The former USSR was an abject failure on most every front, save perhaps for the arts. Not only did it greatly exaggerate its GDP, but also foolishly funneled its precious capital into massively wasteful (and useless) military hardware, overseas adventurism and into the propping up of rickety fourth-world governments–all the while neglecting to strengthen its own techno-industrial infrastructure. Meanwhile, while its sanctimonious apparatchik plundered from the proletariat and erected the gulags, millions lived in squalor and suffered the effects of malnutrition–all to maintain The Big Lie. Ultimately, the former USSR is a case study in self-cannabalization.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that the Soviet Union was a nice place to live, nor is the question whether the USSR was a success. The question is, which of the Communist countries has been most successful?
As far as I can really tell, there’s only four real challengers for the title here: USSR, China, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia.
Now, I’m not very familiar with the pre-Cold War history of Yugoslavia, but during its time, I’m confident that living standards far exceeded that of virtually all of Vietnam and the majority of China.
For as many faults as it had, the USSR undeniably brought Russia a considerable advance in wealth, influence, prestige, and power. As far as the Soviets being a failure on every front, we should bear in mind a few significant accomplishments: Sputnik, a very powerful military, and the move from an almost entirely agrarian to a primarily industrial economy. Even China has not yet – and may never – been succesful in the latter of those.
In terms of what communist country was freest, now that’s a tough question. China has a remarkable degree of economic freedom, to the point that it’s tough to call it a communist economy. Yugoslavia was probably the most free of the communist countries, as far as Freedom House rankings go. Their record through the late 1970s and most of the 1980s was as good as one can find in any communist country listed.
I used to have Albanian friends who were always quick to note that there was lots of slaughter and genocide, and when they weren’t doing it Russia was happy to do it in their country for them.
Laos had a pretty awful war going for a while. One of my classmates in high school grew up there during the war; it was pretty scarring for her, and she never talked about it to us, but the newspaper ran an article about her a couple years back. I can’t remember if it was a civil war or if it was with another country, but I seem to recall it was pretty terrible for the inhabitants.
Why would you include Yugoslavia but not East Germany? Are you certain that Yugoslavia outranks all of the other Estern European countries?
Upon further reflection, I suppose you’re hitting on a bias of mine that might not be appropriate to this discussion, so I’ll have to reconsider it, but my thinking is this: East Germany and basically the whole of the Soviet Bloc functioned as vassal states to the Soviet Union. There was minimal to no independence of states to make important decisions for themselves. The one notable exception to this was Yugoslavia, which did indeed have a significant degree of independence from the Communist bloc (witness their trade with the West in the form of the lovely Yugo car).
My inclination is that it is hard to call a country a success (even a limited form of success) if its whole existence is under the thumb of another, more powerful country. Adding to that is the fact that I believe that it is generally acknowledged that personal freedoms were a bit more respected in Yugoslavia than in any other Communist country in Europe. If I’m shown to be wrong, I’d readily acknowledge my error.
What exactly do we define as success here? Military power? Economic might? Social “harmony”?
Yugoslavia was technically nonaligned. It was not a member of the Warsaw pact and (obviously) not part of NATO. So, yes, they had more freedom to manuever, and people were more free to travel, etc. So even if their std of living might have been lower, they did have more personal freedom.
Yes, I phrased my last post poorly. I meant Communist bloc not as meaning Warsaw Pact nations, but the Communist sphere-at-large that would include even China. Ya know, “the Reds.”
I agree with Ravenman, my vote goes towards Yugoslavia. We studied this country in light detail in my comparative economic systems class (aka how to be a good communist class; I think they renamed it to: the re-education class). The Soviet Union, while on paper, is the most prolific of the communist regimes, was, imo, effectively cheating. IIRC, the biggest signal was that their quality of life did not match the GDP they said that they had (week long bread lines, lack of cars and quality infrastructure, etc.) If anything, they had a quasi-mercantilist system with its iron curtain. China is a good example, but they were largely captialist in their 7(?) trading provinces. A good look at how well communism fared is to go out into the country and look at the farming villages, not pretty. I think stone age farmers were faring better 
Even today, there is a stark distinction between the city and the country. However, despite whatever quality of life China has, their personal freedoms are still massively curtailed. Cuba should also be disqualified because they were largely receiving subsidies from the Soviet Union.
