NationStates Jolt Archive

Even though most here will not accept the various communist countries that were formed in the 20th century as being actually communist, or socialist, they existed nonetheless.

Which one of them do you consider the most successful? What criteria did you use, and why was it successful in fulfilling them?

Poll Coming.

Off the top of my head, Cuba seems to be doing pretty well for itself.

I would say China. For the simple reason that they still exist and aren't bankrupt.

I would say San Marino, because it's too small a country for the communist government (1945-1957) it elected immediately following the second world war to do anyone any harm, because that communist-led coalition was genuinely democratically elected in a free and fair election (which makes it rare in communist terms), and because the communist government subsequently allowed itself to lose an election (which is less rare these days, but was pretty damn rare before the 1980s).

I also note that the poll doesn't allow me to enter San Marino, because the 'other' option for Europe only includes Eastern Europe.


edit: Have just done a two-minute read up on Sammarinese political parties, and even today, a cumulative 45% of voters (or thereabouts) still vote for parties whose roots are in the old Communist Party of San Marino. However, the largest of these, the Partito dei Socialisti e dei Democratici - with some 31.83% of the vote - is these days a fairly standard European left of centre party. Those who care about these things may like to note that the Sinistra Unita party (8.67%) still uses the hammer and sickle, though.

Cuba. For being as tiny as they are, the fact that they've lasted so long is amazing.

I'd say cuba. In particular because of their good health care (probably the best for any third world country).

"Most successful communist country" seems to be something of an oxymoron...

But yeah, China. Like the guy said, simply because they exist and have some kind of economy to speak of.

Way to show you're ineptitude NL, 'communist' and 'country' are mutually contradicting terms, since communism represents a society with no social contradictions and complete equality, of course in Cuba or any other state this doesn't exist, reactionary contradictions exist in these societies. Seriously, people need to understand on the difference between socialism and communism. Cuba is the only remaining Marxist-Leninist socialist state, the rest have succumbed to revisionism and then bourgeois capitalism. Albania was by far the 'best' socialist state, Cuba's African 'adventurism' made me a little nervous.

But China isn't really communist, just authoritarian. From what I know (West) Germany is still suffering from the effects of reunification with East Germany.

I've met a fair few people from the former USSR, but none of them had much praise for it. However, all the people I've spoken with were from the satellite states.

I don't feel I have to say anything about North Korea.

And I don't feel I know enough about Cuba to comment.

So I'm voting for the Martian Communist Colonies.

Which country was Communist for the shortest period of time? They were the most successful Communist country, since they got rid of the inherently flawed theory the quickest

Way to show you're ineptitude NL, 'communist' and 'country' are mutually contradicting terms, since communism represents a society with no social contradictions and complete equality, of course in Cuba or any other state this doesn't exist, reactionary contradictions exist in these societies.

Actually, I think NL anticipated this rather well with:

Even though most here will not accept the various communist countries that were formed in the 20th century as being actually communist, or socialist

And if accusing someone of ineptitude (I think you actually meant 'ignorance', btw), it's best not to misuse a contraction directly before 'ineptitude'. Unless, of course you intentionally plan to show your grammatical ineptitude, or are being ironic.

So I'm voting for the Martian Communist Colonies.
One day my people will turn the red planet black...one day.

I'm gonna go with China. They're far too capitalist to be communist, but they sure are doing well for themselves.

The USA is the most successful communist country.

I also note that the poll doesn't allow me to enter San Marino, because the 'other' option for Europe only includes Eastern Europe.
I must confess I didn't anticipate San Marino's excursion...they're not much of a country and it seems their commies aren't much as far as commies are concerned, so I hope you forgive me. ;)

Way to show you're ineptitude NL...
If it makes you feel any better, I used "communist" (in quotation marks of course) as in the everyday meaning of the term, with which it is perfectly okay to call the Soviet Union communist, even if, strictly speaking, they were not.

The idea for the thread is, by the way, to figure out which model of real-world, government-induced communist ideology is the best, and why. Every country had or has a slightly different idea of how to solve the dilemma marxism puts before a ruler, so let's figure out which is the best solution.

