What countries were actually socialistic?

[VirgJans12]

I'm wondering what countries are or were actually a socialism. Not like the USSR where Stalin declared that it was, but a real actual socialist state. Where it's fully built up.

[Q]

Where did the working class take power as a class-collective on at least a semi-global scale, involving at least some of the capitalist core in order to be able to positively overcome the rule of capital and start to establish a truly human society?

To ask the question is to answer it really.

[Revolutionair]

Well I consider anarchist Catalonia to be pretty socialistic.

[VirgJans12]

Yeah, I thought so. Thanks Q.

[Q]

Well I consider anarchist Catalonia to be pretty socialistic.

That, like the early Russian soviets, was doomed to failure exactly because it remained isolated (and in the Catalan example the Stalinist regime also pro-actively undermined any genuine revolutionary attempt, because that would inevitably threaten the regime in Moscow at the time).

[Revolutionair]

That, like the early Russian soviets, was doomed to failure exactly because it remained isolated (and in the Catalan example the Stalinist regime also pro-actively undermined any genuine revolutionary attempt, because that would inevitably threaten the regime in Moscow at the time).

Yes agreed.

[VirgJans12]

That, like the early Russian soviets, was doomed to failure exactly because it remained isolated (and in the Catalan example the Stalinist regime also pro-actively undermined any genuine revolutionary attempt, because that would inevitably threaten the regime in Moscow at the time).

I think that's also the reason Cuba hasn't made it. Their isolation was pretty extreme because of the blockade.

[Ostrinski]

Post-Revolutionary Pre-Civil War Russia, Anarchist Catalonia, and the Paris Commune all initiated socialist development but failed because of isolation as well as other conditions unique to each case. The Parisian communards and Catalonian anarchists failed to organize a system of defense against the existing national governments of France and Spain and were therefore isolated. Class relations were re-introduced into the Soviet Union during the civil war because of the bureaucracy that formed to coordinate wartime production.

[Ostrinski]

I think that's also the reason Cuba hasn't made it. Their isolation was pretty extreme because of the blockade.Yes but that's not the reason that socialist development never began. There was a power vacuum after Batista fled Cuba that was filled with the guerrilla insurgents in the Sierra Maestra by default. Unlike in Russia, the working class never held power in Cuba.

[danyboy27]

Almost all countries have several socialistic features, either conceeded by the ruling class for some reason or put in place by the class struggles of the past.

[The Idler]

None did away with capital or exploitative relations of production.

[ArrowLance]

I don't at all like this approach. I consider the USSR to have been socialist. As well as countries like Vietnam, China, Cuba, Laos, and North Korea. This isn't even a complete list. Indeed some of these countries I would still consider socialist. What I'm looking for when I call a country socialist is whether or not the government was working towards the furtherance of working class democracy and socialism.

I think most people on revleft wouldn't just disagree on my definition of socialist but also on the validity of my calling those nations socialist by any measure.

For now I will leave this simply as a counter point to, what is at the moment of my writing this, a thread lacking in any oppositional input.

[danyboy27]

I don't at all like this approach. I consider the USSR to have been socialist. As well as countries like Vietnam, China, Cuba, Laos, and North Korea. This isn't even a complete list. Indeed some of these countries I would still consider socialist. What I'm looking for when I call a country socialist is whether or not the government was working towards the furtherance of working class democracy and socialism.

I think most people on revleft wouldn't just disagree on my definition of socialist but also on the validity of my calling those nations socialist by any measure.

For now I will leave this simply as a counter point to, what is at the moment of my writing this, a thread lacking in any oppositional input.
Well, i guess it all depend of your vision of what a socialist economy look like.
To me Socialism represent the democratic control of the mean of production so, obviously i dont see the soviet union has something that was socialist.

[Rooster]

Socialistic is a completely vague and meaningless phrase. Every country in the world has socialistic elements in it. Every production process has socialistic elements.


What I'm looking for when I call a country socialist is whether or not the government was working towards the furtherance of working class democracy and socialism.

So you're a social democrat then?