It’s not a country, but I’d have to nominate the state of Kerala, in India. They’ve had a continuously democratically elected communist government since India’s independence, and they’ve managed to avoid all forms of genocide and mass starvation and the like.
I was going to say the same thing. I remember a 60 Minutes story in the early 1980s about Yugoslavia and the legacy of Tito, focusing on why the standard of living in the country was so high compared to other Communist countries. A national median household income in the US$10,000 range was mentioned, IIRC. No cite.
One former Yugoslav state, Slovenia, is rather well-off today, compared to other Eastern European nations.
Good call. Despite being one of the poorest states in India (and that really means something there) they have one of the highest literacy rates, one of the best human rights and women’s rights records, and hands-down the best health. When I was there, I read an article in a reputable newspaper (The Hindu) stating that their life expectancy surpassed the US’s. Sadly, I’ve never been able to find an electronic copy of those statistics.
It truly is a tropical paradise- full of healthy, happy and increasingly educated people. The contrast with nearby states is startling. It’s a little unnerving to see the hammer’n’sickle flags flying in the town square and Che Gueverra posters adorning entirely unhip restraunts and shops. But whatever they’ve got going on there is working.
France 
Which brings up the question of how communist you need to be to actually count. France does actually have significant communist influences.
What I was getting at, in a rather flip manner. I’d consider France more socialist than in any way truely Communist. But I am not convinced any state got particularly far towards becoming truely Communist.
Hungary?
Well, you’re getting into “no true Scotsman” territory there. Who’s to say what’s “truly Communist”? Marx, late in life, declared “I am not a Marxist!” in reaction to the bewildering range of interpretations of his doctrines that had developed. After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, “Communist” with a capital C at least, for a time, meant something definite: The ideology and practice of the CPSU and all organizations and parties that followed its lead. Now . . . hard to say what even that means, really.
Well, the word “communism” usually applies to the ideals behind the Communist Manifesto. That document isn’t particularly ambiguous- it describes in some detail the emergence, practices and futures of a communist state. It’s a lot more detailed that simple central planning. Communism calls for the whithering of the government. The whole thing is essentially religious in nature.
The “Communist” states of the 20th century don’t resemble anything near that. But they do resemble something very familiar- good old fashioned kleptocracy, facism and dictatorship. These states are no more about communism than the republics are about establishing a republic in opposite of the democrat’s championing of democracy.
I am going to have to go with the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under Tito. A communist/socialist nation that held itself above all other standards compared to other communist nations. It was a part of the non-aligned movement setting its own communist path and reaching greatness. For me thats gotta be the winner to this question.
Vietnam has been something of a success story. Still fully Communist, but with a fairly open and prosperous society. Several years ago my family hosted a Vietnamese exchange student for a year, and I learned a great deal from her. She was from Hanoi, upper-middle class family - father a policeman, mother a teacher. I suspect that by their standards they were a little better off than we were. A smart, cheerful, outgoing and attractive young lady.
There were some cultural differences. I got the impression that she was used to a cash economy. When we picked her up at the airport we were astonished to discover that this young girl had flown halfway around the world carrying $5000 in cash on her person to sustain her for a year in America. We had some difficulty convincing her to open an account at our credit union and tuck her funds away safely.
“Teddy” (her Vietnamese name was kinda unpronouncable) was with us during the 2008 presidential election and became a bit of a political junkie. She was fascinated by the glitzy, competitive election process - they do have elections in Vietnam, but they’re dull affairs; vote for communist A or comrade B, and nobody gets too excited about the result. The Vietnamese were following the American election with some trepidition…there was some concern that if John McCain were elected he might make some attempt to punish the country for his mistreatment there years before.
In an economic sense it seems like the large cities like Hanoi are thoroughly up-to-date and cosmopolitan although this has not extended to the rural areas in some cases. Infrastructure is not fully developed…even in Hanoi, electrical power is cut off for a few hours each night. There is a well-developed environmental conscience there and the country has several large national parks.
Alltogether I got the impression that Vietnam is a prosperous and fairly open country with a vibrant culture.
SS