successful socialist nations?

[freethinker]

Name a few please...

And I have three questions

1. Do you think Chavez will succeed or fail in creating a socialist economy
2. If there had been no coup would Allende succeeded in making a socialist system
3. Is a fall in GDP always inedible for socialist economies?

[tir1944]

Cuba? Depends on what you mean by "successful" anyway...

1.Depends on the working class there
2.Yes.
3.Inedible? But no,it's probably not inevitable,if that's what you asked. :confused:

[DeBon]

1. Fail, he will and somewhat has succeeded in creating another degraded workers state.
2. Meh, I lack knowledge in this subject.
3. Well you're talking about a Socialist Democratic economy, not a Socialist economy, but in the kind of economy you're talking about, yes the GDP will fall.

[Veovis]

Name a few please...

And I have three questions

1. Do you think Chavez will succeed or fail in creating a socialist economy
2. If there had been no coup would Allende succeeded in making a socialist system
3. Is a fall in GDP always inedible for socialist economies?

First of all, there are none and there never were any unless you count the Paris Commune as a state - maybe Russia during the early revolution. As for the questions:

1. An individual cannot create a socialist economy.
2. ditto
3. GDP is a capitalist metric. Look beyond the current paradigm.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Chavez is not moving towards socialism at all. Government monopalization is quite different from common ownership of the means of econonic production and distribution. State-capitalism is no less exploitative then private capitalism.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

1: Hard to tell but if surrounding revolutions do not happen it seems unlikely.

1+2: Don't know.

[Susurrus]

Possibly the Paris Commune, early Russian revolution, Ukrainian Free Territory, Spanish revolution, Shinmin autonomous region, Bavarian Soviet Republic, Zapata Regions in the Mexican Revolution, EZLN regions of mexico, Hungarian Revolution of 1956, and probably others I don't know of.

[socialistjustin]

All those named by Susurrus are good places to look. Not even going to get into places like Cuba and China because it will turn into a rubbish thread.

[Return to the Source]

The people of the USSR, Mongolia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland, North Korea, China, Cuba, Angola, Benin, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, the People's Republic of Congo, Mozambique, Madagascar, Vietnam, Laos, the People's Republic of Kampuchea, Afghanistan, and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen were all successful in overthrowing their ruling class and beginning the long and arduous process of socialist construction.

Practice is the criterion of truth, so the successes of Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, China, and the DPRK are of particular importance to the international proletarian struggle.

[Apoi_Viitor]

The people of the USSR, Mongolia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland, North Korea, China, Cuba, Angola, Benin, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, the People's Republic of Congo, Mozambique, Madagascar, Vietnam, Laos, the People's Republic of Kampuchea, Afghanistan, and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen were all successful in overthrowing their ruling class and beginning the long and arduous process of socialist construction.

Don't forget Nazi Germany. They called themselves socialist too!

[Manic Impressive]

Name a few please...

A socialist country is impossible because in socialism there are no countries. Socialism has never existed.

And I have three questions

1. Do you think Chavez will succeed or fail in creating a socialist economy
Only the working class can create socialism it can't be done for them by some great leader
2. If there had been no coup would Allende succeeded in making a socialist system
Only the working class can create socialism it can't be done for them by some great leader

3. Is a fall in GDP always inedible for socialist economies?
GDP is irrelevant in socialism seeing as there will be no money.

Socialism is not capitalism

[thefinalmarch]

The people of the USSR, Mongolia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland, North Korea, China, Cuba, Angola, Benin, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, the People's Republic of Congo, Mozambique, Madagascar, Vietnam, Laos, the People's Republic of Kampuchea, Afghanistan, and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen were all successful in overthrowing their ruling class and beginning the long and arduous process of socialist construction.

Practice is the criterion of truth, so the successes of Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, China, and the DPRK are of particular importance to the international proletarian struggle.
Funny. I never knew the workers of all these countries overthrew capitalism with the taking over of the means of production and the abolition of wage labour.

Guess you learn something new every day!

[Agent Equality]

The people of the USSR, Mongolia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland, North Korea, China, Cuba, Angola, Benin, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, the People's Republic of Congo, Mozambique, Madagascar, Vietnam, Laos, the People's Republic of Kampuchea, Afghanistan, and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen were all successful in overthrowing their ruling class and beginning the long and arduous process of socialist construction.

Practice is the criterion of truth, so the successes of Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, China, and the DPRK are of particular importance to the international proletarian struggle.

