Has a country ever thrived from communism.

[DoCt SPARTAN]

This sound kind of rude but has there ever been communist country that has thrived from communism, Because all ever hear is about how history proved communism wrong!

[Yuppie Grinder]

The existence of communism necessarily implies the absence of nation-states.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Assuming you mean Stalinism, it doesn't make sense for a supposed Marxist to justify the terrible exploitation and oppression under Stalin and Mao with claims of efficient industrialization and then demonize gilded age capitalism.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

I think that is the wrong question, the question should be have any individuals benefited from communism, reached their full human potential et cetera? Looking at Spain in the 30's, or the benefits the workers enjoy in co-operatives and industries that practise work place democracy, I would say yes.

[Delenda Carthago]

USSR thrived as long as it remained true to the socialist principles. It went downgill as they returned more and more to capitalist modes of production.

Look at life expectancy for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia


Unfortunatly they didnt had hiphop, so whats to live more for if you cant bump a dope ass beat?

[tuwix]

This sound kind of rude but has there ever been communist country that has thrived from communism,


Everyone. Every society has started its civilisation form primitive communism.



Because all ever hear is about how history proved communism wrong!

Just bourgeois propaganda.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Communism has never existed. Surely you mean socialism? And yes, countries have thrived under it. Cuba, for example, has one of the best healthcare systems in the world.

[Comrade Nasser]

This sound kind of rude but has there ever been communist country that has thrived from communism, Because all ever hear is about how history proved communism wrong!

Depends on your definition of "thrive". Also friend, you must surely mean Socialism yes? Pure communism has never been practiced before, no matter what your teachers or your history books tell you. They just say "Communism" because it sounds scarier and to turn people off of the political ideology at a young age. Your taught whenever you go over WW2 that the Nazis AND the Soviets were both our enemies, then once you learn about the cold war, they imprint you with visions of an oppressive totalitarian theocracy led by "Dear Leader" whose corrupt regimes kill millions and silence political opposition by any means necessary. IMO that is not Communism. Just my 2 cents. DONT DRINK THE KOOL-AID CONRADE!

[tuwix]

Communism has never existed.

Untrue. The primitive communism exists even today.

Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E88gOuI3XJQ

But click the "CC" button to turn on the subtitles to understand what he says.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Communism has never existed. Surely you mean socialism?

I thought they were synonimous.

[Blake's Baby]

Trotskyists and Stalinists have their own definition of 'socialism' that they assume the rest of us share. Though under a Trotskyist definition (that you might assume would be used by InsertNameHere, who lists 'CWI(possibly)' as their organisation), the Soviet Union never even acheived 'socialism'. So its use about the USSR by someone who's claiming to be a Trotskyist is somewhat bizarre.

[Regicollis]

The 'communist' experiments we have encountered thus far were by no means ideal societies. However the communists did some good things to their societies, for instance the standard of living for the average population was hugely increased in the USSR as compared to that of the Russian Empire. The communists also eradicated illiteracy in Russia. I think I remember having heard once that the economic growth in the USSR between the Civil War and WW2 was one of the highest ever encountered.

The society built by the Spanish revolution also had many good elements to it. A small practical example is how public transportation was improved in Barcelona when the various transportation companies were merged into one with free fares and timetables that fit to each other.

If we expand the question to include all sorts of 'socialism' even the capitalist class-collaborating policies of European social democracies did at a point in history improve conditions for common workers by providing free health care, unemployment benefits, affordable housing and increasing salaries.

All in all I think history shows us that conditions increase and societies become more habitable the more political power ordinary workers have. What we see now with political elites being more and more exclusive and common workers being left more and more out of the political process is also declining standards of living - just look at the European austerity madness.

[Tim Cornelis]

Communism has never existed. Surely you mean socialism? And yes, countries have thrived under it. Cuba, for example, has one of the best healthcare systems in the world.

Cuba has an above average healthcare system, ranked 39 on the WHO list (below the US, which is ranked 37, but far above first world countries like Argentina, Albania, and Latvia).

[IrishSocialist]

Surely the existence of Cuba and Venezuela is proof of Socialism succeeding? What I will say for Fidel Castro; despite my love for him, I think he ought to have trusted his people more. Yet his fears were pretty justifiable.

