directly influence others. Even if you are not from the community in question or know much about the politics of a certain nation, you are able to own various means of production and have just as much, if not more, say than the native politicians.