I had no idea any of these countries were even remotely socialist :scared::huh:
I've been so wrong all this time! Where have I been for the last 100 years?

[Nox]

Name a few please...

And I have three questions

1. Do you think Chavez will succeed or fail in creating a socialist economy
2. If there had been no coup would Allende succeeded in making a socialist system
3. Is a fall in GDP always inedible for socialist economies?

It depends on what you class as being successful. If you're asking which countries successfully achieved Socialism; the USSR in the early stages was Socialist, as well as numerous anarchist areas. There were probably a few more countries that were Socialist at one time or another, but I can't remember any more.

1.) Venezuela (along with Cuba) is becoming more and more Capitalistic as time progresses. So he will of course fail.

2.) Not sure.

3.) It isn't always inevitable, but it can often happen. That isn't a bad thing though, in Capitalist economies with a high GDP, most of that wealth lies in the hands of the rich.

[Nox]

the People's Republic of Kampuchea

:Polpot:

[thefinalmarch]

1. Do you think Chavez will succeed or fail in creating a socialist economy
2. If there had been no coup would Allende succeeded in making a socialist system
Chavez and Allende can't and wouldn't have brought about socialism. A socialist/communist mode of production must necessarily brought about through the action of the working class. The working class, by virtue of its unique relations to production, is indeed the only social force capable of overthrowing capitalism and bringing about such a mode of production.

"The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves." -- Marx


3. Is a fall in GDP always inedible for socialist economies?
As money does not exist in communism/socialism, it is impossible to measure the domestic output of a communist "country"/region in these terms. This indeed raises questions concerning the nature of the so-called "socialist" states. If they were not socialist/communist, and can have their outputs measured by means which theoretically can only measure the output of a capitalist economy, what could they possibly have been?

[EvilRedGuy]

The people of the USSR, Mongolia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland, North Korea, China, Cuba, Angola, Benin, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, the People's Republic of Congo, Mozambique, Madagascar, Vietnam, Laos, the People's Republic of Kampuchea, Afghanistan, and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen were all successful in overthrowing their ruling class and beginning the long and arduous process of socialist construction.

Practice is the criterion of truth, so the successes of Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, China, and the DPRK are of particular importance to the international proletarian struggle.


Trolling right? ;)

[Gustav HK]

1. Chavez is a reformist, he might have socialism as his goal, but he will not achieve it.

2. No. Allende was a reformist, to say that he would have succeded leading Chile to socialism is revisionist.

3. "Inedible"? Well, socialist countries can tolerate a negative growth in production for some time.
If it is "inevitable" then no, Stalin´s USSR and Hoxha´s Albania had both high positive growth rates.
Even if we take the infamous Brezhnev stagnation (when there was no longer socialism in USSR), there was still low, but positive growth, AFAIK.

[Iron Felix]

Your question is not without faults. Socialism is an internationalist movement, not a national one. Countries are inventions of the bourgeoisie mentality, the working class has no country. To succeed it must work together in solidarity, national boundries are irrelevant. If Socialism doesn't succeed on an international level, it can't succeed on a national one. This is exactly why the Bolsheviks were bound to fail.

Socialism can't be achieved unless workers of the world unite, anyone remember that slogan? Internationalism, not nationalism.

Chavez can't do much anyways, his leadership style is not very effective. He can bark at America all he wants but the odds are still against him. Obama can "target-kill"(I believe that's what they call assassinations these days)him with a drone and not much will really happen. He can bomb a country for half a year and fund, arm and train Islamic terrorists and help them take over said country and no one gives a shit. I like the man of course, and of course he's achieved some progress and will achieve more but still, not enough.

[robbo203]

Name a few please...

And I have three questions

1. Do you think Chavez will succeed or fail in creating a socialist economy
2. If there had been no coup would Allende succeeded in making a socialist system
3. Is a fall in GDP always inedible for socialist economies?


