The Most Successful Communist Country To-Date.

[Marley23]

As a note to posters coming to this thread today: the first 38 posts in this thread were made in January 2006, and some of those posters aren’t here anymore.

[GIGObuster]

Well, it is interesting to check the Communist zombies,

Old thread, but I have to say that I agree with others, any communist country that is successful is communist only by name.

[SeldomSeen]

@Marley23

As a note to posters coming to this thread today: the first 38 posts in this thread were made in January 2006, and some of those posters aren’t here anymore.

:eek: :smack:
Note to self: must remember to check date…

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Marley23

As a note to posters coming to this thread today: the first 38 posts in this thread were made in January 2006, and some of those posters aren’t here anymore.

Vacationing in Siberia, are they, tovarisch?

[Clothahump]

@Carnac_the_Magnificent

Even Marx would have told you that the term “communist” cannot be applied to the primitive governments that abounded in pre-Columbian America.

Of course he would. No way in hell would he tell anyone the fact that communism breaks down completely once you get more than a couple of hundred people in the mix.

[tagos]

@Mangetout

Could those answering ‘none of the above’ elaborate a bit? Remember, the question is not ‘which communist country to date do you like best?’, it’s ‘which one has been most successful?’

In order to answer ‘none of the above’, it must either be the case that they are all exactly equal in their success (which seems unlikely), or that the comparison is impossible because there has never actually been any communist country.

There hasn’t in classical Marxist terms. Communism only comes after the means of production have been developed by capitalism to the highest degree. There’s been plenty of dictatorships using variants of Marxism as a revolutionary ideology growing out of agrarian societies that called/call themselves communist though. China being the most successful - although all it seems to prove is capitalism works best without all that namby-pamby democracy, human rights, rule of law, social safety net stuff.

[LonesomePolecat]

@John_Corrado

And they only had to kill about ten million people of their own people …

More like fifty to sixty million. Add the millions killed by Mao Tse Tung in China, and the number of people killed in democides in Communist states comes to well over a hundred million.

[LonesomePolecat]

@Carnac_the_Magnificent

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.

Wait a minute, I’m confused. Which superpower are we talking about here?

[LonesomePolecat]

@John_Mace

Why would you include Yugoslavia but not East Germany? Are you certain that Yugoslavia outranks all of the other Estern European countries?

And what about Rumania? They were a lot of fun, too.

[LonesomePolecat]

@Mak30Alek

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.

Yeah, Yugoslavia under Tito was the best of a bad bunch.The state was tolerably humane by commie standards and the people weren’t desperately poor. I never understood how Tito got away with defying Stalin, though.

[smiling_bandit]

After re-reading the whole thread, it’s obviopus the correct anwser to the question proposed by the OP was East Germany. Most posters wanted to substitute their own questions instead. However, East germany led in all the categories he proposed. Other replies focused almost totally on military success, which is a rather different bag. The USSR was simply prepared to destroy itself for military success.

I also have some huge reservations about the “See, Communism was really necessary because he defeated Hitler!” arguement, because it ignores what the (briefly-lived because it was murdered by the Communists) democratic government might have accomplished. People quite often forget that immense waste occurred during the entire Soviet period and they required absurd amounts of supplies from western nations during WW2.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@smiling_bandit

After re-reading the whole thread, it’s obviopus the correct anwser to the question proposed by the OP was East Germany. Most posters wanted to substitute their own questions instead. However, East germany led in all the categories he proposed. Other replies focused almost totally on military success, which is a rather different bag. The USSR was simply prepared to destroy itself for military success.

East Germany collapsed withing months, and it is now the poorest and the most miserable part of Germany a far cry from its important role as the core of the Prussian state.

I also have some huge reservations about the “See, Communism was really necessary because he defeated Hitler!” arguement, because it ignores what the (briefly-lived because it was murdered by the Communists) democratic government might have accomplished. People quite often forget that immense waste occurred during the entire Soviet period and they required absurd amounts of supplies from western nations during WW2.

The argument that Communism was necessary to help defeat Hitler is possibly the worst bullshit argument I’ve heard. Never forget that the USSR cooperated with Hitler in dismembering Poland in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, that Communist around Europe was ordered not to resist Nazis until Barbarossa, that the Soviets shot themselves in the foot by purging the army of countless experienced and competent officers at Stalin’s paranoia, that Stalin let much of his army be destroyed in the first days of Barbarossa. The Soviets were marginally (as in by a hair) better than the Nazis largely because the former committed mass murder to their maximum while the Nazis considered the Holocaust and the Eastern Front merely an overture.

[smiling_bandit]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

East Germany collapsed withing months, and it is now the poorest and the most miserable part of Germany a far cry from its important role as the core of the Prussian state.

Yes, that’s true. But it’s also irrelevant. It was by far the most genial of the historical Communist states, as well as having the best living standard. Of course, it was still a brutal totalitarian dictatorship with probably the highest ratio of internal spies to citizens of any state in history. But it was better off than any other Communist state.

[Darth_Ayebaw]

I’d say China or Vietnam, probably China, mostly because I’m ‘counting continuing to exist’ as a qualifier for ‘successful’, and because I’m not too picky about applying the label ‘communist’ to someone/something. If they call themselves commies, that’s good enough for me.

