| Revision as of 21:53, 7 February 2024 editOmnipaedista (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers242,224 edits fix typo← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:38, 14 February 2024 edit undoTheUzbek (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users15,068 edits A socialist state is a purported base and superstructural relation that a communist state reaches... it is not a form of government (people's democracies and states of socialist orientation had the same system of government. Moved criticism to Communist state because it criticises form of government, but not socialist state as a base and superstructural relation.. Trotsky did not criticise the theory of the socialNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{underconstruction}} | |||
| {{short description|Sovereign state constitutionally dedicated to the establishment of socialism}} | |||
| {{short description|A Marxist term to describe a purported base and superstructural relation that a communist state reaches}} | |||
| {{about|countries constitutionally committed to socialism|countries governed by Marxist–Leninist communist parties|Communist state|a list of self-proclaimed socialist states|List of socialist states|constitutional references to socialism in multi-party democracies|Socialism in liberal democratic constitutions}} | |||
| {{about|Marxist term to describe a purported base and superstructural relation that a communist state reaches|communist form of government|Communist state|a list of self-proclaimed socialist states|List of socialist states|constitutional references to socialism in liberal democratic states|Socialism in liberal democratic constitutions}} | |||
| {{Use dmy dates|date=July 2021}} | {{Use dmy dates|date=July 2021}} | ||
| {{socialism sidebar}} | {{socialism sidebar}} | ||
| {{forms of government}} | {{forms of government}} | ||
| A '''socialist state''' is a purported ] that a ] reaches. The base of the socialist state is the ]. The superstructure is the class character of the state, which in this case is the ] (or a variant of thereof) in which the ] acts as the ]. The exception to this rule was the ]. From 1961 onwards, the ] (CPSU) argued it had created a ] where the proletarian dictatorship had been replaced by a ] since all the exploitative classes had been defeated. The ] vehemently opposed this theory, and argued that every state formation had to have a ruling class. The majority of communist states have not been able to establish a socialist state system. These states had, according to Marxist–Leninist teachings, reached a lower form of development and designated themselves, or were designated as, for example, ] and ]. | |||
| A '''socialist state''', '''socialist republic''', or '''socialist country''', sometimes referred to as a '''workers' state''' or '''workers' republic''', is a ] ] constitutionally dedicated to the establishment of ]. The term '']'' is often used synonymously in the ], specifically when referring to ] socialist states governed by ] ], despite these countries being officially socialist states in the process of building ] and progressing toward a communist society. These countries never describe themselves as '']'' nor as having implemented a ].<ref name="The Economics of Socialism after World War Two: 1945-1990">{{cite book|last=Wilczynski|first=J.|title=The Economics of Socialism after World War Two: 1945–1990|publisher=Aldine Transaction|date=2008|isbn=978-0202362281|pages=21|quote=Contrary to Western usage, these countries describe themselves as 'Socialist' (not 'Communist'). The second stage (Marx's 'higher phase'), or 'Communism' is to be marked by an age of plenty, distribution according to needs (not work), the absence of money and the market mechanism, the disappearance of the last vestiges of capitalism and the ultimate 'whithering away' of the State.}}</ref><ref name="Ramsay">{{cite book|last=Steele|first=David Ramsay|title=From Marx to Mises: Post Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation|publisher=Open Court|date=September 1999|isbn=978-0875484495|page=45|quote=Among Western journalists the term 'Communist' came to refer exclusively to regimes and movements associated with the Communist International and its offspring: regimes which insisted that they were not communist but socialist, and movements which were barely communist in any sense at all.}}</ref><ref name="Rosser">{{cite book|last1=Rosser|first1=Mariana V.|last2=Rosser|first2=J. Barkley Jr.|title=Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy|publisher=MIT Press|date=23 July 2003|isbn=978-0262182348|pages=14|quote=Ironically, the ideological father of communism, Karl Marx, claimed that communism entailed the withering away of the state. The dictatorship of the proletariat was to be a strictly temporary phenomenon. Well aware of this, the Soviet Communists never claimed to have achieved communism, always labeling their own system socialist rather than communist and viewing their system as in transition to communism.}}</ref><ref name="Williams 1983 289">{{cite book|last=Williams|first=Raymond|title=Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society, revised edition|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=1983|isbn=978-0-19-520469-8|page=|chapter=Socialism|quote=The decisive distinction between socialist and communist, as in one sense these terms are now ordinarily used, came with the renaming, in 1918, of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks) as the All-Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). From that time on, a distinction of socialist from communist, often with supporting definitions such as social democrat or democratic socialist, became widely current, although it is significant that all communist parties, in line with earlier usage, continued to describe themselves as socialist and dedicated to socialism.|chapter-url-access=registration|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/keywordsvocabula00willrich/page/289}}</ref> Additionally, a number of countries that are ] ]s make ], in most cases alluding to the building of a socialist society, naming socialism, claiming to be a socialist state, or including the term '']'' or '']'' in their country's full name, although this does not necessarily reflect the structure and development paths of these countries' political and economic systems. Currently, these countries include ],<ref>Article Preamble, Section Preamble of the ] (28 November 1996): "Gathered in the national movement and later within the National Front of Liberation, the Algerian people have made great sacrifices to assume their collective destiny in the framework of recovered freedom and cultural identity and to build authentic people's democratic constitutional institutions. The National Front of Liberation crowned the sacrifices of the best sons of Algeria during the people's war of liberation with independence and built a modern and full sovereign State".