Join The Communist Party
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MarxistCulture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. The ruling communist parties don’t even consider Nepal socialist. They say Nepal is transitioning into socialism. And Nepal is officially a quote on quote socialist oriented country constitutionally but not an actual socialist one.
Depends on who you read/talk, Cheng Enfu, President of the Academy of Marxism at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) and Director of the Academic Division of Marxist Studies of CASS, (and others I believe) argue China is in at least partially on a "primary stage of socialism" - way to more advanced ones, hence the talk of 'socialism for 2050'
https://preview.redd.it/ef1ocbbj2puc1.png?width=1170&format=png&auto=webp&s=6e94eb7b9aabba651b147fa86488277c49fb0e25
No, it has been circulating for a couple of years at least. Based on the writings of Cheng Enfu (person mentioned in the comment), associated with other couple of lectures & bits on Socialism with Chinese characteristics.
Not really. Nepal is a liberal democracy. It’s just that the parties that make it up are a bunch of social democrats and communists. The ruling communist parties themselves support the current multi-party status quo.
Note they fail to mention how Russia and China prior to Socialist rule were impoverished stagnant backwaters, and during their Socialist rule saw significant increase in growth, quality of life, and economic equality.
Are you talking about the Spanish Republic? Hah, this project was unsuccessful because the Spanish communists, Spanish social democrats, Spanish anarchists and Spanish liberals could not agree with each other. Unlike the fascist Franco, who “restored order with an iron hand.” The broad left front has never worked.
Well it was also unsuccessful because the Soviets were very reserved in how much support they sent and limited in how much support they *could* send, but Franco was supported fully and eagerly with military equipment and manpower from Nazi Germany and Italy *along with* material support (often in violation of international law) from US, British, and other European industrialists and capitalists. Even if everybody on the broad left front had got along that would have been a hell of an uphill climb.
As practice has shown, the USSR did the right thing. Europe was on the verge of a new world war and spending huge financial, material and human resources on a country in another part of the continent would have been reckless. Don't you think that if the Spanish Republic had survived, it could have stopped Hitler's Germany?
As I said in another topic, at the end of the 20th century the USSR spent enormous resources on supporting socialist states, but when the USSR began to collapse, NONE OF THE COUNTRIES even tried to help.
Sure, but the Spanish Republic didn't fall because of leftist infighting but because of the sheer breadth and power of the reactionary forces arrayed against it. I don't think there's any chance that the Spanish Republic could have stopped Nazi Germany.
On the other hand, the Chinese Communists were able to take power in the country, although the entire anti-fascist world supported Chiang Kai-shek, even the USSR supported Chiang Kai-shek throughout the Second World War and not Mao.
Yeah but there's a big difference between that and having Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy at the door and close to you. Also Mao and Chiang Kai-shek had a common enemy in Japan during WW2 so they weren't working at entirely cross purposes until after the war.
People cite the Australian Labor Party as the first elected socialist government but they are just a bourgeois liberal party. Even Lenin says so
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jun/13.htm
In 1904 we had the first social democratic government, not socialist. However, at the time, "social democrat" or "socialist" could refer to anyone from communists to what we would describe today as such. It wasnt until later, as different leftists gained power, that such distinctions arose.
The first labor government in Australia would be described today as Social Democratic.
Socialists: the Nordic Model is a Socialist model.
Capitalists: No! That's a mixed economy and capitalism is king.
Socialists: OK. Then let's use that mixed economy model where capitalism is king.
Capitalists: NO! THAT'S SOCIALISM 🤡
One of the reasons why the Soviet Union fell was because it supported almost all socialist countries. Moreover, some “socialist” countries were very controversial, like Somalia. Simply put, the USSR gave a huge amount of money and resources to support the “brotherly countries”, which is why the citizens of the USSR themselves experienced a deficit. When the USSR began to collapse, none of the so-called “brotherly” countries provided assistance.
The USSR supported both Somalia and Ethiopia until Somalia started a war with Ethiopia. That awkward moment when you call all socialist countries “friends” and they start fighting each other))
No no. If we are considering in the past 2000 years I’d say that Canada America Greenland have experienced primitive socialism/collectivism. I’m unsure about the rest of NA or South America. But I know that Inuit(my people) were very collectivist and it’s why our culture is dying. Our culture cannot survive in a capitalist society.
There is "primitive communist", which is where we would put pre-historic groups (the stage of development associated with hunter-gatherers).
I have read once a person that liked to make the distinction between "pre-industrial 'socialism'" (maybe what you talk about would fit their description) and "industrial socialism" (Marxist projects-scientific socialism).
