Successful Communist countries?

[Eatthesuccessful]

Were there ever any successful Communist countries that truly embodied the ideals of communism? A country without gulags or a ridiculously low standard of living? Im pretty new to politics and theory and stuff so yeah...

[comrade_mufasa]

The Paris commune is the only place I can think of, but it was not a country.

[Eatthesuccessful]

Ok, thanx. I was just curious

[The Grapes of Wrath]

It all depends on your defintion of communist or communism. I would contend that communism has never existed. A country can call itself that, but that doesn't mean anything. I'm the King of England ... but I'm obviously not.

So, in essence, no. We can totally blame these countries though, they are victims of their times and circumstances. The Paris Commune was around for about 3 months and wasn't that effective. Who knows if it would have lasted 5 years, so I think calling it successful is a bit of a stretch.

Politics is a *****. A country may stand for one thing, and do another. It all comes down to power and manipulation ... to be cynical about it.

TGOW

[Saint-Just]

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Bulgaria
People's Republic of China
Cuba
Czechoslovakia
DDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik)
Democratic People's Republic of Laos
Mongolian People's Republic
Mozambique
Nicaragua
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Poland
Romania
Tanzania
Vietnam
USSR
Yugoslavia
People's Democratic Republic of Yemen

Talking about all socialist states being full of poverty and gulags is rubbish. It would be just as accurate to say the same of all capitalist states.

[1936]

Non of those countries ever achieved "true" communism. Most wernt even ever "true" socialsm.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by The World's 1st [email protected] 27 2005, 03:17 PM
Non of those countries ever achieved "true" communism. Most wernt even ever "true" socialsm.
By 1999 all these states had achieved "true communism".

[1936]

Im truley amazed. What is your definition of communism?

[1936]

How you can belive your last post yourself is beyond me.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by The World's 1st [email protected] 27 2005, 03:28 PM
Im truley amazed. What is your definition of communism?
No, I do not believe the words in my above post. I was amused by your statement that the states I listed were not true communist societies.

You said that most of the states I mentioned were not socialist societies, which states were socialist?

The states I listed can be called communist because they were organised by communist parties and communists.

The following is from MIM, it accurately describes my belief as to what communism is

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/wim/whocomm.html

Communism is the abolition of power of people over people. This means abolishing "oppression," whether the oppression be of nations by nations, classes by classes, women by men or any other division in society. Communism is based on mutual cooperation, peace and justice instead of oppression.

Long-run goals of communism include the abolition of classes and organized society without governments or borders. Communists believe that as in certain tribal societies in the past and living still today, it is possible for humyns to organize themselves without war, crime, starvation and homelessness. When there are social problems, communists blame those problems on how society is organized. They seek to organize society to bring out the best in people, however flawed the species may be.

Except in tribal societies, no communist leader* has ever claimed that a society has achieved communism yet. That means the industrial societies of our time have either lived in capitalism or socialism.

[1936]

OK very nice. But to just sum everything up nicely and nip it in the bud. There has never been a truely communist state.

[YKTMX]

The idea of a "communist state" is an oxymoron.

No country to date has ever been socialist either.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

The USSR to some extent and Cuba is socialist, of that I am sure.

Most people here will accept nothing but pie in the sky international pure textbook communism as communism and will spend most of their lives criticizing anything that has actually occured under the name of Marxism Leninism.

Oh and I am not even a Marxist Leninist but it can get quite ridicuios at times.

[YKTMX]

The USSR to some extent and Cuba is socialist, of that I am sure.


Can you prove it - beyond blind assertion?


Most people here will accept nothing but pie in the sky international pure textbook communism as communism

What do you mean by "pie in the sky"


Oh and I am not even a Marxist Leninist but it can get quite ridicuios at times

So can apologies for tyranny. :)

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Can you prove it - beyond blind assertion?

Well, its blind opinion to be honest from my readings into both countries. The USSR tyranny irks me because so much of it is propaghanda by the US that it scares me how much is used by leftists.

But sure, blind opinion really.


What do you mean by "pie in the sky"

Holding every country that attempts a communist revolution up to textbook examples of communism.



So can apologies for tyranny. :)

Perhaps I prefer to focus on the tryanny of the capitalist system myself.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by The World's 1st [email protected] 27 2005, 05:18 PM
OK very nice. But to just sum everything up nicely and nip it in the bud. There has never been a truely communist state.
I think it is safe for us to say that no society has ever established what Marx described as the higher stage of communism.

The states I listed all were or still are socialist states. I think it is also acceptable to call them communist.

You have not yet said which states, of those in the list, you think are/were socialist.


Can you prove it - beyond blind assertion?

The member would have to provide a great deal of information to prove this. And, I am sure that you have seen other people on this forum and other forums give evidence (you would refute) that the USSR constructed a socialist system of society.

In your view, you would say that the RSFSR was beginning to build a socialist economy and socialist way of life.

[YKTMX]

I would say that the RSFSR was the first workers' state i.e state where the workers held state and economic power, with the goal of building socialist and then communist society.

However, objective historial and material circumstances meant this was impossible by about 1924 - maybe as early as the end of the civil war.

[NovelGentry]

Holding every country that attempts a communist revolution up to textbook examples of communism.

And why shouldn't we? I have no problem admitting that good things have been and were done in many of these societies you listed. There was a certain equality between people, etc. But admitting positive change is a far cry different from saying it was communism.

If we're gonna go that route, any limited social change within capitalism could to represent that the nation is "communist."

Every nation is moving towards communism, whether they want to or not. Capitalism is a move towards communism. Feudalism was a move towards communism.

Time itself is a move towards communism.

