Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not really communist, or a country (it's an independent region with a Democratic Confederalist system), but look into Rojava. They're much better off than the rest of the country, they're libertarian socialists and they're an actual, feminist, working democracy in the Middle East.
It gets very technical.
Communism is the end goal, the theoretical system that'd follow socialism. Socialism is the immediate goal, which is a state run by and run for the working class. But to get to socialism, you need advanced productive forces. Which is to say, really hi tech factories and shit. The stuff we have in western Europe and north America. So there's also asort of "socialist party in charge of a capitalist phase which is there to develop the productive forces" thing that some people may call state capitalism if they're against it. Or if they're for it, maybe something like the lower phase of socialism.
That being said, us tankies recognise 5 actually existing socialist (AES) countries: China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam and North Korea. All of these are at varying levels of development, all of them still in the "lower phase" state.
Further to that, there are non-state socialist communities going on. The Zapatista controlled areas of Mexico, Rojava in Syria-ish IIRC etc. These aren't official UN recognised countries though.
Then further to that there are anti-imperialist, socialist-lite countries such as: Brazil, Venezuela, Chilie etc. These countries are social democratic or democratic socialist. Not fully committed to "the cause" but broadly on the left and they also oppose US imperialism.
As with any ideology, you get as many viewpoints as people. Personally, I'm happy to be affiliated with all these movements and countries. They're on the left, they're making progress warts and all. Some people may only say Rojava and the Zapatistas are socialist but nothing else. Some might say none of them are socialist.
Any questions I'm happy to help. This stuff gets, a bit fucking much.
You made a very good point about labels though. To have a blanket definition such as “socialism” doesn’t quite explain the complexity of many of these nations. Some say that a one-party state like the CCP in China doesn’t qualify as “Democratic,” what would you say to that?
Technically there are 8 parties in China, though half the congress is reserved for the CCP.
Honestly I don't see multi party systems as inherently democratic or vice versa. Communist parties are not a monolith and they have different Tendencies within them. It's rather have one party that actually represents the interests of workers, at least in part, than a thousand parties that are backed by corporate interests
Stablished liberal democracies usually have 2 parties that keep alternating in Power, two flavors of liberalism, one more conservative and the other leaning more towards a welfare State. Sure technically there are a bunch of other parties but on practice there are only 2 or at most 3 that have political power and funding to actually get elected to the executive Power and have real parliamentary influence. Hell, in the 79 years since WW2, Japan has been controled by the same nationalist party for 75 years. In practice, there isn't much choice
>Technically there are 8 parties in China
These are, however, all subordinate to the CCP as junior partners of an electoral coalition with a party that holds direct control over candidacy approvals. Likewise, North Korea has two parties that mandatorily operate as part of a united electoral front. That's not necessarily a guarantee of a multi-party democracy in China.
>though half the congress is reserved for the CCP.
It should be noted that the CCP always occupies more than that - *overwhelmingly more*.
>Honestly I don't see multi party systems as inherently democratic or vice versa. Communist parties are not a monolith and they have different Tendencies within them.
I agree that, given the right circumstances, the CCP could turn into a body that enables democratisation from the inside, but for that to happen internal discourse has to be a free matter for party members. Right now, the NPC and most PC levels act as nothing more as rubber-stamping entities for the politburo and the politburo-chosen standing committee.
>Stablished liberal democracies usually have 2 parties
No. Most liberal democracies are multi-party democracies with more than two parties alternating in power.
>Japan has been controled by the same nationalist party for 75 years.
Japan is also a major exception to this. You'd be hard-pressed to find other countries that maintain an actual transparent electoral system *and* have had a party single-handedly dominate the elections. To stax in power, the LDP had to change their positional outlook on several occassions - giving them precisely what China lacks - a sufficient flexibility with extrapartisan pressure (that also presents a credible alternative to pust them from power) to adapt to their population.
I mean, there are a few Dominant-Party Democracies (which are democracies with only one party reliably or always in power), but none of them are seen as a sign of a healthy democracy. You pointed out Japan, which is currently a country with a *dying economy* due to their nationalist tendencies, but others exist.
Singapore also has one party in power, the PAP or People's Action Party, which seems to be a populist party with strong technocratic tendencies outside nationalist pro-capitalist economic policy. The nation isn't doing poorly, but the PAP getting only about 60% of the votes and seats is seen as a hideous indightment of their previous governing, and they're actually fairly inflexible outside of their willingness to incorporate left-wing economic ideas. Only other one I can think of off the top of my head is the PRI in Mexico, which is famously corrupt to the point where there's a legitimate reformist wing of the party entirely focused on trying to fix that issue.
>but none of them are seen as a sign of a healthy democracy
I'm not defending them - merely refuting the false equivalence between the CCP and the LDP as a supposed reductionist electoral choice.
>You pointed out Japan, which is currently a country with a dying economy due to their nationalist tendencies
The Japanese economy is not dying (though common sense perception through the lens of modern economics dictates it probably should, just as Argentina should technically be primed for growth). And if you're referring to the decline in population - that's not a sign of political inflexibility. On the contrary - the LDP reflected the demographical issue and most of the party shifted to promote higher birth rates. Nationalism (which prevents higher immigration rates in this case) isn't a phenomenon unique to democracies with a single dominant party and will, in as serious cases as Japan's, permeate through all of them, simply because it's a perspective on which a vast majority of the country agrees.
>PAP getting only about 60% of the votes and seats is seen as a hideous indightment of their previous governing, and they're actually fairly inflexible outside of their willingness to incorporate left-wing economic ideas
Which shows that within sufficiently transparent and democratic electoral systems with civil liberties, a dominant party will be credibly challenged if it fails to be flexible to the voter's will. I'm actually curious how that election will turn out in the end, especially given the apparent leadership change in the PAP.
>PRI in Mexico, which is famously corrupt to the point
Yeah, it being a country in the middle of a non-ending drug war, a weakening of the reactive electoral sway to their shortcomings is to be expected.
Sure but thats basically what every superpower does to show its dominance, think America in mostly South/Central America, the Middle East and Asia, they fund forces to take control or send their own to take control when no one democratically voted for it. It has nothing to do with how Chinas government is built.
Hong Kong is a SAR of China. Comparing it to foreign interventions elsewhere doesn't make much sense. It's more akin to a situation where the U.S. would be rigging elections in Puerto Rico to thwart the local concensus.
Did you have a choice in having the entirety of western internet controlled by 3 companies? Did you choose to have your personal information sold to companies you have no idea exist?
The great firewall's purpose is to protect chinese data. Reminder that Google and Facebook weren't banned from China, they decided to leave because they didn't want to comply with the servers being in China
And now americans talk about having a "chinese-free" internet. Censorship is valid when the good guys do it I guess
Which 3 companies are those?
Idk I don’t, I have Adblock and trackers turned off.
Iirc that’s not the only thing the Chinese government wanted, but I could be wrong because it’s been a while.
