Results 1 to 20 of 94
When where USSR, China, Cuba, etc. socialist/communist? Were they ever?
These are the following countries that I believe were/are socialist in the Marxist sense, with the dates that I think they had a socialist economy. I define a country which is working toward the abolition of private property as socialist. I do not include many of the Eastern European regimes, because those regimes were imposed by the Soviet army and did not arise through indigenous revolution. I should add that I do not condone the policies or ideology of many of these regimes.
Paris Commune: 1871
Soviet Union: 1917-91
Mongolia: 1924-92
Republican Spain: 1936-39
Albania: 1944-91
Yugoslavia: 1945-92
North Korea: 1948-94
People's Republic of China: 1949-78
North Vietnam: 1954-75(Socialist Republic of Vietnam until 1986)
Cuba: 1961-present
Angola: 1974-92
Mozambique: 1975-90
Laos: 1975-89
Afghanistan: 1978-92
Nicaragua: 1979-90
Burkina-Faso: 1983-87
Zapatista-controlled Chiapas: 1994-present
Venezuela: 2006-present
Nepal: 2006-present
Corrections
1) Soviet Union didn't exist till 1922, Lenin created the RSFSR before the USSR.
2) North Korea is still officially socialist under the Juche Regime.
3) Vietnam is still offically a socialist nations, the official name of Vietnam is Socialtist Republic of Vietname.
4) Laos is still a socialist nation,
5) Communist Party of Moldova won the 2009 elections.
I don't think that any of them had a 'socialist economy'. In Russia unlike the rest though the working class was very briefly in power.
Devrim
Well buddy, I define a socialist society to be one that is ruled by the working class as a whole and it's economy is democratically managed and the means of production are owned collectively by the working class - none of that state/Bourgeoisie bullshit here.
No. The workers councils (Soviets) had some political power for a while but they were soon disolved - and the means of production were never put into worker ownership. Blatantly capitalist by the end.
I'm guessing. Is this Anarchist Spain? Then it pretty much was for a little while.
No. State ownership. Not ruled by the working class.
No. State ownership. Not ruled by the working class.
No. State ownership. Not ruled by the working class. Ruled by some shifty little cliche of a vanguard.
Interesting to see you took off everything after it went even further down the shitter...
No. State ownership. Not ruled by the working class in the least.
No. State ownership. Not ruled by the working class.
No. State ownership. Not ruled by the working class. There is a degree of workplace democracy if I recall correctly, though.
No. State ownership. Not ruled by the working class. Workers councils are being introduced though as far as I know.
Same deal if I recall correctly.
If both PRC and USSR were socialist for such a long time, then how do you explain their worldwide contradictions ?
Also, what makes you think that Nepal is socialist at present ?
More to the point how on earth did Republican Spain and Venuzela get on that list????
Although I'm sympathetic to Ukrainian Free Territory, Republican Spain and Chiapas territory, the SPGB say socialism has never been achieved anywhere.
In some of the cases, socialist yes, at times, communist , never for the most:
Paris Commune: 1871 (communist, anarchist, either)
Soviet Union: 1917-91 (socialist, never communist)
Mongolia: 1924-92 (you're joking, right?)
Republican Spain: 1936-39 (socialist, anarchist, communist, everything, they had pockets of everything you can imagine, but there was never an unified standard)
Albania: 1944-91 (you're joking, right?)
Yugoslavia: 1945-92 (you're joking, right?)
North Korea: 1948-94 (you're joking, right?)
People's Republic of China: 1949-78 (you're joking, right?)
North Vietnam: 1954-75(Socialist Republic of Vietnam until 1986) (you're joking, right? If anything uncle Ho was first and foremost nationalist, and then socialist)
Cuba: 1961-present (socialist, with an hint of mild stalinism)
Angola: 1974-92 (fascist? dictatorial? corrupt?)
Mozambique: 1975-90 (fascist? dictatorial? corrupt?)
Laos: 1975-89 (fascist? dictatorial? corrupt?)
Afghanistan: 1978-92 (dictatorial? corrupt?)
Nicaragua: 1979-90 (fascist? dictatorial? corrupt?)
Burkina-Faso: 1983-87 (fascist? dictatorial? corrupt?)
Zapatista-controlled Chiapas: 1994-present (tribalist / nationalist / hint of socialism?)
Venezuela: 2006-present (dictatorial? corrupt?)
Nepal: 2006-present (dictatorial? corrupt?)
It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place. And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins.
You're joking, right?
All claims of fascism should be withdrawn as it seems you have no clue of the meaning of the word. Excluding the DPRK (which for some reason you didn't label as dictatorial), none of the claims of dictatorship can be certified (that I know of, and I have no clue about the south Asian "socialist" states). Also, how could you possibly label the USSR as socialist? (The only hint of socialism was that the workers councils (Soviets) had some political significance early in the history of post-revolutionary Russia until they were disbanded (You can read up on this in another thread from ages ago)) And parts of Spain communist? Communism is a global, stateless, classless and moneyless (depending on your definition) society.
The clue is in 'that you know of'.
(I would agree though is re-labbeling them as 'dictatorial')
C'mon, not wanting to be difficult, but short of dictatorial, how would you classify the following:
Angola, Mozambique, Albania, Yugoslavia, Laos, Nicaragua, Burquina?...
It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place. And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins.
I don't know where Angola and Mozambique were socialist. At the time of independence, both MPLA (Angola) and FRELIMO (Mozambique) had marxist-leninist ideals. But no country can achieve socialism or be in the road towards socialism if they are in a civil war and an open war with the US, China, South Africa and Rodesia. When peace was achieved, the spirit of socialism was dead. Prove of this is the family of the president of Angola being one of the most powerful families in the portuguese-speaking world and Mozambique being part of the Commonwealth.
It's highly optimistic, to say that when peace was achieved the spirit of socialism was dead. MPLA and FRELIMO, short of the rethoric and organization, had virtually nothing of socialist.
It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place. And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins.
Ruled by shitty vanguard parties and not interested in the working class?
That is a very short definition of what was happening over there.
And just because someone calls himself a socialist party, that does not necessarly mean it is one, or that it even aspires to be one. In this case, it means that was were the money and weapons were coming from.
It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place. And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins.
MPLA was lead by Agostinho Neto, who had similar views has Fidel that runned the country that you called socialist. But Agostinho died in '79 and was replaced by the bastard that is still in power. Same stuff happened in Mozambique, the good ones died early and the corrupts lived far too long. But there is no lie in saying that both Angola and Mozambique were borned with socialist ideology, but they had no time to made significant policies since the infrastructures were destroyed over and over again.
Sure, all good revolutionaries... Undoubtedly MPLA colonial war tactics were very progressive and socialist, under the benevolent leadership of comrade Neto. I wonder what sort of country would he intend to form?... I know I would not want to live in there though.
It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place. And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins.
Oh my...the stupid...she is everywhere...