</ref> ],<ref>Article Preamble, Section Preamble of the ] (4 November 1972): "Further pledging that it shall be a fundamental aim of the State to realise through the democratic process, a socialist society free from exploitation, a society in which the rule of law, fundamental human rights and freedoms, equality and justice, political, economic and social, will be secured for all citizens".</ref> ],<ref>Article Preamble, Section Preamble of the ] (20 February 1980): "Convinced that the organisation of the State and society on socialist principles is the only means of ensuring social and economic justice for all of the people of Guyana; and, therefore, being motivated and guided by the principles of socialism".</ref> ],<ref>Article Preamble, Section Preamble of the ] (26 November 1949): "We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens".</ref> ],<ref>Article 4, Section 1 of the ] (20 September 2015): "Nepal is an independent, indivisible, sovereign, secular, inclusive democratic, socialism-oriented federal democratic republican state".</ref> ],<ref>Article 5, Section 1 of the ] (1 January 1987): "Liberty, justice, respect for the dignity of the human person, political and social pluralism, the recognition of the distinct identity of the indigenous peoples and those of African descent within the framework of a unitary and indivisible state, the recognition of different forms of property, free international cooperation and respect for the free self-determination of peoples, Christian values, socialist ideals, and practices based on solidarity, and the values and ideals of the Nicaraguan culture and identity, are the principles of the Nicaraguan nation. The socialist ideals promote the common good over individual egoism, seeking to create an ever more inclusive, just and fair society, promoting an economic democracy which redistributes national wealth and eliminates exploitation among human beings".</ref> ]<ref>Article Preamble, Section Preamble of the ] (7 September 1978): "o constitute Sri Lanka into a democratic socialist republic whilst ratifying the immutable republican principles of representative democracy, and assuring to all peoples freedom, equality, justice, fundamental human rights and the independence of the judiciary".</ref> and ].<ref>Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution of the ] (25 April 1978): "The United Republic is a democratic, secular and socialist state which adheres to multi-party democracy".</ref> | |||
| The idea of a socialist state stems from the broader notion of ], the political perspective that the working class needs to use state power and government policy to establish a socialised economic system. This may either mean a system where the means of production, distribution, and exchange are nationalised or under state ownership, or simply a system in which social values or workers' interests have economic priority.<ref name="Lenin 1917">Lenin, Vladimir (1917). '']''. . Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 8 February 2020.</ref><ref name="Lenin 1918">Lenin, Vladimir (February—July 1918). . Marxists Internet Archive. p. 293. Quoted by . {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040318182051/http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_6_ussr1.html|date=18 March 2004}}.</ref><ref name="Lenin 1921">Lenin, Vladimir (1921). . Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 8 February 2020.</ref> However, the concept of a socialist state is mainly advocated by Marxist–Leninists and most socialist states have been established by political parties adhering to Marxism–Leninism or some national variation thereof such as ], ], ] or ].<ref name="Pena 2007">Pena, David S. (21 September 2007). . ''Political Affairs''. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080905230042/http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5869/|date=5 September 2008}}. Retrieved 8 February 2020.</ref> A state, whether socialist or not, is opposed the most by anarchists, who reject the idea that the state can be used to establish a socialist society due to its ] and arguably coercive nature, considering a socialist state or state socialism as an ].<ref name="McKay 2008">{{cite book|editor-last=McKay|editor-first=Iain|year=2008|section=Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron?|title=An Anarchist FAQ|volume=I|location=Stirling|publisher=AK Press|isbn=978-1-902593-90-6|oclc=182529204}}</ref> The concept of a socialist state is also considered unnecessary or counterproductive and rejected by some ], ], and ] Marxists, ] and other socialist political thinkers who view the modern state as a byproduct of ], which would have no function in a socialist system.<ref name="Schumpeter">{{cite book|last=Schumpeter|first=Joseph|title=Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy|publisher=Harper Perennial|year=2008|orig-year=1942|isbn=978-0-06-156161-0|page=169|quote=But there are still others (concepts and institutions) which by virtue of their nature cannot stand transplantation and always carry the flavor of a particular institutional framework. It is extremely dangerous, in fact it amounts to a distortion of historical description, to use them beyond the social world or culture whose denizens they are. Now ownership or property – also, so I believe, taxation – are such denizens of the world of commercial society, exactly as knights and fiefs are denizens of the feudal world. But so is the state (a denizen of commercial society).}}</ref><ref name="AFAQ H">{{cite book|editor-last=McKay|editor-first=Iain|year=2012|section=Why do anarchists oppose state socialism?|title=An Anarchist FAQ|volume=II|location=Edinburgh|publisher=AK Press|isbn=978-1-902593-90-6|oclc=182529204}}</ref><ref name="AFAQ I">{{cite book|editor-last=McKay|editor-first=Iain|year=2012|section=What would an anarchist society look like?|title=An Anarchist FAQ|volume=II|location=Edinburgh|publisher=AK Press|isbn=978-1-902593-90-6|oclc=182529204}}</ref> | |||
