What is the correct term to label so called "Communist" state?

[Bright Banana Beard]

I am doing a research and I think I should call Cuba, China & Vietnam a "socialist bourgeois state." What your?

And don't forget to what to put on Laos & North Korea.

[Q]

I would go for degenerated or deformed workers states, depending on the situation.

[Herman]

I am doing a research and I think I should call Cuba, China & Vietnam a "socialist bourgeois state." What your?

I think that the term "socialist bourgeois state" is terribly misleading and untrue for the case of Cuba.

[AGITprop]

I would go for degenerated or deformed workers states, depending on the situation.

Cuba is a dictatorship. It is not a socialist state though it is more socialist than China or North Korea. What we see in Cuba is a deformed workers state as we have seen in the USSR although not to the same extreme of corruption.

[Dros]

Depending on the state, I'd say state-capitalist or social-fascist.

[BIG BROTHER]

I would call them burocract socialist state, Cuba I always cut some slack to that country due to the fact that you can do only so much with a world power seeking to destroy you.

China, I think it doesn't even deserve to be called burocrat socialist state, its just capitalism disguised in red color.

[INDK]

Well, it all depends. It could be a Socialist-Republic or other form of State-Socialist society. If it had Communist intentions and is in a sort on inactive dictatorship of the proletariat, Deformed Workers' State is what it's called, and If it actually knows itself as a 'Communist State' I'd bet it's something like State-Capitalist.

[ComradeRed]

Cuba is a socialist state (albeit in very harsh conditions). Viet Nam and DPRK (north Korea) are bureaucratic socialist states. China and Laos are capitalist. Uh, vietnam has had the essential foundations of a market-driven economy in place since 1992, and recent prime ministers have articulated strong support for the private sector.

As a matter of fact, between 2001 and 2005, 3346 of the country's 565 state owned enterprises were restructured; more precisely 2188 were partly privatized, 252 were dissolved, 416 merged, 184 went bankrupt, 124 were transferred to individuals, and 182 otherwise dealt with.

By the end of 2006, 3000 such state owned enterprises were equitised, which consisted principally of converting a state owned enterprise into a stockholding company under which the shares are transferred to private ownership.

To date, the state has retained 46% of the shares in equitised firms, whereas managers and employees retain 30% of the shares, and 24% belong to outside investors.

At the end of 2006, 252000 small and medium sized private enterprises have been registered in Vietnam, including 43000 that were established in 2006.

It's interesting actually that around 60% of these firms are in the four major cities.

The average capital of these firms is around US$142000 per firm, altogether accounting for about 40% of the GDP and 32% of the investment in 2006.

As of January 2007, Vietnam joined the World Trade Organization. The U$ further accords permanent normal trade relations status to Vietnam.

This means that Vietnam has formally integrated into the world trading system.

But this phenomena isn't really new...the "doi moi" policy of implementing a market structure started in 1986.

So, like China, they are predominantly socialist in name only.

[Bilan]

"betrayal"

[ComradeRed]

"betrayal"


All revolutions up to the present day have resulted in the displacement of the rule of one class by the rule of another; but all ruling classes up to now have been only small minorities in relation to the ruled mass of the people.

As a rule, after the first great success, the victorious minority split; one half was satisfied with what had been gained, the other wanted to go still further, and put forward new demands, which, partly at least, were also in the real or apparent interest of the great mass of the people. In isolated cases these more radical demands were actually forced through, but often only for the moment; the more moderate party would regain the upper hand, and what had been won most recently would wholly or partly be lost again; the vanquished would then cry treachery or ascribe their defeat to accident. -- emphasis added

Introduction to Karl Marx's The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1895/03/06.htm) by Frederick Engels (1895).

[ComradeRed]

I never said there weren't aspects of capitalism in Viet Nam. I was mislead by your opening statement:

CHina, Laos, Viet Nam and DPRK (north Korea) are bureaucratized proletarian states.


I'm actually pretty familiar with the workings of that country's economy. Good on you! But your knowledge is little good if it remains in your noodle ;)

My intent with the figures I put up was for other people's pleasure.



Sorry, Engels isn't talking about anything like the bureaucratized proletarian states here.

It's pretty clear that groups like the VWP weren't "the more moderate party," since they sat at the head of a struggle that overthrew capitalist property relations -- ushering in the very gains he talks about. Engels was talking about revolutions in general, and the VWP secured power through (*gasp*) a revolution.

Engels wasn't talking specifically about "bureaucratized proletarian states", he was pointing out the results of a certain kind of revolution.

The results still appear to hold today (e.g. how many times have Leninists chalked up the USSR's destruction to internal betrayal or natural disaster? :lol:).

[bezdomni]

The results still appear to hold today (e.g. how many times have Leninists chalked up the USSR's destruction to internal betrayal or natural disaster? http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif).

Do you think there weren't internal problems in the U.S.S.R. that led to its eventual collapse? The nazi invasion, for example.