I would say San Marino

You beat me to it. I was going to say San Marino. ;)

First western European country to have elected a government led by a Communist Party.

Unless I'm mistaken, Moldova is a multi-party democracy with a government currently led by the Communist Party.

As for the question... It depends what you mean by "successful". Successful in what way? In improving the population's standard of living? In achieving a genuine move towards communism (which none of them have done)? In developing the country (in which case, the USSR's achievement was pretty spectacular)? In simply staying around?

A successful country led by a Communist Party would be one which improves the standard of living while setting the stage for the consensual withering away of the State into genuine communism. If one looks at the criterion of improving living conditions, China's "socialist" period was not exactly a resounding success. The USSR did comparatively well (if one looks at the period as a whole). North Korea started off pretty well, then failed horribly. Cuba has done very well - compared not only with the rest of the Caribbean but with the world in general. In terms of preparing the country for actual communism... Obviously the USSR, China, Vietnam, eastern Europe and the socialist or pseudo-socialist States of Africa and the Middle East (Yemen) failed, most often because the political will to encourage the gradual dissolving of the government was simply not there.

Nor can I imagine North Korea, Cuba or Moldova achieving a transition into communism. The Kim "dynasty" has gone in the opposite direction, making the North Korean people utterly dependent on an authoritarian State, precluding any whithering away of such. The day the Cuban government weakens its authoritarian socialism, international influences will hamper any further evolution, so I can't see it working there either. And while I'm no expert on Moldova, I would imagine that the "pendulum effect" inherent to multi-party democracies would prevent the Communist Party from ever remaining in government long enough for genuine socialism and then evolutionary communism to set in.

Cuba?

Off the top of my head, Cuba seems to be doing pretty well for itself.

Pretty well? Relative to Zimbabwe maybe.

Laos, because nobody talks about it, so it must be doing something right.

I chose China because not only is it surviving, it's rising and fast. Cuba, since the Revolution, has had quite a few economic struggles and remains a third-world country. It may have good healthcare, but honestly, that's about the only thing going for it. Cuba may be second on the list to me, but it's got nothing on China.

China, on the other hand, has been able to keep the country together despite the stresses of managing 1 billion people (and counting...). Not only that, but the government has been able to implement its own version of perestroika and still retain power (unlike the Soviet Union). The economy is the fastest growing in the world right now and many are predicting that within our (young) lifetime it will challenge even the U.S. economy. It will have its own struggles to get through, but there's a lot of hope for China right now.

So, long story short, it's China.

Vietnam. They've gone from war-torn wreck to Rising Tiger in under forty years.

The Soviets did rather well in 1917 though Cuba steals my vote for defending the revolution as long as it has on the US doorstep

Albania was by far the 'best' socialist state
Eureka, would you care to explain what your standard of "goodness" is, if Albania comes out "best"? By the usual criteria (driving the people's living standards down to near-subsistence levels, eliminating any sort of creative or intellectual activity), Albania would have to rank second-worst (North Korea is the worst).

Canada.

Pretty well? Relative to Zimbabwe maybe.

No, relative to every other country in its region.

Laos, because nobody talks about it, so it must be doing something right.

Given their policy of quiet ethnic cleansing... No.


So, long story short, it's China.

It's a HUGE stretch to call China "communist".

Canada.

Don't be silly.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3f/Soviet_Canuckistan_Flag.PNG/242px-Soviet_Canuckistan_Flag.PNG


I'd say Cuba, as it's the only country with a near-completely command economy that's actually still going (Excluding NK, and that's a shithole). China and Vietnam have adopted, as far as I can tell, free market economies.

China and Vietnam have adopted, as far as I can tell, free market economies.

A few years ago I saw a Chinese official interviewed and explaining the CPC's current official position on communism. It went as follows:

*China went far too quickly from feudalism to socialism, skipping the preparatory step of capitalism
* Capitalism is a necessary step before socialism; therefore, China must embrace capitalism in order to prepare for socialism (and, in a hypothetical very distant future, communism).

Pretty well? Relative to Zimbabwe maybe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

Cuba's doing just as well as half and better than the other half of Latin America, and as well as Eastern Europe, in terms of HDI.