| A socialist state is to be distinguished from a multi-party ] governed by a self-described ], where the state is not constitutionally bound to the construction of socialism. In such cases, the ] and ] is not specifically structured to pursue the development of socialism. Socialist states in the Marxist–Leninist sense are sovereign states under the control of a ] which is organizing the country's economic, political, and social development toward the realization of socialism. Economically, this involves the development of a ] economy with state-directed ] with the long-term goal of building up the country's ] while simultaneously promoting ].<ref name="marxists1989">{{cite journal|url=https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-7/lenin-socialism.htm|title=Lenin's Conception of Socialism: Learning from the early experiences of the world's first socialist revolution|last=Fleming|first=Richard Fleming|year=1989|journal=Forward|volume=9|issue=1|access-date=27 December 2015}}</ref><ref name="marxists293">. '''27''': 293. Quoted by . {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040318182051/http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_6_ussr1.html|date=18 March 2004}}.</ref> Academics, political commentators, and other scholars tend to distinguish between ] and ] states, with the first representing the ] and the latter representing ] countries which have been democratically governed by socialist parties such as ], ], ], and Western ] in general, among others.<ref name="Barrett 1978"/><ref name="Dissident 1991"/><ref name="Kendall 2011"/><ref name="Li 2015"/> | |||
| == Overview == | |||
| The first socialist state was the ], established in 1917.<ref>{{cite book|last=Jones|first=R. J. Barry|year=2002|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ouZJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1461|title=Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy, Volume 3|publisher=Routledge|page=1461|isbn=9781136927393}}</ref> In 1922, it merged with the ], the ], and the ] into a single federal union called the ] (USSR). The Soviet Union proclaimed itself a socialist state and proclaimed its commitment to building a ] in its ] and a subsequent ]. It was governed by the ] as a single-party state, ostensibly with a ] organization, with ] remaining its ] until the ] on 26 December 1991. The political systems of these Marxist–Leninist socialist states revolved around the central role of the party which holds ultimate authority. Internally, the ] practiced a form of democracy called ].<ref name="Furtak, Robert K. 1986"/> | |||
| During the ] in 1961, ] announced the completion of socialist construction and declared the optimistic goal of achieving ].<ref>{{cite book|last=Tompson|first=William J.|year=1997|title=Khrushchev: A Political Life|location=New York City|publisher=St. Martin's Press|page=238}}</ref> The ] was a political and economic bloc of ] in Eastern and Central Europe which adhered to Marxism–Leninism, Soviet-style ], and ] in the form of the ] and ]. China's socio-economic structure has been referred to as "nationalistic state capitalism" and the Eastern Bloc (Eastern Europe and the ]) as "bureaucratic-authoritarian systems."<ref>Morgan, W. John (2001). "Marxism–Leninism: The Ideology of Twentieth-Century Communism". In Wright, James D., ed. ''International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences'' (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 657–662.</ref><ref>Andrai, Charles F. (1994). ''Comparative Political Systems: Policy Performance and Social Change''. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe. pp. 24–25.</ref> | |||
| The ] was founded on 1 October 1949, and proclaims itself to be a socialist state in its ]. The ] (North Korea) used to adhere to orthodox ] since its founding until mid-1950s, by which point the supreme leader of North Korea, ], sought to develop a distinct Korean re-interpretation of the ideology in order to solidify his position within the ] (WPK), known as '']''. | |||
| Originally regarded as a variant of Marxism–Leninism, ''Juche'' was declared to be fully distinct by his son and successor, ], and was adopted as the official state ideology in the ]. Further developed throughout the 1980s and 1990s, ''Juche'' made ] with Marxism–Leninism, and in the country's 1992 constitution, all references to Marxism–Leninism and communism were removed from state and party materials.<ref name="Dae-Kyu 2003 1289–1305">{{cite journal|last=Dae-Kyu|first=Yoon|year=2003|url=http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1934&context=ilj|title=The Constitution of North Korea: Its Changes and Implications|journal=Fordham International Law Journal|volume=27|issue=4|pages=1289–1305|access-date=10 August 2020}}</ref> Scholars are divided over the classification of the modern-day ''Juche'', with some considering it to be a departure from Marxist–Leninist principles,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Seth |first1=Michael J. |title=A Concise History of Modern Korea: From the Late Nineteenth Century to the Present |date=18 December 2019 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |isbn=9781538129050 |page=159}}</ref> given the primacy of ] and ] over ], and where social distinction and hierarchy are promoted over ] and ],<ref>{{cite book |last = Shin |first=Gi-wook |title = Ethnic Nationalism in Korea: Genealogy, Politics, and Legacy |publisher=] |year=2006 |isbn= 9780804754088 |page=94}}</ref> and others considering it to still be a form of Marxism–Leninism, combined with nationalism and idolization, deification, and mystification of the Kim family.<ref name=lee>Lee, Grace (Spring 2003)) . v.3, n.1. ''Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs''. Quote: "The DPRK claims that juche is Kim Il Sung’s creative application of Marxist-Leninist principle to the modern political realities in North Korea."</ref><ref name=myers>Myers, Brian (January 2006) , v.9, n.1 '']''. Quote: "A close reading of the text reveals ... that the speech does not re-interpret Marxism-Leninism ... In fact, it neither deviates from the Marxism-Leninism of its day nor does it exceed levels of patriotism that were then considered acceptable throughout the East Bloc."</ref><ref name=looking>Oh, Kongdan Oh and Hassig, Ralph C. (2000) ''North Korea Through the Looking Glass''. p.13. Washington, DC.: Brookings Institution Press. {{isbn|0815764359}}. Quote: "Even though Marx's predictions have fallen wide of the mark, Marxism-Leninism remains a cornerstone of North Korean ideology."</ref><ref name="freemediaproductions.info">{{cite web|url=http://www.freemediaproductions.info/Editorials/2009/08/30/juche-is-third-position-ideology-built-on-marx-not-marxist-leninism/|title=Juche is Third Position ideology built on Marx – Not Marxist-Leninism|publisher=Free Media Productions – Editorials|date=30 August 2009|access-date=25 December 2015}}</ref> | |||
