Communist Success Stories?

[00000000000]

Maybe I need to read up more on the subject and / or have been too heavily influenced by pro-capitalist sources and media...but what true success stories have there been in terms of countries that adopted a communist political and economical programme?

Specific examples of countries, along with reasons why they could be considered a 'success', would be much appreciated.

(I know 'success' is a very loose term, but what I'm getting at is countries where communism worked and benefited the citizens/ workers of that country)

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Cuba, 1.5 percent inflation, unemployment and people below the poverty level compared to the us which has 3.4 percent inflation, 11.4 percent unemployed, and 15 or 20 percent under the poverty level. Look at Wikipedia

[Comrade1]

Maybe I need to read up more on the subject and / or have been too heavily influenced by pro-capitalist sources and media...but what true success stories have there been in terms of countries that adopted a communist political and economical programme?

Specific examples of countries, along with reasons why they could be considered a 'success', would be much appreciated.

(I know 'success' is a very loose term, but what I'm getting at is countries where communism worked and benefited the citizens/ workers of that country)
Albania under Enver Hoxhas leadership.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Tito's Yugoslavia.

[Tim Cornelis]

Ignore the above. Communism is stateless, moneyless and classless.

There have been no examples of this--unless you count Anarchist Aragon.

EDIT: Needless to say, Yugoslavia, Albania and Cuba all had states, classes and money and were therefore never communist.

[Comrade1]

Ignore the above. Communism is stateless, moneyless and classless.

There have been none examples of this--unless you count Anarchist Aragon.

EDIT: Needless to say, Yugoslavia, Albania and Cuba all had states, classes and money and were therefore never communist.
Re-doing what I said above. Albania is an example of a successful socialist state. Yugoslavia was an example of what you want to aviod.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Ignore the above. Communism is stateless, moneyless and classless.

There have been none examples of this--unless you count Anarchist Aragon.

EDIT: Needless to say, Yugoslavia, Albania and Cuba all have states, classes and money and are therefore not communist.


This is true, Yugoslavia was a socialist country. As for a purely Communist nation. It has never yet existed.

[Comrade1]

This is true, Yugoslavia was a socialist country. As for a purely Communist nation. It has never yet existed.
Yugoslavia was a state capitalist nation along with the rest of the eastern bloc after Stalins death. Infact, Yugoslavia was more blatent in their capitalism that the Easter Bloc was. Yugoslavia allowed private business to continue and even Tito called it "Market Socialism" AKA, capitalism. After Stalins death, Albania was the only state to stay true to Marxism-Leninism.

[RED DAVE]

No country that is not based, rock-solid, on workers control of the economy, from the workplace on up, can be considered socialist, communist, Communist, a workers state, etc. Neither Cuba, Yugoslavia, Albania, the USSR, China, Vietnam, etc., ever had workers control, except for a few, brief, shining moments in the early USSR (and some people dispute that). After that, the bureaucracy, the guys in the grey suits with the grey minds and the grey hearts, took over.

RED DAVE

[Rooster]

I am unsure as to how you can call those places successful when they all ended up being regular bourgeois countries.


communist political and economical programme?

The communist political and economic programme is to expropriate means of production and then to hold them in common and to end the forceful division of labour. Do they examples given match those criteria?

[ВАЛТЕР]

Yugoslavia was a state capitalist nation along with the rest of the eastern bloc after Stalins death. Infact, Yugoslavia was more blatent in their capitalism that the Easter Bloc was. Yugoslavia allowed private business to continue and even Tito called it "Market Socialism" AKA, capitalism. After Stalins death, Albania was the only state to stay true to Marxism-Leninism.


Capitalism had to exist in a sense, the goal was to phase it out slowly under governmemt regulation. To instantly destroy private businesses is suicide, a slow dismantling has to take place.

[Comrade1]

No country that is not based, rock-solid, on workers control of the economy, from the workplace on up, can be considered socialist, communist, Communist, a workers state, etc. Neither Cuba, Yugoslavia, Albania, the USSR, China, Vietnam, etc., ever had workers control, except for a few, brief, shining moments in the early USSR (and some people dispute that). After that, the bureaucracy, the guys in the grey suits with the grey minds and the grey hearts, took over.