No, relative to every other country in its region.
Seeing as it's the most fertile area and one of, if not the biggest island in the Carribean, I couldn't really imagine it being shitty under any kind of leadership.

Pretty well? Relative to Zimbabwe maybe.

it's 51st on the human development index, which counts as high human development. The life expectancy at birth is the same as that of the USA and it has the second highest literacy in the world. Only GDP per capita is keeping the index down. I'm not saying it's some kind of paradise, but it would surprise me if this would have been any better without the socialism. And with castro almost dead maybe there is a little chance for more democracy.

A few years ago I saw a Chinese official interviewed and explaining the CPC's current official position on communism. It went as follows:

*China went far too quickly from feudalism to socialism, skipping the preparatory step of capitalism
* Capitalism is a necessary step before socialism; therefore, China must embrace capitalism in order to prepare for socialism (and, in a hypothetical very distant future, communism).
The cynic in me tells me that the Chinese government is too cosy with their big business pals for that to happen, unfortunately.

The cynic in me tells me that the Chinese government is too cosy with their big business pals for that to happen, unfortunately.

Oh, definitely. It's simply a clumsy way to try and reconcile ideology with opposite practice, and to justify maintaining a dictatorship which isn't "communist" in any way, shape or form.

Seeing as it's the most fertile area and one of, if not the biggest island in the Carribean, I couldn't really imagine it being shitty under any kind of leadership.

yes it was doing swimmingly before Communism wasn't it!

The cynic in me tells me that the Chinese government is too cosy with their big business pals for that to happen, unfortunately.

A communist revolution against a communist government would be amusing...:p

Japan.

Oh, definitely. It's simply a clumsy way to try and reconcile ideology with opposite practice, and to justify maintaining a dictatorship which isn't "communist" in any way, shape or form.
In the '50s, they were accusing the Soviet Union of doing the same thing. Yet again, history is not short of irony.

Oh, definitely. It's simply a clumsy way to try and reconcile ideology with opposite practice, and to justify maintaining a dictatorship which isn't "communist" in any way, shape or form.
But that particular idea isn't new. That was more or less what Deng Xiaoping (excuse the spelling) came up with when he started his modernisations.

Of course, if they stick to the marxist view of history, whether or not any government official does anything doesn't really matter. It will quite frankly never be time for the revolution, so they'll keep going with capitalism forever. Nonetheless, the PR China is still communist in politics, and has a reason to be capitalist in economics - it's a special approach, so I included it in the poll.

But that particular idea isn't new. That was more or less what Deng Xiaoping (excuse the spelling) came up with when he started his modernisations.

Indeed. (And the spelling is correct.)


Of course, if they stick to the marxist view of history, whether or not any government official does anything doesn't really matter. It will quite frankly never be time for the revolution, so they'll keep going with capitalism forever.

I imagine they're well aware of that. It's the perfect excuse. "We're building capitalism so that we can build socialism. You must all accept low wages, exploitative working conditions and no right to form unions, so that one day your grand-children may experience socialism!"


Nonetheless, the PR China is still communist in politics

That statement is absolutely void of any meaning.

I'd desribe Cuba as softcore socialist, not uber-Stalin communo-fascist. I'd consider North Korea to be deserving of the title, as they're the only uber-Stalin communo-fascist country that hasn't run itself to destruction yet. (And are still uber-Stalin)

China...meh, Stalin would be dissapointed in their economic reforms.

yes it was doing swimmingly before Communism wasn't it!
Actually, yes.

I'll say Yugoslavia for having market socialism that allowed its citizens to have experience with the market that the average communist didn't have.

(Really I just wanted to be different. I don't know enough to judge)

I'll say Yugoslavia for having market socialism that allowed its citizens to have experience with the market that the average communist didn't have.


I have a friend who has fond memories of growing up in socialist Yugoslavia.

The Soviet Union, duh. They were a Superpower

Mars.

Complete equality among the robots living there.

Actually, yes.

No.

No.

I'm afraid he's quite right, EA. Cuba under the previous regime wasn't pretty, but it did work, and had quite a good standard of living.

