Current Socialist Counties and Their Situation

[Some Red Guy]

I think we can all agree that China and North Korea are not socialist, in the way most of us think of socialism (though to people on the right they are great examples and they love pointing at them). China is capitalist in all but the name and NK is just a dictatorship.
That leaves us with Cuba, Vietnam and Laos. Cuba appears to be doing all right in face of trade blockades, the lack of resources on the island relative to the population and the fact that the USSR no longer aids them.
But what about Vietnam and Laos? You don't hear about them in the western media, is that a good sign? Would be a shame to see Vietnam going capitalist with such a hard-fought war, and I don't know much about Laos. In short, what is the situation in these countries?

[Potemkin]

I don't know much about Laos, but I think the general trend for all communist countries is to ease into a state capitalism. Vietnam of course makes many of the United States' cheap goods.

I was thinking about this, as well. I'm not a marxist and have only an introductory knowledge to the theory in this regard. I was doing a bit of research, however, and I think the justification for state capitalism in places like China is: China was a backward, peasant society. Because China never passed through the necessary (I believe Marx saw it as such) stage of capitalism, the Party must artificially guide it through this time, advancing technology and such along the way, until true communism becomes possible.

So, I don't think the Chinese think they're being inconsistent with their communism. I'm sure there are others on this board that could clarify for us both.

[Some Red Guy]

Yeah, I think the problem is that the countries weren't advanced enough when they became socialist. If a fully industrialised country with a working infrastructure turned socialist it would work out better. The level of education is also important. Not saying it is "doomed" in a third world country, just more problematic.

[manic expression]

Some useful information on Cuba:

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html (http://members.allstream.net/%7Edchris/CubaFAQ.html)

Be sure to review the link "Democracy in Cuba" on the left, as well as "Achievements of the Revolution" for info on human rights and living standards.

[FreeFocus]

I generally regard the idea that a country must suffer through capitalism first before it can turn socialist to be a farce. Some people have argued that this idea has been used as a cover by those in the West to justify the exploitation of the Third World and protect their benefits from the plunder. I'm not quite ready to agree because I am not as well-versed as I should be on the history of these ideas, but it surely is questionable when you consider the fact that most cultures around the world practice(d) some degree of socialist distribution, because mutual aid is the best pattern of relationships to ensure survival. I think that traditional Marxist analyses, and leftist analyses generally, tend to be too western in their thinking and therefore too parochial. What is true for one region in one point in time does not necessarily apply to another at a completely different time.

I'm not sure about Laos, but Vietnam is headed in the same direction China is, albeit on a different scale. Political authoritarianism coupled with free market capitalism and the human rights violations associated with both.

[Ismail]

Thanks to Vietnamese imperialism, Laos and Cambodia are both firmly within its sphere (and thanks to Chinese imperialism, Vietnam in its sphere) and have been even when Ho Chi Minh was fighting the French. Vietnam is essentially a mini-China whose adoration for Ho is similar (but more pronounced) to the Chinese adoration for Mao.

As for Laos it seemed more like a national-democratic movement to me than a Communist one. It's in a worse state than Vietnam (which says a lot) and power seems to be shared between the military and party officials, primarily the military. (Which is never a good thing)

[Some Red Guy]

That's depressing. If nothing happens soon there will only be Cuba left and they will eventually start moving to the right as well. I think it shows that socialism can't survive in one country alone without fading out. Hopefully something will happen though.

[Ismail]

(As a note, SRG, respond to my PM if you can.)

[Yehuda Stern]

I don't think any of these countries has ever been socialist. There was never a workers' revolution, and their 'socialism' is just a mask for the exploitation of the working class by the state bureaucracy - just like it was (and in some cases, still is) in every Stalinist state.

[Ismail]

I don't think any of these countries has ever been socialist. There was never a workers' revolution, and their 'socialism' is just a mask for the exploitation of the working class by the state bureaucracy - just like it was (and in some cases, still is) in every Stalinist state.This makes no sense. There were very few workers in China, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. While it is correct to say that Laos and Vietnam had national-democratic revolutions (where a Communist Party came on top) rather than actual socialist revolutions, while Cambodia had a strange and unsuccessful view of the vanguard party (it should be hidden, in Pol Pot's view, so that reactionaries would not attack it as it consolidated its power... in secret), China did have a peasant revolution supported by a vanguard party. It was not purely national-democratic (though it was initially) or else the Kuomintang would have not lost.