RED DAVE
Actually 2/3 of Albanias National Assembly in 1981 was comprised of workers and peasents. Workers organized to collective critisize the government to make it suit the people when it was doing something wrong. I will agree with all the other states though, I also encourage people to read this http://www.enver-hoxha.net/content/content_english/books/books-new_albania.htm

[Comrade1]

Capitalism had to exist in a sense, the goal was to phase it out slowly under governmemt regulation. To instantly destroy private businesses is suicide, a slow dismantling has to take place.
I highly doubt it would take Tito 40 years to phase out Private Business >.>

[Rooster]

Capitalism had to exist in a sense, the goal was to phase it out slowly under governmemt regulation.

Same old reformist clap trap revisionism.

[Comrade1]

Same old reformist clap trap revisionism.
Exactly

[Comrade1]

And that Kids is how to shut down a Titoist. :laugh:

[ВАЛТЕР]

Tito had to allow a vertain amount of private enterprise, I agree that he was a tad too lenient in this sense because even the slightest amount of capitalism is like a virus and spreads quickly. I will however say this, that whatever decisions he made it was a far better alternative to capitulating to Stalin.

[Comrade1]

Tito had to allow a vertain amount of private enterprise, I agree that he was a tad too lenient in this sense because even the slightest amount of capitalism is like a virus and spreads quickly. I will however say this, that whatever decisions he made it was a far better alternative to capitulating to Stalin.
"A little to lenient"??? Tito openly imbraced something called "Market Socialism" He let private business continue. He let private farming continue. Tito basically let capitalism continue. Yugoslavia was not a socialist state. It was about as socialist as China is today.

[Tim Cornelis]

Actually 2/3 of Albanias National Assembly in 1981 was comprised of workers and peasents. Workers organized to collective critisize the government to make it suit the people when it was doing something wrong. I will agree with all the other states though, I also encourage people to read this http://www.enver-hoxha.net/content/content_english/books/books-new_albania.htm

And how many members did the National Assembly have? 300 maybe? So 200 workers and peasants are supposed to represent a working class of millions? That doesn't sound like socialism.

A workers' state, in Marx' views, would be based on workers' control of industry, abolition of standing army, universal suffrage, democracy based on directly recallable representatives, worker wages for public officials.

Albania was not a demoracy, Albania did not have workers' control of industry, and I doubt public officials were paid the same wages as workers (although this is not unlikely). Hoxhaism is revisionist since it did not accept Marx' view of a workers' state.

[Kosakk]

I'd say the Labour Movement. Altough it had some minor flaws and has faded a bit away, it still was successful. Without the Labour Movement, there might never had been such a thing as Labour Rights

[Comrade1]

And how many members did the National Assembly have? 300 maybe? So 200 workers and peasants are supposed to represent a working class of millions? That doesn't sound like socialism.

A workers' state, in Marx' views, would be based on workers' control of industry, abolition of standing army, universal suffrage, democracy based on directly recallable representatives, worker wages for public officials.

Albania was not a demoracy, Albania did not have workers' control of industry, and I doubt public officials were paid the same wages as workers (although this is not unlikely). Hoxhaism is revisionist since it did not accept Marx' view of a workers' state.
Im assuming your true study of Enver Hoxha is very minimal. All industry was in social ownership. There was no standing army, the people were the army, the PLA. Everyone had the right to vote (universal suffrage) And the 2/3 of the government were working class people and peasents. Yes, they could represent all working class people. Try again.

[ВАЛТЕР]

"A little to lenient"??? Tito openly imbraced something called "Market Socialism" He let private business continue. He let private farming continue. Tito basically let capitalism continue. Yugoslavia was not a socialist state. It was about as socialist as China is today.

I do not support those actions, i do not care for a man to own his own land and farm for himself and family or to own a small shop to sell his trinkets to support his family, but any large scale private enterprises must be stopped for proper socialism to take hold.

[RED DAVE]

Let's not forget my Uncle Hymie. He was a Communist success story. Even though he was a party member, he owned a shoe store in Brooklyn and made a lot of money.

P.S. He was a cheapskate.

RED DAVE

[Philosopher Jay]

It is wrong to confuse communism, the struggle and movement of the workingclass towards a classless society with particular parties in particular countries. While these parties are important, they are only important in that they move the world in a socialist direction.
When a communist party or socialist party seizes power in a country, there is never a guarantee that capitalists will not gather their international resources to plan and execute counter-revolutions. In fact, there is almost a guarantee that they will.

What we now have to thank the world communist movement for is the understanding that workers are human beings and the quality of their lives matter as much as the lives of the international capitalist ruling classes. We have to thank the world communism movement for its tireless struggles against racism and imperialism. We have to thank the world communist movement for the marvelous idea that women are fully and equally human beings and so are gay people and people in less developed areas.