[RedMaterialist]

This sound kind of rude but has there ever been communist country that has thrived from communism, Because all ever hear is about how history proved communism wrong!

It depends on how you define "thrive." If somebody is trying to kill you and successfully prevent that person from killing you or you kill him, have you "thrived?"

The fascist, corporate capitalist state, Nazi Germany, tried to kill the Soviet Union. The communist state not only killed Hitler but also may have destroyed fascism as a political theory.

Vietnam, a militarily weak, third world colonial country, defeated, first, France and then the world's largest and most violent military, the U.S. Cuba, one of the smallest countries in the world, has survived a 53 year old economic embargo by the world's sole remaining superpower. Even tiny North Korea, which calls itself communist (but who knows what kind of economic system it really has,) has held the U.S. to a standoff, primarily by developing nuclear weapons.

In Angola, in the 80s and 90s, a socialist revolution destroyed a capitalist backed reactionary counter-revolution, with the help of the Soviet Union and Cuba. There were even Cuban troops in Angola fighting against the U.S. backed UNITA forces. And this was while Reagan was president. Even a reactionary anti-communist like Reagan was afraid to get involved in a real, hot war with communists in Africa.

Socialism appears to have failed militarily in Central America, but in Venezuela it is still alive, or "thriving." Of course, the U.S. may decide to attack Venezuela either directly or by instigating a coup.

The fact that the former communist states (really, a contradiction in terms) have relapsed into a mix of communism, socialism and capitalism should not be surprising. After the defeat of feudalism in the French Revolution, France was governed by a "monarchy," even though the country was developing into a fully bourgeois state. As Marx noted, history repeats itself, first as tragedy then as farce. Russia and China went through the tragedies of their socialist revolutions. Who could be more farcical now than Yeltsin and Putin? The Chinese leaders can't even keep their petty bourgeoisie from dumping dead pigs into rivers that Shanghai uses for drinking water.

People who say that communism has failed take an extremely short view of history. Slavery lasted long into feudalism, some early bourgeois states were re-incorporated into the "Holy Roman Empire," (I think some of the early Italian city-states such as Venice fall into this category.) And now former socialist states are re-developing capitalist characteristics. Meanwhile, socialism in the form of the welfare state, and the democratic fight against corporate bailouts continues. As Marx asked, how many more crises can the capitalist system survive?

Democracy is the road to socialism, someone said somewhere. History is on the side of democracy and socialism. There ain't no going back.

[Peoples' War]

Full Communism has not existed, but we have had socialism in Russia and China. They definitely thrived. When we look at the socialist countries today, they are prevented from thriving by sanctions, embargoes, etc. by the imperialists.

[RedMaterialist]

Meanwhile, RevLeft thrives on advertising promoting the sale of Vietnam War "boonie" hats. Does this mean RevLeft is now capitalist?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Communism has never existed. Surely you mean socialism? And yes, countries have thrived under it. Cuba, for example, has one of the best healthcare systems in the world.

Cuba looks more like a social-democracy to me.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Surely the existence of Cuba and Venezuela is proof of Communism succeeding? What I will say for Fidel Castro; despite my love for him, I think he ought to have trusted his people more. Yet his fears were pretty justifiable.

I with you were joking but I know your not.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Trotskyists and Stalinists have their own definition of 'socialism' that they assume the rest of us share. Though under a Trotskyist definition (that you might assume would be used by InsertNameHere, who lists 'CWI(possibly)' as their organisation), the Soviet Union never even acheived 'socialism'. So its use about the USSR by someone who's claiming to be a Trotskyist is somewhat bizarre.

When I say communism I generally mean the final classless, stateless society. That has never existed in any modern society.

[Blake's Baby]

When I say communism I generally mean the final classless, stateless society. That has never existed in any modern society.

Which relates to your use of 'socialism' how exactly? The point was not how you define 'communism', but why you think that the Soviet Union acheived 'socialism'.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Which relates to your use of 'socialism' how exactly? The point was not how you define 'communism', but why you think that the Soviet Union acheived 'socialism'.

