communism in the world

[redcannon]

because under communism, a country is to be both classless and stateless, does that mean that the world has never seen a truly communist country? so far as i know, all of the supposedly communist country stopped at socialism and never made the transition.

[Connolly]

does that mean that the world has never seen a truly communist country?

Yes, this is true. Communism, meaning, as you said, both a stateless and classless society has never existed.

so far as i know, all of the supposedly communist country stopped at socialism and never made the transition.

USSR, Cuba, C China, Vietnam, Angola, Laos etc. etc were not socialist.

Socialism is where the workers control the means of production in a democratic way.

These regimes were controlled by a state elite with little democratic control.

Best and closest thing to compare Socialism with are those attempts made by CNT anarchists during the spanish Civil war, Paris Commune and probably the Kibutz in Israel. (others WILL disagree with me on this)

[The Grey Blur]

USSR, Cuba, C China, Vietnam, Angola, Laos etc. etc were not socialist.

Most of these countries were in the beginning an attempt at genuine Socialism; with the instation of a planned economy, democratically-controlled workplaces, an end to sexual/racial/religious discrimination, nationalised industry, worker's councils, and other socialist activities lead by the working class and poor.

Unfortunately many of these countries today are flawed Socialist societies where a bureaucratic caste control the means of production as opposed to the workers themselves. The revolution has degenerated, independent unions are often banned and dissenting socialists persecuted.

That said, Cuba is an excellent example that we can point to today when asked what the benefits of Socialism are - of the gains that can be made through a Socialist revolution, no matter how flawed - full and free public services such healthcare and education available to all as well as the Socialist planned economy.

Socialism is where the workers control the means of production in a democratic way

Worker's control is one of the defining elements of Socialism yet when this cannot be achieved due to material conditions or though a bureaucratic counter-revolution we should not entirely dismiss these examples as 'not socialist', this would be ultra-leftist of us and lead to the repitition of these same mistakes you decry.

These regimes were controlled by a state elite with little democratic control.

Yet they also contained (or in Cuba's case, continue to contain) certain positive elements of Socialism, as listed above.

Best and closest thing to compare Socialism with are those attempts made by CNT anarchists during the spanish Civil war

Who, just like the revolutionaries in "USSR, Cuba, C China, Vietnam, Angola, Laos, etc", made mistakes.

the Kibutz in Israel

Who are they?

(others WILL disagree with me on this)

I don't neccessarily disagree, I just think you are over-simplifying things. 'Tis all in the past anyway...

[Connolly]

Most of these countries were in the beginning an attempt at genuine Socialism;

That means nothing - "an attempt".

I could "attempt" to turn lead into gold - I could learn something of an historical lesson from doing it in the process, that is - its impossible to do so.

That "attempt" does not indicate that I am any closer to achieveing my desired outcome.

An attempt at socialism, when socialism is impossible under such objective conditions - means nothing but with the historical lessons learned.

with the instation of a planned economy, democratically-controlled workplaces, an end to sexual/racial/religious discrimination

And so what? - what relevence is this to achieving socialism if the long term theory doesn not work out - ie. the progression/regression to a state "socialist" elite and capitalism and the problem of destroying POWER.

It means nothing of the sort that Socialism was "close".

I mean, democratically controlled work places are nothing new, they could be thousands of years old in various forms.

Again - they have nothing of relevence when considering whether Cuba, the USSR or any other authoritarian state regime are socialist or not.

They implemented these reforms for a couple of years - under the greater political and economic ends - they gradually revert to a more efficient form of social organisation - they fail to achieve socialism.

Lesson learned: It didnt work.

Unfortunately many of these countries today are flawed Socialist societies

Many? what exceptions are you making?

They are ALL flawed systems of government - nothing of the sorts like socialism

That said, Cuba is an excellent example that we can point to today when asked what the benefits of Socialism are

No, I disagree.

How can you point to the benifits of socialism by using Cuba, a non-socialist country?

Does that also mean we can point to, say, Ireland, a heavily capitalised society, as the benifits of socialism are Free Speech and Greater freedom as a whole?

In that case, I dont see why socialists should fixate themselves on Cuba, when other very impressive ongoings are happening here under capitalism in Ireland - if not more so in Ireland than in Cuba as a comparison to socialism.

A single party, single man, authoritarian state couldnt be further from socialism. Ireland is much closer, yet we dont fixate and use it as an example, why Cuba is an exception is beyond me.

Worker's control is one of the defining elements of Socialism yet when this cannot be achieved due to material conditions or though a bureaucratic counter-revolution we should not entirely dismiss these examples as 'not socialist'

Why not? - they were not socialist (fact).

If the objective conditions dont exist - socialism is not possible. If the material conditions dont exist, we shouldnt settle for something undesirable such as Cuba or the USSR, but rather, and most preferably, a system of capitalism for which we have today - where greater freedom is achieved for the workers - and less isolation on an international scale.

I would rather live where im living now - under capitalism - than in Cuba or any other dictatorship.

Yet they also contained (or in Cuba's case, continue to contain) certain positive elements of Socialism, as listed above.

As does the USA, Ireland, France, japan etc have certain positive elements that we would attribute to socialism.

We dont aim for such systems of society that is capitalism - so we oppose them.

We dont aim for systems such as that in Cuba - so we oppose them.

We do not attribute them as "the best examples, or closest examples to socialism".

They are not - and should be opposed, not in awe.

Who, just like the revolutionaries in "USSR, Cuba, C China, Vietnam, Angola, Laos, etc", made mistakes.

Im not talking about mistakes, im talking about comparison. The example I gave would be similar to our aims for a society.

Cuba, USSR couldnt be further from substantive democratic control of the economy.

Who are they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibutz

[BobKKKindle$]

Most of these countries were in the beginning an attempt at genuine Socialism; with the instation of a planned economy, democratically-controlled workplaces, an end to sexual/racial/religious discrimination, nationalised industry, worker's councils, and other socialist activities lead by the working class and poor.

In these countries all economic decisions were undertaken by a class of Party Administrators and economic planners, meaning that the means of production were not subject to the control of the workers. This reflects the fact that these countries were state-capitalist. The means of production were concentrated in the hands of the state, and the class division that is a characteristic of capitalist society existed, although under State-Capitalism it arose from political centralisation and exploitation and not a private property system.

These countries did not represent, or undertake Socialism.