| Similarly, direct references to ] in the ] are not included in its ], although it gives direct power to the governing ruling party, the Marxist–Leninist ]. The preamble to the ] of the ] states that Vietnam only entered a transition stage between ] and ] after the country was ] under the ] in 1976.<ref>. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110709162321/http://www.vietnamembassy-usa.org/learn_about_vietnam/politics/constitution/|date=9 July 2011}} From the Preamble: "On 2 July 1976, the National Assembly of reunified Vietnam decided to change the country's name to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; the country entered a period of transition to socialism, strove for national construction, and unyieldingly defended its frontiers while fulfilling its internationalist duty."</ref> The 1992 ] of the ] states that the role of the ] is to "guide the common effort toward the goals and construction of socialism (and the progress toward a communist society)".<ref>. Cubanet. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110709122434/http://www.cubanet.org/ref/dis/const_92_e.htm|date=9 July 2011}} From Article 5: "The Communist Party of Cuba, a follower of Martí's ideas and of Marxism–Leninism, and the organized vanguard of the Cuban nation, is the highest leading force of society and of the state, which organizes and guides the common effort toward the goals of the construction of socialism and the progress toward a communist society".</ref> The 2019 constitution retains the aim to work towards the construction of socialism.<ref>Reuters (22 July 2018). . ''The Guardian''. Retrieved 5 August 2020.</ref> | |||
| === Constitutional references to socialism === | |||
| {{see also|Socialism in liberal democratic constitutions}} | |||
| A number of countries make references to socialism in their constitutions that are not single-party states embracing Marxism–Leninism and planned economies. In most cases, these are constitutional references to the building of a socialist society and political principles that have little to no bearing on the structure and guidance of these country's ] and ]. The preamble to the 1976 ] states that the Portuguese state has, as one of its goals, opening "the way to socialist society".<ref>The stated: "The Constituent Assembly affirms the Portuguese people's decision to defend their national independence, safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens, establish the basic principles of democracy, secure the primacy of the rule of law in a democratic state, and open the way to socialist society."</ref> Another broad example is that of Slovenia, which defines itself as a "state governed by the rule of law and a social state".<ref>https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Slovenia_2016</ref> Algeria, the Congo, India, and Sri Lanka have directly used the term ''socialist'' in their official constitution and name. Croatia, Hungary, and Poland directly denounce "Communism" in their founding documents in reference to their past regimes.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/hr00000_.html|title=Croatia Constitution|last=Tschentscher|first=Axel|website=Servat.unibe.ch|access-date=27 December 2019}}</ref>{{Request quotation|date=May 2023}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/hu__indx.html|title=Hungary Index|last=Tschentscher|first=Axel|website=Servat.unibe.ch|access-date=27 December 2019}}</ref>{{Request quotation|date=May 2023}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/pl00000_.html|title=Poland – Constitution|last=Tschentscher|first=Axel|website=Servat.unibe.ch|access-date=27 December 2019 |quote=Article 13: Political parties and other organizations whose programmes are based upon totalitarian methods and the modes of activity of nazism, fascism and communism, as well as those whose programmes or activities sanction racial or national hatred, the application of violence for the purpose of obtaining power or to influence the State policy, or provide for the secrecy of their own structure or membership, shall be forbidden.}}</ref> | |||
| In these cases, the intended meaning of ''socialism'' can vary widely and sometimes the constitutional references to socialism are left over from a previous period in the country's history. In the case of many Middle Eastern states, the term ''socialism'' was often used in reference to an ]/] philosophy adopted by specific regimes, such as that of ] and that of the various ]. Examples of countries directly using the term ''socialist'' in their names include the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, while a number of countries make references to socialism in their constitutions, but not in their names. These include India<ref>The Preamble of the Constitution of India reads: "We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic, republic ". See ].</ref> and Portugal. In addition, countries such as Belarus, Colombia, France, Russia, and Spain use the varied term ''social state'', leaving a more ambiguous meaning. In the constitutions of Croatia, Hungary, and Poland, direct condemnation is made to the respective past socialist regimes.<ref>https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Hungary_2016</ref> The ] of ], which operates under the principles of ], has been described as a socialist state.<ref>{{cite news|last=Wall|first=Derek|url=http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-fe30-Rojava-a-beacon-of-hope-fighting-Isis|title=Rojava: a beacon of hope fighting Isis|newspaper=Morning Star|date=25 August 2014|access-date=25 December 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160105163107/http://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-fe30-Rojava-a-beacon-of-hope-fighting-Isis|archive-date=5 January 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref> | |||
| === Other uses === | |||
| {{social democracy sidebar}} | |||
| During the ], ] of large industries was relatively widespread and it was not uncommon for commentators to describe some European countries as democratic socialist states seeking to move their countries toward a ].<ref name="Barrett 1978">Barrett, William, ed. (1 April 1978). . ''Commentary''. Retrieved 14 June 2020. "If we were to extend the definition of socialism to include Labor Britain or socialist Sweden, there would be no difficulty in refuting the connection between capitalism and democracy."</ref><ref name="Dissident 1991">Heilbroner, Robert L. (Winter 1991). . ''Dissident''. Barkan, Joanne; Brand, Horst; Cohen, Mitchell; Coser, Lewis; Denitch, Bogdan; Fehèr, Ferenc; Heller, Agnès; Horvat, Branko; Tyler, Gus. pp. 96–110. Retrieved 17 April 2020.</ref><ref name="Kendall 2011">Kendall, Diana (2011). ''Sociology in Our Time: The Essentials''. Cengage Learning. pp. 125–127. {{ISBN|9781111305505}}. "Sweden, Great Britain, and France have ], sometimes referred to as democratic socialism—an economic and political system that combines private ownership of some of the means of production, governmental distribution of some essential goods and services, and free elections. For example, government ownership in Sweden is limited primarily to railroads, mineral resources, a public bank, and liquor and tobacco operations."