[ArrowLance]

Not at all, social democrats do not work towards workers democracy or socialism in any effective way.

[Astarte]

I am not a primitivist, but I think the best historical example of communism "working" is the primitive communism humanity knew for 9/10 of its existence. If communism did not "work", none of us would be here. But that's communism, the ancient past and the ultimate future - the departure from classes and the state will be a rough ride, that is why the attainment of socialism has been so precarious.

[manic expression]

Yes but that's not the reason that socialist development never began. There was a power vacuum after Batista fled Cuba that was filled with the guerrilla insurgents in the Sierra Maestra by default. Unlike in Russia, the working class never held power in Cuba.
"Power vacuums" happen in every revolution, one way or another. The existence of one simply does not disqualify Cuba from having seen revolutionary change. If one reviews the historical record of the Revolution, they will clearly find that the tasks of working-class overthrow and socialist construction were done through the actions of the Cuban workers as a whole. The guerrillas were just one small part of that process, as the guerrillas themselves would themselves have you know.

By the way, power vacuums aren't filled by guerrillas sitting in mountain ranges, and certainly not "by default". Ironically enough the guerrillas had advanced out of the Sierra Maestra by that point.

[Ostrinski]

"Power vacuums" happen in every revolution, one way or another. The existence of one simply does not disqualify Cuba from having seen revolutionary change. If one reviews the historical record of the Revolution, they will clearly find that the tasks of working-class overthrow and socialist construction were done through the actions of the Cuban workers as a whole. The guerrillas were just one small part of that process, as thea guerrillas themselves would themselves have you know.A Power vacuum only happens under industrial economic relations when the proletarian class isn't acting organically. I never said Cuba didn't undergo a revolutionary change politically, but the MoP were never under worker control, ergo no socialist development. My understanding is that Batista had the cities on lock, restricting the action of the workers, and that the advances of the revolution were made through attacks on military garrisons by the guerrillas. What am I missing?


By the way, power vacuums aren't filled by guerrillas sitting in mountain ranges, and certainly not "by default". Ironically enough the guerrillas had advanced out of the Sierra Maestra by that point.Of course, Batista fled after the battle of Santa Clara. I wasn't trying to imply any differently.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think that's also the reason Cuba hasn't made it. Their isolation was pretty extreme because of the blockade.

Cuba hasn't 'made it' because it was always a left-populist, Bolivarian-nationalist revolution in the first place. The 'vanguard' group that led the revolution were petty bourgeois intellectuals (such as Fidel Castro himself) and those based in the countryside.

Yes, the blockade has since had a huge impact on the ability of the Cubans to support their economy, feed their population and source health and other goods, but without the blockade it is likely that Cuba would be simply a more successful, more prosperous version of its current self and, whilst that is/would be commendable no doubt, it would not constitute Socialism in an entirely Marxian sense, for there is still the issue that political and economic democracy have never been allowed to flourish in Cuba, relative to the aims of any would-be Socialist revolution.

[Q]

Cuba hasn't 'made it' because it was always a left-populist, Bolivarian-nationalist revolution in the first place.

Did Cuba actually identify with a "Bolivarian revolution" before Chavez came to power in Venezuela? And for that matter, do they do now? I never heard of that association before.

[manic expression]

Cuba hasn't 'made it' because it was always a left-populist, Bolivarian-nationalist revolution in the first place. The 'vanguard' group that led the revolution were petty bourgeois intellectuals (such as Fidel Castro himself) and those based in the countryside.
I really think this is an unfortunate misconception on the Cuban Revolution. The urban cells were struggling as part of the Revolution for a long time, by some accounts took more casualties than the guerrillas and were quite crucial in the fall of the Batista regime. Historian Jaime Suchlicki wrote that the urban component of the Revolution was even more decisive than guerrilla activities. The constant sabotage of infrastructure, the implementation of intelligence gathering, the insurrectionary attacks that very nearly took Batista's palace...all these were very valuable to the Revolution, there is no doubt about that.

Simply backing up for a second, it is entirely unreasonable to believe that a country can be taken solely by "petty bourgeois intellectuals and those based in the countryside". It's simply unfeasible, really.