1. He is not interested in creating a "socialist economy" but rather in some form of state-controlled capitalism and, even if he were interested, socialism cannot be imposed from above by an enlightened leader/elite

2. No, and for the same reason as cited in 1.

3. GDP is a meanigless indicator of wealth or wellbeing in a moneyless socialist economy. GDP will not fall; it will simply disappear as a concept

[aristos]

1. He is not interested in creating a "socialist economy" but rather in some form of state-controlled capitalism and, even if he were interested, socialism cannot be imposed from above by an enlightened leader/elite

Why not actually?
One never really hears any coherent explanation for this assertion other than tired quotations about how "the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves", does one?
While it is certainly correct that the sustained existence/prospering of a socialist geographical entity (whether fractional or global) cannot last indefinitely (or even for long) without being sustained and perpetuated by the masses themselves, nothing really stands in the way of a resolute small group, that through some or other means manages to attain power, creating the environment in which the construction of a classless society can commence.

Now, whether Chavez is a representative of such a group can be disputed (I don't think he is).

[The Jay]

What about the socialist communes dotted across the us? they are probably the best examples of functioning socialism right?

[Tim Cornelis]

Why not actually?
One never really hears any coherent explanation for this assertion other than tiered quotations about how "the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves", does one?
While it is certainly correct that the sustained existence/prospering of a socialist geographical entity (whether fractional or global) cannot last indefinitely (or even for long) without being sustained and perpetuated by the masses themselves, nothing really stands in the way of a resolute small group, that through some or other means manages to attain power, creating the environment in which the construction of a classless society can commence.

Now, whether Chavez is a representative of such a group can be disputed (I don't think he is).

What if slaves want to be slaves, you can impose freedom on them but they will return to their masters if given the opportunity. The workers have to want socialism themselves and have to construct it themselves. If the government forms workers' councils it is likely to become merely a puppet of the government.

[aristos]

Correct, but I am not talking about a purely formal institution of "socialism".
I am talking about creating an actual environment where the self-consciousness of the population can develop.
Even though revolutions of the past were ultimately done away with, in certain ways the imposed "socialisms" were able to transform the way people there related to the world and to each other.

[El Louton]

What do you consider successful?

[Gustav HK]

Succesful socialist states: USSR (under Lenin & Stalin) and Albania (under Hoxha).

Don´t really know how far the other East European countries and Mongolia were in building socialism (of course Yugoslavia wasn´t). Czechoslovakia seemed to go well, on the other hand Gottwald was one of the first to die at the hands of the revisionists.

[El Louton]

USSR under Stalin? That was state capitalism which was a regime of terror which didn't do anything Lenin and Trotosky and Co promised before and after the revolution.

[Gustav HK]

Yeah, that´s right. Stalin was evil, and betrayed the world revolution, bureucratized the USSR and reigned through terror.

Now if Trotsky had come to power, then there would have been world revolution (in a couple of years), and no bureucracy, and no need for terror.

[Rooster]

Succesful socialist states: USSR (under Lenin & Stalin) and Albania (under Hoxha).

Oh? Socialist under Lenin was it? If successful then where are they now?

[milk]

:Polpot:

The People's Republic of Kampuchea was the successor of the Pol Pot regime, named Democratic Kampuchea.

[Gustav HK]

Oh? Socialist under Lenin was it? If successful then where are they now?

They became victim to a revisionist counterrevolution which culminated in open capitalist restoration.

BTW by "socialist" I here also include "building socialism".

[thefinalmarch]

BTW by "socialist" I here also include "building socialism".
"Building socialism" has never had anything to do with socialism. The working class was never involved in this process (unless you count performing wage labor as "building socialism"). "Building socialism" is just a term used by capitalism apologists such as yourself to cover up the fact that capitalism was here to stay.

[#FF0000]

ain't never been a socialist country. sorry

[tir1944]

ain't never been a socialist country
yep it makes sense.
Why and how come the People's republic of Albania wasn't socialist?

[Per Levy]

yep it makes sense.
Why and how come the People's republic of Albania wasn't socialist?

because the workers didnt controll the means of production. and no, party bureaucrats dont count as workers.

[hatzel]

Why and how come the People's republic of Albania wasn't socialist?

Probably because of the lack of socialism there...except for in the name after '76, but that's not really enough.

Unless you mean why was there a lack of socialism. Hmm. I'm sure somebody could come up with a good answer to that one...

[tir1944]

Time for sources,eh?
Eh?

[thefinalmarch]

Time for sources,eh?
Eh?
I understand that in this particular case the burden of proof is on us who are making claims Albania was not socialist, but I'd still like to see any evidence you might have that it was socialist.

[#FF0000]

Time for sources,eh?
Eh?

Sources for what, exactly.

Also, wage labor.


I understand that in this particular case the burden of proof is on us who are making claims Albania was not socialist, but I'd still like to see any evidence you might have that it was socialist.