Also...do you think that natural disasters didn't create serious problems in the production and distribution of agricultural products? Obviously everything that did go wrong in the U.S.S.R. wasn't because of droughts and counterrevolutionaries, there were some serious systematic and organizational errors that were entirely the fault (or rather, resulted from lack of foresight and ultimately application of materialist methodology) of the CPSU.

It's hard to have a socialist state when you've got the worlds imperialist powers, nazi germany, internal counterrevolution and unavoidable natural disasters all breathing down your neck at the same time. I think overall the Soviet Union did amazingly well with maintaining socialism given its conditions.

[ComradeRed]

Do you think there weren't internal problems in the U.S.S.R. that led to its eventual collapse? The nazi invasion, for example. No, I don't chalk it up to "internal problems".

The chief problem was that it was less industrialized that Southern Europe, and the Brest-Litovsk treaty essentially gave up the most industrialized parts of Russia...the parts foreign capitalists industrialized.

The material conditions of the USSR was that of a pre-capitalist, post-feudal society.

Quit similar coincidentally to France in 1789 prior to the bourgeois revolution. Hmm...perhaps there are some words of wisdom on this matter:

Incidentally, if the bourgeoisie is politically, that is, by its state power, "maintaining injustice in property relations", it is not creating it. The "injustice in property relations" which is determined by the modern division of labour, the modern form of exchange, competition, concentration, etc., by no means arises from the political rule of the bourgeois class, but vice versa, the political rule of the bourgeois class arises from these modern relations of production which bourgeois economists proclaim to be necessary and eternal laws. If therefore the proletariat overthrows the political rule of the bourgeoisie, its victory will only be temporary, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in the year 1794, as long as in the course of history, in its "movement", the material conditions have not yet been created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and therefore also the definitive overthrow of the political rule of the bourgeoisie. The terror in France could thus by its mighty hammer-blows only serve to spirit away, as it were, the ruins of feudalism from French soil. The timidly considerate bourgeoisie would not have accomplished this task in decades. The bloody action of the people thus only prepared the way for it. In the same way, the overthrow of the absolute monarchy would be merely temporary if the economic conditions for the rule of the bourgeois class had not yet become ripe. Men build a new world for themselves...from the historical achievements of their declining world. In the course of their development they first have to produce the material conditions of a new society itself, and no exertion of mind or will can free them from this fate. --emphasis added

This is in Moralizing Criticism and Critical Morality (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/10/31.htm) by Marx (1847).

I don't think it's by sheer coincidence that two regions with nearly identical material conditions result nearly identically.


Also...do you think that natural disasters didn't create serious problems in the production and distribution of agricultural products? Obviously everything that did go wrong in the U.S.S.R. wasn't because of droughts and counterrevolutionaries, there were some serious systematic and organizational errors that were entirely the fault (or rather, resulted from lack of foresight and ultimately application of materialist methodology) of the CPSU. Assume that the USSR was socialist.

The natural disasters aren't anymore reason for the collapse of socialism than it is for the collapse of feudalism or any other mode of production.

This argument is not valid. You recognize this however.

So now, natural disasters don't really affect the argument about production and distribution of agricultural goods.

It's poor planning, of course! This is assuming that the USSR was centralized all the way, top to bottom, bob's your uncle, etc. etc. etc.

And was it?

If you ask a Leninist, they'll say yes of course; but evidence has kind of surfaced that the USSR wasn't centralized. Turns out that less than one dozen economists cannot plan an economy for over a hundred million.

But saying it's the planner's fault is an interesting way to cry "Fowl!"


It's hard to have a socialist state when you've got the worlds imperialist powers, nazi germany, internal counterrevolution and unavoidable natural disasters all breathing down your neck at the same time. I think overall the Soviet Union did amazingly well with maintaining socialism given its conditions. It's even harder to have socialism when the material conditions for the region is for industrialization to occur...which is supposedly the prerequisite of socialism.

A workers' republic kind of presupposes the predominance of a working class.

And even the liberal estimate of 15% of Russia being working class in 1914 doesn't really cut it. (It should be noted as well that this figure is before the treaty was signed, the estimate afterwards would be considerably less since most of the industrialized regions of Russia were signed away.)

I don't think anyone who has studied history should be legitimately surprised at the outcome of the USSR (a moderately industrialized capitalist economy).

Does this point of view that the USSR wasn't socialist in any way denigrate the actions USSR?

It's tacitly assumed the answer is "Yes" on the part of the Leninists, since the USSR was for the longest time the working model for them.

On the other hand, the answer is "No" because the USSR was still progressive compared to going back to feudalism.

But it's naive to take up the position that they were socialist because, why, that's what they called themselves? Nazis called themselves socialists too, so it must be true :lol:

That's what my party line is? Oh well, then it *must* be true!

The state owned everything? Then Nazi Germany was one step away from being socialist.

There isn't even a "proof of existence" for that simple assertion, it's simply assumed that the USSR was socialist and somehow was internally betrayed resulting in capitalism. (Exact details of internal betrayal varies party to party.)