A true socialist country

[Colombia]

Has there ever been a country that has set up a government that would make Karl Marx proud?The USSR ran the country by fear.China's people work for $.50 an hour, and Cuba constantly has her people fleeing the country.Has there ever been a successful socialist country?

[gaf]

there won't be socialisme anymore before we begin from scratch again.

[Colombia]

So there has never been one?

[apathy maybe]

Depends on your definition of socialism.

Cuba can be considered a 'socialist' state and is the best example ever so far (it has now however got a mixed economy). Venezuela is moving towards (hopefully) a socialist state (right now it is still mixed).
Vietnam could be considered sorta socialist as well.

As to people fleeing, who are generally the sorts of people who flee any country? Those with the most to loose. Be that most be life (i.e. Jews in Hitler's Germany), liberty (can't think of an example at the moment) and power (those rich bastards).

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 4 2004, 05:10 AM
Venezuela is moving towards (hopefully) a socialist state (right now it is still mixed).
Venezuela is closer to a classic Keynesian state, it just looks socialist surrounded by Friedman's failed neoliberal experiments.

[MiniOswald]

you gotta remember that people first off fled cuba cos they stood to loose out. those who were benefitting from the american-mafia state with batista in charge. they were the first to leave, many of whom now run mafia familys in florida. in more recent times people flee because life is getting hard, not because the country is a harsh dictatorship, america has once again tightened the trade embargo and the country is finding it hard to survive.

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 10:04 AM
you gotta remember that people first off fled cuba cos they stood to loose out. those who were benefitting from the american-mafia state with batista in charge. they were the first to leave, many of whom now run mafia familys in florida. in more recent times people flee because life is getting hard, not because the country is a harsh dictatorship, america has once again tightened the trade embargo and the country is finding it hard to survive.
Which shows that Cuba has failed her people.Castro liberated Cuba just to eventually set up what he liberated it from.A dictatorship.

[feigr]

Cuba can be considered a 'socialist' state and is the best example ever so far (it has now however got a mixed economy).

What makes Cuba, a demonstrably non-socialist, non-communist country, a better example of communism in practice than actual communist revolutions, like the Paris Commune or the Hungarian Revolution and its workers' councils?

Cuba is the exact opposite of what communism has been, ought to be, and will be.

Regarding the initial question, I think it would be far more profitable to exlude the "country" bit and actually look at communism in practice, which, even when they took on country-wide dimensions, did not result in the establishment of a "socialist state":

The Paris Commune: the proletariat's first great victory (http://geocities.com/cordobakaf/solidarity_commune.html)

Hungary 1956: the most significant transformation of an industrial society ever. (http://www.af-north.org/Hungary56.html)

The Kurdish Uprising in Iraq: workers' councils in the 1990s. (http://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/blob_kurds.html)

These are just three for which I could find links. For a more complete picture of what socialism can be, one should also look at Russia, Germany, Bavaria, Hungary, etc. during the first years after the Russian Revolution; the uprising of East German workers in 1953, the Kwangju uprising in 1980 in Paris, the Spanish Civil war, etc, etc.

[apathy maybe]

What makes Cuba, a demonstrably non-socialist, non-communist country, a better example of communism in practice than actual communist revolutions, like the Paris Commune or the Hungarian Revolution and its workers' councils?
Cuba is not communist. Castro never claimed to be communist. Cuba is a sorta mixed economy with lots more socialist aspects the cappitalist ones.

It is still the best example in the world today of a socialist state.

[feigr]

It is still the best example in the world today of a socialist state.

When I said it wasn't communist, I also meant that it wasn't socialist. I don't subscribe to the "phoney distinction made between socialism and Communism in State and Revolution, which served to give the illusion that this arbitrarily labelled socialism was within striking distance the Bolsheviks in 1917, even if Communism was not," as it was put in 'A Contribution to the Critique of Marx,' which was jointly published by the groups Solidarity and Social Revolution.

Anyhow, that's not my point: in Cuba, capitalist social relations prevail. Cuba at best could be said to be a progressive bourgeois country. It's important to defend it against the absolutely ridiculous claims of Washington and its lackeys, but it's equally vital that we point out that this is not the future we're fighting for.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by apathy maybe+Jun 4 2004, 05:10 AM--> (apathy maybe @ Jun 4 2004, 05:10 AM)Cuba can be considered a 'socialist' state and is the best example ever so far (it has now however got a mixed economy). Venezuela is moving towards (hopefully) a socialist state (right now it is still mixed).
Vietnam could be considered sorta socialist as well.[/b]

