- 14 Jan 2016 12:33
#14642122
Only China, Vietnam and Cuba are communist states using the usual definition. North Korea and Belarus are just generic dictatorships. And Bolivia is just a populist leftist Latin American regime.
That's a bit unfair. While you are correct that, according to Marxist theory, 'communism' refers to a stateless economic system to come after 'socialism', the term "communist state" has been using both by journalists and historians to refer to single-party regimes ruled by a communist party. Wikipedia (sorry for I not having a better source for this, but I'm not going to do a long research to make a point that everyone knows about already), for example, makes a distinction between:
So it's not really a matter of being misinformed. I myself know all that and continue calling countries like Cuba and Vietnam "communists states", because that's what they are, giving the most common definition of the term, which I gave above. It's just a different perspective.
It's similar to how, to astronomers, every chemical element that comes after Helium in the periodic table is a metal. A chemist will definitely disagree, but those are two separate fields, each using its own terminology.
It's the same thing here. While a Marxist theorist will not consider those countries 'communist', using their definition of the term, most historians will, because, from the historical perspective of the Cold War, those are all 'communist states', i.e., single party regimes ruled by a party whose ultimate goal was to establish a true communist society in their country.
I have serious doubts about whether or not a true 'communist society' will ever be reached, or even of it is achievable. I am inclined to say no, because there is no logical scientific argument that a classless society is possible, considering there has never been one. But that's another topic.
PoFo ethnic party statistics: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8&p=14042520#p14042520
Hong Wu wrote:So once Venezuela is gone, what communist countries will be left? I'm only aware of China, Vietnam and Bolivia? But China can hardly be called communist at this point. Vietnam has a tourism sector. So in a way it would just be Vietnam and Bolivia?
wat0n wrote:Cuba, best Korea and maybe Belarus. The rest aren't really communist.
Only China, Vietnam and Cuba are communist states using the usual definition. North Korea and Belarus are just generic dictatorships. And Bolivia is just a populist leftist Latin American regime.
KurtFF8 wrote:You obviously have no idea what that term means.
It's amazing how much Venezuela exposes how misinformed about terms like "socialism" and "communism" a lot of otherwise relatively intelligent people are.
That's a bit unfair. While you are correct that, according to Marxist theory, 'communism' refers to a stateless economic system to come after 'socialism', the term "communist state" has been using both by journalists and historians to refer to single-party regimes ruled by a communist party. Wikipedia (sorry for I not having a better source for this, but I'm not going to do a long research to make a point that everyone knows about already), for example, makes a distinction between:
- Communism: A political ideology and social movement whose main aim is establishing a communist society
- Communist society: A classless and stateless type of society and economic system postulated by Marxist theory
- Communist party: A political party that advocates adopting policies with the goal of eventually becoming a communist society
- Communist state: A term used by historians and the journalists to refer to states ruled by a communist party, with the main objective of establishing a communist society in the future
So it's not really a matter of being misinformed. I myself know all that and continue calling countries like Cuba and Vietnam "communists states", because that's what they are, giving the most common definition of the term, which I gave above. It's just a different perspective.
It's similar to how, to astronomers, every chemical element that comes after Helium in the periodic table is a metal. A chemist will definitely disagree, but those are two separate fields, each using its own terminology.
It's the same thing here. While a Marxist theorist will not consider those countries 'communist', using their definition of the term, most historians will, because, from the historical perspective of the Cold War, those are all 'communist states', i.e., single party regimes ruled by a party whose ultimate goal was to establish a true communist society in their country.
I have serious doubts about whether or not a true 'communist society' will ever be reached, or even of it is achievable. I am inclined to say no, because there is no logical scientific argument that a classless society is possible, considering there has never been one. But that's another topic.
PoFo ethnic party statistics: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8&p=14042520#p14042520