Looking at these indexes, the world communist movement has been the most successful ideological movement in the history of the world. May it advance boldly forward in the future.

[Tim Cornelis]

Im assuming your true study of Enver Hoxha is very minimal. All industry was in social ownership. There was no standing army, the people were the army, the PLA. Everyone had the right to vote (universal suffrage) And the 2/3 of the government were working class people and peasents. Yes, they could represent all working class people. Try again.

Rhetoric doesn't make it so.

Albania had a standing army, to mask this they called it the PLA.


Everyone had the right to vote (universal suffrage)

Everyone had the right to vote on Albania's single party.

Albania only allowed people from the Democratic Front to be on electoral list. Great democracy! A socialist republic has no need for parties, because the workers govern it through electing representatives directly.


Yes, they could represent all working class people.

No they cannot. There can be no representation of the working class!


All industry was in social ownership.

No, it was nationalised.

Whatever, you're not going to convince me by repeating false rhetoric, so don't try again.

[Comrade1]

I do not support those actions, i do not care for a man to own his own land and farm for himself and family or to own a small shop to sell his trinkets to support his family, but any large scale private enterprises must be stopped for proper socialism to take hold.
So you agree that private business should continue?? You really are a titoist lol...Market socialism makes me laugh.:lol:

[RED DAVE]

Actually 2/3 of Albanias National Assembly in 1981 was comprised of workers and peasents. Workers organized to collective critisize the government to make it suit the people when it was doing something wrong. I will agree with all the other states though, I also encourage people to read this http://www.enver-hoxha.net/content/content_english/books/books-new_albania.htmDid the workers control the economy from the workplace on up. If they didn't, then what you have is some kind of cover for another class ruling over the working class. Even your naive remark "Workers organized to collective critisize the government to make it suit the people when it was doing something wrong." shows that it couldn't be socialism: the state existed as an entity outside the working class.

RED DAVE

[Comrade1]

Rhetoric doesn't make it so.

Albania had a standing army, to mask this they called it the PLA.



Everyone had the right to vote on Albania's single party.

Albania only allowed people from the Democratic Front to be on electoral list. Great democracy! A socialist republic has no need for parties, because the workers govern it through electing representatives directly.



No they cannot. There can be no representation of the working class!



No, it was nationalised.

Whatever, you're not going to convince me by repeating false rhetoric, so don't try again.
The people chosen by the Democratic front did not and were not party members, alot of them were average workers. 2/3 of them were average workers. Do you know the meaning of "Social Ownership" Im assuming you have alot to learn hence I wont continue this discussion but I will provide you with a link to read and broaden your knowledge. http://www.enver-hoxha.net/content/content_english/books/books-new_albania.htm

[Comrade1]

Did the workers control the economy from the workplace on up. If they didn't, then what you have is some kind of cover for another class ruling over the working class. Even your naive remark "Workers organized to collective critisize the government to make it suit the people when it was doing something wrong." shows that it couldn't be socialism: the state existed as an entity outside the working class.

RED DAVE
The Albanian National Assembly was comprised most of working class and peasents but Albania did have local governments, municipalties, also known as "Peoples Councils" were for local governing. These Peoples councils were comprised of a single person from every workplace chosen by the people who work there.

[Nox]

Paris Commune, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that yet. It was a perfect example of successful Communism, but unfortunately it was shortly invaded.

[Tim Cornelis]

The people chosen by the Democratic front did not and were not party members, alot of them were average workers. 2/3 of them were average workers. Do you know the meaning of "Social Ownership" Im assuming you have alot to learn hence I wont continue this discussion but I will provide you with a link to read and broaden your knowledge. http://www.enver-hoxha.net/content/content_english/books/books-new_albania.htm

I know perfectly well what social ownership is, it's different from state owned property as existed in Albania. I don't care if they are "average workers", you keep repeating your rhetoric. Even average workers have no right to rule over the working class.

Albania was not socialist by any stretch of the imagination. And you failed to address the most crucial issues, that of workers control of industry--which was non-existent.

[Thirsty Crow]

Paris Commune, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that yet. It was a perfect example of successful Communism, but unfortunately it was shortly invaded.
How I wish people would stop rambling about "communism" in relation to isolated regimes which modify the basic capitalist relations of production only within borders delineated in a certain way. It just adds to the confusion. To even ask whether X country was socialist is to fall into a contradiction, and that should be patiently explained.

As far as success stories go, one will not be able to find an empirical verification of the viability of communsim by means of comparison. After all, that's why many inexperienced folks ask for "good sides" of supposedly socialist regimes.