</ref><ref name="Li 2015">Li, He (2015). ''Political Thought and China's Transformation: Ideas Shaping Reform in Post-Mao China''. Springer. pp. 60–69. {{ISBN|9781137427816}}. "The scholars in camp of democratic socialism believe that China should draw on the Sweden experience, which is suitable not only for the West but also for China. In the post-Mao China, the Chinese intellectuals are confronted with a variety of models. The liberals favor the American model and share the view that the Soviet model has become archaic and should be totally abandoned. Meanwhile, democratic socialism in Sweden provided an alternative model. Its sustained economic development and extensive welfare programs fascinated many. Numerous scholars within the democratic socialist camp argue that China should model itself politically and economically on Sweden, which is viewed as more genuinely socialist than China. There is a growing consensus among them that in the Nordic countries the welfare state has been extraordinarily successful in eliminating poverty."</ref> In 1956, leading ] politician and author ] claimed that capitalism had been abolished in Britain, although others such as Welshman ], Minister of Health in the first ] and the architect of the ], disputed the claim that Britain was a socialist state.<ref>{{cite journal|date=January 1958|title=The Managerial Society Part Three — Fabian Version|url=http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1950s/1958/no-641-january-1958/managerial-society-part-three-—-fabian-version|journal=Socialist Standard|issue=641|publisher=Socialist Party of Great Britain|access-date=31 December 2015|archive-date=3 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303232840/http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1950s/1958/no-641-january-1958/managerial-society-part-three-%E2%80%94-fabian-version|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>Crosland, Anthony (2006) . '']''. Constable. pp. 9, 89. {{ISBN|978-1845294854}}.</ref> For Crosland and others who supported his views, Britain was a socialist state. According to Bevan, Britain had a socialist ] which stood in opposition to the ] of Britain's capitalist society, making the following point: | |||
| {{blockquote|The National Health service and the Welfare State have come to be used as interchangeable terms, and in the mouths of some people, as terms of reproach. Why this is so it is not difficult to understand, if you view everything from the angle of a strictly individualistic competitive society. A free health service is pure Socialism and as such, it is opposed to the hedonism of capitalist society.<ref>Bevan, Aneurin (1952). ''In Place of Fear''. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 106.</ref>}} | |||
| Although, as in the rest of Europe, the ] still operated fully and ] dominated the economy,<ref name="Batson 2017">{{cite web|url=http://www.cebc.org.br/sites/default/files/the_state_of_the_state_sector.pdf|title=The State of the State Sector|last=Batson|first=Andrew|date=March 2017|publisher=Gavekal Dragonomics|access-date=8 December 2018|quote=Even in the statist 1960s–70s, SOEs in France and the UK did not account for more than 15–20% of capital formation; in the 1980s the developed-nation average was around 8%, and it dropped below 5% in the 1990s.}}</ref> some political commentators claimed that during the post-war period, when socialist parties were in power, countries such as Britain and France were democratic socialist states and the same is now applied to the ] and the ].<ref name="Barrett 1978"/><ref name="Dissident 1991"/><ref name="Kendall 2011"/><ref name="Li 2015"/> In the 1980s, the government of President ] aimed to expand ] and attempted to nationalize all French banks, but this attempt faced opposition of the ] because it demanded a ] economy among its members.<ref>Cobham, David (November 1984). "The Nationalisation of the Banks in Mitterand's France: Rationalisations and Reasons". Journal of Public Policy. 4 (4). {{JSTOR|3998375}}.</ref><ref>Cohen, Paul (Winter 2010). . ''Dissident''. Retrieved 17 April 2020.</ref> Nevertheless, ] in France and the United Kingdom during the height of nationalization in the 1960s and 1970s never accounted for more than 15–20% of ], further dropping to 8% in the 1980s and below 5% in the 1990s after the rise of ].<ref name="Batson 2017"/> | |||
| The socialist policies practiced by parties such as the Singaporean ] (PAP) during its first few decades in power were of a pragmatic kind as characterized by its rejection of nationalization. Despite this, the PAP still claimed to be a ], pointing out its regulation of the private sector, state intervention in the economy, and social policies as evidence of this.<ref>Morley, James W. (1993). ''Driven by Growth: Political Change in the Asia-Pacific Region''. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe.</ref> The Singaporean prime minister ] also stated that he has been influenced by the democratic socialist British Labour Party.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nzbr.org.nz/documents/speeches/speeches-99/optimism_for_the_new-millennium.doc.htm|title=Optimism for the New Millennium|date=9 December 1999|access-date=10 May 2006|publisher=Rotary Club of Wellington North|last=Kerr|first=Roger|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060307184005/http://www.nzbr.org.nz/documents/speeches/speeches-99/optimism_for_the_new-millennium.doc.htm|archive-date=7 March 2006}}</ref> | |||
| === Terminology === | |||
| {{see also|Communist state}} | |||
| {{Marxism–Leninism sidebar}} | |||
| Because most existing socialist states operated along ] principles of governance, the terms '']'' and '']'' are used by scholars, particularly when focusing on the political systems of these countries.<ref name="Furtak, Robert K. 1986">Furtak, Robert K. (1986). ''Political Systems of the Socialist States: An Introduction to Marxist-Leninist Regimes''. New York: St. Martin's Press. {{ISBN|978-0745000480}}.</ref> A ] is a type of socialist state with a republican constitution. Although the term initially became associated with ] movements in the 19th century such as the German ] and the ] in Russia, it is now associated with Communist Party ruled states. A number of the short-lived communist states which formed during ] and ] called themselves ''people's republics''. Many of these sprang up in the territory of the former ] following the ].