Remaining Communist...

[QUYMOBIUZ]

???

[STN]

Laos I believe is still Communist.

[which doctor]

None of them are communist. People just call them 'communist states' which is an oxymoron.

[LSD]

There are several ostensibly "socialist" states in the world, many of which are lead by so-called "communist parties". But is not and never has been a "communist" society, nor can there ever be a "communist state".

Communism is by definition stateless and, despite various Leninist rhetoric, no nation on earth has truly "approached" such a society.

A lof of this stuff can get pretty complicated, and it can see somewhat esoteric when you're first introduced to it all. I would suggest that you start by browsing the RevLeft Dictionary (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=25786) to familiarize yourself with the terms used here.

You should then search through this forum, because I can guarantee that nearly all of the questions you are liable to ask have been asked before and probably answered by some very smart very knowledgable people.

Finally, if you're still confused on any point, post it here! As the forum description says, no question is too stupid here and unless it's entirely insane, someone will almost certainly have the answer.

[Commie Dic]

There are no more communist countries/states. In order to have a communist state/country the whole world must be communist for it to work.

[TC]

"Communist state" is a western phrase for Socialist states with marxist-leninist parties in power.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

But isn’t calling them Socialist states a little wrong too, since that means there needs to be a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Also, does Cuba, china, Vietnam and erm the DPRK actually think that they have reached the socialist stage?

But the way I see it. Well I don’t know much about Laos or Vietnam. But China, there not socialist. DPRK, not even slightly. Cuba, sorry not yet.


Aren’t they just cases of welfare states, that don’t elect the highest tier of leadership?

[TC]

You're using an artificial and undefined standard for "socialist", Contemporary 21st century Cuba is undeniably socialist.

In any case, China isn't socialist in the fully developed sense its a workers state with a mixed economy, as is Venezuela. Until very recently though, the balance of China's economy had been moving towards private rather than collective ownership whereas Venezuelas has been moving in the opposite direction.


Aren’t they just cases of welfare states, that don’t elect the highest tier of leadership?

No, they all elect all levels of their leadership. A welfare state is a state with a private economy that subsidizes its working class through taxation, such as the UK or Sweden. Socialist states have collectively owned public economies managed by elected officials (either union, co-operative or government) and appointees of elected officials rather than private interests, either in full (in the case of Cuba) or in the majority (in the case of Venezeula and China).

Bolivia is an example of a non-socialist workers state, in that workers have state power, the military is loyal to workers parties organized by and serving the needs of workers, but the majority of the economy is still in private ownership. Obviously however such a situation is unstable and as we're seeing, they'll take actions to increasingly collectivize the economy and reduce private ownership until their economy resembles venezuela's and eventually cuba's.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Thanks TC.

I had always imagined socialist societies as having lots of civil liberties. But countries like the DPRK and China as far as I am aware have less than that of the western nations. With Venezuela being about the most "free" in the countries you named.

So are the countries like China and DPRK only as closed off because they didn’t go through a process of neo-liberalism like the west is?

And what do you think socialism in the UK would look like? I would certainly hope it doesn't resemble the DPRK.

Thanks :)

[The Grey Blur]

No, they all elect all levels of their leadership.
:huh: Obviously not true in Cuba, DPRK or Vietnam


Bolivia is an example of a non-socialist workers state, in that workers have state power,the military is loyal to workers parties organized by and serving the needs of workers, but the majority of the economy is still in private ownership
How does that work?

And anyway the military are certainly not loyal to 'worker's parties' - the military of any Capitalist country serve only the beurgeoise

Bolivian Military - Strikebreakers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4864092.stm)

[Faceless]

QUOTE
Aren’t they just cases of welfare states, that don’t elect the highest tier of leadership?



No, they all elect all levels of their leadership. A welfare state is a state with a private economy that subsidizes its working class through taxation, such as the UK or Sweden.
A welfare state is different to socialism in either the true sense of the word or the stalinist deformation in the sense that the capitalist class, through taxation, spends money on keeping its proletariat healthy and fit to work. It would be silly to assume that this is the result of capitalists altruistically giving away their wealth, rather it is a part of the collective wage of the workers which the capitalists see to be more efficiently distributed if they do so through welfare schemes. For instance, if every worker had to fund their own healthcare and look after their own sick relatives, it might prove a relative strain and require more wages for the worker than if the state simply does these tasks. After all, to the capitalist the wage is simply a way of maintaining his capital just as he maintains his machines and factories.

Socialism, and the deformed worker's states of the Stalinist nations, are different in the sense that property relations; who owns the means of production. In this case they are collectively owned. In the case of the Stalinist states however, the beaurocracy has become merely a parasite which leeches of the product of society, serving no historically progressive purpose.

It would be wrong however to call this "sate capitalism" however because the property relations are not the same as in capitalism but are much more akin to socialism. For instance, they can not ensure power and wealth passes on to their children when they pass away. To ensure this they must make a transition towards actual capitalism as happened in Russia and as is happening in China now. As trotsky predicted, left alone this would and has inevitably happened.