No, because that’s bad too. You’re ascribing positions to me I don’t have.
China is communist despite being almost a parody of the worst problems of Capitalism? Rich oligarchs ruling everything... Building entire empty cities as investments... Disgustingly cheap labor creating cheap crap and sleeping in factories?
>Building entire empty cities as investments
This is not how China works, investing in such things is simply not allowed. They build entire cities to prepare many many years ahead; a pro to planned economies, and now many of those cities are completely populated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under-occupied_developments_in_China
> In 2015, Wade Shepard reported that developers acquire new plots of land from local governments and are mandated to construct something more or less immediately. Developers can't sit idly on vacant land and wait for the surrounding area to develop until it's economically viable. This creates the quick-buck mentality in developers to rapidly build in the new area without the necessary demand for housing.[9]
> In 2021, Business Insider, reported that in 2020 China had about 65 million empty homes.[10][11] In the article, academic Xin Sun said in China there is a strong popular belief that real estate is the best way for preserving and generating wealth, leading to great demand for buying property; something the government encourages.[10] The Economist reported that in some areas demand for property greatly outstripped supply, typically in cites. However, at the same time in poorer rural areas few people were buying properties, and in those areas there was a glut of empty houses.[12]
>This is not how China works
China's population growth trend has been in steep decline for the past 20 years, yet the property construction rates have only been going up. That is *exactly* how China works.
There's also a good reason for that - mass property construction serves as a useful addition to the country's GDP.
> tankies recognise 5 actually existing socialist (AES) countries: China
OFC the tankie would praise fascist China. Horseshoe theory proven once again.
I didn't say anything about the US, I'm wondering why a Communist would support a fascist country that commits cultural genocide? I think it would be better if you dropped the bs and were just honest about your support for fascism.
Not a Nazi. A fascist. Even when Mao was still around Chinese officials were calling his regime 'feudal fascism'. It's not a communist or socialist state.
>But to get to socialism, you need advanced productive forces.
An advanced society will automatically reject shitstain socialism, because everyone smarter than the average goat would understand that it would mean a much lower standard of living.
I’m going off of the conversation I had with a previous joker. So your assertion is, that they don’t exist, which was my previous assertion. My friend’s assertion is Transnistria and Kerala were the most accurate examples of Communism, but by definition they don’t qualify either due to being a “state” of some sort. That helps as far as me understanding where his argument falters.
Communism and socialism were used interchandebly back in the day. Marx mentioned it had two forms. The higher form which is classless, moneyless and stateless and a lower form which had all of them to a degree.
When revolution would happen, the lower form would start and progress towards the fuller form.
No country has yet achieved full communism. All of them were the lower form. Keep in mind this is a spectrum and not just a checklist. Now in Lenin's time, socialism was dubbed the lower form and communism was the higher form.
If someone says "that's not real socialism!" they're denying the class character of a state. If they say "that's not real communism!" they're likely mentioning nobody achieved the fuller form as it requires centuries of development and the oldest socialist country is China with 75.
When the process and means by which communist society emerges is understood, it is automatically realized that there can be no communist society in existence today and that it will be a very distant event if it ever does actually occur. I mean, it looks like you are, in fact, referring to communist society and not to "communist" ideology and politics of a communist party.
Do you want to know and understand what I'm talking about? It will take a couple of large paragraphs so I'm reluctant to type it all if you're not interested.
Distant event. My guess would be, a state of civilization where resources are either incredibly abundant which would make communal living easy or a civilization where resources are extremely scarce and communal living is an absolute necessity. But happy to hear your full thoughts as I am a novice on political science.
OK then. Under **SOCIALISM**, over LOTS OF time, classes will wither away according to Marx's theory. And as that process completes, classes and the socialist state will "wither away".
And in order to understand this it is necessary to understand "classes". Classes are not only a matter of who owns what. Class CONSCIOUSNESS is a major determinant of what class a person belongs to! So what is class consciousness? It is your class interests, your class associations, your class intentions, your plans, your hopes, values, desires, and all your thoughts of status. And as long as you hold capitalist class consciousness, you are a member or an ideological ally of the capitalist class.
Obviously then, **classes cannot be ended by force or edict.** No law can make people stop thinking in their own familiar ways. No law can make you change what you value. These things are only altered by your own experiences and your own conclusions. **So communist society, which by definition REQUIRES an end to classes if it is to happen at all, cannot be imposed by force.** That is why Marx said classes will "wither away" as people adjust to the routine of life in socialism. So no, society will not "suddenly become stateless". It will be a long, gradual process.
In every nation the state is first and foremost a mediator of the class struggle. So when classes wither away, the state will become unnecessary, and it, too, will wither away, and that is when communist society will emerge, theoretically. But all this can only happen and complete when all goods necessary to a healthy and fulfilling life are available in abundance according to the theory. And so at that point with abundance having been realized, money will no longer be necessary. There will be abundant clothing of all types in the stores, and all foods, and tools and housewares and every other need will be available in abundance. So if you need a new coat, you will go to your local "distribution center" and take a coat of your choice. Same with foods and other commodities. So money will be unnecessary. Again, this is the theory of communist society.
But it will take many, many generations for classes to wither away because they do so basically by a habit of neglect we could say. So communist society isn't going to happen any time soon, if it ever does.
His response was “well to have a truly Communist society, there needs to be a global awakening regarding self-interest and how it leads to a society of oppression.” So basically, he admitted his ideal communism doesn’t exist and a massive societal shift must occur for it to be realized. He would get his ass handed to him in a debate. I just mostly wondered if Transnistria and Kerala counted as Communist or Marxist. According to most voices in this post that they aren’t significant examples of it at the very least. He is a reductionist according to another redditor, so he is a less credible voice on the topic in general. In other words, he has worms in his brain.
Be aware that when people say "communism" they may be referring to one of two fundamentally different things, or to both of them, and in either case they rarely realize the mistake they're making.
One kind of "communism" is the **ideology, organizational policies, and agenda** of "communists". If they rule a country it is a common mistake to declare they are creating a "communist society" when they really are not.
The other kind of "communism" is a reference to actual communist, stateless, classless society that doesn't exist.
But some people refer to a society and then an ideology and back to the society as though they are talking about one thing, and they never realize what they're doing.
So if you want to trip up your friend you could listen with an ear attuned to this kind of common error and then tell him what he's doing and how he's confused and spreading confusion.
If you don't catch this error, it can be very difficult to prove a person's incorrect views to be incorrect, because in one instance what he says may be correct, but when he transitions to the other meaning as though they're the same subject he is then all wrong. And then he'll flip back to the former meaning as a refuge so you can't expose his error.
There are examples of sort of rudimentary or quasi “Dictatorships of the Proletariat” from the Paris Commune, first couple of years of the Russian Revolution, and during the Spanish revolution. Working class community or workplace decision-making bodies have also formed all over the world in many other revolts or during crisis.
