Why did literary criticism sometimes become difficult to distinguish from censorship in Marxist states?

In Marxist states, literary criticism often became indistinguishable from censorship because literature was viewed primarily as a tool for social and political ends rather than an independent art form. Under the framework of dialectical materialism, critics were expected to prioritize the needs of the working class—as interpreted by the Communist Party—over the text itself.1

Because the function of criticism was considered continuous with the goals of the state, such as furthering the social revolution, the critic’s role shifted from analyzing literature to acting as a guardian of party doctrine. In periods of severe orthodoxy, this utilitarian approach meant that any work failing to align with official values or the dictates of Socialist Realism was deemed unacceptable. Consequently, criticism served to enforce ideological conformity, effectively silencing dissident voices and restricting artistic expression to narrow, state-approved themes. This systemic control, which often included the pre-publication supervision of manuscripts, left little room for the objective analysis characteristic of independent literary criticism.1234