<ref>{{cite book|title=How Ukraine Became a Market Economy and Democracy|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=C8C3xuqd6aMC|first=Anders|last=Åslund|publisher=Peterson Institute|year=2009|isbn=9780881325461|page=12}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Miniature Empires: A Historical Dictionary of the Newly Independent States|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jwNeAgAAQBAJ|first=James|last=Minahan|publisher=Routledge|year=2013|isbn=9781135940102|page=296}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Power, Networks and Violent Conflict in Central Asia: A Comparison of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vv7pAwAAQBAJ|first=Idil|last=Tunçer-Kılavuz|publisher=Routledge|year=2014|isbn=9781317805113|series=Routledge advances in Central Asian studies|volume=5|page=53}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Mongolic Elements in Tuvan|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zddhapKVdHMC|first=Bayarma|last=Khabtagaeva|publisher=Otto Harrassowitz Verlag|year=2009|isbn=9783447060950|series=Turcologica Series|volume=81|page=21}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Peoples of Eastern Asia|volume=8: Mongolia–Nepal|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QXWjAmmZ5kMC|publisher=Marshall Cavendish|year=2004|first1=Fiona|last1=Macdonald|first2=Gillian|last2=Stacey|first3=Philip|last3=Steele|isbn=9780761475477|page=413}}</ref> Additional people's republics emerged following the ] victory in World War II, mainly within the ].<ref>{{cite book|title=Democratisation and Institutional Reform in Albania|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=l5FODwAAQBAJ|first=Elvin|last=Gjevori|publisher=Springer|year=2018|isbn=9783319730714|page=21}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Bulgaria in British Foreign Policy, 1943–1949|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iCw2DgAAQBAJ|first=Marietta|last=Stankova|publisher=Anthem Press|year=2014|series=Anthem Series on Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies|isbn=9781783082353|page=148}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Cabinets in Eastern Europe|doi=10.1057/9781403905215_6|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|editor-first1=Jean|editor-last1=Blondel|editor-first2=Ferdinand|editor-last2=Müller-Rommel|first1=Ferdinand|last1=Müller-Rommel|first2=Zdenka|last2=Mansfeldová|chapter=Chapter 5: Czech Republic|year=2001|isbn=978-1-349-41148-1|page=62}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Labour Law in Hungary|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=L1Ra6WYtqsgC|first=József|last=Hajdú|publisher=Kluwer Law International|year=2011|isbn=9789041137920|page=27}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Legal Reform in Post-Communist Europe: The View from Within|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LAiYFR0MPXgC|first1=Stanisław|last1=Frankowski|first2=Paul B.|last2=Stephan|publisher=Martinus Nijhoff|year=1995|isbn=9780792332183|page=23}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=NATO and Eastern Europe After 2000: Strategic Interactions with Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, and Bulgaria|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PE_D8ZewHKQC|first=Laure|last=Paquette|publisher=Nova|year=2001|isbn=9781560729693|page=55}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Yugoslavia as History: Twice There Was a Country|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AZ1x7gvwx_8C|first=John R.|last=Lampe|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2000|isbn=9780521774017|page=233}}</ref> In Asia, China became a people's republic following the ]<ref>{{cite web|title=The Chinese Revolution of 1949|url=https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/chinese-rev|website=Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs|publisher=United States Department of State}}</ref> and North Korea also became a people's republic.<ref>{{cite book|title=North Korea: The Politics of Regime Survival|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-EHfBQAAQBAJ|first1=Young Whan|last1=Kihl|first2=Hong Nack|last2= Kim|publisher=Routledge|year=2014|isbn=9781317463764|page=8}}</ref> During the 1960s, ] and ] ceased to use the term ''people's republic'' in their official name, replacing it with the term ''socialist republic'' as a mark of their ongoing political development. ] also added the term ''socialist republic'' into its name during this period. It had become a people's republic in 1948, but the country had not used that term in its official name.<ref>{{cite book|title=The Routledge Companion to Central and Eastern Europe Since 1919|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vut9AgAAQBAJ|first=Adrian|last=Webb|publisher=Routledge|year=2008|series=Routledge Companions to History|isbn=9781134065219|pages=80, 88}}</ref> ] used both terms in its official name from 1976 to 1991.<ref>{{cite book|title=Heads of State and Government|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=M0YfDgAAQBAJ|edition=2nd|first=John V|last=Da Graça|year=2000|publisher=St. Martin's Press|isbn=978-1-56159-269-2|page=56}}</ref> | |||
| The term ''socialist state'' is widely used by Marxist–Leninist parties, theorists, and governments to mean a state under the control of a ] that is organizing the economic, social, and political affairs of said state toward the construction of socialism. States run by ] that adhere to Marxism–Leninism, or some national variation thereof, refer to themselves as socialist states or workers' and peasants' states. They involve the direction of economic development toward the building up of the ] to underpin the establishment of a socialist economy and usually include that at least the ] are nationalized and under ].<ref name="marxists293"/><ref>Atkins, C. J. (1 April 2009). . ''Political Affairs''. Retrieved 30 July 2009.</ref> This may or may not include the existence of a socialist economy, depending on the specific terminology adopted and level of development in specific countries. The ] definition of a socialist state is a state representing the interests of the working class which presides over a ] economy structured upon state-directed ] with the goal of building up the country's ] and promoting worldwide ], while the realization of a socialist economy is held as the long-term goal.<ref name="marxists293"/> | |||
| In the Western world, particularly in mass media, journalism, and politics, these states and countries are often called ]s (although they do not use this term to refer to themselves), despite the fact that these countries never claimed to have achieved communism in their countries—rather, they claim to be building and working toward the establishment of socialism and the development towards communism thereafter in their countries.<ref name="The Economics of Socialism after World War Two: 1945-1990"/><ref name="Ramsay"/><ref name="Rosser"/><ref name="Williams 1983 289"/> Terms used by communist states include '']'', '']'', '']an'', ''],'' and ''workers' and peasants''' states.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Nation|first1=R. Craig|title=Black Earth, Red Star: A History of Soviet Security Policy, 1917–1991|date=1992|publisher=Cornell University Press|isbn=978-0801480072|pages=–6|url=https://archive.org/details/blackearthredsta00nati|url-access=registration|access-date=19 December 2014}}</ref> | |||