The question of whether or not a state can achieve communism is ludacris and is should just go the hell away. The question of whether or not a state has achieved socialism is NOT ludacris -- and is very important when determining what has been achieved in terms of the destruction of capitalism.

Calling a nation like Cuba socialist would be blatant disregard for the private bussines which has been allowed. A blatant disregard for the position of the government as sellers of goods to their people. It's state capitalism, like it or not.

Did they have a revolution? Yes. Did a lot of good come of it? Yes. Did it progress their society closer to communism? Yes, but so does the change from feudalism to capitalism.

[NovelGentry]

Just to add one point, about the only thing that can detract a nation or the entire world from moving towards communism is a massive destruction in the current means of production, thereby setting back material conditions. It is in fact these material conditions which determine our socio-economic and thus our political organization.

When people try to overcome these material conditions they're slapped right back in the face with them. As shown by the actual policies of the USSR and the general devastation caused in trying to enforce socialism... and of course, it's eventual collapse.

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

I think that communism is pretty hard to achieve for one country. Communism is a state-of-being. Any country that literally becomes "communist" would render "neutral" or "unexplored" on every other nations' maps - in other word, communism wouldn't last very long if it were to be in one country.

[Enragé]

"The states I listed all were or still are socialist states. I think it is also acceptable to call them communist."

those were all fascist states

Afghanistan:
imposed by foreign power, against the will of the people

People's Republic of China:
millions of people died in Mao's crackpot reforms, and today China is totally converted to capitalism.

Czechoslovakia:
1969, the prague spring (fuck you!)

DDR:
STASI, no popular support, USSR sucked it dry in the yrs following WW2, 1953!

Democratic People's Republic of Korea:
Governed by a fucking lunatic who thinks he's the son of God (his father, previous leader, being God...ofcourse...)

USSR:
Gulags, oppression, imperialism

about the rest: none were democratic, all were dictatorships (perhaps with exception of cuba), you could not speak your mind, and if the people rose up against the new elite (the comm. party) they were murdered

[Saint-Just]

millions of people died in Mao's crackpot reforms

Would the bourgeoisie not want you to think socialism is a series of 'crackpot reforms'.


none were democratic, all were dictatorships

All societies are class dictatorships. A dictatorship of the working-class is democratic.


Democratic People's Republic of Korea:
Governed by a fucking lunatic who thinks he's the son of God (his father, previous leader, being God...ofcourse...)

No need to get hysterical.

[Enragé]

"Would the bourgeoisie not want you to think socialism is a series of 'crackpot reforms'."

true, but in the case of Mao's reforms, i agree. They were conducted without the consent of the people, and killed millions.

"All societies are class dictatorships. A dictatorship of the working-class is democratic."

Yes but those countries werent a dictatorship of the proletariat, they were dictatorships of the party, which just replaced the Bourgeoisie.

"No need to get hysterical."

Its true though isnt it.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 10:59 PM

Holding every country that attempts a communist revolution up to textbook examples of communism.

And why shouldn't we? I have no problem admitting that good things have been and were done in many of these societies you listed. There was a certain equality between people, etc. But admitting positive change is a far cry different from saying it was communism.

If we're gonna go that route, any limited social change within capitalism could to represent that the nation is "communist."

Every nation is moving towards communism, whether they want to or not. Capitalism is a move towards communism. Feudalism was a move towards communism.

Time itself is a move towards communism.

The question of whether or not a state can achieve communism is ludacris and is should just go the hell away. The question of whether or not a state has achieved socialism is NOT ludacris -- and is very important when determining what has been achieved in terms of the destruction of capitalism.

Calling a nation like Cuba socialist would be blatant disregard for the private bussines which has been allowed. A blatant disregard for the position of the government as sellers of goods to their people. It's state capitalism, like it or not.

Did they have a revolution? Yes. Did a lot of good come of it? Yes. Did it progress their society closer to communism? Yes, but so does the change from feudalism to capitalism.

All fair points, but my problem is the constant criticism and lack of highlighting the achievements in these countries, in other worlds the lack of defense we put up for countries who have attempted something we have never even got close to doing.

[NovelGentry]

All fair points, but my problem is the constant criticism and lack of highlighting the achievements in these countries, in other worlds the lack of defense we put up for countries who have attempted something we have never even got close to doing.

I'm not sure about you, but I tend to argue against what is being argued. For example, the capitalists on this board use arguments that "Socialism kills millions, look at the USSR" or worse, they call it Communism.

There is no denying that millions were killed in the USSR. So my only real option is to show what I believe to be true, and that is that the USSR was never socialist. I could of course argue as many Marxist-Leninists here do, that the death in these countries is the oppression of the bourgeoisie (and I do on occasion). However, this isn't really the heart of their argument. Their argument is effectively that socialism is inherently murderous -- which is not the case.

If they would like to argue the validity of the USSR, Cuba, China, etc.. outside the realm of such foolishness as "socialism kills" -- I will gladly argue the positive points in these nations, and again, frequently do.

This is more often brought up when I begin speaking with other people, the "socialism kills" perspective is more often brought up when they confront me. So really which arguments I put forward depend completely on which arguments I'm getting in return.

But I agree completely when it is a question of "What good did this do?" -- hilight the good it has done. When it is a question of "Why do you support an ideology that causes death?" -- defend the ideology.

[bur372]

the CNT was IMO close to communal living. Yes I know it was an anarcho-syndalist group so it all depends on what you define as communisim.

[More Fire for the People]

No communist countries can exist. That is because a country implies a non-internationalist form of management and communism cannot not exist in one place alone or within the boundaries of a state (or a state as we know it).

The closest system of "governance" that resembled (or actually was) communism to be successful was aforementioned Paris Commune.