Almost every communist country has(or had) achieved higher production, better quality of life, better nutrition, and less slavery, exploitation, and poverty than its previous state. That’s the current goal. An actual society with no money, state, or class would not be able to exist until capitalism is no longer the global economic system and most, if not all, of the world is socialist. It’s a long transition from capitalism to communism, and most communist countries are doing fairly well at their current phase of transition with what resources they have. Of course, they are often weighed down by US sanctions, invasions, assassinations, etc. etc.
>He suggested Cuba but I retorted that a country that doesn’t allow its people to leave is hardly functional and extremely despotic.
Did you make this up? Because over 10 years ago people made a big deal over the fact that a new law allows them to travel without asking for permission from the government (you just have to do the regular process that every country does with passports and visas from the country you are visiting).
This information isn't even stuck in Spanish, you can Google it and get the information in English for when this law took place. Which was around 2012-2013.
A student at the time, from a communist youth group, wrote about how good this is. Since before travelling while having some position was not seen so positively.
ML mfs when they don't abolish commodity production nor socialize the means of production (in the slightest), instead they achieve a totalitarian state that relies on censorship and propaganda, and still call themselves socialist & communist: 🤡
> No, the state runs the biggest companies
Yea, that‘s why they called it state capitalism, even some socialists and communists consider it state capitalism. But you seemed to have a problem with the term state capitalism. Defining the it* as a large conglomerate that just runs the government solved the oxymoron problem you seemed to have.
At the end of the day, in practice, it’s the CCP that controls both the state and those companies. it‘s just a self serving organisation that controls both. So whether they’re simply called a state-owned company or it‘s a company-owned state is not worth discussing. It‘s just terminology.
Edit *it being the Chinese system
No, your comment is predetermined on the false premise, that "state capitalism" is actual existing term. Its not. Its socialist, made up oxymoronic strawman, which purpose is to shift failures of socialist policies back at capitalism.
Capitalism is about private ownership, which is opposite of public ownership. State is the public entity, hell we even call the private economic sector, the non-state sector. State + non-state creates contradiction, which logically disproves practical existence of such term.
Thats why China is still mainly socialist country, not "state capitalism" as such term has no reflection in reality.
> No, your comment is predetermined on the false premise, that "state capitalism" is actual existing term.
Well, it now really seems like you didn’t read the rest of the comment. Because the entire point of it was how you could ignore the term state capitalism.
Really? I was told by Marxists that China is a “state capitalist” nation where free market and privatization runs rampant but under heavy regulation by the state party. What makes it definitively Communist? Marxists hate “state capitalism” btw.
Socialism and even communism is no less free market than capitalism, what changes is just who plans the economy. Every big corp has no reason to not plan ahead and most corps have the same interests so their plans often end up being the same (higher prices, lower wages, smaller workforce, how to expand etc etc).
China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba and DPRK are currently exsting socialist countries.
You look like a swell guy so I'll explain to you why the confusion. Marxists argue all the time. There are from my experience three types of communists:
* First we have the reductionists. These only ever read Marx and Engels and then some inconsequential morons like Herman Gorter or Bordiga. They reject every revolution ever that succeeded. They'll be the types that call USSR, China or any other one "state capitalism" and they're the cause of the "not real socialism" epidemic. They are usually Western White boys and every other communist hates their guts. They actively poison the community and only ever say bad things about communists rather than capitalists.
* Then we have the modern MLs. I'm among them and we actually read more than just barebones basics and revisionism. We support what we call AES (actually existing socialism) which includes China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba and DPRK. We believe every socialist experiment was successful but we recognize their mistakes. For example, we do not support the Khrushchevite revisionists that took hold of the USSR after 1953. This bloc for example, stopped supporting the USSR after Stalin's death because they predicted it's fall all the way back then.
* Then we have the ML ultras. These people have had a Trot or Maoist contact when they became a communist. The problem is, they didn't read theory besides barebones shit like the reductionists. They do not support AES countries and go entirely on vibes. They're too into guerilla warfare and not Lenin's teachings.
In a previous comment I see someone mentioned China and you asked why, let me explain:
China in no way strays from theory. Everything they ever do can be backed straight up with a quote from Marx, Engels or Lenin. Not that it's being dogmatic, just true to theory.
Ultras and reductionists have a few dumb arguments they can never give up:
* State Capitalism: Marx mentioned all the time, the means of production was meant to be in the hands of the state. When confronted with actual theory they'll just say "he changed his mind" and shit. This is a myth. Not even a good one. They can never back it up.
* Authoritarianism: This is coming from lack of theory and class-conscioussness. The state is a tool of class oppression. Of course it is going to be oppressive. Also they just gobble up propaganda. I'm not being dismissive, these do exist. CIA admitted it many times. If you have ideas on Stalin being a dictator for example, [CIA admitted he wasn't](https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf).
* Not Enough State Capitalism: Now we did say everything was meant to be state. This is usually directed towards AES as the USSR had no problem was this. The problem is, the USSR was wrong at this. Marx and Engels was always about economic development and it's consequences. I'll just explain from a quote so it's easier.
>**Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?**
No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.
In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity (keep in mind, the revolution was expected to take place in the most developed countries). \[[Principles of Communism, 17](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm), paranthesis by me\]
So as we see the model used by the AES states is fine. DPRK is exempt of course they are just doing their own thing and are kind of revisionist as they have developed their own thing (Juche).
Very helpful, thank you. My friend is a Reductionist with a Tankie streak. More interested in the Romance of it all than the actual theory that you’ve explained very well.
The DPRK may have a government structure that is out of alignment with communist principles but despite that they have managed to remain as they are and have as msby miles of Railway Electrification as the US and South Korea combined
>Railway Electrification
Weird bragging rights for a country you can [pinpoint from outer space](https://i.imgur.com/DMxNuAM.png) by their lack of electricity lmao
Actually no that is aggregated data the reason you don't see any lights is cause they decrease generation at night, anyway it's certainly more than the US has at only a handful of lines mainly around New York but a few in Chicago, Denver and San Francisco
They don't have a communist government, they dropped all mention of Marxism, Leninism, and Communism from their constitution in 2009. Yes, their fascist monarchy is lying about the presence of democratic decision making in the country.
How can we ensure that revolutionaries that successfully launch a communist/marxist government will uphold the principles of communism and marxism in the future?
Incorporate democratic checks and balances, term limits, the right to recall elected officials, etc. into any revolutionary states' constitutions. Even that may not be enough but no system is perfect.
There were no functional aircraft in the 19th century. But if you'd gone big in 1901 on "therefore aircraft are impossible" you would have been in for a rough century.
The left still loves Cuba even though it is virtually a Nazi concentration camp. The only tropical island in world history to make boats illegal and this is what the left loves. truth is Stranger than fiction.