Worker's control is one of the defining elements of Socialism yet when this cannot be achieved due to material conditions or though a bureaucratic counter-revolution we should not entirely dismiss these examples as 'not socialist', this would be ultra-leftist of us and lead to the repitition of these same mistakes you decry.

These 'revolutions' (if they can be described as such, as the Bolshevik uprising was a coup d'etat as shown by the results of the Constituent assembly) did not degenerate through counter revolution or material circumstances; they failed because Leninism is an ideology that advocates that a centralised and dedicated group of intellectuals should create and guide the transition to Socialism. This is inherently and implicitly oppossed to working-class power and leads to centralised state structures based on heirachy. Indeed, it should be noted that Lenin ordered a ban on factions in 1921, consequently silencing the Workers opposition who advocated the restoration of independent Trade Unions.

[manic expression]

That means nothing - "an attempt".

I could "attempt" to turn lead into gold - I could learn something of an historical lesson from doing it in the process, that is - its impossible to do so.

That "attempt" does not indicate that I am any closer to achieveing my desired outcome.

An attempt at socialism, when socialism is impossible under such objective conditions - means nothing but with the historical lessons learned.

No, an attempt means many things. First, it shows that workers are willing to come together to create a better society. Second, both the successes and the mistakes lend themselves to more effective attempts later on ("If at first you don't succeed...").

So no, attempts are not as meaningless as you assert, for everything worth doing must first be attempted.

And so what? - what relevence is this to achieving socialism if the long term theory doesn not work out - ie. the progression/regression to a state "socialist" elite and capitalism and the problem of destroying POWER.

It means nothing of the sort that Socialism was "close".

I mean, democratically controlled work places are nothing new, they could be thousands of years old in various forms.

Again - they have nothing of relevence when considering whether Cuba, the USSR or any other authoritarian state regime are socialist or not.

They implemented these reforms for a couple of years - under the greater political and economic ends - they gradually revert to a more efficient form of social organisation - they fail to achieve socialism.

Lesson learned: It didnt work.

Socialism was achieved in those states. Communism, on the other hand, was not.

Democratically controlled workplaces was and is a revolutionary idea in capitalism. The point you are missing is that the proletariat (and peasantry) control the workplaces; the bourgeoisie (and petty bourgeoisie, to a lesser extent) control their workplaces in capitalism, but that is a wholly different thing.

Perhaps you could cite examples of "democratically controlled workplaces" not associated with socialism that have existed for "thousands of years".

USSR was socialist, Cuba is socialist. Why are you suggesting that this isn't the case?

Cuba has had their socialist "reforms" in place for almost half a century to great success, and anyone who knows a shred about Cuba can tell you this. The USSR became capitalist for many reasons, reasons that we can learn from.

You would do well to learn these lessons.

Many? what exceptions are you making?

They are ALL flawed systems of government - nothing of the sorts like socialism

It's hard to reach perfection, so obviously there will be some flaws. That's almost a given.

Cuba is socialist, that is a fact.

Let me reiterate: Cuba is a socialist country.

Ireland is not socialist. The "benefits" you cite ("Greater freedom"? Are you drunk?) inevitably benefit the rich first and foremost. Hopefully I don't have to explain why this is the case.

Socialists should use Cuba as an example of a successful implementation of socialism. Again, review the statistics of Cuba's medical system, education system, levels of housing and more. I have no idea as to why you're trying to tell us Ireland is more socialistic than Cuba.

No, I disagree.

How can you point to the benifits of socialism by using Cuba, a non-socialist country?

Does that also mean we can point to, say, Ireland, a heavily capitalised society, as the benifits of socialism are Free Speech and Greater freedom as a whole?

In that case, I dont see why socialists should fixate themselves on Cuba, when other very impressive ongoings are happening here under capitalism in Ireland - if not more so in Ireland than in Cuba as a comparison to socialism.

A single party, single man, authoritarian state couldnt be further from socialism. Ireland is much closer, yet we dont fixate and use it as an example, why Cuba is an exception is beyond me.

I wish people wouldn't believe the BS my government spreads. NO POLITICAL PARTY IN CUBA IS ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS. People are not nominated by parties, and do not affiliate with them in elections. Castro didn't have authoritarian power, and he excercised less of it; the National Assembly has by far the most power in the Cuban government.

We don't use Ireland as an example because it isn't socialist, whereas Cuba is.

Why not? - they were not socialist (fact).

If the objective conditions dont exist - socialism is not possible. If the material conditions dont exist, we shouldnt settle for something undesirable such as Cuba or the USSR, but rather, and most preferably, a system of capitalism for which we have today - where greater freedom is achieved for the workers - and less isolation on an international scale.

I would rather live where im living now - under capitalism - than in Cuba or any other dictatorship.

They were socialist, you're 100% wrong to assert that they were not. A cursory look at the definition of a socialist country will verify this.

Cuba is "undesirable"? You're telling me that a world-class health system, a literacy rate approaching 100%, universal housing, equity, virtual guaranteed employment, countless improvements for workers and farmers and more is "undesirable"? Get a clue: Cuba has done more for its people than anyone ever thought possible; even the WORLD BANK was forced to admit these spectacular results that socialist Cuba has achieved.

In spite of these undeniable successes, you're suggesting that capitalism is better? Explain yourself.

And in case you forgot, Cuba's isolation *might* be due to a little siege that Uncle Sam has been maintaining for the past half a century against the island.

If you took into account standards of living, Ireland is more "desirable" than Cuba, but to completely ignore the huge economic burden on Cuba is patently ridiculous and misses the root cause. However, taking into account the siege, Cuba is far more desirable than Ireland.

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html

As does the USA, Ireland, France, japan etc have certain positive elements that we would attribute to socialism.

We dont aim for such systems of society that is capitalism - so we oppose them.

We dont aim for systems such as that in Cuba - so we oppose them.

We do not attribute them as "the best examples, or closest examples to socialism".

They are not - and should be opposed, not in awe.

What "positive elements of Socialism" does the US contain? Japan? Are you kidding me?

If you claim to oppose the Cuban system, you oppose socialism, period. That's as clear as day, and I hope you can recognize this.

The only thing I'm in awe of is that I have to respond to these sorts of claims on a leftist website.

Im not talking about mistakes, im talking about comparison. The example I gave would be similar to our aims for a society.

