New Member Here - I want to know is there any perfect/almost perfect communist state?

[InTheMiddle]

I know many members here don't consider Russia, China etc as communist due their capitalistic market...but is there any country, a small state or even a city which follows all or most of the communist ideas?

Thanks!

[Stalinist Speaker]

Soviet union up to 1953 is almost as good as it gets. (My opinion)

[Jimmie Higgins]

I know many members here don't consider Russia, China etc as communist due their capitalistic market...but is there any country, a small state or even a city which follows all or most of the communist ideas?

Thanks!

Welcome.

You will probably get a range of views of past and existing socialist countries based on larger disagreements or conceptions of communism/anarchy. I think generally people will say that no states achieved communism since the concept of a communist society is one without a state; and probably most people will then have varrying views of what countries attempted or how close they got to it.

My view is no, there have been movements which approached and even briefly achieved rule by revolutionary worker's forces and movements (maybe Russian Revolution, the Paris commune, the Spanish Revolution, etc) but this did not last for different reasons - mostly because of repression by counter-revolutionary forces.

I'd also say that achieving communism isn't a matter of what (of policies) but of who (what class has power). So while many countries have accepted, and many working class movements have achieved, some level of reforms (health-care, education, housing, etc) communism really requires workers ruling democratically over all of society in order to change the basic way we relate to eachother and produce what we need so that it's not based on power, but on cooperation and mutual interets and decision-making.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Soviet union up to 1953 is almost as good as it gets. (My opinion)

Yeah, it doesn't get better than condensing a civil war, a world war, a great purge, a series of show trials, a famine and a cult of personality (amongst other things) into a 35 year period. 'As good as it gets'. :rolleyes:

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Following communist 'ideas'? There are plenty of parties around the world that speak of these ideas consistently (i.e. the Namibian government, the Cuban government, Venezuela, etc.).

States that 'are communist'? States that have working-class control? No, they don't exist.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

North Korea.

[RedBen]

I know many members here don't consider Russia, China etc as communist due their capitalistic market...but is there any country, a small state or even a city which follows all or most of the communist ideas?

Thanks!
to the best of my knowledge, no.

[Brutus]

Well, the first time where the proletariat seized political power was the Paris Commune in 1871 but no country has ever reached communism (lower or higher stage).

[Red Commissar]

Short answer? Not really. (nb4 post about "Communism" and "State" by someone)

You'll get differences on how close *insertcountry* came close to acheiving some of socialism's goals, or how closely a given party follows Marxist thought. This is typically down along ideological lines (if one considers themselves a Trotskyist, Left Com, Marxist-Leninist, w/e) but it's not always the case. Often times you might see people trying to delineate when a certain country was on the road to becoming close to socialism and when it decided to not go through. You'll see an example of this from a previous post in this thread, as some MLs will often hold that the Soviet Union was as close as you get before 1953- the year Stalin died, and as they would claim, went full revisionist from there.

Some might point out a specific episode, say the Paris Commune, certain areas controlled by revolutionaries in the Spanish Civil War (especially in Catalonia), and the Free Territory in Ukraine. And of course you'll get criticism of those too as to whether or not they could be counted as such, much less if they had been able to create a new order. Take a look at those and see what you might be able to find, it is interesting.

Historically you had some cases of "socialists" running municipal administrations even if they did not control the country. Reformist socialists held control of Milwaukee, Wisconsin for many years, their main figure, Frank P. Zeidler, being one of the country's longest serving mayors at 12 years, and a previous one, Daniel Hoan, going for 24 years. The city of Vienna for sometime was controlled by the socialists there, who instituted a lot of public works and programs which became standard among social democrats later (though this culminated in a small "civil war" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Civil_War)). Of course though, this isn't communism but I think these instances bear mentioning for the big picture.