Except the OP wasn't asking about the Soviet Union, but if any country has ever thrived from communism. I was making a point that none have since communism has never existed, just socialism.

[Old Bolshie]

Cuba looks more like a social-democracy to me.

It's wrong to say that Cuba achieved socialism but saying that looks a social-democracy is also profoundly wrong. You have social democracy in Portugal and in Europe. Do you think it's similar to Cuba where you have a one party rule and all the major means of production belong to the state?

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

Except the OP wasn't asking about the Soviet Union, but if any country has ever thrived from communism. I was making a point that none have since communism has never existed, just socialism.
What countries do you consider to have achieved socialism then?

[Blake's Baby]

Except the OP wasn't asking about the Soviet Union, but if any country has ever thrived from communism. I was making a point that none have since communism has never existed, just socialism.

You keep saying that 'socialism' has existed, or some countries were or are socialist, or something. I have been trying to find out what you mean.

Let's try again.

1 - 'socialism' and communism are the same thing; if communism has never existed neither has socialism. This is the position of practically everyone who is not a Leninist. It's just Trotskyists (Bolshevik-Leninists) and Stalinists (Marxist-Leninists) who differentiate between 'socialism' and 'communism'. If you follow this definition, 'socialism' can only have existed in the soviet Union - or anywhere else - if communism existed.

2 - 'socialism' is what Marx referred to as 'the lower stage of communism'. Lenin called it 'socialism', but Marx didn't. For 'socialism' to have existed in the Soviet Union, the lower stage of communism must have been reached. Stalinists claim it was; Trotskyists don't.

3 - 'socialism' is the same as the dictatorship of the proletariat. This a Maoist definition. If 'socialism' existed, then the working class must have taken power somewhere (such as the Soviet Union).

One of those sets of statements must I think correspond to your views. Which is it, if you don't mind?


By the way, if you change your name, you're supposed to put your former name in your signature for two weeks.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Banging head against wall emoticon.

And what do you think 'socialism' means, for the third time?

It's the stage between capitalism and communism. Maybe I was just getting slightly using semantics in my previous posts, but my point still stands that the stateless, classless society we all strive for has never existed.

[Blake's Baby]

It's the stage between capitalism and communism. Maybe I was just getting slightly using semantics in my previous posts, but my point still stands that the stateless, classless society we all strive for has never existed.

Hmm. I changed my post after I posted that 2-line version.

'The stage between capitalism and communism' doesn't mean much. Does 'communism' here only mean 'the higher stage of communism' (in other words, like the Stalinists, do you think that the soviet Union was 'socialist' because it had reached the lower stage of communism)?

Or does 'communism' here mean 'communism (lower and higher stages)', in which case 'socialism' must mean the economic transformation corresponding to the DotP? If this is the case, watch out for Red Enemy who has a particular loathing for this interpretation. I don't know whether it's because it's the Maoist version that it provokes such dislike.

Either way - you're quite an unothodox Trotskyist. Trotskyism accepts that 'socialism' comes between 'capaitalism' and '(higher stage) communism' (in other words, like Stalinism, regards 'socialism' as = 'lower stage communism') but, unlike Stalinism, doesn't think the Soviet Union (or anywhere else) acheived in the 20th century.

So if you think 'socialism' did exist in the 20th century, it's by applying either a Stalinist or Maoist framework. I'm interested in which you think is closest.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Hmm. I changed my post after I posted that 2-line version.

'The stage between capitalism and communism' doesn't mean much. Does 'communism' here only mean 'the higher stage of communism' (in other words, like the Stalinists, do you think that the soviet Union was 'socialist' because it had reached the lower stage of communism)?

Or does 'communism' here mean 'communism (lower and higher stages)', in which case 'socialism' must mean the economic transformation corresponding to the DotP? If this is the case, watch out for Red Enemy who has a particular loathing for this interpretation. I don't know whether it's because it's the Maoist version.

Either way - you're quite an unothodox Trotskyist.

I only believe the Soviet Union was socialist under Lenin. After that it degraded into a state ruled by a bureaucratic party. And yes, when I refer to communism I mean the higher stage of communism. Yes you need socialism to get to communism but to me they're not the same thing.