But yes, these states were revisionist and either didn't put much faith in building up a workers vanguard (China, Cambodia) or were Khrushchevite and didn't really care about socialism as opposed to nationalism. (Vietnam, Laos)

Also all of these states repudiated pre-1956 (e.g.'Stalinist') Marxism-Leninism (except China, but no one cares anymore in China about Stalin) because if they didn't the Soviet Union would cease funding them.

Painting anti-Stalin governments as 'Stalinist' is just wrong. They had different views on foreign policy, economics, and on society. I'm also pretty sure that no one in Laos or Cambodia (or other states such as Somalia) had remotely even heard of Stalin before in their lives except as a passing reference in history classes nor would they have a reason to care as their leaders would certainly advise against it. (Case in point, Hoxhaists being persecuted in every single pro-Soviet state known to man, the Khrushchevite FARC-EP killing Hoxhaists in Colombia, etc.)

[Potemkin]

A few points: Obviously, I'm not a fan of political parties or dictatorships (even of the proletariat), but for those that are, I think they need to realize that, especially in South America, there are socialist "revolutions" happening as we speak, albeit through election. I wouldn't be fooled just because they don't explicitly say that is what's going on. Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador -- all these places are banding together, and supporting Cuba, as well. I don't think it's the way to go, but I'm not going to tell South Americans what they should be doing in their countries.

Secondly, in relation to Eastern communist countries (China, Laos, Vietnam, South Korea, formerly Cambodia), we should understand the unique (and often disturbing) way marxism is interpreted. I find it fascinating what happens when marxism blends with these societies.

In the case of North Korea, for instance, they use Stalinism coupled with their historical love of Confucianism (which upholds obedience) and nationalist mythologies to manufacture an iron-clad dictatorship.

Confucianism is often blended with marxism in these countries, it seems. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia are another perverse interpretation of Marx from an Eastern standpoint.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there's something wrong or inferior with Eastern thought or culture. Just that when it meets marxism, it is fascinating, and often tragic.

[darthtony]

Because I have no idea, can you give me some more information about the situation in North Korea, Laos and Vietnam?Thanks

[LOLseph Stalin]

I don't think any of these countries has ever been socialist. There was never a workers' revolution, and their 'socialism' is just a mask for the exploitation of the working class by the state bureaucracy - just like it was (and in some cases, still is) in every Stalinist state.

Nice one. :cool:

[Yehuda Stern]

There were very few workers in China, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.


There were also very few workers in Russia. But still we have Lenin's April Theses, Trotsky's Permanent Revolution, and the Bolshevik revolution itself.


China did have a peasant revolution supported by a vanguard party. It was not purely national-democratic (though it was initially) or else the Kuomintang would have not lost.

Yes, China had a peasant revolution, although of course any talk of a vanguard party which isn't a workers' party is nothing more than a lame attempt at rationalizing the painting of this revolution as 'socialist.' China's revolution was a bourgeois revolution, and a partial one at that. I do not see how the Kuomintang losing disproves this. Who says that the party of the revolution must be a constant?


Painting anti-Stalin governments as 'Stalinist' is just wrong. They had different views on foreign policy, economics, and on society.

They had certain minor differences, like many bourgeois parties. It proves nothing that they did. In the end, they all presided over the exploitation of the working class under state capitalist regimes.

[Ismail]

There were also very few workers in Russia. But still we have Lenin's April Theses, Trotsky's Permanent Revolution, and the Bolshevik revolution itself.Not my point. You talked about how there wasn't a workers revolution in these countries, that's because it was impossible.


Yes, China had a peasant revolution, although of course any talk of a vanguard party which isn't a workers' party is nothing more than a lame attempt at rationalizing the painting of this revolution as 'socialist.' China's revolution was a bourgeois revolution, and a partial one at that. I do not see how the Kuomintang losing disproves this. Who says that the party of the revolution must be a constant?Hoxha would agree with you, actually. He argued that it was a national-bourgeois revolution and that Mao was simply a progressive bourgeois democrat. I, too, would agree with this analysis. It was, however, fought in the name of socialism even if these forces were not truly socialist.


They had certain minor differences, like many bourgeois parties. It proves nothing that they did. In the end, they all presided over the exploitation of the working class under state capitalist regimes."Minor differences"? Well, here are some quotes from the post-Stalin USSR:
"Stalin...substituted naked administration by fiat for economic
instruments of directing the economy....
Regulation of the use of financial resources by enterprises, where it is
excessive and too detailed, should be eliminated, and enterprises should
be given greater opportunity to maneuver with these resources".
(L. Gatovsky: "The Role of Profit in the Socialist Economy", in:
"Kommunist" (Communist), No. 18, 1962, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit.,
Volume 1; p.95, 104).