[robbo203]

Soviet union up to 1953 is almost as good as it gets. (My opinion)

If you were a member of the Soviet ruling class - the nomenklatura - then maybe. The Red "Fat Cats" - the state capitalists - enjoyed a lifestyle totally removed from that of ordinary workers. They enjoyed multiple "salaries", a huge range of perks from country dachas to chauffeur driven limos and even had their own exclusive shops stocking western luxuries to which members of the public were barred

For the ordinary Russian workers under Soviet state capitalism things were quite different. 1933 in particular was a very bad year for Russian workers as the hapless victims of a ruthless process of capital accumulation. According to notable Sovietologist, Alec Nove, that year marked the "culmination of the most precipitous peacetime decline in living standards known in recorded history" (Nove A An Economic History of the USSR Allen Lane 1972, p.207)

Abysmal living standards, endless queuing and heavy handed state repression. Thats hardly "as good as it gets" is it now?

[Lokomotive293]

There's some island about 200 miles from Florida where the people have been defending their revolution for more than 50 years (and counting). Of course, they have limited possibilities and many problems, for obvious reasons (e.g. them being a small island 200 miles away from the most powerful Imperialist country in the world), but, man, is that place awesome :castro: :che: :cubaflag: :cool:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think it's wrong to approach it at the level of states/countries, on two levels. One, because, at this juncture, capitalism is global, and non-market production, anti-capitalist struggles, etc. all exist in relation to capitalism. Secondly, because communism has to do with relations, and not fixed bodies, so that it's not something that is necessarily immediately apparent on an institutional level. Communism is the movement which abolishes capitalism - it's fluid, and has peculiar characteristics in different places at different moments. Consequently, trying to point to somewhere and say, "Oh, there's communism!" is bound to be an exercise in futility.
So, I think we can look at specific instances where struggles with communist content exist in the world, from Six Nations, to Nepal, to Chiapas, to probably-something-happening-in-your-city. We can say, "Oh, this points to communist possibilities," or, more hopefully, "Here is an instance in which capitalism is being abolished," - but it's always tentative. We can't say, "Here is a moment in which capitalism has been abolished," because, obviously, capitalism still exists, and its abolition can't be located in a moment or a specific place.

[Fred]

If you were a member of the Soviet ruling class - the nomenklatura - then maybe. The Red "Fat Cats" - the state capitalists - enjoyed a lifestyle totally removed from that of ordinary workers. They enjoyed multiple "salaries", a huge range of perks from country dachas to chauffeur driven limos and even had their own exclusive shops stocking western luxuries to which members of the public were barred

For the ordinary Russian workers under Soviet state capitalism things were quite different. 1933 in particular was a very bad year for Russian workers as the hapless victims of a ruthless process of capital accumulation. According to notable Sovietologist, Alec Nove, that year marked the "culmination of the most precipitous peacetime decline in living standards known in recorded history" (Nove A An Economic History of the USSR Allen Lane 1972, p.207)

Abysmal living standards, endless queuing and heavy handed state repression. Thats hardly "as good as it gets" is it now?

Yeah, well that decline was surpassed by what happened after capitalism was restored in the the fSU in 1992.

To the OP, a "communist state" is an oxymoron -- communism, as comrades have pointed out it a classes stateless society. Beyond that, the idea of being "closer" to communism is problematic. What exactly does that mean?

The best example we have of a workers' state is the USSR after the October Revolution. The bourgeoisie were overthrown and a dictatorship of the proletariat was established. The leadership of the revolution were dedicated to international revolution and put their money where there mouths were on many occasions (particularly with regards to allocating resources to the Communist International). The situation was not good for this nascent workers state, however -- and a bureaucratic faction, led primarily by Stalin was able to seize power in 1924. This Bonapartist political counterrevolution, did, however, restore the bourgeoisie to power or restore capitalism. That happened in 1992.

But a workers' state is neither socialism nor communism. It is the dictatorship of the proletariat -- hopefully with a program to spread it to the rest of the world.

[Brotto Rühle]

Yeah, well that decline was surpassed by what happened after capitalism was restored in the the fSU in 1992. Capitalism always existed in the USSR. The end of state capitalism, and the introduction of liberal capitalism is what you're talking about.


But a workers' state is neither socialism nor communism. It is the dictatorship of the proletariat -- hopefully with a program to spread it to the rest of the world.A worker's state is solely political, it cannot exist outside of capitalism. This is a fact, but it doesn't mean I oppose the DOTP on that fact.