[Blake's Baby]

I only believe the Soviet Union was socialist under Lenin. After that it degraded into a state ruled by a bureaucratic party. And yes, when I refer to communism I mean the higher stage of communism. Yes you need socialism to get to communism but to me they're not the same thing.

Still doesn't answer the question. Do you think the USSR reached the lower stage of communism, or are you using socialism to mean the DotP?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Still doesn't answer the question. Do you think the USSR reached the lower stage of communism, or are you using socialism to mean the DotP?

When I see the word "socialism" I think of the DotP. Once that goes away then it's communism.

[Arakir]

Cuba is doing better economically than most nations in the Caribbean. I has an HDI of 0.776.

[IrishSocialist]

I with you were joking but I know your not.

Please, continue in your slandering.

[Blake's Baby]

When I see the word "socialism" I think of the DotP. Once that goes away then it's communism.

OK, at least that's clear.

Not only does your definition conflict with Marx, it also conflicts with Lenin and Trotsky. I think it's the definition Maoists use however. That's why it took so long to get a handle on what you meant. Using words as a Maoist while claiming to be a Trotskyist is a bit confusing.

[LOLseph Stalin]

OK, at least that's clear.

Not only does your definition conflict with Marx, it also conflicts with Lenin and Trotsky. I think it's the definition Maoists use however. That's why it took so long to get a handle on what you meant. Using words as a Maoist while claiming to be a Trotskyist is a bit confusing.

I actually don't know much about Maoism, and apparently not much about Trotskyism either. Figures since when I read stuff I seem to absorb none of it. Maybe this is incentive to actually learn about Maoism though.

[Ocean Seal]

Assuming you mean Stalinism, it doesn't make sense for a supposed Marxist to justify the terrible exploitation and oppression under Stalin and Mao with claims of efficient industrialization and then demonize gilded age capitalism.
Sure, but gilded age capitalism didn't improve the welfare of the vast majority of its citizens, union resistance to capitalism did so. Whereas in the SU, workers were not organized on their own in any fashion after the mid 30's.


Meanwhile, RevLeft thrives on advertising promoting the sale of Vietnam War "boonie" hats. Does this mean RevLeft is now capitalist?
Is this the worst one you've gotten? I've gotten the why did Obama ban this ad one, and a bunch of Palin ones.

[blake 3:17]

Cuba.

[Etular]

This sound kind of rude but has there ever been communist country that has thrived from communism, Because all ever hear is about how history proved communism wrong!

Most of the people here have already touched upon everything already.

In regards to primitive communism, the existence of stateless communism in former hunter-gatherer times (which was a system for significantly longer than we've ever had the capitalist or feudal systems - starting 1.8 million years ago, ending only 10,000 years ago; the economy only beginning, following trading systems etc., after we'd settled down on the land and expanded enough) is seen as an example that Communism, in theory and practice, was possible. Arguably, especially in modern times, even suitable and ideal. Primitive communism was never "disproven" or seen as flawed; I'm sure people will correct me if I'm wrong, but the monetary system only really developed as a means of universal trade (from a time when carrying heavy objects across the country for trade was burdensome). It quickly developed into the form of token economy we know today - do a some work, and you get a shiny coin, which you can exchange for some item of choosing. Primitive communism was ridden out of convenience at the time, but in a modern context many believe we've developed the knowledge, skills and technology necessary to return to a stateless communism. Then, ofcourse, there are the Anarcho-Primitivists who would prefer to live in the initial stateless communism we've lived in previously, without the technological advances etc.

In a modern context, we have to be careful not to step on too many toes, as many theories have many different views about defining "Communism". Most who adhere to Orthodox (rather than reformist) Marxism tend to see a distinction between "Socialism" and "Communism" - "Socialism" being the state which is transitioning to a "Communist" society; and "Communism" (often labelled "stateless Communism" or "full Communism") is the utopian classless, stateless ideal that Socialism aims for.