"In the future.. an enterprise will have the following indices established from above: the volume of goods to be sold; the main assortment of goods; the wage fund; the sum of profits and the profitability payments into the budget and allocations from the budget;.. the volume of centralised capital investments and commissioning of production capacities and fixed assets; the main targets for introducing new technology; the indices for supplying materials and equipment.

All other indices of economic activity will be planned by the enterprise independently, without endorsement from a higher organisation".

(A.N. Kosygin: "On Improving Industrial Management, Perfecting Planning and Enhancing Economic Incentives in Industrial Production", in: "Izvestia" (News), September 28th., 1965, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): op. cit., Voume 2; p. 18-19).

"In our country, for the first time in history, a State has taken shape which is not a dictatorship of any one class, but an instrument of society as a whole, of the entire people...
The dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer necessary".
(N.S. Khrushchov: Report on the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 22nd. Congress CPSU; London; 1961; p. 57, 58).These are clear examples of state-capitalism and revisionism and go beyond "minor differences."

[Yehuda Stern]

You talked about how there wasn't a workers revolution in these countries, that's because it was impossible.

And I argue that Russia is a proof to the contrary.


Hoxha would agree with you, actually. He argued that it was a national-bourgeois revolution and that Mao was simply a progressive bourgeois democrat.

How would that be agreeing with me? I do not think that there's anything progressive about Stalinism, nor that the dictator Mao could be called a democrat.


These are clear examples of state-capitalism and revisionism and go beyond "minor differences."

I disagree. Other than some democratic reforms that resulted from the pressure of the Soviet masses, there was no real difference between the Soviet regime under Stalin and under the following leaders.

[Ismail]

And I argue that Russia is a proof to the contrary.Once again, you don't get what I'm saying. You made what appeared to be a typo (or you posted it without further thinking.) There couldn't be a workers revolution in, say, Laos. There could be a worker-peasant revolution, a socialist revolution, yeah, but it's a bit odd to say "WORKERS REVOLUTION!" in 1970's Laos. Hoxha led a worker-peasant revolution (like Lenin did) and proletarianized virtually the entire nation, so I'm not repudiating peasant nations or whatever.


How would that be agreeing with me? I do not think that there's anything progressive about Stalinism, nor that the dictator Mao could be called a democrat.I'm pretty sure anyone (except a capitalist) would agree that Mao was more progressive than Chiang. More people died under the warlords of the past years than under Mao, for one.


I disagree. Other than some democratic reforms that resulted from the pressure of the Soviet masses, there was no real difference between the Soviet regime under Stalin and under the following leaders"Democratic reforms"? I was unaware that corruption, a repudiation of socialism, and market reforms (that led to state-capitalism with a new Soviet bourgeoisie, not just a bureaucracy) are "democratic." This is one of the more annoying aspects of Trotskyism, that bureaucrats have a heart of gold or something because Stalin died.

[Yehuda Stern]

Once again, you don't get what I'm saying. You made what appeared to be a typo (or you posted it without further thinking.)

Please, kindly keep the patronizing tone to yourself.


There couldn't be a workers revolution in, say, Laos. There could be a worker-peasant revolution, a socialist revolution, yeah, but it's a bit odd to say "WORKERS REVOLUTION!" in 1970's Laos. Hoxha led a worker-peasant revolution (like Lenin did)

Whoa, news to me. Lenin led a worker-peasant revolution? I've only heard of the proletarian revolution that Lenin led in Russia, in November 1917. Maybe you could tell me more about that other one.


I'm pretty sure anyone (except a capitalist) would agree that Mao was more progressive than Chiang.

Well, once again you are wrong.


This is one of the more annoying aspects of Trotskyism, that bureaucrats have a heart of gold or something because Stalin died.

What a stupid thing to say - since when is giving "some democratic reforms that resulted from the pressure of the Soviet masses" the same as having a heart of gold?

[Ismail]

Whoa, news to me. Lenin led a worker-peasant revolution? I've only heard of the proletarian revolution that Lenin led in Russia, in November 1917. Maybe you could tell me more about that other one.This is elementary information on the Russian Revolution.

"…all Russian workers and all the rural poor must fight with both hands and on two sides; with one hand – fight against all the bourgeois, in alliance with all the workers; and with the other hand – fight against the rural officials, against the feudal landlords, in alliance with all the peasants." (quoting Lenin, Kingston-Mann, Lenin and the Problem of the Marxist Peasant Revolution, 64.)

