Political systems in modernity mediate between society and state, with their own double face – societal and state-based – and the centrality and predominance of the latter, while the former may, from time to time, be shut down rather brutally and radically (as in the fascist and the bureaucratic authoritarian regimes), although it operates in a reasonable level of freedom under liberal democracy. In authoritarian collectivism the limitation of the societal political system also obtained, with the private and the open public domains being severely constrained, as already observed. It was through the party that society – mainly the ruling sectors but partly also workers, peasants and petty bureaucrats – found a voice up the ladders of power. The mediation between state and society, which in modernity has been undertaken by the political system, was accomplished in authoritarian collectivism basically via the party apparatus, although other bureaucratic channels could be operative too. Democratic centralism has always been at the service of the core, in party and state, justifying the repression of anyone and anything that might challenge or simply disagree with decisions taken or their concrete application.

To be sure, ‘everyday politics’ was seemingly crucial (and remains so where political systems from this era are still operative) to convey low-intensity information to party hierarchies. This seems to have often been the case, especially regarding peasants, in the absence of open political systems, of what Kerkvliet (2005, ch. 2) has called the ‘power of noncollective action’, implying some level of passivity. The crux of the matter here, however, is actually the silent and decentred collective subjectivity of peasants and workers in general, with its steady collective causality over party cadres. It can flame up if grievances go unheeded, even ensuing in rebellions, which have not been uncommon under collective authoritarianism. This sort of everyday politics was and is hardly equivalent to democracy or even democratic centralism, since it is diffuse, non-organized, and is always threatened by party-state repression, although it often impacted the restricted societal political system of collective authoritarianism. This impact was, however, muffled due to party control over all organizations, starting with unions and cultural and artistic associations (peasants have not been allowed to organize autonomously in China).