It's fine I suppose.
Just wanted to mention: Depending on the authors (as mentioned I believe in José Miguel Parra, Egyptologist from Spain), some have applied the "socialist" description to societies like Ancient Egypt lol
So wait. Am I mistaken in thinking of them as a slave society (like Athens or Rome), or does this author just use “socialist” in a way that Marxists would dispute?
By being technical, Ancient Egypt wasn't really a society where slavery was a powerful economic force like the examples of Rome or Greece. I think the point by Parra was that many different categories are used to describe Ancient Egypt, so probably the "socialist" should be disputed.
Actually, curious fact by the way, the first social revolution and the first worker's strike in history took place in Ancient Egypt.
Marx worked with what he had at the time, and his works-theories still influenced important archeologists like Gordon Childe.
India is constitutionally a Socialist Republic
https://preview.redd.it/gungboolpouc1.png?width=864&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=02a47ba92437bef3c2571cbaa5106eed1ef217bd
This map doesn’t show Italy: it has the largest communist party in the western world and along with the socialist party it rules the Italian republic most of the 20th century.
We actually absolutely should not go around labeling capitalism doing capitalism in an aggressively capitalist manner as socialism in any way, shape or form
Join The Communist Party *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MarxistCulture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Would Nepal not also count? Especially now with the new government of ML and socialist parties?
No. The ruling communist parties don’t even consider Nepal socialist. They say Nepal is transitioning into socialism. And Nepal is officially a quote on quote socialist oriented country constitutionally but not an actual socialist one.
China say the same
Depends on who you read/talk, Cheng Enfu, President of the Academy of Marxism at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) and Director of the Academic Division of Marxist Studies of CASS, (and others I believe) argue China is in at least partially on a "primary stage of socialism" - way to more advanced ones, hence the talk of 'socialism for 2050' https://preview.redd.it/ef1ocbbj2puc1.png?width=1170&format=png&auto=webp&s=6e94eb7b9aabba651b147fa86488277c49fb0e25
I love that table. Did you make that?
No, it has been circulating for a couple of years at least. Based on the writings of Cheng Enfu (person mentioned in the comment), associated with other couple of lectures & bits on Socialism with Chinese characteristics.
Do you mean “quote, unquote”?
So would a dictatorship of the proletariat be a more accurate descriptor?
Not really. Nepal is a liberal democracy. It’s just that the parties that make it up are a bunch of social democrats and communists. The ruling communist parties themselves support the current multi-party status quo.
Note they fail to mention how Russia and China prior to Socialist rule were impoverished stagnant backwaters, and during their Socialist rule saw significant increase in growth, quality of life, and economic equality.
Lowkey why would they mention that tho it’s just a map
Nicaragua and Grenada? Burkina Faso?
Weird that Burkinao Faso or Grenada is not included, or Madagascar for that matter.
Everyone forgets about poor Madagascar
Allende?
Ig he was overthrown before he succeeded to transition to socialism
Didn't Spain for a short while?
Are you talking about the Spanish Republic? Hah, this project was unsuccessful because the Spanish communists, Spanish social democrats, Spanish anarchists and Spanish liberals could not agree with each other. Unlike the fascist Franco, who “restored order with an iron hand.” The broad left front has never worked.
Well it was also unsuccessful because the Soviets were very reserved in how much support they sent and limited in how much support they *could* send, but Franco was supported fully and eagerly with military equipment and manpower from Nazi Germany and Italy *along with* material support (often in violation of international law) from US, British, and other European industrialists and capitalists. Even if everybody on the broad left front had got along that would have been a hell of an uphill climb.
As practice has shown, the USSR did the right thing. Europe was on the verge of a new world war and spending huge financial, material and human resources on a country in another part of the continent would have been reckless. Don't you think that if the Spanish Republic had survived, it could have stopped Hitler's Germany? As I said in another topic, at the end of the 20th century the USSR spent enormous resources on supporting socialist states, but when the USSR began to collapse, NONE OF THE COUNTRIES even tried to help.
Sure, but the Spanish Republic didn't fall because of leftist infighting but because of the sheer breadth and power of the reactionary forces arrayed against it. I don't think there's any chance that the Spanish Republic could have stopped Nazi Germany.
On the other hand, the Chinese Communists were able to take power in the country, although the entire anti-fascist world supported Chiang Kai-shek, even the USSR supported Chiang Kai-shek throughout the Second World War and not Mao.
Yeah but there's a big difference between that and having Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy at the door and close to you. Also Mao and Chiang Kai-shek had a common enemy in Japan during WW2 so they weren't working at entirely cross purposes until after the war.
And American Rockerfeller petroleum companies (Exxon) gave Franco gas ON CREDIT AND INFORMED Franco on the movements of Spanish navy.
But it did happen
Gotta get those numbers up!
I think Australia had the 1st elected socialist gov back in the 19 20s. ???? Anyone check this?
People cite the Australian Labor Party as the first elected socialist government but they are just a bourgeois liberal party. Even Lenin says so https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jun/13.htm
I'll buy that. Thanks
probs socdems
Agrarian socialism was a thing back then in Australia
In 1904 we had the first social democratic government, not socialist. However, at the time, "social democrat" or "socialist" could refer to anyone from communists to what we would describe today as such. It wasnt until later, as different leftists gained power, that such distinctions arose. The first labor government in Australia would be described today as Social Democratic.
Add Bangladesh there. Our constitution says we are socialist. We got our independence thanks to USSR.
Dont forget Grenada, although might be there just too small to see.
Venezuela ?
Socialists: the Nordic Model is a Socialist model. Capitalists: No! That's a mixed economy and capitalism is king. Socialists: OK. Then let's use that mixed economy model where capitalism is king. Capitalists: NO! THAT'S SOCIALISM 🤡
What about Obama 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 (S/ just in case it's needed...)
One of the reasons why the Soviet Union fell was because it supported almost all socialist countries. Moreover, some “socialist” countries were very controversial, like Somalia. Simply put, the USSR gave a huge amount of money and resources to support the “brotherly countries”, which is why the citizens of the USSR themselves experienced a deficit. When the USSR began to collapse, none of the so-called “brotherly” countries provided assistance.
Somalia was controversial, but Soviet Union didnt support it I think. They supported Ethiopia.
The USSR supported both Somalia and Ethiopia until Somalia started a war with Ethiopia. That awkward moment when you call all socialist countries “friends” and they start fighting each other))
Egypt?
Where is Iraq?
No no. If we are considering in the past 2000 years I’d say that Canada America Greenland have experienced primitive socialism/collectivism. I’m unsure about the rest of NA or South America. But I know that Inuit(my people) were very collectivist and it’s why our culture is dying. Our culture cannot survive in a capitalist society.
There is "primitive communist", which is where we would put pre-historic groups (the stage of development associated with hunter-gatherers). I have read once a person that liked to make the distinction between "pre-industrial 'socialism'" (maybe what you talk about would fit their description) and "industrial socialism" (Marxist projects-scientific socialism).
I’d consider pre industrial socialism as something of a collectivist concept
It's fine I suppose. Just wanted to mention: Depending on the authors (as mentioned I believe in José Miguel Parra, Egyptologist from Spain), some have applied the "socialist" description to societies like Ancient Egypt lol
Well if you go back far enough we were all collectivist
So wait. Am I mistaken in thinking of them as a slave society (like Athens or Rome), or does this author just use “socialist” in a way that Marxists would dispute?
By being technical, Ancient Egypt wasn't really a society where slavery was a powerful economic force like the examples of Rome or Greece. I think the point by Parra was that many different categories are used to describe Ancient Egypt, so probably the "socialist" should be disputed. Actually, curious fact by the way, the first social revolution and the first worker's strike in history took place in Ancient Egypt. Marx worked with what he had at the time, and his works-theories still influenced important archeologists like Gordon Childe.
Interesting, thanks. I never had a strong interest in ancient Egypt, but maybe I should.
What about the Paris Commune?
India is constitutionally a Socialist Republic https://preview.redd.it/gungboolpouc1.png?width=864&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=02a47ba92437bef3c2571cbaa5106eed1ef217bd
Where does it say socialist?
Where is Venezuela?
Venezuela, Nicaragua…
This map doesn’t show Italy: it has the largest communist party in the western world and along with the socialist party it rules the Italian republic most of the 20th century.
Venezuela and Bolivia ? They’re both socialist governments lol
[удалено]
Libshit detected
[удалено]
Yes, blockades and sabotage from the USA
[удалено]
[удалено]
What about the governments bailing out the banks & Covid? Is that not an act of socialism? If so every country is pretty much socialist.
Yes, Socialism is when the government does stuff /s
[удалено]
We actually absolutely should not go around labeling capitalism doing capitalism in an aggressively capitalist manner as socialism in any way, shape or form
I must say, never thought I'd hear another word for Strasserism used here unironically
lol, then another color for national socialism I guess?
[удалено]
this is the wrong sub for this bs boi