"In every socialist revolution, however—and consequently in the socialist revolution in Russia which we began on October 25, 1917—the principal task of the proletariat, and of the poor peasants which it leads, is the positive or constructive work of setting up an extremely intricate and delicate system of new organisational relationships extending to the planned production and distribution of the goods required for the existence of tens of millions of people... Only if the proletariat and the poor peasants display sufficient class-consciousness, devotion to principle, self-sacrifice and perseverance, will the victory of the socialist revolution be assured." (Lenin, The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, 1918.)

Even books like the Black Book of Communism and Lenin: Red Dictator note it.


Well, once again you are wrong.Please enlighten me as to why Chiang Kai-Shek's legendarily corrupt, dictatorial, chauvinist, anti-communist and cult-o-rama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Kai-shek_Memorial_Song, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Kai-shek_Statue) leadership would have been a better choice for China.


What a stupid thing to say - since when is giving "some democratic reforms that resulted from the pressure of the Soviet masses" the same as having a heart of gold?Because they weren't democratic. You should be criticizing these guys more than Stalin, shouldn't you? After all, Khrushchev jettisoned proletarian dictatorship. I've already quoted him saying as such. That's democratic?

[BobKKKindle$]

the principal task of the proletariat, and of the poor peasants which it leadsThis comment in no way suggests that Lenin did not see the revolution as being socialist in character, and nor did he suggest that the resulting form of government would be anything but the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin is simply referring to the fact that the proletariat was not strong enough to seize power on its own without the support of other oppressed groups, and so needed to involve the peasantry in the struggle against capitalism, although the socialist revolution would eventually lead to the proletariat adopting policies that threatened the class interests of the peasantry, such as nationalization of land, and collectivization - and Trotsky held exactly the same viewpoint. In fact, and as Trotsky argued, the idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry under which each class is given equal weight and political power is an impossibility, because basic features of the peasantry - the fact that peasants are spread over a wide geographical area, and relate to the means of production in different ways, for example - mean that they cannot function as a consistently revolutionary class, and so this role must fall to the proletariat, both in terms of the seizure of power, and the distribution of political power in a post-revolutionary state.

In other words, there's no reason to assume that, because the revolution did not involve only the working class, the class character of the revolution was not proletarian.


Painting anti-Stalin governments as 'Stalinist' is just wrong. They had different views on foreign policy, economics, and on society.The policies of the Stalinist regime under Stalin also changed, often from one extreme to the other, as in the case of the shift from "social fascism" (i.e. an absolute refusal to enter into alliances with any other working-class forces on the grounds that they were actually a variant of fascism) in Germany prior to 1933 to support for popular fronts, as in Spain. These shifts (which were not confined to foreign policy) reflected the changing class interests of the bureaucracy, and so the fact that there were also changes after Stalin's death does not show that these subsequent regimes were qualitatively different in terms of their classes bases and underlying political orientation.

[Yehuda Stern]

Please enlighten me as to why Chiang Kai-Shek's legendarily corrupt, dictatorial, chauvinist, anti-communist and cult-o-rama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_..._Memorial_Song (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Kai-shek_Memorial_Song), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Kai-shek_Statue) leadership would have been a better choice for China.

Better choice, no. And I think the very partial democratic gains of the chinese revolution are important and should be defended against the Stalinists, who are today trying to take back all these gains. I also think Mao used them, in the end, to strangle any chance for a proletarian revolution, not to advance it. So Mao played a different role than Chiang Kai-Shek, but he was no more progressive. In fact, he probably was worse in this respect, as no Chinese worker would've believed Chiang to be a revolutionary Marxist.

As for the rest, I think Bob did a pretty good job of answering you.

[Ismail]

@Bob:

This comment in no way suggests that Lenin did not see the revolution as being socialist in character, and nor did he suggest that the resulting form of government would be anything but the dictatorship of the proletariat.No shit. The proletariat leads the peasantry, same thing in Albania, etc. That's why Hoxha said that Mao's emphasis on the peasantry leading the proletariat was a failure.


Lenin is simply referring to the fact that the proletariat was not strong enough to seize power on its own without the support of other oppressed groups, and so needed to involve the peasantry in the struggle against capitalism,Yes. An alliance does not mean "no one leads" since Communists generally lead popular fronts. My point is that the revolution was indeed a combined worker-peasant effort, and the fact that the NEP, etc. was done to appease the peasantry evidently shows how vital the peasants were (at that point) to the continued existence of the Soviet state.