[D_Loco]

none! cuba, russia, china, vietnam, north korea, ect., none of any country today reach the state of socialism.

Let's go back to the basic what is communism? why is socialism is the important implementation towards communism? ok the water is clouded by the revisionist let make this water clear! in fact there are so many socialist/communist organization today pump up like a mushroom after a heavy rainfall most of them are "Fake" (Im talking about the revisionist) they wave their red flag high against the red flag.

Socialism is the period which the proletariat controls the society or the internal core, we have to understand that socialism is a transition towards communism, in the other words socialism is when the society is being form to serve the infinite interest of the proletarian.
Communism is the final struggle for our revolution, where their is no rich, no poor, no racism, no national oppression, the end of all types of abused. communism is an overall freedom.

[Lokomotive293]

Socialism is the period [of the class struggle] which the proletariat controls the society or the internal core.

So how is Cuba not socialist?

[tachosomoza]

There's socialist states, not communist states. Communism is stateless, socialism is the workers' government and socialized ownership of means of production. To answer your question, currently, there are no "perfect" socialist states. North Korea is a militarized kleptocracy and oligarchy, Cuba now allows buying and selling of property, China is a neo-imperialist totalitarian basketcase.

[D_Loco]

as i mentioned socialism is a transition towards communism. socialism is when the society was re-built to serve the long term interest of the proletariat, after the proletariat seize control of the society a proletarian dictatorship will be establish, at that time their will be a nationalization of industry or major welfare program, agrarian or land reform. Cuba may have its qualities being part of socialism but not exclusive.

[RedMaterialist]

A communist state is a contradiction in terms. There is a transitional state between capitalism and communism called the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Some, including myself, call this intermediate stage socialism. The DOP will suppress and destroy the capitalist class, and the state will wither away and die; but this suppression must be done on a world wide basis.

The reason there is no such thing as a communist state is that a state exists only for the suppression of a particular class of people: slaves, serfs, workers. Once the capitalist class has been suppressed out of existence then there is no need for a state. The working class has no need to create or suppress a new class of people, thus, there is no need for a state.

[Fred]

Capitalism always existed in the USSR. The end of state capitalism, and the introduction of liberal capitalism is what you're talking about.

A worker's state is solely political, it cannot exist outside of capitalism. This is a fact, but it doesn't mean I oppose the DOTP on that fact.

I beg to differ. How can you say a workers' state is solely political? Then it would follow that a bourgeois state is too. Pure idealism. A dictatorship of the proletariat is a workers' state, by definition.

State capitalism is bends Marx's theories beyond the breaking point. I am not ready to have that argument right now.

[Brotto Rühle]

I beg to differ. How can you say a workers' state is solely political? Then it would follow that a bourgeois state is too. Pure idealism. A dictatorship of the proletariat is a workers' state, by definition.

State capitalism is bends Marx's theories beyond the breaking point. I am not ready to have that argument right now.

A bourgeois state is a political thing... a political thing which exists alongside the capitalist mode of production. A political thing which will be overthrown, and replaced by a proletarian version, which will oversee the end of capitalism.
How does State Capitalism bend Marx's theories? I mean, you've created a totally new mode of production outside of Marx's ideas, claim the capitalist law of value exists outside of capitalism, and claim that Marx saw the DOTP as an economic system separate from capitalism... and you tell me that I'm bending Marx's theories? Tell me, does the DOTP, when it comes to be, automatically and instantaneously abolish capitalism? Or, does it exist within capitalism, long enough to institute the "transitional" mode of production?

On a similar note, do cooperatives operate outside the laws of capitalism?

[Fred]

A bourgeois state is a political thing... a political thing which exists alongside the capitalist mode of production. A political thing which will be overthrown, and replaced by a proletarian version, which will oversee the end of capitalism.
How does State Capitalism bend Marx's theories? I mean, you've created a totally new mode of production outside of Marx's ideas, claim the capitalist law of value exists outside of capitalism, and claim that Marx saw the DOTP as an economic system separate from capitalism... and you tell me that I'm bending Marx's theories? Tell me, does the DOTP, when it comes to be, automatically and instantaneously abolish capitalism? Or, does it exist within capitalism, long enough to institute the "transitional" mode of production?