If you're a believer of "Socialism in One Country" (and believe that constitutes as "Communism"), you'll probably cite China, the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) and such as viable examples of Communism being successful. If you are an Anarcho-Communist (in layman terms, a group that desires stateless Communism without Socialism), you may cite the likes the Spanish Civil War and/or the Makhnovists as a successful example. If you believe in World Communism (which tends to be the aim of most, if not all, Communist groups - even the "Socialism in One Country" group tended to support eventual world communism), then the general view would be that Communism has never truly existed in the modern world, and that the USSR (true to its name) was a Socialist Republic (albeit, the word "Socialism" has changed its meaning to become more moderate over time).

As much as people cite Cuba as an example, I would be tempted to argue that such a view (similar to the views of China, the USSR, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and other such countries) is Socialist rather than Communist, based on the fact that Communism (as stated above) is seen as the stateless, classless end. Socialism, in contrast, is generally viewed of as the political means to that end, be it totalitarian or democratic.

In a similar manner, by all means cite the Cuban education system (top of the Education Index), healthcare system etc. as shining examples of how we would distribute wealth to help the people; but, at the same time, let us not forget the various civil and human rights transgressions shared by most authoritarian Socialist countries if its citizens dissent that has gained us Leftists our negative reputation. Cuba may be a good example in certain key aspects, but it's far from the shining beacon to hold out to the rest of the world as a "What we could be", in my personal opinion.

[TheEmancipator]

Paris Commune and Anarchist Catalonia before they were shot up by nationalists is the argument I tend to use when people say communism has never worked. Those two systems were working just fine.

[xTsengLIVEx]

This sound kind of rude but has there ever been communist country that has thrived from communism, Because all ever hear is about how history proved communism wrong!

I agree, many people do state, "Communism is good in theory but will never work, history has proven that" - It is very common for "common" people to say this, I get this response all the time. :rolleyes: I totally disagree with them, they are ignorant people with no faith or are simply sheep whose minds are clouded by the capitalistic materials that surrounds them. :thumbdown: To some extent they speak sense because it's true that many countries which have been Communist have eventually collapsed or are today, declining and turning to Capitalism. Evidently, China is one of these countries, you would agree wouldn't you? My point is: Communism does work. Though to prove my point, all you have to do is simply look at how long the Soviet Union lasted: 1922 - 1991 (I'm not sure if that's exact) That is a long time, so Communism has worked. It did collapse eventually but something must have went terribly wrong for it to collapse, maybe the society or the person who was leading at the time? Does anybody know? :confused: But it wasn't the political ideology and I would disagree with anyone who said differently. Communism lives today in many countries as you know, and they have some of the best economy's. Their people united, with freedom, under control and content. If only everybody thought this way ... I'm afraid even when you put forward "the facts" to people who believe differently, they will still refuse to believe Communism works. Communism in our own country will only FAIL if we don't try and if we don't maintain FAITH in the political side of things then we will never know, we shouldn't always decide our actions based on the past. I quote something that I have said in the past: "It matters very little about the past, the only thing that matters more is the FUTURE. For we do not work backwards in society, we are forever moving forward in time" and I still believe that. (Have faith, follow your heart and believe.)

[blake 3:17]

Paris Commune and Anarchist Catalonia before they were shot up by nationalists is the argument I tend to use when people say communism has never worked. Those two systems were working just fine.

The Paris Commune lasted a few months. A very large number of the Communards were murdered. It is one of the richest and greatest moments in our struggle, but not one we want to repeat.

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

Though to prove my point, all you have to do is simply look at how long the Soviet Union lasted: 1922 - 1991 (I'm not sure if that's exact) That is a long time, so Communism has worked.
Communism lives today in many countries as you know, and they have some of the best economy's.Sorry, comrade, but you seem to be unaware of what exactly communism means. Nowhere has a classless, stateless, moneyless society with commonly owned means of production ever existed. Countries like the Soviet Union were far from actually having achieved communism; it had only begun the long process towards communism. Also, communism cannot exist in one country, it will have to be worldwide.


It did collapse eventually but something must have went terribly wrong for it to collapse, maybe the society or the person who was leading at the time? Does anybody know?You will get slightly different answers from different tendencies, but in general, it's basically because the communist party became more and more liberal, and eventually filled with people who were hardly even communists, if at all. Mikhail Gorbachev came to power, who made political reforms which allowed right wing parties to spread their propaganda, and economic reforms which made it more and more capitalist (they opened a McDonalds in Moscow ffs) until it couldn't take it anymore and collapsed.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

This sound kind of rude but has there ever been communist country that has thrived from communism, Because all ever hear is about how history proved communism wrong!
Communism has yet to be achieved, and when it is, nations will have been abolished.