No, Vietnam isn't even remotely Socialist anymore. It hasn't even had a free education system for some years. One of Vietnam's, the country who hasn't suffered some of the worst atrocities in its century, greatest accomplishments, was flushed down the toilet some years ago actually. Vietnam's education system has almost collapsed, and its health system appears to be in decline. Ethnic minorities and other peasents live miserably. And then of course, Vietnam has little political organization, except for the people that serve the party, which is a description of nothing other than a totalitarian state. There is no such thing as Socialism or Communism(or Democracy for that matter), without organization, it's a fraud otherwise. That could and will right now serve as the definitive arguement for Cuba, and for that matter Romania under that goon Ceaucescu, Yugoslavia under the moron Tito, Albania in its time, the far-right Soviet Union(one of its first acts was to dismantle the worker's councils, the true acts of an Anti-Socialist group), and other states are not even close to Socialism or Communism. Cuba is overwhelmingly the most impressive, going far beyond the rest of those jokes of states, but it is not even close to Communism or Socialism. The closest state to either of those two systems could be Cuba, or it could possibly be current day Japan(here's a good way to piss of Soviet-fanatics), Guatemala under the Democratic Spring, or who knows, Salvador Allende of Chile or Maurice Bishop had great potential, but we'll never know. Actually, to dramatically increase my bashing of Romania, Albania, Yugoslavia, and of course mini-U.S., the state of Libya is about ten times closer to being Socialist than these nations are.


[email protected] 4 2004, 05:10 AM
Venezuela is closer to a classic Keynesian state, it just looks socialist surrounded by Friedman's failed neoliberal experiments.

I think I actually agree with your general point here, but don't you think you are exagerating a bit here? Saying it was an 'Adam Smith' sort of Capitalism would make some sense, but Keynesianism? Venezuela rejected the IMF "developement" plans that would have created a basically Keynesianism system. Furthermore, unlike Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, the Soviet Pigs, China, and anyone else, Venezuela under Hugo Chavez has enhanced the participation of its people, and bettered the rights, including organizing rights, of workers. That shouldn't be labeled as Socialism (Democracy in fact), but it's certainly a step in the direction of Socialism. Actions worth praise in my opinion.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by LuZhiming+Jun 7 2004, 10:57 AM--> (LuZhiming @ Jun 7 2004, 10:57 AM)

[email protected] 4 2004, 05:10 AM
Venezuela is closer to a classic Keynesian state, it just looks socialist surrounded by Friedman's failed neoliberal experiments.

I think I actually agree with your general point here, but don't you think you are exagerating a bit here? Saying it was an 'Adam Smith' sort of Capitalism would make some sense, but Keynesianism? Venezuela rejected the IMF "developement" plans that would have created a basically Keynesianism system. Furthermore, unlike Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, the Soviet Pigs, China, and anyone else, Venezuela under Hugo Chavez has enhanced the participation of its people, and bettered the rights, including organizing rights, of workers. That shouldn't be labeled as Socialism (Democracy in fact), but it's certainly a step in the direction of Socialism. Actions worth praise in my opinion. [/b]
You either don't know what Keynesian economics are, or you are unfamiliar with the IMF's economic reform programs.

Keynesian economic development involves massive government spending to spur development by spurring consumption (demand-side). Give the people more money through government transfer programs and government work programs and they will spend this money, increasing demand and pulling the economy out of recession.

Milton Friedman's neoliberalist economics, also associated with 'supply-side' economics, involves giving incentives to the rich to invest (i.e. lower taxes, privatization, etc) which they say will create jobs and thus trickle down to the rest of the people. Classic lassez-faire role for gov't.

The IMF endorses the Friedman model, in fact, it takes it one step further cy ending all government redistribution, most government spending and subsidies to the poor, opens the doors wide open to the flow of capital (both in AND out) and privatizes EVERYTHING, from water to electricity to public transportation. Oh, and they CRUSH unions and other labor organization to allow for a 'flexible' labor market.

What Chavez has done is more in line with Keynesianism than Socialism, he's taxed the rich and used the revenue to help the poor through employment programs and transfers. He's got some other shit going on with his relationship with Castro, he's building a militia and working on some other plans the end of which I'm not sure, but economically he's Keynesian.

[Salvador Allende]

I would consider the Soviet Union (1917-1953), China (1949-1976), Albania (1945-1978), Romania (1947-1989) North Vietnam (1954-1969), Cuba (1959-1970), Southern Yemen (1963-1990) all Socialist nations. I also will say East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Mongolia were Socialist until 1953. North Korea is the closest thing to a Socialist nation today, while Nepal looks to become a true Socialist nation as soon as the monarchists are defeated.

note: I listed time periods of when I think they were Socialist. All countries whose time periods end in 1953 are because I see Socialism dying there after Koba's death. I consider Vietnam to have stopped true Socialism in the aftermath of Bac Ho's death. I consider China to have stopped Socialism after Jiang Qing's arrest. I also see Cuba to have slowly strayed from Socialism following Ernesto Guevara's death. However, I do see Castro as the best of all of the revisionists in Socialism's history.

[Hate Is Art]

North Korea is the closest thing to a Socialist nation today,

I'm sorry but you speak out of your arse! The DRPK is no where close to being Socialist. It as authortarian as anything, the place seems to enjoy keep it's citizens in the dark about everything!

[feigr]

The DRPK is no where close to being Socialist.

