A basic criticism of postsocialism, generally acknowledged by its proponents, is that as the “socialism” from

postsocialism gets further away, postsocialist analysis risks ignoring or misunderstanding newer
developments. As anthropologist Caroline Humphrey notes, postsocialism is also open to the criticism that
it removes agency from local actors by “[implying] constraints on the freedom of people in these countries
to determine their own futures.”[34] Nevertheless, Humphrey supports continued use of the term because
“actually existing socialism” was “deeply pervasive” and “had a certain foundational unity” and its influence
persists and remains inadequately understood. [35]

Political scientist Jordan Gans-Morse has criticized postsocialist scholars (he uses the term
“postcommunist,” but refers to both) for exaggerating the prevalence of teleological narratives of Eastern
European political and economic development, and for conflating “transitology” and “modernization
theory” when the two were distinct.[36] Gans-Morse acknowledges some of the criticisms from postsocialist
scholars but argues that theories of “ideal-type sequences of transition” do not actually predict or prescribe
a certain endpoint but allow scholars to analyze how and why a state has deviated from the model, a form
of analysis that might be preferable to open-ended “transformations.” [37] Gans-Morse also argues that
alternative theories of change in these states can be used as points of comparison, such as “revolution,
institutional collapse followed by state (re)building, or decolonization.” [38] Gans-Morse’s criticism, notably,
is aimed at building a better understanding of these states for the field of “comparative politics,” a field
more inclined toward the kind of ideal-type modeling he defends than anthropology, the field of many
postsocialist scholars.[39]

Political scientist David Ost, while not criticizing the notion of postsocialism itself (he uses the term
“postcommunism” throughout his text), has argued based on his study of unions that “postcommunism is
over” and the “global economy is here.”[40] Ost argues that unions under postsocialism were
“‘producerists’ par excellence,” interested in protecting the interests of skilled workers, trimming the
workforce of unskilled or underused (often female) labor, and believing that the market would value and
reward their skilled work.[41] The sign that postsocialism ended, to Ost, is that unions returned to being
class-based, with many of the postsocialist transformations complete and a new generation of union
leaders came of age in the era of “actually existing capitalism” and its exploitation of labor. [42] Ost projects
the emergence of a “divided labor movement” in the shadow now of postsocialism, with skilled labor
unions more successful at defending their class interests and other unions struggling. [43] Thus, for Ost, the
region of Eastern Europe still requires its own frame of analysis, but this frame of analysis should focus on
the legacy of postsocialism, not socialism, because the structural transformation from state socialism to a
capitalist market economy was complete and the effects of that transformation were now shaping the
labor movement.

Martin Müller has more recently mounted a theoretical critique of postsocialism, arguing that postsocialism
is not only marginal in social and cultural theory but it has “lost its object,” in that socialism is not as
important to contemporary developments, and it has “problematic conceptual and political
implications.”[44] Müller critiques postsocialism specifically on five points. First, postsocialism refers to a
“disappearing object,” and is decreasingly useful at analyzing new developments. Second, postsocialism
“privileges rupture,” centering itself on the fall of socialism and thus emphasizing breakage over continuity
and creating a unity among “socialisms” that did not necessarily exist. [45] Third, postsocialism is overly
attached to Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and it is limited by not taking into
account “a relational, deterritorialized view of space” appropriate to a globalizing world. [46] Fourth,
postsocialism is “Orientalizing,” in that it “reflects specifically Western discourses, approaches, and
knowledge claims” and fails to live up to its injunction to listen to “native” scholars and theories. [47] Fifth,
postsocialism “risks becoming politically disempowering” by suggesting that socialism is “over and done
with” and foreclosing the possibility of a new, non-Marxist-Leninist variant. [48]