Cuba, USSR couldnt be further from substantive democratic control of the economy.

Again, you are incorrect on Cuba (refer to my link above). Perhaps the Soviet Union did not have "substantive democratic control of the economy", but it was still socialist and that was far better than what has replaced it.

[Forward Union]

You could argue that Ukraine was Communist from the years 1917-1921. The peoples assemblies ruled themselves and the state certainly did not exist in any form. Though the Makhnovist army that defended it was hierachical. It was certainly a lot better sustained and longer lasting that the attempts of the CNT. And the paris commune.

[Connolly]

[for electrical reasons beyond my control, I have lost my reply which answered each of your points individually - I coulnt be arsed writing it all again. So I will respond with something lesser]

Firstly, your definition of socialism is simply incorrect.

On Dictionary.com, there are several definitions.

The one we are interested in, is this one.

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

This is not the case with Cuba. The "vest" of control is in the hands of an elite class, Castro being one.

Castro is NOT a member of the proletariat. Cubas "socialism" is not classless.

Perhaps you could cite examples of "democratically controlled workplaces" not associated with socialism that have existed for "thousands of years".

Substantive democratic control of the economy and society existed for the majority of human existence. Very recently in our human history have we seen the emergence of the state.

In spite of these undeniable successes, you're suggesting that capitalism is better? Explain yourself.

Yes, capitalism is better.

Would you consider Libya socialist?

What "positive elements of Socialism" does the US contain? Japan? Are you kidding me?

Greater freedom of movement.

If you claim to oppose the Cuban system, you oppose socialism, period. That's as clear as day, and I hope you can recognize this.

The only thing I'm in awe of is that I have to respond to these sorts of claims on a leftist website.

No, I havnt recognized Cuba as socialist - and never will. Unless we are to re-invent the word to suit your little fantasy.

Yes, this is a leftist website. Your position clearly demonstrates that you are either an authoritarian or stalinist.

but it was still socialist and that was far better than what has replaced it.

True, but that dosnt make it socialist.

[manic expression]

Socialism is the period between capitalism and communism, where there can be a state. Marx never really specified exactly what this phase should look like, probably because he wanted the idea to be flexible.

Let me accept the definition you put forth, for the sake of argument.

The fact is that the USSR, for all intensive purposes, used its resources and means of production for the whole. It was socialist in that the state controlled those aspects of society, and directed them in a way that benefitted the whole of society. I could go on, but you should get the picture. The USSR, for all its failings, had a socialist system.

This is not the case with Cuba. The "vest" of control is in the hands of an elite class, Castro being one.

Castro is NOT a member of the proletariat. Cubas "socialism" is not classless.

The fact that you insinuate that Castro is some big bad dictator controlling the entire island is extremely misled. If you checked my link you would see an outline of the Cuban political system, which is far more democratic than any capitalist country could ever portray themselves as. The fact is that the Cuban people have a great voice in government, and so the Cuban people control the means of production.

Castro was Cuba's head of state, and there is a very good reason for that: the Cuban people support the revolutionary government. Was he directly elected? No, he was elected by the Popular Assembly, which was elected by the people, effectively making his position one that the Cuban people supported.

Cuba's socialism is socialism, and while there are a few recent inequities (minimal ones at that), it is generally a society with a great amount of equity and equality (read: classless society).

By the way, that's what Dictionary.com says, not what necessarily what socialists say.

Substantive democratic control of the economy and society existed for the majority of human existence. Very recently in our human history have we seen the emergence of the state.

You mean after the Ice Age? The Vedic Janapadas? In my Civilization II game? Even accepting your argument, that was then, this is now, there are an unending amount of socioeconomic differences that need to be overcome. Yours is as null of a point as one can find.

Yes, capitalism is better.

Would you consider Libya socialist?

Yeah, I figured you thought as much. At least you're honest about being against socialism.

As much as I consider the DPRK socialist, meaning nominally, if at all. Surely you're not seriously comparing Cuba to Libya, for if you are, that is laughable.

No, I havnt recognized Cuba as socialist - and never will. Unless we are to re-invent the word to suit your little fantasy.

Yes, this is a leftist website. Your position clearly demonstrates that you are either an authoritarian or stalinist.

Then you haven't recognized reality. Cuba is socialist, and no amount of denying the obvious will change this. I even used your definition of socialist to validate my conclusions on both the USSR and Cuba, which means you have no real argument.

One would imagine that people on a leftist website would favor socialism over capitalism. Thankfully, you seem to be the exception to that rule.

You can call me those words all day long, but it changes nothing.

True, but that dosnt make it socialist.

Not necessarily, but other factors do. This includes, among other things, the direction of resources and the distribution of wealth.

What this comes down to is that contrary to what you believe, a society can be socialist while having a state.

[manic expression]

Here's a definition of socialism that's a bit more extensive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

"Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or it may be indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often associated with state, community or worker ownership of the means of production."

[RGacky3]

There are many instances of communities that can be considered Communist, (most of them are small scale and last a short period of time, usually because they are ended by force). The Zapatistas Territories are pretty close be being called Communist I think, during the Spanish revolution the Anarchists ran things communistically, during the Hungarian revolt against the USSR, many areas were run Communistically, the Paris commune of coarse, During the Argentine riots many factories were taken over and run communistically, Oaxaca is on the right path. I don't think its EVER been achieved doing it the Vanguardist way of State Socialism to Communism, any time its been achieved its been basically done the Anarchist way. Also many of the old tribal systems were run communistically. There are some communes in western countries that run themselves that way, the Kibutz are a good example as well. After the Russian revolution when the Soviets ran things it could be considered pretty much communism (untill the communist party took over, which ironically ended communism). I'm sure there are more examples, but if your looking for a country example, of a whole country that has achieved it you probably won't and never will find it, Communism is achieved not through a state, not through a Political Party, not through a rebel group,but through mass public Direct action, or an uprising. Many times its a General strike that starts a community on the road to communism, and I think that is the best way.

[Connolly]

Socialism is the period between capitalism and communism, where there can be a state.

Not necessarily. Socialism has been, and is used to the present day, as a word by anarchists to describe the necessary transitional period - without a state. Any communist society must be achieved through a transitional phase, anarchists believe this also.

Marx never really specified exactly what this phase should look like, probably because he wanted the idea to be flexible.