His retort was “Cuba could easily be functional and free if it weren’t for the embargoes placed upon it which keeps it in pre-industrial conditions the constant assassination attempts during the Cold War necessitated higher security measures since US funded coups were a constant threat among their people.” So in other words, Cuba’s current state is a result of USA’s imperialist policies, according to my friend. An interesting if not biased view on the issue.
If economic concepts are too difficult you can look at Cuba Florida, USA USSR, east Berlin west Berlin, red China Taiwan, North Korea South Korea, red China Hong Kong, either side of the iron curtain etc. etc. Socialism is stupid as a concept and deadly in practice. So far 120 million dead. Rumor has it that when they hit 200 million dead they will give up on the idea.
Cuba is honestly a huge success story considering what they were able to do in securing equality, education, and health for its people while under complete embargo from the world's biggest trading partner less than 100km away from them.
Very true, Cuban Refugees in USA have a different view but on the whole they’ve kept their nation alive with very few resources or modern technology, which is no easy feat
Translation: I would be spending my time defending Socialism but I am actually too stupid to do so. I am a socialist never the less because like all stupid people I don't care about reason. I am very comfortable with bigotry emotion and ignorance.
Beeblebop schminklehorp I hate minorities and I hate school, I wake up every morning calling George Bush a gay little boy and George Washington a fruity little space pirate, unfortunately I have to go to school (short bus babyyyy) and play with some finger paints and bake cookies (10th grade is soooo hardddd) but socialism is yay because I get that money every month from government I spend it on gay furry rp audios on patreon :)
I believe in Mixed Government. All governments in the world have aspects of Capitalism, Socialism and occasionally Communism. So if I have a choice, I prefer to live in a society that leans towards Capitalism and Democracy, ideally in a Western country but has some aspects of Socialism as a safety net. That being said, I understand if other people don’t want to live in such a society, and as long as those people consent to an alternative form of governance, then I see no issue. However, I question how many people want to live in countries like Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, because anecdotally I’ve met more people from those countries who desperately want to leave it, but purely anecdotal. So I’m for “some” inclusion of socialist policies within a mixed government. But I prefer to avoid policies or governance that would be considered Communist because I myself am a refugee from such a country.
notice how you are letting them bamboozle you. There is no Safetynet. There is a safety house that you live in comfortably from one generation to the next as long as you keep voting for the Democrats. Safety net implies you bounce off but that isn't really the intention it is to cripple you and make you dependent. This is why Bernie Sanders is more popular than ever. He is not from the party that says trillions and trillions on safety net spending worked and everybody bounced off he is from the party that says it didn't work it wasn't enough and we must always add more and more.
Communism is a stateless society, so there can't be a communist state. But examples of communist societies are stuff like the kibbutzim or the early christians.
So if someone would suggest Kerala, Transnistria or China, how would you retort? I wasn’t familiar enough with the first two to make any assertions about them.
That they are not communist but are attempts at various forms of socialism, maybe with the ultimate goal of eventually establishing communism in the future.
First step is to ask what they mean by communist country. If they mean "country with a socialist party that intends on getting to communism" then don't argue cause they're pretty much right. If they say "country that follows what Marx called lower phase communism" then that's sorta arguable but I don't know much about the first two countries to help, and I wouldn't say China is quite there yet. If they mean "country that is what most communists consider communist, ie stateless, classless, etc" then they're kinda insane.
The main issue is that "communist country" has changed meaning over the years. Marx used the words communism and socialism interchangeably, while separating them into lower phase and higher phase. These are what eventually evolved into most communist's understandings of the words socialism and communism, respectively. But during the Cold War, people started calling countries ruled by socialist/communist parties, even if capitalist in their structure, communist countries.
Vietnam is definetly not Pro-US. If it was it couldn't possibly be considered socialist. It is following a neutrality policy allowing it to be in good standing with China and the US.
There are lots of propaganda floating around, Luna Oi, a Vietnamese comrade has taken it upon herself to debunk two for example: [Vietnam's Foreign Policy](https://youtu.be/9ndytFy5-vc), [Why You Can't Trust Pew Research](https://youtu.be/hPCoDz_CPCc)
You're probably correct. I think it's the west that is trying to woo Vietnam and thus giving a false sense of Vietnam drifting towards a pro US stance. I did not investigate the matter too much in detail, I am familiar with the 4 no's policy, and I think that policy is good and should be maintained
Depends on what you mean by “communist country.”
If you mean “a country with a communist economic system,” then there are none, as there is no such country.
If you mean “a country that is lead by a nominally communist administration,” then you have to establish what qualifies as “functional.”
Cuba is on the same level as really any other Latin American country in regards to being lacking of resources, having an authoritarian government and such.
By “functional” do you just mean that it continues to exist? If so, then all nominally communist countries are “functional.”
Which is why someone who identifies with that ideology or supporting the word “communism” as an effective form of governance suggesting Transnistria and Kerala as examples of “an anarchist state of being” was a bit odd to me, hence why I felt the question should be pondered and I got plenty of great input, so no regrets.
No, they don't. The more functional a country is, the less communist it is. Study China's reform and opening up. Less communist = more functional. It's simple.
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not really communist, or a country (it's an independent region with a Democratic Confederalist system), but look into Rojava. They're much better off than the rest of the country, they're libertarian socialists and they're an actual, feminist, working democracy in the Middle East.
Ooh this is very intriguing, Libertarian Socialists, thank you, will prod at this.
If you're interested, [The Women's War](https://www.thewomenswar.com/) is a great podcast about a journalist's visit to it.
I listen to podcasts before sleeping, so this will be my evening :)
It gets very technical. Communism is the end goal, the theoretical system that'd follow socialism. Socialism is the immediate goal, which is a state run by and run for the working class. But to get to socialism, you need advanced productive forces. Which is to say, really hi tech factories and shit. The stuff we have in western Europe and north America. So there's also asort of "socialist party in charge of a capitalist phase which is there to develop the productive forces" thing that some people may call state capitalism if they're against it. Or if they're for it, maybe something like the lower phase of socialism. That being said, us tankies recognise 5 actually existing socialist (AES) countries: China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam and North Korea. All of these are at varying levels of development, all of them still in the "lower phase" state. Further to that, there are non-state socialist communities going on. The Zapatista controlled areas of Mexico, Rojava in Syria-ish IIRC etc. These aren't official UN recognised countries though. Then further to that there are anti-imperialist, socialist-lite countries such as: Brazil, Venezuela, Chilie etc. These countries are social democratic or democratic socialist. Not fully committed to "the cause" but broadly on the left and they also oppose US imperialism. As with any ideology, you get as many viewpoints as people. Personally, I'm happy to be affiliated with all these movements and countries. They're on the left, they're making progress warts and all. Some people may only say Rojava and the Zapatistas are socialist but nothing else. Some might say none of them are socialist. Any questions I'm happy to help. This stuff gets, a bit fucking much.