Lastly, I don't know why Fidel's background comes very well into this. He lived a life of a revolutionary as much as anyone else of his generation, and his family's farm was the first to be collectivized. Family background matters not a bit in the face of such actions, no?


A Power vacuum only happens under industrial economic relations when the proletarian class isn't acting organically. I never said Cuba didn't undergo a revolutionary change politically, but the MoP were never under worker control, ergo no socialist development. My understanding is that Batista had the cities on lock, restricting the action of the workers, and that the advances of the revolution were made through attacks on military garrisons by the guerrillas. What am I missing?
I beg to differ on a few points. First, the MoP were and are in the hands of the workers. The collectivization efforts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPlnGiS488s) were the first step, and then the formation of the worker state formalized working-class rule (http://cubandemocracy.wordpress.com/election-process/) over the collectivized economy.

Second, as we can see in the deadly attack on Batista's palace (http://www.radioreloj.cu/english/index.php/who-we-are/39-history-of-radio-reloj/58-the-attack-to-radio-reloj) carried out by an urban cell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oe9nqR_oB8) in 1957, Batista didn't have full control of the cities, although you're 100% correct in that he was restricting (to put it kindly) working-class activity. When that restriction was lifted, the working classes burst into full-on activity that led to the revolutionary changes partially depicted in the links above. Whatever the case, the cities were very, very far from being "pacified" under Batista.


Of course, Batista fled after the battle of Santa Clara. I wasn't trying to imply any differently.
OK, understood.

[SacRedMan]

Yugoslavia?

[Lucretia]

I'm wondering what countries are or were actually a socialism. Not like the USSR where Stalin declared that it was, but a real actual socialist state. Where it's fully built up.

Your question presupposes there can be socialism in one country and is therefore fallacious.

[VirgJans12]

Your question presupposes there can be socialism in one country and is therefore fallacious.

How is that? Fifty years ago there were plenty of countries that have had revolutions by socialist and communist movements. As countries don't change at the same speed or along the same lines, it could have been possible for a country to have already reached the socialist stage with others behind it that eventually never made it. I don't believe its possible when surrounded by capitalist nations but surely when surrounded by allies that haven't gotten as far as this country yet it would be possible.

[Kadir Ateş]

I think we have to again figure out what is capitalist before we say what is communist.

Here's a nice little list to which others can add if they so wish to:

1. Was there waged labor? We're talking about mediation, about alienation. The so-called socialist countries had both.

2. Following from No. 1, was there money? If so, what form did it take that was both different but also served the purposes of exchange?

...Of course, the kicker is that a "Yes" to any of these implies capitalism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Did Cuba actually identify with a "Bolivarian revolution" before Chavez came to power in Venezuela? And for that matter, do they do now? I never heard of that association before.

Well, it probably helps to think of Cuba as the first-order Bolivarian revolution, with the later, '21st Century Socialism' revolutions of Morales, Chavez et al as second-order Bolivarian revolutions. Certainly, the two are more cousins than brothers, in that 'Bolivarian revolution' is the more oft-used term for the 21st Century Socialism of the South Americans, whereas obviously Cuba pays lip service to Marxism-Leninism but, historically, the roots of its revolution and the inspiration for characters like Fidel Castro and (especially, I would imagine) Che Guevara have always been in the resistance to colonialism particularly espoused by Simon Bolivar.

[safeduck]

I would say the Maoist China, Cuba under Fidel and the USSR until like 1985.

[Q]

I would say the Maoist China, Cuba under Fidel and the USSR until like 1985.

And why is that?

[Prinskaj]

And why is that?

Because they said so themselves. :p

[Tovarisch]

The only country that I think was ever socialist was Titoist Yugoslavia. Paris Commune lasted only a few months, and I don't think it counts

[Cheung Mo]

It goes without saying that Chavez, Correa, and Morales have all come far closer than Ceaucescu.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Almost all countries have several socialistic features, either conceeded by the ruling class for some reason or put in place by the class struggles of the past.
Social services and universal health care =/= socialism
government control of industry =/= socialism