Though, you can always point out free healthcare and free education, as well as job security stretching to a degree, as examples of mid-term success following a revolution.

[Comrade1]

I know perfectly well what social ownership is, it's different from state owned property as existed in Albania. I don't care if they are "average workers", you keep repeating your rhetoric. Even average workers have no right to rule over the working class.

Albania was not socialist by any stretch of the imagination. And you failed to address the most crucial issues, that of workers control of industry--which was non-existent.
The working class, through Social Ownership, controled the means of production. The state did plan production to meet the needs of all working class people yet working class people did control their workplace through social ownership. That my comrade is a fact and Im assuming you did not read the link I provided. And if you possess the ignorance and or revisionist stance to say Albania was not socialist, I will love the help you overcome your confusion in such a way that you will see that the methods comrade Hoxha used were quite successful in making the working class the rulers and instating the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Thirsty Crow]

And if you possess the ignorance and or revisionist stance to say Albania was not socialist, I will love the help you overcome your confusion in such a way that you will see that the methods comrade Hoxha used were quite successful in making the working class the rulers and instating the dictatorship of the proletariat.
You really shouldn't posture in such an ignorant way since you unwittingly admitted that one cannot speak aabout established socialism in relation to the historical communist regime of Albania.
Hint: dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism are not interchangeable terms.

[Comrade1]

You really shouldn't posture in such an ignorant way since you unwittingly admitted that one cannot speak aabout established socialism in relation to the historical communist regime of Albania.
Hint: dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism are not interchangeable terms.
You Said "communist regiem" Are you by any chance a conservative?

[Thirsty Crow]

You Said "communist regiem" Are you by any chance a conservative?
Yes, as a matter of fact I am.
Somehow I managed to post some 1600+ posts without being spotted, an then came you the bright star of the future and blew my cover. I'm impressed.
(or it could be that "communist state" is a ridiculous contradiction in terms, and that conservatives don't hold monopolies on certain expressions; though I'm sure that I wouldn't use the term "administration" in opposition to "regime" as you implied covertly by your pointless remark)

But, could it be that you are, by any chance, a blithering ignoramus obssessed with rhetoric (it seems that your politics is pretty much based on it) since you're dancing around the issue, not responding to points raised?

[Bostana]

The Chinese Revolution in 1949.

[RED DAVE]

the methods comrade Hoxha used were quite successful in making the working class the rulers and instating the dictatorship of the proletariat.The emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class. As Eugene Debs the American socialist leader said


I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition.Time to put away this crap, which will lead you nowhere, and start being real revolutionaries.

RED DAVE

[Os Cangaceiros]

Paris Commune, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that yet. It was a perfect example of successful Communism, but unfortunately it was shortly invaded.

wait, what? The Paris Commune was a lot of things, but a "perfect example of successful Communism" it was not.

[Homo Songun]

And that Kids is how to shut down a Titoist. :laugh:

I wouldn't crow too proudly. Albania collapsed on its own, whereas Yugoslavia had to be bombed to death by NATO.

[Homo Songun]

Albania only allowed people from the Democratic Front to be on electoral list. Great democracy! A socialist republic has no need for parties, because the workers govern it through electing representatives directly.This is profoundly confused, on many levels.

[Le Rouge]

I would say todays Bielorussia under Alexander Loukachenko. I read an article in a (french) magazine saying it was the only successful market socialist country.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I wouldn't crow too proudly. Albania collapsed on its own, whereas Yugoslavia had to be bombed to death by NATO.

By "Yugoslavia", do you mean the rump-state Yugoslavia which was composed of only Serbia and Montenegro? Slovenia had already seceeded, followed by Croatia (which was invaded by Serbian nationalists masquerading as the JNA), followed by further chaos as Bosnia (and Macedonia) split off. In addition Serbian nationalists in Krajina Srpska and Republika Srpska had already taken over their own areas inside Croatia and Bosnia, respectively. All this happened before NATO "bombed Yugoslavia to death".

[black magick hustla]

wrong question to ask. communism is not a blueprint nor a set of solutions for current problems. its the organic movement towards the negation of class society and the creation of a world human community. this can take many forms, its not a set of principles to be implemented. so communism cannot be a "failure" or a "success", atleast in the way you are treating it, because communism exists in certain forms even if the people carrying it forward are not communist. communism will exist until the last man is incapable of rejecting his role as an object.

[Weezer]

I would say todays Bielorussia under Alexander Loukachenko. I read an article in a (french) magazine saying it was the only successful market socialist country.

get out.