[unrealban]

there are NO communist societies noted in recorded history WHATSOEVER. If the former USSR and Cuba are considered communist, then why do they operate on the free market of foreign trade? why do they have an established dictator that implements economic policies and regulations on the working class? it may have been possible to have a true Communist society hundreds of years ago, but the world is simply too interconnected on an international level that superpowers such as the US, the UK, Asia, ect. have too much to offer in the form of commodities that not even the officials of these so-called “Communist” states can resist in dealing in monetary trade.

it’s funny because all of us responding to this post are using a highly-advanced computer with internet access and have no idea what a real Communist society would feel/look like.

The “People’s Republic of China” could only be a true Communist society if:

1. If the people of China had the necessary means of production, in other words, the necessary inventions or innovations to provide adequate food, clothing, and shelter for EVERYONE in society.

2. If the people of China exerted an equal number of hours of labor in relation to each other … labor hours that contributed to providing an equal number of provisions, shelter, and clothing (technically we don’t need shelter or clothing to survive, just food) for EVERYONE.

3. If the people of China had no governmental regulations or political parties, or taxes, or government creations such as roads, bridges, and buildings, or any sort of persons in power that establishes authority over the working class.

4. If the people of China didn’t engage in foreign trade on a monetary level …

ONLY THEN … can the “People’s Republic of China” … or any other nation that falsely and incorrectly labels themselves as Communist … be a true follower of the economic philosophy … nor can they be considered a socialist society either by absconding any of those fundamental points outlined above.

It’s funny because China based their current economical label on the philosophies of Marx … yet it seems to me they don’t have a damn clue what Marx’s vision truly meant …

at this point in human evolution, a country like China would have to close all borders, cease all incoming imports and outgoing exports, strip their citizens of all their possessions, dissolve the government, appoint people to positions of ‘employment’ based on the necessary goods that need to be produced and distributed equally to their entire population to survive … to be Communist nation by definition.

That’s why Marx’s ideas are referred to as theory … while they are brilliant ideas and entirely possible in this physical realm … Marx’s proposal that the 99 percent (the working class) will one day uprise and revolt against the 1 percent (ruling class) of a Capitalist system, then, over time, slowly convert to Socialism, then to Communism, is preposterous in the modern age we live in … in my opinion, we would more likely convert to an Anarchist society with anarchist economics sooner then we would ever unite as a whole, instead of individuals, to form a Communist society.

[Cwasp]

@Jim_B

I know in America we are all supposed to hate and revile Communists and Communist countries. And I know we are supposed to believe Communism never succeeds, despite its lofty goals. But all that aside I was wondering. Considering things like standard of living, freedoms, both economic and political, what is the most successful Communist country to-date?

Thank you in advance to all who reply

I wonder how the financial well being is of a communist. I know they may have healthcare and such, but do they have savings, can they afford cars, RV’s etc??
How is their pay determined, and what is the tax rates?

[John_Mace]

Zombie commies are under your bed!

[GIGObuster]

Whoa! It’s the attack of the Communist Zombies, second or third thread bump edition…

[bldysabba]

@David_God_of_Frogs

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.

@even_sven

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.

I know it’s a zombie, but I’d like to set this record straight, because it pops up surprisingly often in these discussions. So often, in fact, that I now just quote myself

Originally Posted by bldysabba
Kerala owing its ‘success’ to communism/socialism is a fucking terrible example. Unless you’re using it as an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The state owes most of its high social indicators to a head start over other Indian states, and, ironically, private property. This head start was provided by enlightened monarchs(the Travancore family) who encouraged land ownership by peasants and several resulting reform movements(Narayana Guru et al), meant by the time the British left India, indeed by the time socialism was even invented, Kerala already had among the richest peasants and most advanced social structures anywhere in India. In fact, the post-independence turn to communist parties (which btw later alternated quite frequently with India’s big tent party - Congress) meant that it became much more difficult for private enterprise to flourish there, and resulted in a huge displacement of Keralites. The Keralite diaspora is famous and respected throughout India(and also widespread in the middle-eastern oil economies) - but I think it’s a shame that so many of these educated, healthy people were driven from their home state by an ideology that actively hampers economic growth. For a long time, much of Kerala’s economy ran on remittances sent by the diaspora, and things are only now changing.

[bldysabba]

@even_sven

Despite being one of the poorest states in India (and that really means something there)

Also, Kerala is something like 10th richest out of 32 Indian states. But, as I stated before, this is almost entirely based on Keralites who leave home to work elsewhere. Bold mine.

Jobs Abroad Support ‘Model’ State in India (Published 2007)

Plagued by chronic unemployment, more Keralites than ever work abroad, often at sun-scorched jobs in the Persian Gulf that pay about $1 an hour and keep them from their families for years. ** The cash flowing home now helps support nearly one Kerala resident in three.** That has some local scholars rewriting the Kerala story: far from escaping capitalism, they say, this celebrated corner of the developing world is painfully dependent on it.

“Remittances from global capitalism are carrying the whole Kerala economy,” said S. Irudaya Rajan, a demographer at the Center for Development Studies, a local research group. “There would have been starvation deaths in Kerala if there had been no migration. The Kerala model is good to read about but not practically applicable to any part of the world, including Kerala.”