I don't think so. It's kind of hard to prove this kind of thing. It would be hard to prove vice-versa, as well.

[thefinalmarch]

I don't think so. It's kind of hard to prove this kind of thing. It would be hard to prove vice-versa, as well.
How is the burden of proof not on us? We made a claim and generally we're expected to back it up.

[Gustav HK]

Socialist Albania had broad worker´s participation in the making of plans, and in controlling the individual factories.
There was a narrow income difference rate, 1:2, or something like that.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Chavez's socialism is not scientific socialism. Ergo, his utopianism will fail.

[El Louton]

Well what are we saying is successful and who's version of socialism exactly...

[robbo203]

Why not actually?
One never really hears any coherent explanation for this assertion other than tired quotations about how "the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves", does one?
While it is certainly correct that the sustained existence/prospering of a socialist geographical entity (whether fractional or global) cannot last indefinitely (or even for long) without being sustained and perpetuated by the masses themselves, nothing really stands in the way of a resolute small group, that through some or other means manages to attain power, creating the environment in which the construction of a classless society can commence..

That would be vanguardism and what would happen in that case - since you cannot operate a socialist society without the mass of the population broadly understanding and concurring with its essential modus operandi and it underlying values - is that that small resolute group you speak of would have no alternative but to continue administering capitalism having captured state power. Absolutely inevitably this in turn would lead this small resolute group to, by degrees, abandon the quest for a classless society as the needs of capital imposed themselves on this governing elite - however much it might clothe itself in marxian rhetoric.

The result would actually be worse than if a straightforward capitalist party with no socialist pretensions took power because at least in that case the good name of socialism would not have been dragged through the mud. With your small resolute group of necessity having to abandon the quest for a classless sociesty, this would only help to reinforce the myth that a classless spociety was unattainable. After all, how could it be attainable if an attempt was made to attain it but fasiled miserably? Point being that it failed miserably because the conditions that would have allowed it to succeed - mass socialist understanding - were non existent at the time

[Yugo45]

Possibly the Paris Commune, early Russian revolution, Ukrainian Free Territory, Spanish revolution, Shinmin autonomous region, Bavarian Soviet Republic, Zapata Regions in the Mexican Revolution, EZLN regions of mexico, Hungarian Revolution of 1956, and probably others I don't know of.

I think OP was talking about "socialist countries" that still exist. Since those don't exist no more, that probably means that they weren't really successful.

[freethinker]

this is an interesting discussion..

[BE_]

I don't think there has ever been a true socialist country.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think OP was talking about "socialist countries" that still exist. Since those don't exist no more, that probably means that they weren't really successful.

EZLN communes still exist.

[tir1944]

EZLN communes
These are not a country,so yeah.
Also there's almost no info on what's going on there so yeah again.



I don't think there has ever been a true socialist country.

O RLY?

[EvilRedGuy]

Yeah, but you are not a socialist, tir1944. What are you doing here. Duh.

[tir1944]

Yeah, but you are not a socialist, tir1944. What are you doing here.
Who are you to say?

[EvilRedGuy]

A actual communist, unlike someone we know.

[tir1944]

Well,can't say i'm not amused by people calling themselves "actual communists" in debates as opposed to the opponent who is,supposedly,not an "actual" one.
:laugh:
Cool story bro.:cool:

[maskerade]

Libertatia, the libertarian communalist pirate island of the 17th century. No classes, no government, and all the booty you could ever dream of having. Probably lots of treasure and gold too.

[EvilRedGuy]

Well,can't say i'm not amused by people calling themselves "actual communists" in debates as opposed to the opponent who is,supposedly,not an "actual" one.
:laugh:
Cool story bro.:cool:

This post makes no sense at all. Stop trolling bro.

[tir1944]

[QUOTE]Stop trolling bro. [/QUOTE0
It does,it's just that you don't get it.
Also pot,kettle...:laugh:

[Belleraphone]

1. Depends on what path he takes. He needs to be more democratic and stop seizing so much power. Socialism does not mean owned by a democratic government or state, it means that each individual factory is owned by the workers that work in them.
2. Allende was making policies similar to that of those in the modern day Western European states as well as nationalizing industries. I don't think he would be socialist. I would rather work for the leftist Chilean state than some multinational corporation, but it is not socialism.
3. Depends on what the stance towards working hours and investors is. Investors have invested money into worker-owned companies before and have profited because of their successes, creating GDP. It probably would not reach the peaks that Capitalist states get during times of economic booms, but it would not go through a severe depression/recession.