[Madslatter]

Paris Commune, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that yet. It was a perfect example of successful Communism, but unfortunately it was shortly invaded.
wait, what? The Paris Commune was a lot of things, but a "perfect example of successful Communism" it was not.
The Paris Commune was far from a perfect example, but I think it's worth mentioning as a success story.

[DarkPast]

By "Yugoslavia", do you mean the rump-state Yugoslavia which was composed of only Serbia and Montenegro? Slovenia had already seceeded, followed by Croatia (which was invaded by Serbian nationalists masquerading as the JNA), followed by further chaos as Bosnia (and Macedonia) split off. In addition Serbian nationalists in Krajina Srpska and Republika Srpska had already taken over their own areas inside Croatia and Bosnia, respectively. All this happened before NATO "bombed Yugoslavia to death".

Yeah, by the late 80-ies the Yugoslav People's Army had been purged by Milosevic's clique, he completely overhauled its combat doctrine (with disastrous results) and replaced most of the officers with Serbian ultranationalists. From 1993 onwards even the pretense of socialism was dropped, and all remaining communist icons were removed. Milosevic's regime was basically right-wing authoritarian bordering on fascism.

[Dulce et Decorum est]

Yugoslavia was a success story.

I don't know much about Enver Hoxha or his Albania admittedly, but it is not without reason why so many Albanians fled to Kosovo for a better life (Which, as a result, is causing some really intense problems in the region now). I will avoid the discussion on Albania/Hoxha.

Yugoslavia is a undeniable success story in the fact that it brought together Serbs, Bosniaks, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, Montenegrins and even Albanian Kosovars together for the first time in history and made peace between these nations. For the first time in centuries, they set aside their religious and nationalist hatred of each other in order to work for the "Brotherhood & Unity" of the Yugoslav people as a whole. Tito brought peace to the region, and his neutrality and ability to deny Stalin are indeed, a great success that we as Socialists & Communists should take note of.

Economic Policy wise, I think Yugoslavia was a success too.

[DarkPast]

Yugoslavia was a success in the sense that it was better than the countries it replaced, and better than what came after it. But it was still very far from being communist.

It all went to hell after Tito de facto stepped down in 1977, and just got worse in the mid 80-ies. National-exculsivism was reborn, western-inspired market reforms were implemented and a loan was taken from the World Bank - a loan that the state never managed to repay.

The worst thing is, much of this was planned by imperialist powers. According to Ronald Reagan's "National Security Decisions Directive" 133 from 1984, U.S. interests in Yugoslavia were already promoting the "trend towards a market-oriented Yugoslav economic structure". "The National Endowment for Democracy" in Yugoslavia actively promoted privatization through liquidation. This led to people losing jobs, and this was exploited by power-hungry nationalist leaders, who presented this as a fault of the "others" (Serbs, Muslims, Croats, Albanians etc.).

[Kornilios Sunshine]

The Cuban Revolution in 26 July 1953.

[runequester]

The answer is either:

A lot

or

None at all

Depending on what your views are.

If you feel that only true, utopian communism qualifies, then no. Communism has not achieved anything, because it hasn't been achieved yet.

If you feel that steps towards communism and intermediate socialism qualifies, then the world is full of them.


A few off the top of my head:

USSR abolished food rationing very shortly after WW2, while Britain maintained it longer due to shortages.

Having an 8 hour work day in the 50's.

Taking a massive population, with large numbers of ill-educated or un-educated peasants and educating them.

Improving living conditions tremendously.

Providing health care, education, jobs and reasonable wages for a massive population.


This is just the USSR. Look at former Yugoslavia and the sink-hole it has become past the dissolution.
Ask yourself why a reversal to market economics caused the population to decline year over year for 20 years straight in Russia.
Ask yourself why even today, large portions of the population in the eastern bloc think they are worse off than they were 30 years ago.


Talking to people about what may occur in the future is good. Showing them what has been achieved with hard earned sweat is priceless.

[tobbinator]

I would have to say Tito's Yugoslavia was a brilliant success story. They had almost nothing left after the end of WW2 and managed to create a successful albeit not quite socialist enough nation. It was nationalism in the republics that lead to its downfall and the influence the Americans had, rather than horrible management like in other nations.

[runequester]

I would have to say Tito's Yugoslavia was a brilliant success story. They had almost nothing left after the end of WW2 and managed to create a successful albeit not quite socialist enough nation. It was nationalism in the republics that lead to its downfall and the influence the Americans had, rather than horrible management like in other nations.

Crushing debt to the IMF helped as well. The Greeks are learning this now.