[Delenda Carthago]

USSR between 1917 and 1957 went from a country that was bankrupt, with no serious industry, to a civil war with the collaboration of 16 imperialist armies, winning a World War almost by itself, to having nuclears and satellites.

From this

http://carportsaluminum.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/220px-Marion_Cty_Iowa_Farmer_w_mule_drawn_wagon_1920s.jp g

to this

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSfP9Ep9eGUoAhtlimfC9pTmRN96WtxJ 47AFmcqHx3zY2f0-sas



So yeah a country has thrived. USSR.

[Tim Cornelis]

USSR between 1917 and 1957 went from a country that was bankrupt, with no serious industry, to a civil war with the collaboration of 16 imperialist armies, winning a World War almost by itself, to having nuclears and satellites.

From this

http://carportsaluminum.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/220px-Marion_Cty_Iowa_Farmer_w_mule_drawn_wagon_1920s.jp g

to this

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSfP9Ep9eGUoAhtlimfC9pTmRN96WtxJ 47AFmcqHx3zY2f0-sas


So yeah a country has thrived. USSR.


A thriving imperialist power indeed.

[newdayrising]

Portugal is in Europe and is not a social democracy.
Also, having some sort of welfare state does not a social democracy make.


It's wrong to say that Cuba achieved socialism but saying that looks a social-democracy is also profoundly wrong. You have social democracy in Portugal and in Europe. Do you think it's similar to Cuba where you have a one party rule and all the major means of production belong to the state?

[Forward Union]

One thing I will add to this discussion is the idea of a sliding scale. While no serious political scientist would ever claim there had been a "Communist Country" some will say there have been and are "Socialist" Countries, and some people here will agree that various nations have been Socialist to some greater or lesser extent.

But even within the Capitalist world, the countries which embrace socially controlled production or social programs are far more successful, just look at the European Social Democracies, and compare their education, literacy rates, health, crime rates, etc (and overall happiness), to countries which have lesser welfare states, and invest more money in War than the well being of their people. Compare Cuba to the Dominican republic or Haiti.

Then imagine how much better these nations would be if they went further down those roads and brought the entire infrastructure under the direct management of the people for the benefit of humanity.

[Delenda Carthago]

A thriving imperialist power indeed.
Imperialist? :laugh:

Why do you play with meanings you dont even understand man? Seriously.

[Tim Cornelis]

Imperialist? :laugh:

Why do you play with meanings you dont even understand man? Seriously.

You're right. Space exploration was a purely scientific endeavor. It was not a defensive, competitive geopolitical endeavor to maintain the Soviet Union's economic interests backed by capital. Nor was the inverse Marshall Plan of the Soviet Union, plundering Eastern Europe under the guise of "war reparations" imperialist, not to mention COMECON, a USSR-dominated organisation used to direct general economic conduct of its members to the will of the USSR. None of this is imperialism of course!

[Delenda Carthago]

You're right. Space exploration was a purely scientific endeavor. It was not a defensive, competitive geopolitical endeavor to maintain the Soviet Union's economic interests backed by capital. Nor was the inverse Marshall Plan of the Soviet Union, plundering Eastern Europe under the guise of "war reparations" imperialist, not to mention COMECON, a USSR-dominated organisation used to direct general economic conduct of its members to the will of the USSR. None of this is imperialism of course!
Ok, so other that you dont know what imperialism actually is and you just name "imperialism" anything you feel like it, you find it morally and politicaly wrong the choice of USSR of defending itself.

Nice.


The other stuff about Comecon are even more hilarious, giving the fact that Comintern was self-disolved during the war years in order to create wider collaborations with the antifascist parts of the Capital(ie the democrats). If we can accuse something on USSR, is that it wasnt aggresive enough when needed. Not the other way around.


And, btw, you should read this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/). If you gonna throw the word around,you might as well know what its actually about.

[pastradamus]

The existence of communism necessarily implies the absence of nation-states.