Wasnt that a great mistake then, It could have stopped Marxism being tarnished by the misuse of its word and ideology by Cuba and the USSR and other bourgeois dictatorships.

The fact is that the USSR, for all intensive purposes, used its resources and means of production for the whole. It was socialist in that the state controlled those aspects of society, and directed them in a way that benefitted the whole of society. I could go on, but you should get the picture. The USSR, for all its failings, had a socialist system.

I do get the picture - but its not socialism.

Socialism must have workers control. It cannot have an administrative and leading elite. It wouldnt be classless otherwise.

Both the USSR and Cuba had these elites controlling and managing the economy. Socialism means the workers manage the economy directly - by substantive democratic control.

If it aint worker controlled, it aint classless.

The fact that you insinuate that Castro is some big bad dictator controlling the entire island is extremely misled. If you checked my link you would see an outline of the Cuban political system, which is far more democratic than any capitalist country could ever portray themselves as. The fact is that the Cuban people have a great voice in government, and so the Cuban people control the means of production.

The simple fact that Castro exists in the position he has - Proves cuba is not classless, and therefore not socialist.

Socialism wouldnt simply give "great" voice in government, it would give complete and total voice in every sector of society - cuba dosnt - castro exists.

His fucking brother is set to take over for gods sake - its a bloody monarchy if anything.

Castro was Cuba's head of state, and there is a very good reason for that: the Cuban people support the revolutionary government. Was he directly elected? No, he was elected by the Popular Assembly, which was elected by the people, effectively making his position one that the Cuban people supported.

But thats not substantive democratic control, thats representitive democracy.

In that case, President Clinton was elected through such and such body by the people and therefore has just as much right to be in a position of power over the US.

Same here in Ireland, Ahern was elected to a position of power by the people, therefore, I could argue along the same lines as you, the people "want and support him".

The difference between Cuba and Ireland is that Bertie gets kicked out again after four years "by the people", Castro sits in his thrown for a lifetime - then gives control to his brother - for another reign by the family monarchy.

You cannot create socialism using bourgeois representative democracy - it must be direct working class control - substantive democracy - lacking in Cuba greatly.

Cuba's socialism is socialism, and while there are a few recent inequities (minimal ones at that), it is generally a society with a great amount of equity and equality

As in what?...money?

Money dosnt define a Marxian class. Marxian class is defined by relations to production.

Cuba is not classless - plain and simple.

You mean after the Ice Age? The Vedic Janapadas? In my Civilization II game? Even accepting your argument, that was then, this is now, there are an unending amount of socioeconomic differences that need to be overcome. Yours is as null of a point as one can find.

You asked me.

Yeah, I figured you thought as much. At least you're honest about being against socialism.

As much as I consider the DPRK socialist, meaning nominally, if at all. Surely you're not seriously comparing Cuba to Libya, for if you are, that is laughable.

Im afraid, comrade, you are the one who is against workers control with your support for authoritarian elitist Cuba.

Why? whats wrong with that comparison Libya, Cuba?

Libya - Cuba - centralised elite control over economic affairs

Libya - Cuba - both proport to be "socialist" (Libya is short for the countries actual name - check it out, Libya actually has socialist engrained in its official name)

Libya - Cuba - Both have heavily nationalised economies

Libya - Cuba - Freedom of movement, for the vast majority, is restricted to within national borders - Libya less so.

Libya - Cuba - Both maintain single party, single dictatorial systems

Libya - Cuba - Both are very restrictive about private ownership.

etc etc. The comparison is endless, both leak from the same strand of rotten false socialism.

Not necessarily, but other factors do. This includes, among other things, the direction of resources and the distribution of wealth.

Socialism is classless - they arnt (full stop).

Its reformed capitalism, abit like what Chavez is doing with his "bolivarian revolution" - no wonder the two get along.

What this comes down to is that contrary to what you believe, a society can be socialist while having a state.

Its not contrary to my position at all. Its quite possible socialism will have a state - just not in the way you portray and reference it.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by bobkindles@January 07, 2007 01:45 pm
These 'revolutions' did not degenerate through counter revolution or material circumstances; they failed because Leninism is an ideology that advocates that a centralised and dedicated group of intellectuals should create and guide the transition to Socialism. This is inherently and implicitly oppossed to working-class power and leads to centralised state structures based on heirachy. Indeed, it should be noted that Lenin ordered a ban on factions in 1921, consequently silencing the Workers opposition who advocated the restoration of independent Trade Unions.

Here is just more evidence that people against the vanguard have absolutely no idea what it even is. It is the most politically advanced layer of the working class organized into a political party leading by example, struggle, education, and agitation. The necessity of a working class party carrying out the revolution and securing its dominance as the ruling class doesn't necessarily mean that a one-party state will emerge.

[The Grey Blur]

That means nothing - "an attempt".

When the workers and oppressed of a country overthrow the buergeois and attempt to create a Socialist society this is a monumental feat. In dismissing out of hand these movements and revolutionary societies you are blinding yourself to the lessons that can be learned from them.

I could "attempt" to turn lead into gold - I could learn something of an historical lesson from doing it in the process, that is - its impossible to do so.

Are you saying that it's impossible to create a Socialist society?

An attempt at socialism, when socialism is impossible under such objective conditions - means nothing but with the historical lessons learned.

An attempt at Socialism, even a flawed one, can serve as an example to the oppressed of the world that there is a Socialist alternative - this is shown in how the German, Spanish and even Irish proleteriat attemoted to follow the Bolsheviks revolutionary seizure of power.

I have also already listed the material gains that where made through these revolutions as well - improved living conditions, proper housing, full and free healthcare, and end to sexual discrimination, etc

And so what? - what relevence is this to achieving socialism if the long term theory doesn not work out - ie. the progression/regression to a state "socialist" elite and capitalism and the problem of destroying POWER.

The failure of former Socialist states was not pre-ordained, it is only with hindsight that it is easy to decry these revolutionary attempts at seizing power. In my opinion the reasons for these failures should be examined - whether it be beuraucratic counter-revolution or political inexperience or whatever - and thus lessons can be learned from them.

Originally posted by redbanner+--> (redbanner)Socialism is where the workers control the means of production in a democratic way.[/b]

redbanner

I mean, democratically controlled work places are nothing new, they could be thousands of years old in various forms - they have nothing of relevence when considering whether Cuba, the USSR or any other authoritarian state regime are socialist or not.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Unfortunately many of these countries today are flawed Socialist societies

Many? what exceptions are you making?

