Socialist Without the Label

[The Vegan Marxist]

Given that socialism is defined a particular way, as pointed out by both Marx & Engels, would it really matter if a country called themselves socialist in order to be supported as a socialist country? Meaning, if their economy was clearly socialist, where the means of production is collectively owned, yet doesn't label themselves as socialist, can they still be supported as being socialist?

[Barry Lyndon]

Any specific examples?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Any specific examples?

Well there's no country so far that's not calling them socialist, yet still carries the economical stand under socialism. I'm just asking out of curiosity, & possibly to a future time when a country might end up like this.

[Rêve Rouge]

If they follow the ideals of socialism, then I think it would be reasonable to support them as being socialist. Although I wonder what other label this hypothetical country would give itself regarding it's economic system other than socialism.

[Q]

Communism is an explicit project of overcoming capitalism and establish a specific form of society that is without classes, has an economy based on need, etc. It is pretty unlikely that a country would "accidentally stumble" into such a transition process without having set such a goal.

Also, many on the left confuse state ownership of the economy with socialism. It is, at best, a feature of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but certainly not socialism (being a specific form of socialised economy). Look at what is happening in Cuba right now for example: 1 million layoffs and a major reimplementation of a free market. But also in the past we saw Ernest Mandel describing Tito as an "unconscious Trotskyist" or left groups support the Ghadaffi regime in Libya on the basis that it had nationalised the economy.

In summary: Countries don't "accidentally" move towards socialism, often communists just don't understand what they're talking about, which reflects a low level of understanding or dogmatic belief for various purposes.

[Zanthorus]

Q really hit the nail on the head. As Marx said, Communism (Or socialism) can only come about through the conscious efforts of the working-class, through the 'Communist consciousness on a mass scale' which arises through the protracted process of struggle. The idea of a country just stumbling across socialism without being committed to it in any real sense is almost absurd.

[AK]

I'd be very interested to see what country would actually go ahead and expropriate the bourgeoisie and give control of the economy to the working class without any mention of the word socialism. The concept is purely hypothetical and impossible in practise - as the bourgeoisie would surely defend their private property. What's more, is that since government/state officials and big capitalists share the same class interests, the state would never even dream of such a thing.