On a similar note, do cooperatives operate outside the laws of capitalism?

No, a bourgeois state exists precisely to defend capitalism, it isn't some kind of parallel phenomenon that just happens to be there.

D of the P is not merely separate from capitalism, but antithetical to it. What is a state? I will use Lenin's definition, armed bodies of men defending certain property forms. So the D of the P, exists to defend the capitalist mode of production? That makes no sense. Does the D of the P automatically and in all instances immediately destroy all aspects of capitalism? Of course not. When the Cuban leadership abolished private ownership in a very short period of time, was that still capitalism? I mean the freaking ice cream vendors no longer owned their carts. How is that capitalism? How can one separate the state from the property relations that it is defending? In the USSR, the expropriation of the bourgeoisie and landlords took place in phases. First the big bourgeoisie, big landlords, the banks, industrialists etc. That left private ownership in light industry and in peasant holdings. It should be obvious that their was a huge and unmanageable contradiction between private property relations in the countryside and state owned property in industry. Stalin, was forced to collectivize because they could not coexist for any sustained length of time and allowing the policies of the NEP to continue would have meant the end of the USSR.

But what is the difference between a political and social revolution? When the bourgeoisie came to power, at least in many places, did vestiges of feudalism continue to exist? Sure. Does that mean it was simply a continuation of feudalism? Of course not.

[Brotto Rühle]

No, a bourgeois state exists precisely to defend capitalism, it isn't some kind of parallel phenomenon that just happens to be there. Of course it exists to "defend capitalism".


D of the P is not merely separate from capitalism, but antithetical to it. It is antithetical to it, which is why it's unsustainable...i.e. if world revolution doesn't occur (see: Russian Revolution).. do you remember what Marx says about the DOTP...a "political transition"...not a "social transition"... not an "economic transition". The DOTP is the political entity which oversees the "transformation" of capitalism into communism.


What is a state? I will use Lenin's definition, armed bodies of men defending certain property forms. So the D of the P, exists to defend the capitalist mode of production?You can make straw man arguments all you want. The DotP exists to exert the class rule of the proletariat, and to oversee the transformation of capitalism into communism i.e. the abolition of the capitalist mode of production.


Does the D of the P automatically and in all instances immediately destroy all aspects of capitalism? Of course not.Answer the question. Does it immediately abolish the capitalist mode of production; MCM', law of value, etc.


When the Cuban leadership abolished private ownership in a very short period of time, was that still capitalism?Yes, because the state became the private owner.


I mean the freaking ice cream vendors no longer owned their carts. How is that capitalism? State capitalism. Workers alienated from the means of production, commodity production for profit, etc. etc. existence of the law of value, etc. etc.


How can one separate the state from the property relations that it is defending?This (http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html) might help.


In the USSR, the expropriation of the bourgeoisie and landlords took place in phases. First the big bourgeoisie, big landlords, the banks, industrialists etc. That left private ownership in light industry and in peasant holdings. It should be obvious that their was a huge and unmanageable contradiction between private property relations in the countryside and state owned property in industry. Stalin, was forced to collectivize because they could not coexist for any sustained length of time and allowing the policies of the NEP to continue would have meant the end of the USSR. Where was workers management of industry, and where was workers political power? inb4 "The Bolsheviks represented it.


But what is the difference between a political and social revolution? When the bourgeoisie came to power, at least in many places, did vestiges of feudalism continue to exist? Sure. Does that mean it was simply a continuation of feudalism? Of course not.It gets really annoying when self proclaimed Marxists keep drawing comparisons between the abolition of capital; i.e the establishment of socialism, and the feudalism-capitalism transition. Read Capital.

[Comrade Jacob]

I'm just going to ignore the whole "That's not communism that's socialism because blah blah blah" X 492,021
There isn't really any left, the closest is Cuba, it still has a lot to work on.