In fact, significantly better than the Castros were able to provide for the first decade or so. The average person had no political power, but then, they don't now, either.

It's one of the main reasons why so many people ran in that first decade. Oh, the communist government was able to feed everyone, the basic needs were all being taken care of, but life was harder under communism than it had been under the (admittedly obscenely corrupt) capialists.

Which one of them do you consider the most successful? What criteria did you use, and why was it successful in fulfilling them?


If our criteria is the simple perpetuation of the same authoritarian nonsense that has ever existed, the poll should be multiple choice. Pick any of them.

If our criteria is the actual creation of something along the lines of that prescribed by socialist theory/ideology, my own understanding of such leads me to the conclusion that to make a "communist country" is to entirely miss the point.

No, one cannot exclude the Maos, Stalins, Pol Pots, and others from the general umbrella of socialist/communist history. One can, however, recognize purposeful failures to adhere to ideology for what they are. As such, my own answer is "none of the above, as the question makes no sense."

I'm by no means inclined to defend communism or communists, but I don't think it makes any sense to ask questions about something that doesn't exist.

Either the GDR or Hungary. They had the highest living standards in the Eastern Bloc, some of the most advanced and most efficient economies, and Hungary had a significantly higher amount of personal and political freedom compared to the rest of the Communist world (although, as always, it's highly relative).

Cuba. In fact, it would have been even more successful if the embargo never was placed. So much so that it would actually be a...OMG! Communist success story.

Cuba. In fact, it would have been even more successful if the embargo never was placed. So much so that it would actually be a...OMG! Communist success story.
You do realise that it's impossible to get a roof over your head in Cuba, right? Since all housing for normal people is public housing, and whatever planning department is responsible for it was asleep at the wheel, in major cities there are no apartments available. Several families live in the same apartment, trading permits like currency to get it organised.

There are worse places in the world, but there are also many better ones.

You do realise that it's impossible to get a roof over your head in Cuba, right? Since all housing for normal people is public housing, and whatever planning department is responsible for it was asleep at the wheel, in major cities there are no apartments available. Several families live in the same apartment, trading permits like currency to get it organised.

Yes, again why the GDR and Hungary were the most successful; they had the least severe housing problems (especially remarkable when you consider the devastation inflicted by WWII and Soviet reparations from 1945-1953) and highest quality housing stock in the Communist world. They were the "happiest barracks in the Communist camp" (to paraphrase from the Cold War days), and it had a reason.

This depends on what you call success. Considering that when the communists took over in Russia it was a backwards agrarian state that with virtually no industry, who's army was large but terribly trained, equipped, and lead, communist Russia accomplished amazing things.

Some people say that the fall of the Soviet Union proved that communism had failed while capitalism (the USA) had succeeded, but what they forgot is the time discrepancy. That the Soviet Union could become a world superpower from a poor backwater just twenty-five or so years after the communists took power is really quite incredible. The United States had a huge lead in money, industry, and the military, but the Soviet Union brought itself up to par and raced alongside for nearly fifty years. That is in itself a huge success. Had the Soviet Union had a long industrial background like say Britain, there's a high possibility that the United States simply would not have stood a chance.

Of course this is based on simple economic and military power. If we're looking at successes at improving lives, then Cuba is certainly around the top. The problem is that these communist/socialist governments establish themselves and then try and turn countries into utopias overnight. That just does not work, and misery ensues.

Some people say that the fall of the Soviet Union proved that communism had failed while capitalism (the USA) had succeeded, but what they forgot is the time discrepancy. That the Soviet Union could become a world superpower from a poor backwater just twenty-five or so years after the communists took power is really quite incredible. The United States had a huge lead in money, industry, and the military, but the Soviet Union brought itself up to par and raced alongside for nearly fifty years. That is in itself a huge success. Had the Soviet Union had a long industrial background like say Britain, there's a high possibility that the United States simply would not have stood a chance.