Agreed.

[Enver Hoxha]

Perhaps we could have a little more insight as to why 'North Korea aint Socialist' or whatever.

Now believe it or not I actually agree North Korea isn't Socialist and I dont think it has ever been.

Guess what though? That doesn't make a good arguement. All this 'dude North Korea is way to authoritarian' stuff has to stop if anybody is going to take you seriously. You dont want to sound like President Bush or Fox news do you?

[Hate Is Art]

:D

Well they do keep the society under a very close watch, they dont allow them much freedom and pretty much everyone is brain-washed from birth. Check out that list RedStar posted of the names that Kim has been called on TV before. Just an example of how they deify there leaders.

I saw a TV show awhile ago called "holidays on the axis of evil" and it featured the DRPK. They still reconed that Communism was a major world power! Kim pretty much ruled the world! Freedom of speech and press was so very limited! It was awhile so thinks might have loosened up abit i'm not sure.

[Louis Pio]

Romania (1947-1989)

What should be the difference from for example Eastern Germany?
Of course except that Chacescu ruled like an old surpreme monarch

[Salvador Allende]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 07:02 PM
What should be the difference from for example Eastern Germany?
Of course except that Chacescu ruled like an old surpreme monarch
The difference is that Nicolae Ceaucescu ruled for the people, was not a Soviet-puppet and openly saw that Khruschovism was threatening to destroy the international movement. Believe it or not, Ceaucescu was very popular, he improved living conditions, industry and agriculture in Romania. He was one of only a few to denounce the Soviet Union's imperialist actions towards Czechoslovakia in 1968. Of course, the military, which was still more or less "indebted" to the USSR, was less taken aback by Ceaucescu's great policies than the Romanian people or even the West.

[Louis Pio]

Rumania was quit fucked up in the end before people killed him. From what I heard from socialist rumanians he was not extremely popular.
Especially since he ruled as a surpreme monarch backed up by his gangsters in the secret police.
Of course the planned economy brought improvements, but he was so entangled with the rest of the eastern block that he fell with it.

[Salvador Allende]

he was and to an extent still is very popular. Many Romanians want to go back to the era of Ceausescu because of it's prosperity, employment etc. As for being entangled, he traded with many other nations to give his people many choices in what products to buy, thus, when the other Eastern European nations fell, so did parts of Romania's economy. This provided the perfect opportunity for the Khruschovist-led military to revolt. Romania is still nowhere even close to the levels it was at 35 years ago.

As for Northern Korea, it is quite Socialist. The Juche policy does indeed fall in-line with Socialism and the ideas put forward by Comrades Lenin, Stalin and Mao. North Korea has free-elections and the strongest body in the state is the parliament which choses the Presidium of the National People's Assembly and also choses the Chairman of the National Defence Commission. This parliament is voted on by the people. I suggest you learn how North Korea's government works before criticizing it.

[Louis Pio]

North Korea has free-elections and the strongest body in the state is the parliament which choses the Presidium of the National People's Assembly and also choses the Chairman of the National Defence Commission. This parliament is voted on by the people. I suggest you learn how North Korea's government works before criticizing it.


But then most bourgios countries are also socialist in your oppinion. DPRK lacks something fundamental ie. a system of soviets with direct recall.
Also the leaders lifestyle is miles higher than ordinaty people and they are subject to religious worship arranged by the state.

[Salvador Allende]

Well, there is a key difference between a Republic and People's Republic, the DPRK's leaders listen to the people. As Mao said, you should take the people's ideas and wants and compress them into do-able policies that will bring about the results the people want, then you should show them this policy and put it into place so they can focus on making it succeed.

[Louis Pio]

the DPRK's leaders listen to the people

It's not my impression. But true I haven't been there. Neither have you so I won't take your word for it either.
The millionaire lifestyle of the leaders points in a direction not very socialist.


there is a key difference between a Republic and People's Republic,

But they aren't socialist in the leninist sense then.

[DaCuBaN]

People's Republic

I'm intruiged, as my knowledge of DPRK is poor. What exactly is democratic about it? How is it a republic? In what way do the people have any input?

From my heavily biased westerner standpoint, that regime seems far more like a dictatorship over the proletariat than socialism. Kim-Il Sung (or is he the previous one? I always forget...) does seem to have absolute power in the stalinist sense, and as far as I am concerned Stalin was no socialist.


I suggest you learn how North Korea's government works before criticizing it.

I would dearly love to, but I know of no valid sources for this, and understandably I am unwilling to sign up with the KFA...

[Salvador Allende]

actually, they generally are along the Leninist line, the only difference is possibly their policies on the industrial peasant in the revolution. Lenin disliked Republics very much and the idea of the typical republic parliament. Thus, them being different from a republic is good.

[Louis Pio]

actually, they generally are along the Leninist line,

No, there's no direct recall, soviets etc. Nor does the leaders live like the rest of the population. They live in luxury while people are starving. Distastefull to say the least.