Cuba's Socialist system still existing and the USSR, Cambodia, Angola, having returned to Capitalist forms.

How can you point to the benifits of socialism by using Cuba, a non-socialist country?

Cuba is a Socialist country - the planned economy, limited worker's democracy, the revolution and nationalisation would all point to this being true.

Not to mention the fact that the most aggressively Capitalist nation on earth, the USA, have opposed Cuba since the revolution and today still carry out an economic blockade against it as well as millions of dollars worth of anti-Castro propaganda. Would they carry out all these measures if Cuba was not a Socialist example for the oppressed of the world to follow?

A single party, single man, authoritarian state couldnt be further from socialism

1)Define "authoritarian".

2)I agree, the political system in Cuba is flawed - that is why I and other Socialists advocate a "political revolution" in Cuba which would see the planned economy and other benefits of the revolution kept while full democratic control returning to the workers and under classes.

Worker's control is one of the defining elements of Socialism yet when this cannot be achieved due to material conditions or though a bureaucratic counter-revolution we should not entirely dismiss these examples as 'not socialist'

Why not? - they were not socialist (fact).

Yet they were attempts to create Socialism and contained many elements of our desired Socialist society. Also, they are generally taken to be 'examples of Socialism' by the layman and thus we must engage with this.

I would rather live where im living now - under capitalism - than in Cuba or any other dictatorship.

Capitalism is a dictatorship of the beurgeois. If you are working-class then the Cuban system would directly benefit you, whatever luxuries you have now under Capitalism are only afforded to you by a temporary postive fluctuation of the market - when a recession hits watch all your material and abstract luxuries being stripped away one after another.

As does the USA, Ireland, France, japan etc have certain positive elements that we would attribute to socialism.

Like what exactly?

If you meant a welfare state then this can be seen as a direct result of the pressure exterted by strong Communist movements on the buergeois policy-makers.

We dont aim for such systems of society that is capitalism - so we oppose them.

We dont aim for systems such as that in Cuba - so we oppose them.

We oppose Capitalism, we defend Cuba. Yet, more importantly - we defend the true ideal of Socialism - a democratic society where the products of our labour are used for the benefit of society as a whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibutz

Thanks, interesting group there.

[Connolly]

It is the most politically advanced layer of the working class organized into a political party leading by example, struggle, education, and agitation.

Why are they more "politically advanced" than the ordinary worker?
Why should the worker follow their lead and example over their own general action and thoughts?

When the workers and oppressed of a country overthrow the buergeois and attempt to create a Socialist society this is a monumental feat. In dismissing out of hand these movements and revolutionary societies you are blinding yourself to the lessons that can be learned from them.

Im sorry comrade, in relation to this discussion, an attempt means nothing. I am not discussing attempts, I am discussing social comparison.

You are probably right, attempts have historical lessons with which we should learn.

Are you saying that it's impossible to create a Socialist society?

Under certain objective conditions, yes - such as Cuba and the Soviet Union - it was impossible.

An attempt at Socialism, even a flawed one, can serve as an example to the oppressed of the world that there is a Socialist alternative - this is shown in how the German, Spanish and even Irish proleteriat attemoted to follow the Bolsheviks revolutionary seizure of power.

No, I dont think relating socialism to Cuba or the USSR serves as an example of socialism at all. How could it - when they were not socialist?

We can propose a theoretical socialist model as of now, we dont need these comparisons.

It must be remembered, socialism has not existed. We do not know with any great confidence that Socialism is possible at all.

I have also already listed the material gains that where made through these revolutions as well - improved living conditions, proper housing, full and free healthcare, and end to sexual discrimination, etc

Id agree with you. But these have also been made under western capitalism. They could, historically, be attributed to the rise of modern industrial society (that is, economic and technological advances).

They are not due to "socialism".

The failure of former Socialist states was not pre-ordained, it is only with hindsight that it is easy to decry these revolutionary attempts at seizing power. In my opinion the reasons for these failures should be examined - whether it be beuraucratic counter-revolution or political inexperience or whatever - and thus lessons can be learned from them.

Id agree. Though with a slightly different take on things than you might have - not for discussing here.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

No, I am not. Democratic control alone dosnt constitute socialism. If I say democratic control has existed, that dosnt mean socialism has existed. Socialism is a combination of things.

Cuba's Socialist system still existing and the USSR, Cambodia, Angola, having returned to Capitalist forms.

But the cuban system isnt socialism. So there are no exceptions.

Cuba is a Socialist country - the planned economy, limited worker's democracy, the revolution and nationalisation would all point to this being true.

But its not socialist! Classes exist - Castro - clearly being a member of the ruling.

Not to mention the fact that the most aggressively Capitalist nation on earth, the USA, have opposed Cuba since the revolution and today still carry out an economic blockade against it as well as millions of dollars worth of anti-Castro propaganda.

Thats very unfortunate for Cuba, and I oppose US imperialist sanctions. I support what Chavez does. I support the revolution in Nepal. I support all progressive movements and those opposed to existing oppression (Cuba being just one).

But that, again, shouldnt obscure an objective analysis of things, that is, that Cuba, by definition, and historically speaking, is not socialist.

Just because they arnt socialist dosnt mean we shouldnt give support to them.

Socialism and support cannot be confused.

1)Define "authoritarian".

In relation to this socialist comparison, an authoritarian reigime gives power to a class other than the proletariat - this is the case with Cuba, in which the proletariat, through collective action, do not "govern themselves" - but are governed by a separate class.

2)I agree, the political system in Cuba is flawed - that is why I and other Socialists advocate a "political revolution" in Cuba which would see the planned economy and other benefits of the revolution kept while full democratic control returning to the workers and under classes.

I couldnt much disagree. It would be preferable to see "political revolution" in most of the worlds under-developed nations, such as Cuba. Whether it would achieve socialism is another matter, and would require deep analysis of social and economic conditions. I doubt socialism could be achieved in Cuba at this time, infact, I assert it as a near impossibility.

Yet they were attempts to create Socialism and contained many elements of our desired Socialist society. .

Yes, they may well have contained elements of what we believe to be socialism - but so does western capitalism - infact, more so.