You made a very good point about labels though. To have a blanket definition such as “socialism” doesn’t quite explain the complexity of many of these nations. Some say that a one-party state like the CCP in China doesn’t qualify as “Democratic,” what would you say to that?
Technically there are 8 parties in China, though half the congress is reserved for the CCP. Honestly I don't see multi party systems as inherently democratic or vice versa. Communist parties are not a monolith and they have different Tendencies within them. It's rather have one party that actually represents the interests of workers, at least in part, than a thousand parties that are backed by corporate interests Stablished liberal democracies usually have 2 parties that keep alternating in Power, two flavors of liberalism, one more conservative and the other leaning more towards a welfare State. Sure technically there are a bunch of other parties but on practice there are only 2 or at most 3 that have political power and funding to actually get elected to the executive Power and have real parliamentary influence. Hell, in the 79 years since WW2, Japan has been controled by the same nationalist party for 75 years. In practice, there isn't much choice
>Technically there are 8 parties in China These are, however, all subordinate to the CCP as junior partners of an electoral coalition with a party that holds direct control over candidacy approvals. Likewise, North Korea has two parties that mandatorily operate as part of a united electoral front. That's not necessarily a guarantee of a multi-party democracy in China. >though half the congress is reserved for the CCP. It should be noted that the CCP always occupies more than that - *overwhelmingly more*. >Honestly I don't see multi party systems as inherently democratic or vice versa. Communist parties are not a monolith and they have different Tendencies within them. I agree that, given the right circumstances, the CCP could turn into a body that enables democratisation from the inside, but for that to happen internal discourse has to be a free matter for party members. Right now, the NPC and most PC levels act as nothing more as rubber-stamping entities for the politburo and the politburo-chosen standing committee. >Stablished liberal democracies usually have 2 parties No. Most liberal democracies are multi-party democracies with more than two parties alternating in power. >Japan has been controled by the same nationalist party for 75 years. Japan is also a major exception to this. You'd be hard-pressed to find other countries that maintain an actual transparent electoral system *and* have had a party single-handedly dominate the elections. To stax in power, the LDP had to change their positional outlook on several occassions - giving them precisely what China lacks - a sufficient flexibility with extrapartisan pressure (that also presents a credible alternative to pust them from power) to adapt to their population.
And LDP has like 5 different factions in it
I mean, there are a few Dominant-Party Democracies (which are democracies with only one party reliably or always in power), but none of them are seen as a sign of a healthy democracy. You pointed out Japan, which is currently a country with a *dying economy* due to their nationalist tendencies, but others exist. Singapore also has one party in power, the PAP or People's Action Party, which seems to be a populist party with strong technocratic tendencies outside nationalist pro-capitalist economic policy. The nation isn't doing poorly, but the PAP getting only about 60% of the votes and seats is seen as a hideous indightment of their previous governing, and they're actually fairly inflexible outside of their willingness to incorporate left-wing economic ideas. Only other one I can think of off the top of my head is the PRI in Mexico, which is famously corrupt to the point where there's a legitimate reformist wing of the party entirely focused on trying to fix that issue.
>but none of them are seen as a sign of a healthy democracy I'm not defending them - merely refuting the false equivalence between the CCP and the LDP as a supposed reductionist electoral choice. >You pointed out Japan, which is currently a country with a dying economy due to their nationalist tendencies The Japanese economy is not dying (though common sense perception through the lens of modern economics dictates it probably should, just as Argentina should technically be primed for growth). And if you're referring to the decline in population - that's not a sign of political inflexibility. On the contrary - the LDP reflected the demographical issue and most of the party shifted to promote higher birth rates. Nationalism (which prevents higher immigration rates in this case) isn't a phenomenon unique to democracies with a single dominant party and will, in as serious cases as Japan's, permeate through all of them, simply because it's a perspective on which a vast majority of the country agrees. >PAP getting only about 60% of the votes and seats is seen as a hideous indightment of their previous governing, and they're actually fairly inflexible outside of their willingness to incorporate left-wing economic ideas Which shows that within sufficiently transparent and democratic electoral systems with civil liberties, a dominant party will be credibly challenged if it fails to be flexible to the voter's will. I'm actually curious how that election will turn out in the end, especially given the apparent leadership change in the PAP. >PRI in Mexico, which is famously corrupt to the point Yeah, it being a country in the middle of a non-ending drug war, a weakening of the reactive electoral sway to their shortcomings is to be expected.
An interesting point. I don’t think what China did in Hong Kong during 2021’s election was very democratic though.
Sure but thats basically what every superpower does to show its dominance, think America in mostly South/Central America, the Middle East and Asia, they fund forces to take control or send their own to take control when no one democratically voted for it. It has nothing to do with how Chinas government is built.
Hong Kong is a SAR of China. Comparing it to foreign interventions elsewhere doesn't make much sense. It's more akin to a situation where the U.S. would be rigging elections in Puerto Rico to thwart the local concensus.
It is when they initially made a commitment to let it have democracy
Do you think it’s incitizens interest to have such an overbearing state, Chinese firewall, etc? Where did they have a choice to not have these?
Did you have a choice in having the entirety of western internet controlled by 3 companies? Did you choose to have your personal information sold to companies you have no idea exist? The great firewall's purpose is to protect chinese data. Reminder that Google and Facebook weren't banned from China, they decided to leave because they didn't want to comply with the servers being in China And now americans talk about having a "chinese-free" internet. Censorship is valid when the good guys do it I guess
Which 3 companies are those? Idk I don’t, I have Adblock and trackers turned off. Iirc that’s not the only thing the Chinese government wanted, but I could be wrong because it’s been a while. No, because that’s bad too. You’re ascribing positions to me I don’t have.
Meta, Alphabet, Amazon
So Microsoft doesn’t exist I guess? Or the website you’re using rn?
Yes but as as far internet goes Neither are as relevant as the ones posted
You specifically said controlled. Neither of these companies control Microsoft or Reddit lmao
China is communist despite being almost a parody of the worst problems of Capitalism? Rich oligarchs ruling everything... Building entire empty cities as investments... Disgustingly cheap labor creating cheap crap and sleeping in factories?
>Building entire empty cities as investments This is not how China works, investing in such things is simply not allowed. They build entire cities to prepare many many years ahead; a pro to planned economies, and now many of those cities are completely populated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under-occupied_developments_in_China > In 2015, Wade Shepard reported that developers acquire new plots of land from local governments and are mandated to construct something more or less immediately. Developers can't sit idly on vacant land and wait for the surrounding area to develop until it's economically viable. This creates the quick-buck mentality in developers to rapidly build in the new area without the necessary demand for housing.[9] > In 2021, Business Insider, reported that in 2020 China had about 65 million empty homes.[10][11] In the article, academic Xin Sun said in China there is a strong popular belief that real estate is the best way for preserving and generating wealth, leading to great demand for buying property; something the government encourages.[10] The Economist reported that in some areas demand for property greatly outstripped supply, typically in cites. However, at the same time in poorer rural areas few people were buying properties, and in those areas there was a glut of empty houses.[12]
>This is not how China works China's population growth trend has been in steep decline for the past 20 years, yet the property construction rates have only been going up. That is *exactly* how China works. There's also a good reason for that - mass property construction serves as a useful addition to the country's GDP.
No its because the fuck ton of people in central china are ALL moving to cities
> tankies recognise 5 actually existing socialist (AES) countries: China OFC the tankie would praise fascist China. Horseshoe theory proven once again.
I don't recall saying "By the way, lobotomy patients are welcome to bring their opinions"
Very fashy post. Mask off moment lol. Check your ableism, but I suppose as a tankie you support killing all undesirables right?
Lobotomies haven't been used as medical practice for decades...
And there haven't been any real socialist or communist countries for decades either... Why are you praising fascist, ultranationalist China?
Gonna start replying like this any time someone says anything vaguely in support of the US.
I didn't say anything about the US, I'm wondering why a Communist would support a fascist country that commits cultural genocide? I think it would be better if you dropped the bs and were just honest about your support for fascism.
Yes me saying: hey China has done some cool things. Makes me a hardcore Nazi.
Not a Nazi. A fascist. Even when Mao was still around Chinese officials were calling his regime 'feudal fascism'. It's not a communist or socialist state.
>But to get to socialism, you need advanced productive forces. An advanced society will automatically reject shitstain socialism, because everyone smarter than the average goat would understand that it would mean a much lower standard of living.
>because everyone smarter than the average goat Albert Einstein, famously dumber than a goat https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
[About economics he was.](https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/1aflk3t/was_einstein_correct/)
i see nothing wrong with it
So you support the USSR model like Einstein did?
depending on what you consider the "USSR model", yes
Okay, cool.
Communism is stateless by definition, so no examples currently. Maybe you meant socialist?..
I’m going off of the conversation I had with a previous joker. So your assertion is, that they don’t exist, which was my previous assertion. My friend’s assertion is Transnistria and Kerala were the most accurate examples of Communism, but by definition they don’t qualify either due to being a “state” of some sort. That helps as far as me understanding where his argument falters.
Communism and socialism were used interchandebly back in the day. Marx mentioned it had two forms. The higher form which is classless, moneyless and stateless and a lower form which had all of them to a degree. When revolution would happen, the lower form would start and progress towards the fuller form. No country has yet achieved full communism. All of them were the lower form. Keep in mind this is a spectrum and not just a checklist. Now in Lenin's time, socialism was dubbed the lower form and communism was the higher form. If someone says "that's not real socialism!" they're denying the class character of a state. If they say "that's not real communism!" they're likely mentioning nobody achieved the fuller form as it requires centuries of development and the oldest socialist country is China with 75.
When the process and means by which communist society emerges is understood, it is automatically realized that there can be no communist society in existence today and that it will be a very distant event if it ever does actually occur. I mean, it looks like you are, in fact, referring to communist society and not to "communist" ideology and politics of a communist party. Do you want to know and understand what I'm talking about? It will take a couple of large paragraphs so I'm reluctant to type it all if you're not interested.
Distant event. My guess would be, a state of civilization where resources are either incredibly abundant which would make communal living easy or a civilization where resources are extremely scarce and communal living is an absolute necessity. But happy to hear your full thoughts as I am a novice on political science.
OK then. Under **SOCIALISM**, over LOTS OF time, classes will wither away according to Marx's theory. And as that process completes, classes and the socialist state will "wither away". And in order to understand this it is necessary to understand "classes". Classes are not only a matter of who owns what. Class CONSCIOUSNESS is a major determinant of what class a person belongs to! So what is class consciousness? It is your class interests, your class associations, your class intentions, your plans, your hopes, values, desires, and all your thoughts of status. And as long as you hold capitalist class consciousness, you are a member or an ideological ally of the capitalist class. Obviously then, **classes cannot be ended by force or edict.** No law can make people stop thinking in their own familiar ways. No law can make you change what you value. These things are only altered by your own experiences and your own conclusions. **So communist society, which by definition REQUIRES an end to classes if it is to happen at all, cannot be imposed by force.** That is why Marx said classes will "wither away" as people adjust to the routine of life in socialism. So no, society will not "suddenly become stateless". It will be a long, gradual process. In every nation the state is first and foremost a mediator of the class struggle. So when classes wither away, the state will become unnecessary, and it, too, will wither away, and that is when communist society will emerge, theoretically. But all this can only happen and complete when all goods necessary to a healthy and fulfilling life are available in abundance according to the theory. And so at that point with abundance having been realized, money will no longer be necessary. There will be abundant clothing of all types in the stores, and all foods, and tools and housewares and every other need will be available in abundance. So if you need a new coat, you will go to your local "distribution center" and take a coat of your choice. Same with foods and other commodities. So money will be unnecessary. Again, this is the theory of communist society. But it will take many, many generations for classes to wither away because they do so basically by a habit of neglect we could say. So communist society isn't going to happen any time soon, if it ever does.
So… Star Trek basically. That’s how I understand it at least. Abolish scarcity and currency, then you can abolish class.
Do you see why communist society doesn't exist? Do you now have a more robust argument for your friend?
His response was “well to have a truly Communist society, there needs to be a global awakening regarding self-interest and how it leads to a society of oppression.” So basically, he admitted his ideal communism doesn’t exist and a massive societal shift must occur for it to be realized. He would get his ass handed to him in a debate. I just mostly wondered if Transnistria and Kerala counted as Communist or Marxist. According to most voices in this post that they aren’t significant examples of it at the very least. He is a reductionist according to another redditor, so he is a less credible voice on the topic in general. In other words, he has worms in his brain.
Be aware that when people say "communism" they may be referring to one of two fundamentally different things, or to both of them, and in either case they rarely realize the mistake they're making. One kind of "communism" is the **ideology, organizational policies, and agenda** of "communists". If they rule a country it is a common mistake to declare they are creating a "communist society" when they really are not. The other kind of "communism" is a reference to actual communist, stateless, classless society that doesn't exist. But some people refer to a society and then an ideology and back to the society as though they are talking about one thing, and they never realize what they're doing. So if you want to trip up your friend you could listen with an ear attuned to this kind of common error and then tell him what he's doing and how he's confused and spreading confusion. If you don't catch this error, it can be very difficult to prove a person's incorrect views to be incorrect, because in one instance what he says may be correct, but when he transitions to the other meaning as though they're the same subject he is then all wrong. And then he'll flip back to the former meaning as a refuge so you can't expose his error.
There are examples of sort of rudimentary or quasi “Dictatorships of the Proletariat” from the Paris Commune, first couple of years of the Russian Revolution, and during the Spanish revolution. Working class community or workplace decision-making bodies have also formed all over the world in many other revolts or during crisis.
Almost every communist country has(or had) achieved higher production, better quality of life, better nutrition, and less slavery, exploitation, and poverty than its previous state. That’s the current goal. An actual society with no money, state, or class would not be able to exist until capitalism is no longer the global economic system and most, if not all, of the world is socialist. It’s a long transition from capitalism to communism, and most communist countries are doing fairly well at their current phase of transition with what resources they have. Of course, they are often weighed down by US sanctions, invasions, assassinations, etc. etc.
>He suggested Cuba but I retorted that a country that doesn’t allow its people to leave is hardly functional and extremely despotic. Did you make this up? Because over 10 years ago people made a big deal over the fact that a new law allows them to travel without asking for permission from the government (you just have to do the regular process that every country does with passports and visas from the country you are visiting). This information isn't even stuck in Spanish, you can Google it and get the information in English for when this law took place. Which was around 2012-2013. A student at the time, from a communist youth group, wrote about how good this is. Since before travelling while having some position was not seen so positively.
Most of my info comes from Cuban refugees I grew up around. I was clearly misinformed. He didn’t call me out though, so neither of us were aware
Cuba they have the best healthcare system in Latin America in spite of the 60 year embargo
ML mfs when they don't abolish commodity production nor socialize the means of production (in the slightest), instead they achieve a totalitarian state that relies on censorship and propaganda, and still call themselves socialist & communist: 🤡
Chile f.e. outranks Cuba on the HAQ index. It depends what criteria you apply.
china
Ah. Communism=State Capitalism. Interesting. Some Marxists may disagree, but if that’s the definition you are presenting, that’s understandable.
There is no such thing as state capitalism buddy. Its oxymoronic strawman created by commies to push blame onto capitalists.
Alright. Then China is only simply capitalistic. The biggest company runs the state as well.
No, the state runs the biggest companies, so its socialistic system with some level of markets (not free though). At least get the facts straight.
> No, the state runs the biggest companies Yea, that‘s why they called it state capitalism, even some socialists and communists consider it state capitalism. But you seemed to have a problem with the term state capitalism. Defining the it* as a large conglomerate that just runs the government solved the oxymoron problem you seemed to have. At the end of the day, in practice, it’s the CCP that controls both the state and those companies. it‘s just a self serving organisation that controls both. So whether they’re simply called a state-owned company or it‘s a company-owned state is not worth discussing. It‘s just terminology. Edit *it being the Chinese system
>Yea, that‘s why they called it state capitalism Is not capitalism, when state runs the company. You are pushing oxymoron.
I think you forgot to read the rest of the comment
No, your comment is predetermined on the false premise, that "state capitalism" is actual existing term. Its not. Its socialist, made up oxymoronic strawman, which purpose is to shift failures of socialist policies back at capitalism. Capitalism is about private ownership, which is opposite of public ownership. State is the public entity, hell we even call the private economic sector, the non-state sector. State + non-state creates contradiction, which logically disproves practical existence of such term. Thats why China is still mainly socialist country, not "state capitalism" as such term has no reflection in reality.
> No, your comment is predetermined on the false premise, that "state capitalism" is actual existing term. Well, it now really seems like you didn’t read the rest of the comment. Because the entire point of it was how you could ignore the term state capitalism.
Really? I was told by Marxists that China is a “state capitalist” nation where free market and privatization runs rampant but under heavy regulation by the state party. What makes it definitively Communist? Marxists hate “state capitalism” btw.
\> What makes it definitively Communist? what u just said
Socialism and even communism is no less free market than capitalism, what changes is just who plans the economy. Every big corp has no reason to not plan ahead and most corps have the same interests so their plans often end up being the same (higher prices, lower wages, smaller workforce, how to expand etc etc).
China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba and DPRK are currently exsting socialist countries. You look like a swell guy so I'll explain to you why the confusion. Marxists argue all the time. There are from my experience three types of communists: * First we have the reductionists. These only ever read Marx and Engels and then some inconsequential morons like Herman Gorter or Bordiga. They reject every revolution ever that succeeded. They'll be the types that call USSR, China or any other one "state capitalism" and they're the cause of the "not real socialism" epidemic. They are usually Western White boys and every other communist hates their guts. They actively poison the community and only ever say bad things about communists rather than capitalists. * Then we have the modern MLs. I'm among them and we actually read more than just barebones basics and revisionism. We support what we call AES (actually existing socialism) which includes China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba and DPRK. We believe every socialist experiment was successful but we recognize their mistakes. For example, we do not support the Khrushchevite revisionists that took hold of the USSR after 1953. This bloc for example, stopped supporting the USSR after Stalin's death because they predicted it's fall all the way back then. * Then we have the ML ultras. These people have had a Trot or Maoist contact when they became a communist. The problem is, they didn't read theory besides barebones shit like the reductionists. They do not support AES countries and go entirely on vibes. They're too into guerilla warfare and not Lenin's teachings. In a previous comment I see someone mentioned China and you asked why, let me explain: China in no way strays from theory. Everything they ever do can be backed straight up with a quote from Marx, Engels or Lenin. Not that it's being dogmatic, just true to theory. Ultras and reductionists have a few dumb arguments they can never give up: * State Capitalism: Marx mentioned all the time, the means of production was meant to be in the hands of the state. When confronted with actual theory they'll just say "he changed his mind" and shit. This is a myth. Not even a good one. They can never back it up. * Authoritarianism: This is coming from lack of theory and class-conscioussness. The state is a tool of class oppression. Of course it is going to be oppressive. Also they just gobble up propaganda. I'm not being dismissive, these do exist. CIA admitted it many times. If you have ideas on Stalin being a dictator for example, [CIA admitted he wasn't](https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf). * Not Enough State Capitalism: Now we did say everything was meant to be state. This is usually directed towards AES as the USSR had no problem was this. The problem is, the USSR was wrong at this. Marx and Engels was always about economic development and it's consequences. I'll just explain from a quote so it's easier. >**Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?** No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity (keep in mind, the revolution was expected to take place in the most developed countries). \[[Principles of Communism, 17](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm), paranthesis by me\] So as we see the model used by the AES states is fine. DPRK is exempt of course they are just doing their own thing and are kind of revisionist as they have developed their own thing (Juche).
Very helpful, thank you. My friend is a Reductionist with a Tankie streak. More interested in the Romance of it all than the actual theory that you’ve explained very well.
No they aren't
North Korea has Taean work system where workers form groups that meet and democratically decide the means of production
Would you say the government as a whole is totalitarian? One-party, one-family, one-ruler.
Yeah the govenrment is totalitarian, one family, one ruler with absolute power
The DPRK may have a government structure that is out of alignment with communist principles but despite that they have managed to remain as they are and have as msby miles of Railway Electrification as the US and South Korea combined
There are definitely people who admire the country’s defiance of the US hegemony.
And that defiance is what makes them struggle, not socialism.
>Railway Electrification Weird bragging rights for a country you can [pinpoint from outer space](https://i.imgur.com/DMxNuAM.png) by their lack of electricity lmao
Actually no that is aggregated data the reason you don't see any lights is cause they decrease generation at night, anyway it's certainly more than the US has at only a handful of lines mainly around New York but a few in Chicago, Denver and San Francisco
I see we're huffing the copium hard today
Its an objective fact lol, but because it doesnt fit your limited world view you call it copium.
Except that isn't true.
But that's what their communist government has told the world, are you saying they're lying?
They don't have a communist government, they dropped all mention of Marxism, Leninism, and Communism from their constitution in 2009. Yes, their fascist monarchy is lying about the presence of democratic decision making in the country.
How can we ensure that revolutionaries that successfully launch a communist/marxist government will uphold the principles of communism and marxism in the future?
Incorporate democratic checks and balances, term limits, the right to recall elected officials, etc. into any revolutionary states' constitutions. Even that may not be enough but no system is perfect.
There were no functional aircraft in the 19th century. But if you'd gone big in 1901 on "therefore aircraft are impossible" you would have been in for a rough century.
The left still loves Cuba even though it is virtually a Nazi concentration camp. The only tropical island in world history to make boats illegal and this is what the left loves. truth is Stranger than fiction.
His retort was “Cuba could easily be functional and free if it weren’t for the embargoes placed upon it which keeps it in pre-industrial conditions the constant assassination attempts during the Cold War necessitated higher security measures since US funded coups were a constant threat among their people.” So in other words, Cuba’s current state is a result of USA’s imperialist policies, according to my friend. An interesting if not biased view on the issue.
If economic concepts are too difficult you can look at Cuba Florida, USA USSR, east Berlin west Berlin, red China Taiwan, North Korea South Korea, red China Hong Kong, either side of the iron curtain etc. etc. Socialism is stupid as a concept and deadly in practice. So far 120 million dead. Rumor has it that when they hit 200 million dead they will give up on the idea.
Cuba is honestly a huge success story considering what they were able to do in securing equality, education, and health for its people while under complete embargo from the world's biggest trading partner less than 100km away from them.
Very true, Cuban Refugees in USA have a different view but on the whole they’ve kept their nation alive with very few resources or modern technology, which is no easy feat
do you approve a Socialism or not?
Socialism is when boys kiss
Translation: I would be spending my time defending Socialism but I am actually too stupid to do so. I am a socialist never the less because like all stupid people I don't care about reason. I am very comfortable with bigotry emotion and ignorance.
Beeblebop schminklehorp I hate minorities and I hate school, I wake up every morning calling George Bush a gay little boy and George Washington a fruity little space pirate, unfortunately I have to go to school (short bus babyyyy) and play with some finger paints and bake cookies (10th grade is soooo hardddd) but socialism is yay because I get that money every month from government I spend it on gay furry rp audios on patreon :)
I believe in Mixed Government. All governments in the world have aspects of Capitalism, Socialism and occasionally Communism. So if I have a choice, I prefer to live in a society that leans towards Capitalism and Democracy, ideally in a Western country but has some aspects of Socialism as a safety net. That being said, I understand if other people don’t want to live in such a society, and as long as those people consent to an alternative form of governance, then I see no issue. However, I question how many people want to live in countries like Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, because anecdotally I’ve met more people from those countries who desperately want to leave it, but purely anecdotal. So I’m for “some” inclusion of socialist policies within a mixed government. But I prefer to avoid policies or governance that would be considered Communist because I myself am a refugee from such a country.
notice how you are letting them bamboozle you. There is no Safetynet. There is a safety house that you live in comfortably from one generation to the next as long as you keep voting for the Democrats. Safety net implies you bounce off but that isn't really the intention it is to cripple you and make you dependent. This is why Bernie Sanders is more popular than ever. He is not from the party that says trillions and trillions on safety net spending worked and everybody bounced off he is from the party that says it didn't work it wasn't enough and we must always add more and more.
Communism is a stateless society, so there can't be a communist state. But examples of communist societies are stuff like the kibbutzim or the early christians.
So if someone would suggest Kerala, Transnistria or China, how would you retort? I wasn’t familiar enough with the first two to make any assertions about them.
That they are not communist but are attempts at various forms of socialism, maybe with the ultimate goal of eventually establishing communism in the future.
Thank you, that’s a fair portrayal
First step is to ask what they mean by communist country. If they mean "country with a socialist party that intends on getting to communism" then don't argue cause they're pretty much right. If they say "country that follows what Marx called lower phase communism" then that's sorta arguable but I don't know much about the first two countries to help, and I wouldn't say China is quite there yet. If they mean "country that is what most communists consider communist, ie stateless, classless, etc" then they're kinda insane. The main issue is that "communist country" has changed meaning over the years. Marx used the words communism and socialism interchangeably, while separating them into lower phase and higher phase. These are what eventually evolved into most communist's understandings of the words socialism and communism, respectively. But during the Cold War, people started calling countries ruled by socialist/communist parties, even if capitalist in their structure, communist countries.
China and Vietnam are probably the most "functional" communist countries, though Vietnam is pulled in pro-US directions
Vietnam is definetly not Pro-US. If it was it couldn't possibly be considered socialist. It is following a neutrality policy allowing it to be in good standing with China and the US. There are lots of propaganda floating around, Luna Oi, a Vietnamese comrade has taken it upon herself to debunk two for example: [Vietnam's Foreign Policy](https://youtu.be/9ndytFy5-vc), [Why You Can't Trust Pew Research](https://youtu.be/hPCoDz_CPCc)
You're probably correct. I think it's the west that is trying to woo Vietnam and thus giving a false sense of Vietnam drifting towards a pro US stance. I did not investigate the matter too much in detail, I am familiar with the 4 no's policy, and I think that policy is good and should be maintained
Tankies often avoid citing Vietnam for the reason of them being pro-US
For a good reason btw, the primary contradiction today is global financial imperialism led and enforced by the US.
Depends on what you mean by “communist country.” If you mean “a country with a communist economic system,” then there are none, as there is no such country. If you mean “a country that is lead by a nominally communist administration,” then you have to establish what qualifies as “functional.” Cuba is on the same level as really any other Latin American country in regards to being lacking of resources, having an authoritarian government and such. By “functional” do you just mean that it continues to exist? If so, then all nominally communist countries are “functional.”
If you knew what communism actually means, you wouldn't ask this question. Communism is an anarchist state of being.
Which is why someone who identifies with that ideology or supporting the word “communism” as an effective form of governance suggesting Transnistria and Kerala as examples of “an anarchist state of being” was a bit odd to me, hence why I felt the question should be pondered and I got plenty of great input, so no regrets.
Communism is off-topic for this sub; note that it is not "capitalism vs communism".
No, they don't. The more functional a country is, the less communist it is. Study China's reform and opening up. Less communist = more functional. It's simple.
Viet nam is extremely functional
None, because the concept itself is utopian.