[InTheMiddle]

Thanks for so many responses..first i thought Cuba and Norway are great example of Communist and Socialist countries respectively...but they may be not exactly..

[Fred]

Of course it exists to "defend capitalism".

It is antithetical to it, which is why it's unsustainable...i.e. if world revolution doesn't occur (see: Russian Revolution).. do you remember what Marx says about the DOTP...a "political transition"...not a "social transition"... not an "economic transition". The DOTP is the political entity which oversees the "transformation" of capitalism into communism.

You can make straw man arguments all you want. The DotP exists to exert the class rule of the proletariat, and to oversee the transformation of capitalism into communism i.e. the abolition of the capitalist mode of production.

Answer the question. Does it immediately abolish the capitalist mode of production; MCM', law of value, etc.

Yes, because the state became the private owner.

State capitalism. Workers alienated from the means of production, commodity production for profit, etc. etc. existence of the law of value, etc. etc.

This (http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html) might help.

Where was workers management of industry, and where was workers political power? inb4 "The Bolsheviks represented it.

It gets really annoying when self proclaimed Marxists keep drawing comparisons between the abolition of capital; i.e the establishment of socialism, and the feudalism-capitalism transition. Read Capital.
It is not a "strawman argument." States exist to defend certain property forms -- by your own admission, the d of the p exists to finish off capitalism -- but capital not in the hands of private owners is not capital in the sense Marx spoke of. And really it is not sophistry to say that classes do not rule by perpetuating the class system the have overthrown -- it is nonsensical to say otherwise.

The D of the P is a political entity that creates a social and economic transition toward socialism.

I don't have the time at the moment to debate whether or not the USSR was capitalist in 1924 at the moment. But the whole state capper argument requires twisting Marx's concept of capitalism into something different.

I will write more later about the anarchists under the Bolsheviks, but a large number of them joined the Bolsheviks around the time of the Revolution.

[to the left]

Might Not count has a comunist state .But I think the forumer yugoslavia rates has a near perfect socialist country . Went several times during the late 80s/90s
I went to pula and other places remarkable place .
And hold Marshal Tito in high regard

[Brotto Rühle]

It is not a "strawman argument." States exist to defend certain property forms -- by your own admission, the d of the p exists to finish off capitalism -- but capital not in the hands of private owners is not capital in the sense Marx spoke of.If the law of value persists, it is. The workers, whether you like it or not, become there own bourgeoisie in the instances they begin to run industry within the DOTP, which isn't a negative thing. It means that capitalism is dying.


And really it is not sophistry to say that classes do not rule by perpetuating the class system the have overthrown -- it is nonsensical to say otherwise.They aren't "perpetuating it". They are overseeing it's destruction.


The D of the P is a political entity that creates a social and economic transition toward socialism.

Marx: "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."


I don't have the time at the moment to debate whether or not the USSR was capitalist in 1924 at the moment. But the whole state capper argument requires twisting Marx's concept of capitalism into something different. It doesn't though. The entire "transitional mode of production" requires ignoring Marx's Critique of Political Economy.


I will write more later about the anarchists under the Bolsheviks, but a large number of them joined the Bolsheviks around the time of the Revolution.I'm not anti-Bolshevik, before 1921. I'm actually have a liking for the left Bolsheviks like Kollantai.

[Fred]

If the law of value persists, it is. The workers, whether you like it or not, become there own bourgeoisie in the instances they begin to run industry within the DOTP, which isn't a negative thing. It means that capitalism is dying.

They aren't "perpetuating it". They are overseeing it's destruction.



Marx: "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

It doesn't though. The entire "transitional mode of production" requires ignoring Marx's Critique of Political Economy.

I'm not anti-Bolshevik, before 1921. I'm actually have a liking for the left Bolsheviks like Kollantai.
I will get back to you on this -- I think the law of value did not hold sway in the USSR -- not in the sense Marx meant it. Certainly it did not in Cuba after 1961. So we agree the USSR was the d of the p? But you contend that it administered capitalism. There is nothing in that quote that suggests Marx believes that the d of the p is merely a political revolution.

Not too surprised you are a fan of Kollantai:rolleyes: