Rate the socialist states

EdvardK wrote:

Socialist:
SFRY

Can you explain how a "socialist" economy could have widespread unemployment and that country's workers forced to earn a living in capitalist countries? Marx pointed out that the reserve army of labor is essential for capitalism, and it was in full force in "socialist" Yugoslavia.

Furthermore, can you explain how "socialist" Yugoslavia descended into civil wars and genocides directly caused by decades of uneven development between republics, with some getting richer at the expenses of others?

Loz wrote:

USSR 6/10
Poland 3/10
GDR 8/10
ČSSR 7/10
SFRY 6/10
Albania 3/10
Bulgaria 3/10
Romania 2/10
Cuba 5/10
China 4/10

Not counting Democratic Kampucheas and other such entities...

Why wouldn't you put the CSSR above GDR? I think it was better within its context. Also the CSSR was the most orthodox hardcore socialist country with pretty much no 'capitalistic' reforms.

Ismail wrote:

Can you explain how a "socialist" economy could have widespread unemployment and that country's workers forced to earn a living in capitalist countries? Marx pointed out that the reserve army of labor is essential for capitalism, and it was in full force in "socialist" Yugoslavia.

Furthermore, can you explain how "socialist" Yugoslavia descended into civil wars and genocides directly caused by decades of uneven development between republics, with some getting richer at the expenses of others?

I don't know much about Yugoslavia. How did the economy work? Were all businesses owned by worker's collectives and the government or did individual capitalists owned businesses and employed wage workers?

So, you're not bothered with the fact that I rated Albania as the most backward of all states? Should I rate it the avantgarde of the socialist/communist movement?
Yugoslavia was looked up to by other socialist countries. As you never lived in one, you cannot know, of course. Try to read some books.

SFRY might have been the easiest going to live in of all the South Slav states. In other areas, Poland would have been too intense. DDR had a high standard of living but an oppressive Stasi system, and all of their female athletes have since done a reverse Bruce Jenner. Romania was ruled by blood descendants of Vlad Tepes. Mongolia and 70's Afghanistan...no thanks. Cuba's climate would kill me.

Overall, I would have been happiest in the good ol' USSR. Vacationing by Baikal in the summers. Maybe working in the water transportation industry or some marine science lab. I'd have done all right under Khrushchev, Brezhnev, or Andropov.

Comrade Gulper wrote:

SFRY might have been the easiest going to live in of all the South Slav states. In other areas, Poland would have been too intense. DDR had a high standard of living but an oppressive Stasi system, and all of their female athletes have since done a reverse Bruce Jenner. Romania was ruled by blood descendants of Vlad Tepes. Mongolia and 70's Afghanistan...no thanks. Cuba's climate would kill me.

Overall, I would have been happiest in the good ol' USSR. Vacationing by Baikal in the summers. Maybe working in the water transportation industry or some marine science lab. I'd have done all right under Khrushchev, Brezhnev, or Andropov.

CSSR was easily the best socialist country ever.

EdvardK wrote:

So, you're not bothered with the fact that I rated Albania as the most backward of all states? Should I rate it the avantgarde of the socialist/communist movement?

There's no shortage of threads and posts by you all over the forum denigrating Albania, so I don't need to talk to you about it in this particular topic.

Quote:

Yugoslavia was looked up to by other socialist countries.

The revisionists were certainly full of praise for Yugoslavia. Nagy, Kádár, Gomułka, Ceaușescu, Dubček and others wanted to follow its anti-communist course in foreign affairs, and in some cases also wanted to copy Tito's establishment of so-called "workers' councils" that were a screen for Yugoslav capitalism.

And certainly Hungary, Romania, Poland and the other revisionist regimes dutifully followed Yugoslavia's policy of borrowing billions from Western banks and imposing austerity measures on their workers when they couldn't pay up.

Quote:

As you never lived in one, you cannot know, of course. Try to read some books.

I have read books on Yugoslavia, such as Socialist Unemployment by Susan Woodward. The idea that one "cannot know" the class structure of Yugoslavia if one hadn't lived there is not just anti-Marxist, but against common sense. Using that logic nobody would be able to "know" the class character of the USSR under Lenin and Stalin, or any other country.

sparkyyy wrote:

I don't know much about Yugoslavia. How did the economy work? Were all businesses owned by worker's collectives and the government or did individual capitalists owned businesses and employed wage workers?

Each factory was pretty much an independent entity that could hire and fire workers and invest as it pleased. The vast majority of the countryside also remained in private hands and kulak elements were allowed to grow.

Ismail wrote:

There's no shortage of threads and posts by you all over the forum denigrating Albania, so I don't need to talk to you about it in this particular topic.

If you would have read my posts thoroughly, you would have realized I was not denigrating Albania as much as I was making fun of people (ie you) for idolizing their (non-existent) achievements. I even offered real money to anyone who could name three.... I better not continue as I will again earn myself a ban for being honest and factual.

Quote:

The revisionists were certainly full of praise for Yugoslavia. Nagy, Kádár, Gomułka, Ceaușescu, Dubček and others wanted to follow its anti-communist course in foreign affairs, and in some cases also wanted to copy Tito's establishment of so-called "workers' councils" that were a screen for Yugoslav capitalism.

So, how do you explain the fact that socialism (you may call it leninism-stalinism-whateverism) failed after only 30 years? How come that the filthy revisionists took over once the one and only true leninist-marxist-stalinist Stalin kicked the bucket? If it's historically inevitable to develop into socialism of Stalin's type, how come there are no such countries in existence right now? When will they resurrect? Will they?

Quote:

And certainly Hungary, Romania, Poland and the other revisionist regimes dutifully followed Yugoslavia's policy of borrowing billions from Western banks and imposing austerity measures on their workers when they couldn't pay up.

Again, are you aware that USSR was 100 billion $ in debt at the time of the breakup? How do you explain that? Mind you, the debt accrued to that amount during decades, not just during Gorby's tenure.

Quote:

I have read books on Yugoslavia, such as Socialist Unemployment by Susan Woodward.

I see you like using "burgeouise" authors whenever they suit you, ie prove your point. You were convincing me of other in that "Traitor" thread, remember? So, is she burgeouise or not? If not, I am amazed. If yes, explain why you use such an author who (as a group) you deeply despise... unless they prove your point, that is.

Quote:

Each factory was pretty much an independent entity that could hire and fire workers and invest as it pleased. The vast majority of the countryside also remained in private hands and kulak elements were allowed to grow.

hahaha... I love your phrasing! Kudos!

Ismail wrote:

Each factory was pretty much an independent entity that could hire and fire workers and invest as it pleased. The vast majority of the countryside also remained in private hands and kulak elements were allowed to grow.

Yeah but who owned those factories? Was it the workers or was it the capitalists? If it was the workers could one even become a capitalist?

EdvardK wrote:

So, how do you explain the fact that socialism (you may call it leninism-stalinism-whateverism) failed after only 30 years? How come that the filthy revisionists took over once the one and only true leninist-marxist-stalinist Stalin kicked the bucket? If it's historically inevitable to develop into socialism of Stalin's type, how come there are no such countries in existence right now? When will they resurrect? Will they?

Each country has its own particular reasons. For instance, a major reason Marxist-Leninist leaderships were overthrown by revisionists in Eastern Europe (with the exception of Albania) was because the Soviet revisionists themselves exerted pressure on these states. Rákosi, Chervenkov and other "Stalinists" were removed and condemned by the revisionists, and replaced with those who restored capitalism in these countries.

There are no socialist states in the world today due to the dual offensives waged by imperialism and revisionism. As for "when will they resurrect," it is only necessary to quote Lenin who said that revolutionary situations "are independent of the will, not only of individual groups and parties but even of individual classes."

Quote:

Again, are you aware that USSR was 100 billion $ in debt at the time of the breakup? How do you explain that? Mind you, the debt accrued to that amount during decades, not just during Gorby's tenure.

That debt was the consequence of decades of state-capitalist policies practiced under Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko. As Hoxha noted, capitalism had been restored down to its tiniest cells in the USSR following Stalin's death.

Quote:

I see you like using "burgeouise" authors whenever they suit you, ie prove your point. You were convincing me of other in that "Traitor" thread, remember? So, is she burgeouise or not? If not, I am amazed. If yes, explain why you use such an author who (as a group) you deeply despise... unless they prove your point, that is.

And I already explained why I use certain bourgeois authors in the other thread: because not every bourgeois author is the same, just like not every bourgeois statesman is the same. Anti-communist hacks like Robert Conquest and Richard Pipes, for example, offer histories of the USSR that are much less truthful than Sheila Fitzpatrick, J. Arch Getty and the like.

I've never said that every bourgeois author has written nothing but lies about the USSR or any other subject. That is not what Marxists do. It certainly isn't what Lenin and Stalin did.

sparkyyy wrote:

Yeah but who owned those factories? Was it the workers or was it the capitalists? If it was the workers could one even become a capitalist?

A new capitalist class. "Workers' self-management" does not suddenly mean workers own the means of production in these factories. The idea of workers "self-managing" factories has been a social-democratic delusion for many decades. It was one of the reasons why British, Swedish, and other social-democratic parties were full of praise for the Yugoslav revisionists.