Also, they are generally taken to be 'examples of Socialism' by the layman and thus we must engage with this

Well, if the layman believes this to be socialism, we should either change our goals name, or educate him as to his incorrectness. Though I do understand what you mean.

Capitalism is a dictatorship of the beurgeois. If you are working-class then the Cuban system would directly benefit you, whatever luxuries you have now under Capitalism are only afforded to you by a temporary postive fluctuation of the market - when a recession hits watch all your material and abstract luxuries being stripped away one after another.

Yes, very true. However, capitalism, as a naturally emerging system around any given level of production and economic technology - is most efficient. "free competition" does serve an historical and economic function.

I have argued this before in other threads, we cannot mould production around society, but that society is moulded around production. The means of production being the root of all other social structures and classes.

We are living in a society which favours our present means to produce.

NO social contradictions exist between the means of production and their social relations - something completely necessary for social change.

Like what exactly?

If you meant a welfare state then this can be seen as a direct result of the pressure exterted by strong Communist movements on the buergeois policy-makers.

Greater freedom of movement, speech and democracy.

Remember the Berlin Wall? or was that a conspiracy?

Under so-called "socialist" regimes, freedom of individual movement is heavily restricted. DPRK for example, Cuba, another, USSR another - all of them.

Another closer element: more advanced social relations to production and generally, greater technology of production - again - closer to socialism than the USSR was - forget Cuba.

We oppose Capitalism, we defend Cuba.

Cuba is state-capitalist. We oppose such systems. Though we defend it against any forms of sanctions and oppression.

we defend the true ideal of Socialism - a democratic society where the products of our labour are used for the benefit of society as a whole.

I completely agree with you here. That is why I oppose using Cuba, and various others, as icons of our ideal.

Theay are far from it. Better examples existed - such as that achieved by CNT anarchists.

[manic expression]

Not necessarily. Socialism has been, and is used to the present day, as a word by anarchists to describe the necessary transitional period - without a state. Any communist society must be achieved through a transitional phase, anarchists believe this also.

The point is that there CAN be a state. What anarchists would prefer has no bearing on Cuba or the USSR. Sure, anarchists don't agree with the Cuban system, we all know that, but that doesn't make Cuba not socialist.

Wasnt that a great mistake then, It could have stopped Marxism being tarnished by the misuse of its word and ideology by Cuba and the USSR and other bourgeois dictatorships.

No, it wasn't a mistake, Marx didn't want to try to formulate an exact model for people to follow, and he was right. And to say that Cuba and/or the USSR "tarnished" Marxism is both pompous and ludicrous. The USSR had many shortcomings, but that only "tarnished" Marxism in the minds of capitalists, anyone who looks at history knows otherwise.

I do get the picture - but its not socialism.

Socialism must have workers control. It cannot have an administrative and leading elite. It wouldnt be classless otherwise.

Both the USSR and Cuba had these elites controlling and managing the economy. Socialism means the workers manage the economy directly - by substantive democratic control.

If it aint worker controlled, it aint classless.

Yes, it is socialism. Your petty objections mean nothing in this regard.

Cuba DOES have workers' control. Secondly, it is not 100% necessary, as you can see from the wikipedia entry I posted. The state can make decisions on behalf of the people in socialism. Of course, you may not think it's best this way, but that hardly matters, it's still socialism.

So are you saying that there are no managers in socialism? That's just foolish; there's nothing against people taking managerial roles in socialism.

The USSR had elites, namely the nomenklatura, but these faults do not negate the status of socialism. Cuba doesn't really have an elite group (PCC? Not really).

You've never established this: who says you have to have "substantive democratic control"? It is a pathetic attempt of self-pleasuring delusion to think that there is only one way to go about socialism. You have not proven that socialism must have "substantive democratic control" or any of the other "requirements" you insist upon. Therefore, you have no argument.

Let me say this again: your objections are simply disagreements, and these disagreements have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON THE STATUS OF SOCIALISM. It smacks of self-centered, sectarian rhetoric to say that something isn't socialism just because TheRedBanner doesn't approve.

The simple fact that Castro exists in the position he has - Proves cuba is not classless, and therefore not socialist.

Socialism wouldnt simply give "great" voice in government, it would give complete and total voice in every sector of society - cuba dosnt - castro exists.

His fucking brother is set to take over for gods sake - its a bloody monarchy if anything.

Socialist societies CAN HAVE STATES. Therefore, they can have governments with positions. Again, your petty objections are nothing but disagreements.

Castro has a monarchy? You have no f*cking clue what you're talking about, do you? Review the actual system of government, then get back to me. You're just further proving your ignorance.

But thats not substantive democratic control, thats representitive democracy.

In that case, President Clinton was elected through such and such body by the people and therefore has just as much right to be in a position of power over the US.

Same here in Ireland, Ahern was elected to a position of power by the people, therefore, I could argue along the same lines as you, the people "want and support him".

The difference between Cuba and Ireland is that Bertie gets kicked out again after four years "by the people", Castro sits in his thrown for a lifetime - then gives control to his brother - for another reign by the family monarchy.

You cannot create socialism using bourgeois representative democracy - it must be direct working class control - substantive democracy - lacking in Cuba greatly.

And again, who says you need TheRedBanner Approved ™ Substantive Democratic Control? No one does, except you.

American voters vote in capitalists. I don't like it, and I'll try to change it, but I know as well as anyone else that the American people support capitalism. Same goes for Cuba and their government.

There are numerous differences between Cuban and Ireland in their political systems. Since you're too ignorant to bother understanding the Cuban system, you ignorantly call it a "monarchy", which is possibly the dumbest thing I've heard this month.

It's not bourgeois representative democracy, it's socialist democracy.

And again, your repetitive drivel over "substantive democracy" a.) ignores the fact that there is substantive democracy and b.) ignores the fact that there is no one way to establish and maintain socialism.

As in what?...money?

Money dosnt define a Marxian class. Marxian class is defined by relations to production.

Cuba is not classless - plain and simple.

Yes, in money, which is a pretty important factor.

Again, socialism can have mangers and directors, as well as people in government positions. Disagree all you like, it's still socialism.

You have no argument - plain and simple.

Also, I like how you try to lecture me about Marxian philosophy, while you say Marx made a "mistake" by not writing exactly what you wanted him to write on socialism.

You asked me.

I asked you for an actual answer. You gave me some BS response that specified nothing. Answer the question.