No it dosen't. I assume its Marxism you speak of in this regard. The nation state must exist in order for Marxism to being its quest of destroying the state and promoting itself as a form of mass people movement globally. Only then can nations be crumbled.

EDIT

Marx used the example of a nation state as a form of protection in true Communism's early days.

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

You're right. Space exploration was a purely scientific endeavor. It was not a defensive, competitive geopolitical endeavor to maintain the Soviet Union's economic interests backed by capital.
Yes, what a strange idea, for a country to want to defend itself, when every capitalist country in the world had been trying to sabotage it since the first day of its existence...

[Tim Cornelis]

Yes, what a strange idea, for a country to want to defend itself, when every capitalist country in the world had been trying to sabotage it since the first day of its existence...

The US too, was merely trying to defend itself, from the reds. You can't deny that. Defending oneself and imperialism are not mutually exclusive.


Ok, so other that you dont know what imperialism actually is and you just name "imperialism" anything you feel like it, you find it morally and politicaly wrong the choice of USSR of defending itself.

See above.


The other stuff about Comecon are even more hilarious, giving the fact that Comintern was self-disolved during the war years in order to create wider collaborations with the antifascist parts of the Capital(ie the democrats). If we can accuse something on USSR, is that it wasnt aggresive enough when needed. Not the other way around.

That makes no sense. How is collaboration with "democratic" capital proving it was not imperialist?



And, btw, you should read this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/). If you gonna throw the word around,you might as well know what its actually about.

Read it thank you very much.

Notice how you didn't refute anything.

[conmharáin]

The U.S.S.R. thrived during the socialist endeavor as a superpower and a progressive state.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Hey since this is getting derailed into a discussion about Imperialism, what do y'all think about Rosa Luxemburg's "The Accumulation of Capital"? Should I read it? It's a lot of pages and I have a short attention span for anything that from before 1965.

[Old Bolshie]

Portugal is in Europe and is not a social democracy.
Also, having some sort of welfare state does not a social democracy make.

Well, I'm actually Portuguese but thank you anyway for let me know where my country is geographically located. I had a hard time to find it really during all these years...

I live in Portugal and yes we still have a social democratic system despite the fact that the austerity plan is cutting a substantial part of it.

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

The US too, was merely trying to defend itself, from the reds. You can't deny that.
I disagree. The Soviet Union never put the US in a position where it had to "defend itself", it was the other way around. The US was the aggressive one, who betrayed their "ally" from WW2 as soon as it was over. The Soviet Union didn't really want to have anything to do with the US.
And even if it was only trying to defend itself from reds, we ARE reds.

[Blake's Baby]

I disagree. The Soviet Union never put the US in a position where it had to "defend itself", it was the other way around. The US was the aggressive one, who betrayed their "ally" from WW2 as soon as it was over. The Soviet Union didn't really want to have anything to do with the US.
And even if it was only trying to defend itself from reds, we ARE reds.

And the USSR defended itself from reds of 'our' sort, eg when it massacred us at Kronstadt. If you're the other sort of 'red', the sort that pulls the trigger on revolutionaries, then you're our enemy.

Have a nice day.

[Blake's Baby]

Hey since this is getting derailed into a discussion about Imperialism, what do y'all think about Rosa Luxemburg's "The Accumulation of Capital"? Should I read it? It's a lot of pages and I have a short attention span for anything that from before 1965.

As one of the few Luxemburgists left on the planet (I mean, not just an 'internationalist' Luxemburgist but also an 'economic' Luxemburgist), I would say yes.

However, it has to be admitted that she's wrong about something. There is some debate about what it is she's wrong about, however. My own view is that she underestimated he resilience of 'pre-capitalist' forms.

[Delenda Carthago]

Read it thank you very much.

You have? Nice. So, can you give us a short description of what imperialism is, and what are the characteristics it has?

[Tim Cornelis]

You have? Nice. So, can you give us a short description of what imperialism is, and what are the characteristics it has?

Imperialism is the maintenance or manipulation of unequal geopolitical relationships in favour of the economic interests of one of the parties involved. Thus we see that the USSR exerted dominance over Eastern Europe following the Second World War and installed puppet regimes which allowed the USSR to impose an inverse Marshall Plan where these regimes exported capital to the USSR. COMECON-members, likewise, financed economic projects in the USSR.

