Is there a real communist country?

[PhilippineRed]

After going through some of the links in the Theories section.

I wondered if there is a country that really achieved absolute communist, because As far as I know, A Communist country must first under go the Socialist Revolution.

I'm asking this because I never seemed to get it that even If the USSR, China, North Korea etc... called themselves Socialists and Libertarians, The majority of the Populace called them as communists, I know for one that they are not, but I seemed to get confused sometimes that they are.

[red cat]

After going through some of the links in the Theories section.

I wondered if there is a country that really achieved absolute communist, because As far as I know, A Communist country must first under go the Socialist Revolution.

I'm asking this because I never seemed to get it that even If the USSR, China, North Korea etc... called themselves Socialists and Libertarians, The majority of the Populace called them as communists, I know for one that they are not, but I seemed to get confused sometimes that they are.

Socialism can be viewed as the stage in which the working class alone has the upper-hand in class-struggle; politically, economically and militarily. When the situation is so, the working class tries to dissolve all other classes so that it is the only class that remains. But when there is only one class in the society, there is nothing to distinguish it as a class separate from any other class. So it is actually a classless society, that is, a communist one.

As the natural consequence of socialism is communism unless it is forcefully reverted to capitalism at an early stage, the political party that leads the working class in conducting a socialist revolution always has to be communist.

All the countries that you mentioned had been socialist at one point of time. But the proletariat lost the class-struggles there temporarily, which is why they are capitalist now. A single country can never become communist, because if capitalists exist in any other country, they will oppose the revolution in every possible means. So every socialist country has to maintain a strong state-apparatus until all classes are done away with in every corner of the world. Communism is possible only after the whole world becomes socialist.

[Kisiel]

Nope, never.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There can never be a 'communist country'. The phrase is a juxtaposition in itself.

[EvilRedGuy]

Communism is something global/international.
USSR and Maoist China was State-capitalist not Socialist, yes im one of those who believe that socialism has never occured, ever. North Korea is Juche, and the only thing to that idealogy is that the classes should respect each other, nothing more, which isn't really an idealogy. North Korea obviously might be state-capitalist too, not sure, as how things work like its just a monarchy.

[Widerstand]

There has never been a socialist/communist country, in fact there can't be. The whole "transitional stage" is an invention to explain and justify the oppressive nature of Stalin's rule over the USSR. This "transitional phase" however is a misnomer. There is no transition - there can only be a revolution (large or small scale), either to true socialism, however this is a very limited possibility, or to capitalism in one form or another.

A communist or socialist country, and I use these words as synonyms, is largely an impossibility. In a world where the majority of countries are capitalist, a communist country would have to be a closed system - as soon as export/import exist, the country has adopted capitalist exchange modes (money), because no exchange would be possible without. Any country with a monetary system integrated in the global market, ergo any country with a currency exchangeable for capitalist currencies, is affected by that market. That means, the market rules apply to that country, it is effectively on it's way to become a capitalist country.
A closed system can only exist if the country can run a self-sustaining economy. Very few, or maybe no, countries can do so. "Socialism in one country" is an impossibility. It is however not impossible to run a self-sustaining economy. Here we encounter the technocratic concept of "Technate" - any area with the resources and technology needed to be self-sustaining. The Soviet Union realized the necessity of closed self-sustainability, although they could not maintain one. There were however a number of attempts - from exchange with "socialist" countries in other parts of the world, to the GDR's attempt at preventing import of Western goods, to the infamous project of large scale cotton production around the Aral Sea. The result of this failure is well known. The USSR collapsed, and capitalist revolts/revolutions emerged all over it's former territory.

Further, dictatorship and socialism are directly opposed. Socialism necessitates the workers controlling the means of production (economic sphere). To have control over the means of production, political control is needed. Political control doesn't only mean participation in elections or councils, it also means control of force - as long as the proletariat has no control over the force (eg as long as there is a non-proletarian police/army), they can't enforce whatever political decision they make, and ultimately they can be forced to give up control over the means of production. As such, "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a misnomer: It either means that the proletariat control both the economic and political spheres, which would hardly be a dictatorship - although principally hierarchical as long as there are non-proletarian classes. Or that a group controls parts of the political or economical sphere in the name of the proletariat, with the ability to exercise force, which renders every proletarian political power a farce, and is not socialism, but merely a different form of capitalism.

[lines]

Cuba

[RadioRaheem84]

Cuba in some respects probably came the closest, but still no cigar.

[William Howe]

Lenin is probably the one who came the closest in history, and currently Cuba is the closest, but no where near what real communism is.

[Widerstand]

Lenin is probably the one who came the closest in history, and currently Cuba is the closest, but no where near what real communism is.

Human nature has been said to be the biggest inhibitor of communism's success, something Lenin realized well and good, hence the 'Vanguard Party' idea.

Oh lord, what a big load of crap.

[William Howe]

Oh lord, what a big load of crap.

I concur, but it's just what I've heard.

True, it isn't the problem most people (mainly Rights) believe it to be, but you can't say greed DOESN'T pose a problem.