Im afraid, comrade, you are the one who is against workers control with your support for authoritarian elitist Cuba.

Why? whats wrong with that comparison Libya, Cuba?

Libya - Cuba - centralised elite control over economic affairs

Libya - Cuba - both proport to be "socialist" (Libya is short for the countries actual name - check it out, Libya actually has socialist engrained in its official name)

Libya - Cuba - Both have heavily nationalised economies

Libya - Cuba - Freedom of movement, for the vast majority, is restricted to within national borders - Libya less so.

Libya - Cuba - Both maintain single party, single dictatorial systems

Libya - Cuba - Both are very restrictive about private ownership.

etc etc. The comparison is endless, both leak from the same strand of rotten false socialism.

You're the one opposing socialist states, and you're the one singing the praises of capitalist states. That is quite the paradox you've gotten yourself into.

I'd like to say, once again, that you have no clue as to what you're talking about. None. Do I have to point out the unending number of differences between Cuba and Libya? Do some research, then come back and talk, because right now you're either completely misinformed or refusing to look at what I try to show you.

Socialism is classless - they arnt (full stop).

Its reformed capitalism, abit like what Chavez is doing with his "bolivarian revolution" - no wonder the two get along.

Socialism can have a state, socialism can have managers. Your insistence on what is so obviously untrue changes nothing. You can disagree with their systems, but to suggest that they are not socialist is nothing short of wrong.

Its not contrary to my position at all. Its quite possible socialism will have a state - just not in the way you portray and reference it.

Yes, it is in fact contrary to your position, since you object to Cuba having governmental positions.

Cuba is socialist, the USSR was socialist. No amount of your objections or disagreements will change this, because they are only objections and disagreements and nothing more.

Right now you're arguing with an accepted and established fact. You're going to lose.

[manic expression]

The RedBanner, please respond to the quote from wikipedia that I posted.

[manic expression]

Let me make this simple for The RedBanner.

When I say "authority", I want either a well-known Marxist writing that would support your claim, or a general authority (a historian) that would do the same.

The RedBanner, please do the following:

1.) Cite an authority that holds "substantive democratic control" and/or a "(full stop) classless society" as a REQUIREMENT for socialism.

2.) Cite an authority that claims that a state, with governmental positions, is INCOMPATIBLE with socialism.

3.) Cite an authority that states that managerial roles are INCOMPATIBLE with socialism.

4.) Cite an authority that would undeniably disqualify Cuba (and/or the USSR) from socialist status.

5.) Effectively specify how one is to distinguish what you would call "socialist society" (in other words, what is "substantive" and what is not; you need to fully clarify your "requirements" for socialism).

6.) Respond to the citation I made from wikipedia above (if you haven't done so already).

[The Grey Blur]

Why are they more "politically advanced" than the ordinary worker?

Because they have come into contact with Socialist ideas and have adopted them.

Why should the worker follow their lead and example over their own general action and thoughts?

Here is an excellent and concise explanation of the need for a vanguard of the working class:

"Without a guiding organisation, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston-box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam."

Im sorry comrade, in relation to this discussion, an attempt means nothing

The topic-starter asked if there has ever been a society which has progressed to Communism - we both agree that there hasn't been one. But, you then said that "Socialism" has never been achieved either - dismissing the genuine revolutionary attempts and successes in the following countries; "(Russia), Cuba, China, Vietnam, Angola, Laos etc." I disagree with you on this and have provided examples and evidence to back up my disagreements and to defend these revolutionary movements.

Under certain objective conditions, yes - such as Cuba and the Soviet Union - it was impossible.

Russia was a semi-feudal country yet it's beurgeois were not strong enough to carry out the revolution that was required and thus this responsibility to advance society fell to the proleteriat and it's representatives, the Bolsheviks. Lenin believed that "Capitalism would break at it's weakest link" and that following their example the rest of Europe would ignite in revolution. He was correct but these revolutions failed through objective factors of their own and the isolated Bolshevik state soon degenerated.

Simply put, the Menshevik argument that the conditions weren't right for Socialism and that the the Russian revolution should not have taken place simply means the First World War bloodbath would have continued, democratic elections would have endlessly been postponed and land reform would never have taken place. When the proleteriat is in such a position of power as in October 1917 they must seize power or the counter-revolution will roll back all gains.

We do not know with any great confidence that Socialism is possible at all.

Then what will be the outcome of the inevitable proleterian victory in the class struggle?

We can propose a theoretical socialist model as of now, we dont need these comparisons.

We need these concrete examples or people will simply dismiss Socialism as utopian.

Cuba is a Socialist country - the planned economy, limited worker's democracy, the revolution and nationalisation would all point to this being true.

But its not socialist! Classes exist Castro - clearly being a member of the ruling class

Classes do exist in Socialism. Also, Castro is not a member of a new ruling class but a rather a figurehead of the bureacratic caste.

Thats very unfortunate for Cuba....Socialism and support cannot be confused

My point was this; why would the most aggressive epitome of Capitalism today - the US - be so violently opposed to Cuba if it was not a revolutionary Socialist example to the oppressed of the world?

In relation to this socialist comparison, an authoritarian reigime gives power to a class other than the proletariat

Kinda like capitalism then.

but are governed by a separate class.

The bureacucrats that pollute the Cuban regime are not a seperate class but rather a parasitic caste - the market conditions do not exist in Cuba to support a seperate ruling class.

Yes, they may well have contained elements of what we believe to be socialism - but so does western capitalism - infact, more so.

What elements of Socialism does western capitalism contain?

NO social contradictions exist between the means of production and their social relations - something completely necessary for social change.

Under Capitalism a small elite control the means of production and exploit the labour power of the majority to become wealthy. This is a clear social contradiction.

Greater freedom of movement, speech and democracy.

Freedom of movement for the rich capitalists and their jet-setting lifestyles.
Freedom of speech for the capitalists who control the media conglomerates.
Democracy for the rich elite who control the political, social, economic and cultural power in the Capitalist system.

Another closer element: more advanced social relations to production and generally, greater technology of production

To use the example of the USSR - When central planning was introduced under Stalin it exceeded all productive expectations - growth targets were repeatedly smashed. This transformation from mainly agrarian society to industrialised super-power was unprecedented - capitalist countries had taken centuries of development to get to this point. Huge leaps were also made in the realm of technology.