The policies of the Stalinist regime under Stalin also changed, often from one extreme to the other, as in the case of the shift from "social fascism" (i.e. an absolute refusal to enter into alliances with any other working-class forces on the grounds that they were actually a variant of fascism)Yes, back then National Socialism was seen as petite-bourgeois socialism. Keep in mind that N.S. was quite different from Fascism back then. Fascism was seen as a capitalist, nationalist, and syndicalist movement that was also populist and explicitly anti-socialist. N.S. was seen as a socialist movement led by the petite-bourgeoisie who would in the end turn capitalist due to its conciliatory nature, but it was not seen as reformist.

It should be noted that the Social Democrats were persecuting both the Communists and Nazis at that point, so the prospect of uniting with petite-bourgeois socialism (no matter how wrong of a move that was) seemed like a clear winner as opposed to uniting with the openly capitalist Social-Democrats. Fascism sprang up from Social-Democracy and both had the same end-goal: class conciliation.

It should also be noted that these were Comintern matters, which weren't directly for Stalin to solve. (In fact Bill Bland had argued that the Comintern was led largely by Nazi agents and revisionists during the 1930's including Dimitrov, which is why it was dissolved in the 40's and replaced by the Cominform)


These shifts (which were not confined to foreign policy) reflected the changing class interests of the bureaucracy, and so the fact that there were also changes after Stalin's death does not show that these subsequent regimes were qualitatively different in terms of their classes bases and underlying political orientation.A repudiation of Stalin, the implementation of state-capitalism (I don't believe in 'degenerated workers states' because that implies apologism of revisionism) and concepts like 'peaceful co-existence' and the 'Brezhnev Doctrine' (the former stayed forever, the latter only ended due to Gorbachev) do not suggest that a government is 'Stalinist' to me. Every single person by 1985 was condemning 'Stalinism' from Gorbachev to Ligachev to everyone. So either:

A. Stalin did something right (since I'm pretty sure you'd view the USSR as more capitalist and bureaucratic in 1985 than under 1953, no?)
B. Every leader in the USSR hated themselves
C. Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and Gorbachev were better socialists than Stalin

Furthermore, how do you explain states like Somalia (whose property relations were apparently very similar to that of the modern-day DPRK) and no one had even heard of Stalin, nor was there much of a bureaucracy to speak of?

@Yehuda:

And I think the very partial democratic gains of the chinese revolution are important and should be defended against the Stalinists, who are today trying to take back all these gains.Do you mean the Chinese revolution of 1912? Or 1948?

[Blackscare]

(and thanks to Chinese imperialism, Vietnam in its sphere) and have been even when Ho Chi Minh was fighting the French. Vietnam is essentially a mini-China whose adoration for Ho is similar (but more pronounced) to the Chinese adoration for Mao.

Vietnam dislodged the Brutal khmer rouge in cambodia, a group that was supported by china. This was not only a sign of their independence from China, but also soured relations between the two for years.

[Blackscare]

Not my point. You talked about how there wasn't a workers revolution in these countries, that's because it was impossible.

How was it any more impossible than a worker's revolution in Russia? If we establish that both had similar conditions to work with, why was it impossible in Asia? Also, regardless of what Lenin may have said, an objective look at the events of the Russian revolution and years later will show that it was anything but friendly to the peasantry.

[Ismail]

Vietnam dislodged the Brutal khmer rouge in cambodia, a group that was supported by china. This was not only a sign of their independence from China, but also soured relations between the two for years.Well yes, Vietnam was pro-Soviet. Vietnam still committed an imperialist act and Cambodia, today, is still heavily under the Vietnamese sphere of influence.


How was it any more impossible than a worker's revolution in Russia?Goddamn everyone has no idea what I'm saying. I didn't say a workers revolution at all was impossible, I was saying that a workers revolution without the aid of the peasantry was impossible. I was merely pointing out that Yehuda could of confused people a bit (this is the Learning section after all). It isn't a big deal.

The Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians had national-liberation movements, the one that got closest to socialism (beyond "socialism = being independent") was the Khmer Rouge, whom Hoxha called "fascist" (inaccurate IMO but it was evidently used as an insult and not actual ideology) and condemned the Chinese invasion of Vietnam in response to Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge was evidently a failure, so yeah. Ho Chi Minh is the closest you can get to 'Stalinist' (inasmuch him having participated in the Comintern) yet he was more of a nationalist than a socialist.