[Lucretia]

Name a few please...

And I have three questions

1. Do you think Chavez will succeed or fail in creating a socialist economy
2. If there had been no coup would Allende succeeded in making a socialist system
3. Is a fall in GDP always inedible for socialist economies?

Currently every state in the world is class based. In fact, the state can only exist on the basis of class exploitation, and once class society is abolished, the state will disappear, soo....

Not really sure what you mean when you talk about "successful socialist nations." You must mean class societies where government bureaucracies, which are to a greater or lesser degree unaccountable to the people, manage property and the process of capital accumulation (labor exploitation) on a larger scale than a private firm. No, I don't think those are very successful at being socialist. They often aren't very successful at being democratic either.

[∞]

First ask yourself if there is any successful capitalist nations.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

These are not a country,so yeah.



They are an autonomous and territorially cohesive political and social entity. They are close enough to a "country" even if they are not recognized as such.


Also there's almost no info on what's going on there so yeah again.


Not true, it's not easy to get information but there are ways, the Zapatistas are remote but its not like they are totally isolated.

http://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/

[freethinker]

Currently every state in the world is class based. In fact, the state can only exist on the basis of class exploitation, and once class society is abolished, the state will disappear, soo....

Not really sure what you mean when you talk about "successful socialist nations." You must mean class societies where government bureaucracies, which are to a greater or lesser degree unaccountable to the people, manage property and the process of capital accumulation (labor exploitation) on a larger scale than a private firm. No, I don't think those are very successful at being socialist. They often aren't very successful at being democratic either.

but they took power back from Private Industry..

How can Socialism be achieved without the assistance of the nation state?
The Nation State must at first establish self determination by driving away imperialists..
Then that state should give the factories to the workers..

[Lucretia]

but they took power back from Private Industry..

How can Socialism be achieved without the assistance of the nation state?
The Nation State must at first establish self determination by driving away imperialists..
Then that state should give the factories to the workers..

The state, by definition, is a coercive apparatus that emerges from and is designed, in the final instance, to protect exclusive control over productive property. Whether that proprety is held by what you refer to as a "Private Industry" or some different form of exclusive control is irrelevant in determining whether the society is a capitalist one. What is relevant are the factors that distinguish capitalism from other modes of production: exploitative competition for accumulation in which part of what is accumulated is reinvested for the purpose of innovation.

You should read Lenin's State and Revolution to get a better sense of why a socialist revolution is not just about taking over the state and using it for the purpose of the workers. At a theoretical level, this idea involves state-form theory and other issues which I am not about to get into here.

[freethinker]

The state, by definition, is a coercive apparatus that emerges from and is designed, in the final instance, to protect exclusive control over productive property. Whether that proprety is held by what you refer to as a "Private Industry" or some different form of exclusive control is irrelevant in determining whether the society is a capitalist one. What is relevant are the factors that distinguish capitalism from other modes of production: exploitative competition for accumulation in which part of what is accumulated is reinvested for the purpose of innovation.

You should read Lenin's State and Revolution to get a better sense of why a socialist revolution is not just about taking over the state and using it for the purpose of the workers. At a theoretical level, this idea involves state-form theory and other issues which I am not about to get into here.

Thanks!

[Rafiq]

They all failed

[Rafiq]

Chavez is not moving towards socialism at all. Government monopalization is quite different from common ownership of the means of econonic production and distribution. State-capitalism is no less exploitative then private capitalism.

Oh Jesus here we go.

I agree that Chavez isn't going to make a big difference.

However a proletarian state nationalizing or "Monopolizing" is the only way for "Common ownership" to exist. The Proletariat needs the state to act on behalf of it's interests. Just like the Bourgeoisie needs the state as well, to do the same thing.

[Ilyich]

:Polpot:

Because I am an ass, I must point out that the People's Republic of Kampuchea (1979-1993) was not ruled by Pol Pot. You are thinking of Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979). That said, I know what you meant. Both Kampucheas were horribly deformed workers' states and not socialist in the least.

[freethinker]

Somehow by reading this I wonder if the skeptics have a point...
How can we have real Socialism?

[∞]

"Socialist" societies have been successful for capitalists to slander socialism and dismiss it before it even presents itslef.