[Widerstand]

There is no such thing as human nature. Let me quote myself:


That "incentives matter" is indeed a capitalist, neoliberal argument. It is based around the conception of homo economicus, which assumes that humans are rational, egoistic agents (inspired by Hobbes amongst others), which will always work towards their own self-interest. Traditional (non-cooperative) game theory has gone to great lengths demonstrating how this is true, however under the assumption that humans never behave altruistic, ergo that altruism really is just a means to an egoistic goal - although true in some regards, this is not an universal law. Cooperative game theory has started being researched under the USSR, and ultimately provided way of a cooperative society not based around egoism, that works just as well, if not better, than non-cooperative models. There have been other refutations of the homo economicus as well. The bottom line is: The incentive model is based around a constructed image of humanity, which has been contested, partially refuted, and isn't set in stone at all. That people often behave that way, although no one does all the time, can be explained by social conditioning.

Aside from that, there are very real reasons that led to the conflicts withing communist countries, one of them being that they were oppressive and restrictive as fuck. It has nothing to do with "greed", but rather with need.

[Thirsty Crow]

No, nowadays there is no real communist country, at least if by Communism you mean a classless, stateless society. Moreover, there were none communist countries during the entire course of human history. In fact, the term "communist country" is a contradiction in terms since Communism, much like capitalism, necessitates a global revolution.

If by "real communist" you mean the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the period of transition, there were historical examples of course. However, do not let yourself be deluded by this sweet talk of how there were countries which achieved socialism. There are many reasons why this is a bogus statement.

[RED DAVE]

I wondered if there is a country that really achieved absolute communist, because As far as I know, A Communist country must first under go the Socialist Revolution.No country has achieved socialism, let alone the next stage after socialism, communism.

No society has been able to sustain itself under workers control of industry, except briefly, as in the USSR in the few years after the revolution, and that was increasingly dominated by the bureaucracy until it achieved complete control.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

As such, "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a misnomer: It either means that the proletariat control both the economic and political spheres, which would hardly be a dictatorship - although principally hierarchical as long as there are non-proletarian classes. Or that a group controls parts of the political or economical sphere in the name of the proletariat, with the ability to exercise force, which renders every proletarian political power a farce, and is not socialism, but merely a different form of capitalism.Basically correct, but, in my opinion, the term "dictatorhip of the proletariat" should not be used by Marxists. The meaning of the term "dictatorship" has changed: in Marx's time, especially the German term, meant much more like "control" than it does now.

RED DAVE

[Die Rote Fahne]

Answer - No.

The dictatorship of the proletariat has also not occured.

[Weezer]

Cuba in some respects probably came the closest, but still no cigar.

:laugh:

But seriously, no. Communist country is a contraction in terms.

[PhilippineRed]

Communism is possible only after the whole world becomes socialist.

So Communism can only truly exist if we get a NWO of Socialism? or let me rephrase myself.

Communism = Worldwide socialism

is that correct?

[Born in the USSR]

If there was no socialism in the USSR, then there was no socialist revolution .And stupid naive Lenin was convinced that the Bolsheviks carried out the socialist revolution!It's a pity that ther were no some modern leftists near Lenin,they would enlighted him. :laugh:

As a result of "non socialist" revolution in the late of 1930's private industry was completely eliminated and collectivization of agriculture was carried out . Stalin at the XVIII Congress said: "The farms are now grouped 18 million 800 thousand peasant households, ie, 93.5 percent of peasant households."Pretty nice "state capitalist",that is bourgeois politic, during which was expropriated at first large and then the petty bourgeoisie (mainly peasants)!
Is not such expropriation a function of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and isn't it a direct consequence of the socialist revolution? Bolsheviks sent to the rural areas for the collectivization tens of thousands of trained workers - if it is not the dictatorship of the proletariat,then what is it?

Don't listen the vulgar revolutionaries,boys,there were socialist countries,and there are Socialism in Cuba and N Korea now.

[Thirsty Crow]

Answer - No.

The dictatorship of the proletariat has also not occured.

Umm, if we view the DotP as the period of transition during which the working class exerts its political power over the capitalists - wasn't that exactly what has been happening in USSR since 1917 to a supposed achievement of socialism in 1936 (Stalin's announcement)?

[RED DAVE]

Umm, if we view the DotP as the period of transition during which the working class exerts its political power over the capitalistsOkay.


wasn't that exactly what has been happening in USSR since 1917 to a supposed achievement of socialism in 1936 (Stalin's announcement)?No. During a brief period, which was definitely over by 1928, the working class more or less held state power. The nascent socialist society was always bureaucratized. It was an unstable condition of dual power between the workers and the bureacucracy. And because of the economic backwardness of the USSR, the civil war and invasion and the failure of the revolutions in the West, the bureaucracy triumphed.

RED DAVE

[Thirsty Crow]

Okay.

No. During a brief period, which was definitely over by 1928, the working class more or less held state power. The nascent socialist society was always bureaucratized. It was an unstable condition of dual power between the workers and the bureacucracy. And because of the economic backwardness of the USSR, the civil war and invasion and the failure of the revolutions in the West, the bureaucracy triumphed.

RED DAVE
No, I don't think you understood me. What I wrote is not my position on this, but logical position one would take if she/he adopted another position - that socialism was in fact achieved in USSR.
As for us who dispute this claim, it is a matter of ascertaining when exactly did the state bureaucracy completely take over the means of decision making.

But you're probably right, in that I did not indicate this by any means. My bad.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Umm, if we view the DotP as the period of transition during which the working class exerts its political power over the capitalists - wasn't that exactly what has been happening in USSR since 1917 to a supposed achievement of socialism in 1936 (Stalin's announcement)?

No, the working class didn't hold political power, the party did.