The downside to this economic miracle was the huge wastage, up to 30% of production, due to the bungling, corruption and bad planning inherent in the undemocratic command system of economic management. This can be countered through democratic planning as opposed to bureaucratic planning - this is what I and other Socialists are in favour of.

Cuba is state-capitalist.

If you'll allow me to quote Trotsky:

"We often seek salvation from unfamiliar phenomena in familiar terms. An attempt has been made to conceal the enigma of the Soviet regime by calling it "state capitalism." This term has the advantage that nobody knows exactly what it means"

Substitue 'Soviet' for 'Cuban and you'll get what I'm at. State Capitalism, as a way of describing flawed Socialist states, is inherently incorrect. Find out why!

Better examples existed - such as that achieved by CNT anarchists

Yet they made mistakes just like the Bolsheviks, the Cuban revolutionaries and all those other revolutionaries movements you dismissed. They are one of those 'failed attempts' you feel are so worthless.

To conclude, an example of Socialism functioning successfully today, no matter how flawed, has impossibly more weight than a failed attempt a long time ago. This is why we should point to the Cuban regime as an indicator of the immense advantages of Socialism - While still independently critiscising the regime as well as defending true Socialism.

[Connolly]

The point is that there CAN be a state. What anarchists would prefer has no bearing on Cuba or the USSR. Sure, anarchists don't agree with the Cuban system, we all know that, but that doesn't make Cuba not socialist.

As I said - Cuba has a class system - it is not socialist.

And to say that Cuba and/or the USSR "tarnished" Marxism is both pompous and ludicrous. The USSR had many shortcomings, but that only "tarnished" Marxism in the minds of capitalists, anyone who looks at history knows otherwise.

No, generally when you ask a worker - "what do you think of communism?" - he dosnt say, oh, Marxism you mean (or even - whats that - communism?) - he responds negativly and with misconceptions - all grounded on the failures of the Soviet union and other failed systems and its propagation by capitalist media.

The USSR fucked Marxism up - and the continued support by Marxists for socialism as a Cuban example continues to fuck things up.

They have fuck all to do with Marxism - other than they call themselves socialist.

Of course, you may not think it's best this way, but that hardly matters, it's still socialism.

Cuba is not classless - and therfore not socialist.

Cuba doesn't really have an elite group (PCC? Not really).

So its just by fluke then is it, that Raul is given power during Castro's crisis or death?

Or maybe it suggests that the ordinary person cannot dream of being in such a position.

You are fooling yourself if you think elites arnt present in Cuba.

You've never established this: who says you have to have "substantive democratic control"? It is a pathetic attempt of self-pleasuring delusion to think that there is only one way to go about socialism. You have not proven that socialism must have "substantive democratic control" or any of the other "requirements" you insist upon. Therefore, you have no argument.

Quite simply - a person cannot be a worker and be a represnative at the same time. If there is no substantve democracy, there must be those doing the work, and those making decisions as to what is to be done - being represntatives that is.

From a materialist point of view - being determines consciousness. That is - if one is not a worker, he does not think or make decisions like a worker. And since socialism is a society based on workers control, having a represntative system does not allow the workers to control anything when you have representatives.

Let me say this again: your objections are simply disagreements, and these disagreements have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON THE STATUS OF SOCIALISM. It smacks of self-centered, sectarian rhetoric to say that something isn't socialism just because TheRedBanner doesn't approve.

No, im stating as a matter of fact, that socialism is classless.

Cuba is not - and therefore is not socialist.

There can be no disagreement.

Socialist societies CAN HAVE STATES. Therefore, they can have governments with positions. Again, your petty objections are nothing but disagreements.

Yes, they might have states - not the sort you propose and support though.

Castro has a monarchy? You have no f*cking clue what you're talking about, do you? Review the actual system of government, then get back to me. You're just further proving your ignorance.

Simply, Castro exists as long-term dictator - therefore classes exist, therefore socialism does not exist.

It really is common sense - no exhaustive analysis is required

And again, who says you need TheRedBanner Approved ™ Substantive Democratic Control? No one does, except you.

Iv explained above. Without substantive democracy - classes exist.

And again, who says you need TheRedBanner Approved ™ Substantive Democratic Control? No one does, except you.

American voters vote in capitalists. I don't like it, and I'll try to change it, but I know as well as anyone else that the American people support capitalism. Same goes for Cuba and their government.

There are numerous differences between Cuban and Ireland in their political systems. Since you're too ignorant to bother understanding the Cuban system, you ignorantly call it a "monarchy", which is possibly the dumbest thing I've heard this month.

It's not bourgeois representative democracy, it's socialist democracy.

And again, your repetitive drivel over "substantive democracy" a.) ignores the fact that there is substantive democracy and b.)

Yawn!

ignores the fact that there is no one way to establish and maintain socialism.

How the fuck do you know?

1) Socialism has never existed
2) You dont know what socialism is - if you did - you would know Cuba isnt.
3) You dont have a crystal ball

There is Socialism and "socialism", there is communism and "Communism".

Go ahead - support your falsehoods.

Yes, in money, which is a pretty important factor.

Erm...no.

The plan is to abolish money. It has no importance to marxian class analysis.

Again, socialism can have mangers and directors, as well as people in government positions. Disagree all you like, it's still socialism.

What do government officials produce? - fuck all nothing.

What do they do - order people about, manage from a distance.

They are bourgeois ****s.

while you say Marx made a "mistake" by not writing exactly what you wanted him to write on socialism.

No, Marx is grand!

Its when people twist things around and add bits here and there to create a justification for state capitalism - thats where it all goes pear shaped.

You're the one opposing socialist states, and you're the one singing the praises of capitalist states. That is quite the paradox you've gotten yourself into.

Its not really when you consider that "socialist states" never existed.

Do I have to point out the unending number of differences between Cuba and Libya?

Yeah, go ahead.

You're going to lose.

The RedBanner, please respond to the quote from wikipedia that I posted.

This is where I depart:

"or it may be indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state."

If its exercised on behalf of the people (workers) by government officials, it isnt workers control then is it?

The workers do not control the means of production in this case - government officials do.

The government officials are therefore a seperate class - and therefore, under this social organisation, it aint socialism.

This definition may refer to what capitalist bourgeois parasites call socialism - ie. Cuba, USSR etc.

It isnt what we aim for.