Not really; while Soviet achievements were remarkable and unprecedented, they came at catastrophic environmental and human costs that ultimately played a role in its downfall. The system was simply not capable of maintaining the kind of technological edge (outside of a few areas such as space exploration) needed to gain economic leverage against the United States. In addition, it was really quite dysfunctional; the reforms of men like Khrushchev, Kosygin and Evesi Liberman really helped to revitalize it and power it forward both in quantity and quality (if you recall the USSR grew at a fast 5-6% from 1953-1970), but in the end their reforms were not carried forward long enough or widely enough to save it. The Soviet Union would have required a complete and total reform in order for it to have a chance of really overtaking the United States.

That's not to say it didn't achieve a lot; I believe it is hard to seriously argue that Russia would be anywhere near the level of social or economic development it is today without the Soviet era. Remember, the Soviet Union boasted an economy worth nearly $4.7 trillion (in 2006 dollars) and produced a quarter of the world's industrial output. That's not small change.

Not really; while Soviet achievements were remarkable and unprecedented, they came at catastrophic environmental and human costs that ultimately played a role in its downfall. The system was simply not capable of maintaining the kind of technological edge (outside of a few areas such as space exploration) needed to gain economic leverage against the United States. In addition, it was really quite dysfunctional; the reforms of men like Khrushchev, Kosygin and Evesi Liberman really helped to revitalize it and power it forward both in quantity and quality (if you recall the USSR grew at a fast 5-6% from 1953-1970), but in the end their reforms were not carried forward long enough or widely enough to save it. The Soviet Union would have required a complete and total reform in order for it to have a chance of really overtaking the United States.

That is certainly true, but it is true for all world powers, not just the Soviet Union. The environmental costs are still being exacted on the world, and the Soviet Union was certainly not the only one to blame on that front. However, the dysfunction and tomfoolery of many of the leaders were not the fault of the system itself. That's like saying that capitalism is a failure due to George Bush's inanities.

And as to your last point, the Soviet Union didn't need so much an overhaul as it did a proper base. It payed to much attention to placing stack over stack on top without securing a solid base like the United States had. The system itself was workable, though brutal and devoid of human rights, but it took off much too quickly.

Cuba. In fact, it would have been even more successful if the embargo never was placed. So much so that it would actually be a...OMG! Communist success story.
I agree with you here. As anti-Communist as I am, I feel that we are only hurting the people of Cuba with our embargo. It'd be better for both of our countries if we allowed trade...and with that would come a better exchange of ideas and likely a sooner end to the "Communist" government in power there.

I'd say Vietnam.

1.It still stands (sorry CCCP)
2.People don't starve (sorry NK)
3.Less income gaps while opening to more market (sorry PRC)
4.It fought against USA, ANZAC, China, and the Khmer Rouge and survived.
5.It managed to get better foreign relationships (sorry Cuba).

successful is another of those really ambiguous terms.

you know, successful at what? successful at accompleshing what?

successful at being worth a dam to live in?

i'm not sure there's any country under any idiology i'd entierly endorse in that sense.

the senses that do matter to me, i really don't, at the moment, right off hand know.

successful at keeping infrastructure in harmony with nature. that would be my big measure of succecess of any country, along with being worth a dam to actually live in.

i think a lot of places that might have been called "communist" by economic extremists may have been well on the road to becoming worth a dam to live in, before having been sabotaged, invaded, or otherwise screwed up by pressure of one sort or another by outside economic fanatics.

if i DID KNOW of one, and in a way i'm greatful that i don't, i'd be reluctant to mention it out of fear of the jelousy of powerful economic intrests adamantly insisting on coming along and screwing it up.

i think israel in the 1960s, say from maybe about 1958 to 1968 might have qualified.

(you know, i'd forgotten all about viet nam in this context. what risotta said makes a certain amount of sense. i think cuba was and is in many ways somewhat successfull too. virtually all of them have been faced with the overwhelming jelousy and resentment of much of the rest of the world's political power and this has really kept any of them from fully reaching their positive potential.)

=^^=
.../\...

I'd say Vietnam.

1.It still stands (sorry CCCP)
2.People don't starve (sorry NK)
3.Less income gaps while opening to more market (sorry PRC)
4.It fought against USA, ANZAC, China, and the Khmer Rouge and survived.
5.It managed to get better foreign relationships (sorry Cuba).

I would agree with you, it is also a delicious irony.

