At what point is a country "strictly-speaking" socialist?! Socialism is literally just the transitionary state between capitalism and communism. That's it.
No, the workers don't have to own the means of production. No, the dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't have to be established. No, private property doesn't have to be abolished.
Those are all great theories on how to progress towards communism, but they are just theories.
Any state whose goal is communism and they are working towards that goal, in ANY manner, is socialist.That's the only litmus test. Even if you disagree with their hypothesise on how to go about it, they are still partaking in the socialist experiment.
Genuine question: How do you differentiate between a State that is genuinely working towards communism and a State that only claims to be in order to maintain its power? Especially if we are supposed to be accepting of any method they claim to be using?
I don't think you can. Especially if you're looking at it from the outside. The material conditions influencing their decisions are infinitely complicated and obfuscated by time and distance and otherness.
We can look back and analyse past events, and even judge their experiment as failed for x reasons, but at the end of the day all we can do is use the gathered data to inform and better our decisions going forward, not pass some sort of value judgement on the intentions of others.
If we genuinely can’t tell if any State is truly working towards communism, then wouldn’t it be better to not call any State socialist until they acheive at least some concrete aspect of socialism, like abolition of wage labor, abolition of private property, or direct worker control of the economy? This would at least avoid the risk of erroneously calling a State controlled by opportunists and revisionists “socialist” and lending the revisionists some credibility.
I fully support China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Korea in their struggle against the US and in their attempts to acheive communism, but it seems more accurate to say they are State-capitalist nations led by communist parties (which is obviously far superior to neo-liberal capitalist nations led by captialist parties). This isn’t to imply that they’re working toward communism the wrong way or anything, just recognizing that they haven’t yet acheived it despite their stated intentions.
Or perhaps you just define the word “socialist” to mean “any nation or group that claims to be working towards communism” and we’re just arguing definitions? That would seem to be an overly narrow and unhelpful definition to me, but I could see it.
If a communist party took over the US they would have to implement free market reforms to build up the productive forces that was destroyed with de-industrialisation.
At what point is a country "strictly-speaking" socialist?! Socialism is literally just the transitionary state between capitalism and communism. That's it.
No, the workers don't have to own the means of production. No, the dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't have to be established. No, private property doesn't have to be abolished.
Those are all great theories on how to progress towards communism, but they are just theories.
Any state whose goal is communism and they are working towards that goal, in ANY manner, is socialist.That's the only litmus test. Even if you disagree with their hypothesise on how to go about it, they are still partaking in the socialist experiment.
Genuine question: How do you differentiate between a State that is genuinely working towards communism and a State that only claims to be in order to maintain its power? Especially if we are supposed to be accepting of any method they claim to be using?
I don't think you can. Especially if you're looking at it from the outside. The material conditions influencing their decisions are infinitely complicated and obfuscated by time and distance and otherness.
We can look back and analyse past events, and even judge their experiment as failed for x reasons, but at the end of the day all we can do is use the gathered data to inform and better our decisions going forward, not pass some sort of value judgement on the intentions of others.
If we genuinely can’t tell if any State is truly working towards communism, then wouldn’t it be better to not call any State socialist until they acheive at least some concrete aspect of socialism, like abolition of wage labor, abolition of private property, or direct worker control of the economy? This would at least avoid the risk of erroneously calling a State controlled by opportunists and revisionists “socialist” and lending the revisionists some credibility.
I fully support China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Korea in their struggle against the US and in their attempts to acheive communism, but it seems more accurate to say they are State-capitalist nations led by communist parties (which is obviously far superior to neo-liberal capitalist nations led by captialist parties). This isn’t to imply that they’re working toward communism the wrong way or anything, just recognizing that they haven’t yet acheived it despite their stated intentions.
Or perhaps you just define the word “socialist” to mean “any nation or group that claims to be working towards communism” and we’re just arguing definitions? That would seem to be an overly narrow and unhelpful definition to me, but I could see it.
deleted by creator
If a communist party took over the US they would have to implement free market reforms to build up the productive forces that was destroyed with de-industrialisation.
deleted by creator