| == Political theories == | == Political theories == | ||
| Line 52: | Line 15: | ||
| One of the most influential modern visions of a transitional state representing proletarian interests was based on the Paris Commune, in which the workers and working poor took control of the city of Paris in 1871 in reaction to the ]. Marx described the Paris Commune as the prototype for a revolutionary government of the future, "the form at last discovered" for the emancipation of the proletariat.<ref name="Marx 1871"/> Engels noted that "all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers. In this way, an effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism was set up".<ref>Engels, Friedrich (1891). . In Marx, Karl (1871). . Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 8 February 2020.</ref> Commenting on the nature of the state, Engels continued: "From the outset, the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working class, once come to power, could not manage with the old state machine". In order not to be overthrown once having conquered power, Engels argues that the working class "must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment". Engels argued such a state would be a temporary affair and suggested a new generation brought up in "new and free social conditions" will be able to "throw the entire lumber of the state on the scrap-heap".<ref>{{cite web|last=Engels|first=Friedrich|url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htm|title=The Civil War in France (1891 Introduction)|publisher=Marxists Internert Archive|date=18 March 1891|access-date=27 December 2019}}</ref> | One of the most influential modern visions of a transitional state representing proletarian interests was based on the Paris Commune, in which the workers and working poor took control of the city of Paris in 1871 in reaction to the ]. Marx described the Paris Commune as the prototype for a revolutionary government of the future, "the form at last discovered" for the emancipation of the proletariat.<ref name="Marx 1871"/> Engels noted that "all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers. In this way, an effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism was set up".<ref>Engels, Friedrich (1891). . In Marx, Karl (1871). . Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 8 February 2020.</ref> Commenting on the nature of the state, Engels continued: "From the outset, the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working class, once come to power, could not manage with the old state machine". In order not to be overthrown once having conquered power, Engels argues that the working class "must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment". Engels argued such a state would be a temporary affair and suggested a new generation brought up in "new and free social conditions" will be able to "throw the entire lumber of the state on the scrap-heap".<ref>{{cite web|last=Engels|first=Friedrich|url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htm|title=The Civil War in France (1891 Introduction)|publisher=Marxists Internert Archive|date=18 March 1891|access-date=27 December 2019}}</ref> | ||
| ==== Reform and revolution ==== | |||
| Socialists that embraced ], exemplified by ], took the view that both socialism and a socialist state will gradually evolve out of political reforms won in the organized socialist political parties and unions. These views are considered a ] of Marxist thought. Bernstein stated: "The socialist movement is everything to me while what people commonly call the goal of Socialism is nothing".<ref>] (1996). ''Selected Writings Of Eduard Bernstein, 1920–1921''. New Jersey: Humanities Press.</ref> Following Marx, ] instead take the view that the working class grows stronger through its battle for reforms (such as in Marx's time, the ten-hours bill). In 1848, Marx and Engels wrote: | |||
| {{blockquote|Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. t ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the ten-hours' bill in England was carried.<ref name="auto">Marx, Karl; Engels, Friedrich (1848). '']''. . Marxists Internert Archive. Retrieved 30 December 2019.</ref>}} | |||
| According to the ] conception, these battles eventually reach a point where a revolutionary movement arises. A revolutionary movement is required in the view of Marxists to sweep away the capitalist state and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, which must be abolished and replaced with a dictatorship of the proletariat, to begin constructing a socialist society. In this view, only through revolution can a socialist state be established as written in '']'': | |||
| {{blockquote|In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.<ref name="auto"/>}} | |||
| Other historic reformist or gradualist movements within socialism, as opposed to revolutionary approaches, include ] and ] groupings. | |||
| === Leninist theory of the state === | === Leninist theory of the state === | ||
| {{main|Leninism}} | {{main|Leninism}} | ||
| Whereas Marx, Engels, and ] thinkers had little to say about the organization of the state in a socialist society, presuming the modern state to be specific to the capitalist mode of production, ] pioneered the idea of a revolutionary state based on his theory of the revolutionary ] and organizational principles of ]. Adapted to the conditions of semi-feudal Russia, Lenin's concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat involved a revolutionary vanguard party acting as representatives of the proletariat and its interests. According to Lenin's ], the goal of the revolution and vanguard party is not the introduction of socialism (it could only be established on a worldwide scale), but to bring production and the state under the control of the ] of workers' deputies. Following the ] in Russia, the ] consolidated their power and sought to control and direct the social and economic affairs of the state and broader Russian society to safeguard against counterrevolutionary insurrection, foreign invasion, and to promote socialist consciousness among the Russian population while simultaneously promoting economic development.