You do realise that it's impossible to get a roof over your head in Cuba, right? Since all housing for normal people is public housing, and whatever planning department is responsible for it was asleep at the wheel, in major cities there are no apartments available. Several families live in the same apartment, trading permits like currency to get it organised.

There are worse places in the world, but there are also many better ones.

On the other hand, there are no homeless people in Cuba. I've been to Havana, Trinidad (the Cuban city) and Viñales, wandered around a lot, and saw no homeless people.

You may be stuck with your relatives for a while, but at least everyone has a roof over their head.


5.It managed to get better foreign relationships (sorry Cuba).

Cuba's doing very well in terms of foreign relations.

Risottia Cuba has plenty good international relationships, for example I am sure the Angolans like them for preserving their independence in the face of becoming a Western/Apartheid SA client state, or maybe for fighting for the Congolese when their democratically elected socialist President was hung by UN troops at the behest of anti-communist coup plotters. Or maybe even for the thousands of Cuban medical experts in the South American region treating the sick in poor communities. It's the Cuban fraternal view of international relations, in contrast to the 'to the Right of Ghengis Khan' warmongering realpolitik of the US, that makes them so popular worldwide.

Despite the complicity of the mainstream right-wing media and the deafening noise of the US in this matter, I believe the Cubans are very popular, and the US is rightly viewed as desperately clinging to a relic of the Cold War to hold on to the votes of some criminals and drug dealers in that hell hole of Batistaland called Miami.

Cuba's doing very well in terms of foreign relations.

Risottia Cuba has plenty good international relationships,

.. I believe the Cubans are very popular

Cuba is very popular, I agree.
By foreign relationships, I meant foreign "trade and production" relationships. Cuba is under an embargo - and this isn't helping trade and production: Vietnam, on the other hand, is free to sell its production in the whole world; many european companies have plants in Vietnam, and the Vietnamese workers fare better than the average South-East Asian worker.

Cuba is very popular, I agree.
By foreign relationships, I meant foreign "trade and production" relationships. Cuba is under an embargo - and this isn't helping trade and production: Vietnam, on the other hand, is free to sell its production in the whole world; many european companies have plants in Vietnam, and the Vietnamese workers fare better than the average South-East Asian worker.

I think you're rather mistaken about Vietnam, they are capitalist, they openly have private wealth and enterprise while in Cuba property is common. I do think trade would help Cuba build socialism better, mainly actually in spare parts for automobiles and fuel, and basic infrastructure, that's fine, but obviously what the CCP fears is that trade will be a US 'trojan horse' for widescale consumer products which they will not allow because it permeates a capitalist culture, and I would agree with that. So yes I think in getting certain necessary products trade is alright, but I think on the other hand the embargo has been a success in that it's made the Cubans highly resourceful and effective in coordinating resources, their planned economy is actually pretty effective.

I mean considering the amount of money for example devoted to health care, the system should be crap but it's actually pretty good, it's not good in the way of high-technology like the US, but instead it's based off community-care, so each neighborhood has like a local doctor who knows about the health state of all the people, rather than a centralized system based around a big hospital. There's this documentary called 'Power of Community' which would explain this very well to you. In short because the government is cash strapped they have become alot more efficient in resource allocation, as opposed to say the US that has massive waste and duplication, and still doesn't get better results in some areas.

On the other hand, there are no homeless people in Cuba. I've been to Havana, Trinidad (the Cuban city) and Viñales, wandered around a lot, and saw no homeless people.

You may be stuck with your relatives for a while, but at least everyone has a roof over their head.
Well, the question is what is better: a few people without a roof, or a great lot of them with a very crappy one.

Anyways, a show on SBS (I think it was Dateline) had a really good report on all that a while ago, but I can't find it on the web. All I found was this (http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/from_cuba_with_love_130808).

Well, the question is what is better: a few people without a roof, or a great lot of them with a very crappy one.

Anyways, a show on SBS (I think it was Dateline) had a really good report on all that a while ago, but I can't find it on the web. All I found was this (http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/from_cuba_with_love_130808).

Lol, I remember seeing that, I admit I lold seeing that poor old Trot whinging about 'state capitalism', what a fool.