[Delenda Carthago]

No. The answer to the question "what is imperialism", at least according to Lenin's definition, is: the Highest Stage of Capitalism.

According to the man, imperialism had 5 qualities that are needed for a country in order to be called as imperialist.

1.Capital has been conestrated to monopoly level.
2.Industrial and bank Capital has been in to one flesh.
3.The national bourgeois is exporting capital other than exporting goods.
4. The national bourgeois is participating on international unions that are making them stronger.
5. The dealing of Earth is finished.


So, no, USSR was not even close to "imperialist".

[chase63]

One thing I will add to this discussion is the idea of a sliding scale. While no serious political scientist would ever claim there had been a "Communist Country" some will say there have been and are "Socialist" Countries, and some people here will agree that various nations have been Socialist to some greater or lesser extent.

But even within the Capitalist world, the countries which embrace socially controlled production or social programs are far more successful, just look at the European Social Democracies, and compare their education, literacy rates, health, crime rates, etc (and overall happiness), to countries which have lesser welfare states, and invest more money in War than the well being of their people. Compare Cuba to the Dominican republic or Haiti.

Then imagine how much better these nations would be if they went further down those roads and brought the entire infrastructure under the direct management of the people for the benefit of humanity.


I rather like this way of viewing it, and I agree. Even here in the US during the industrial revolution, capitalism had to be reformed somewhat at the pressure of unions. I would also like to note that I think this is where the soviet union went wrong, the infrastructure was controlled by the state, which was controlled by the party.

[Rafiq]

countries do not exist as collective interests from which all who inhabit it "thrive".

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Diogenese]

This sound kind of rude but has there ever been communist country that has thrived from communism, Because all ever hear is about how history proved communism wrong!

Aside from all the fundamental questions of what is considered thriving or whether communist has ever existed in its intended form etc., the short answer to your question is yes.
I'm a bit bias on the subject but the best example is Yugoslavia, if you are looking at quality of life, freedom to travel, individual freedoms etc.
Another good example is Cuba, most people will laugh at you but if you compare Cuba to what it could have been like its capitalist neighbors Haiti, DR you get the point across.
The Soviets too thrived when you compare where they came from and what they accomplished. Russia had an economic system rooted in medieval feudalism, within a generation it was one of two world powers.

You have to remember that almost all the negative aspects of implementing communism are caused by a reaction to external forces and not by the ideology itself.
You also have to realize that communism even before its official implementation was under attack from capitalist forces, such as the British and American support in the Russian Civil War. This outside interference is always the deciding directional factor in whether a revolution becomes a closed or open society.

[Blake's Baby]

...
The Soviets too thrived when you compare where they came from and what they accomplished. Russia had an economic system rooted in medieval feudalism, within a generation it was one of two world powers...

In 1913 the Russian Empire was the 5th largest economy in the world, had some of the most modern factories in the world, and some of the largest to boot. By 1917, the Putilov works was the world's largest factory, with around 40,000 workers.

And in a generation it was a superpower? Gosh, from being one of the biggest capitalist powers before WWI, to being one of the biggest capitalist powers after WWII, is an amazing transformation.

The USA had a similar (though more spectacular) rise in prominence between 1860 and 1900. It wasn't one the major capitalist powers beforehand. Does this prove that capitalism is marvellous?

[Geiseric]

In 1913 the Russian Empire was the 5th largest economy in the world, had some of the most modern factories in the world, and some of the largest to boot. By 1917, the Putilov works was the world's largest factory, with around 40,000 workers.

And in a generation it was a superpower? Gosh, from being one of the biggest capitalist powers before WWI, to being one of the biggest capitalist powers after WWII, is an amazing transformation.

The USA had a similar (though more spectacular) rise in prominence between 1860 and 1900. It wasn't one the major capitalist powers beforehand. Does this prove that capitalism is marvellous?

You're mising a small thing called the "planned economy". That itself is why the fSU didn't collapse during WW2.

[Blake's Baby]

The USA didn't either. Do you support the policies of the Rooseveldt administration?