<ref name="marxists1989"/> | Whereas Marx, Engels, and ] thinkers had little to say about the organization of the state in a socialist society, presuming the modern state to be specific to the capitalist mode of production, ] pioneered the idea of a revolutionary state based on his theory of the revolutionary ] and organizational principles of ]. Adapted to the conditions of semi-feudal Russia, Lenin's concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat involved a revolutionary vanguard party acting as representatives of the proletariat and its interests. According to Lenin's ], the goal of the revolution and vanguard party is not the introduction of socialism (it could only be established on a worldwide scale), but to bring production and the state under the control of the ] of workers' deputies. Following the ] in Russia, the ] consolidated their power and sought to control and direct the social and economic affairs of the state and broader Russian society to safeguard against counterrevolutionary insurrection, foreign invasion, and to promote socialist consciousness among the Russian population while simultaneously promoting economic development.<ref name="marxists1989">{{cite journal|url=https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-7/lenin-socialism.htm|title=Lenin's Conception of Socialism: Learning from the early experiences of the world's first socialist revolution|last=Fleming|first=Richard Fleming|year=1989|journal=Forward|volume=9|issue=1|access-date=27 December 2015}}</ref> | ||
| These ideas were adopted by Lenin in 1917 just prior to the October Revolution in Russia and published in '']''. With the failure of the worldwide revolution, or at least European revolution, envisaged by Lenin and ], the ] and finally, Lenin's death, war measures that were deemed to be temporary, such as forced requisition of food and the lack of democratic control, became permanent and a tool to boost ]'s power, leading to the emergence of Marxism–Leninism and ], as well as the notion that socialism can be created and exist in a single state with theory of ]. | These ideas were adopted by Lenin in 1917 just prior to the October Revolution in Russia and published in '']''. With the failure of the worldwide revolution, or at least European revolution, envisaged by Lenin and ], the ] and finally, Lenin's death, war measures that were deemed to be temporary, such as forced requisition of food and the lack of democratic control, became permanent and a tool to boost ]'s power, leading to the emergence of Marxism–Leninism and ], as well as the notion that socialism can be created and exist in a single state with theory of ]. | ||
| Line 79: | Line 33: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| ==Socialist states == | |||
| === Trotskyist theory of the state === | |||
| {{main|Trotskyism}} | |||
| Following Stalin's consolidation of power in the ] and static centralization of political power, Trotsky condemned the Soviet government's policies for lacking widespread democratic participation on the part of the population and for suppressing ] and democratic participation in the management of the economy. Because these authoritarian political measures were inconsistent with the organizational precepts of socialism, Trotsky characterized the Soviet Union as a deformed workers' state that would not be able to effectively transition to socialism. Ostensibly socialist states where democracy is lacking, yet the economy is largely in the hands of the state, are termed by ] theories as ] or ] workers' states and not socialist states.<ref>Trotsky, Leon (1935). . ''New International''. '''2''' (4): 116–122. "Trotsky argues that the Soviet Union was, at that time, a "deformed workers' state" or degenerated workers' state, and not a socialist republic or state, because the "bureaucracy wrested the power from the hands of mass organizations," thereby necessitating only political revolution rather than a completely new social revolution, for workers' political control (i.e. state democracy) to be reclaimed. He argued that it remained, at base, a workers' state because the capitalists and landlords had been expropriated". Retrieved 27 December 2019.</ref> | |||
| == Criticism within left-wing movements == | |||
| === Anarchism and Marxism === | |||
| Many ] and ] socialists, including anarchists, ], and ], criticize the concept of establishing a socialist state instead of abolishing the ] state apparatus outright. They use the term '']'' to contrast it with their own form of socialism, which involves either ] (in the form of ]s) or ] of the ] without state ]. Those socialists believe there is no need for a state in a socialist system because there would be no class to suppress and no need for an institution based on coercion and therefore, regard the state being a remnant of capitalism.<ref name="Schumpeter"/><ref name="AFAQ H"/><ref name="AFAQ I"/> They hold that ] is antithetical to true socialism,<ref name="McKay 2008"/> the goal of which is the eyes of ] such as ], who wrote as follows in a ''Commonweal'' article: "State Socialism? — I don't agree with it; in fact, I think the two words contradict one another, and that it is the business of Socialism to destroy the State and put Free Society in its place".<ref>William Morris (17 May 1890). . ''Commonweal''. '''6''' (227). p. 153. Retrieved 4 November 2019.</ref> | |||
| ] and ] Marxists also view state socialism as an oxymoron, arguing that while an association for managing production and economic affairs would exist in socialism, it would no longer be a state in the ], which is based on ]. Preceding the ]-led ], many socialist groups—including reformists, orthodox Marxist currents such as ], and the ], as well as anarchists and other libertarian socialists—criticized the idea of using the state to conduct ] and ] of the means of production as a way to establish socialism.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Screpanti|first1=Ernesto|last2=Zamagni|first2=Stefano|title=An Outline on the History of Economic Thought|edition=2nd|year=2005|publisher=Oxford|quote=It should not be forgotten, however, that in the period of the Second International, some of the reformist currents of Marxism, as well as some of the extreme left-wing ones, not to speak of the anarchist groups, had already criticised the view that State ownership and central planning is the best road to socialism. But with the victory of Leninism in Russia, all dissent was silenced, and socialism became identified with 'democratic centralism', 'central planning', and State ownership of the means of production.|page=295}}</ref> Lenin himself acknowledged his policies as state capitalism.<ref>Lenin, Vladimir (1917). . '']''.</ref><ref>Lenin, Vladimir (February—July 1918). . ]. p. 293. Quoted by . {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040318182051/http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_6_ussr1.html|date=18 March 2004}}.</ref><ref>Lenin, Vladimir (1921). .</ref><ref>Pena, David S. (21 September 2007). . ''Political Affairs''. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080905230042/http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5869/|date=5 September 2008}}.</ref> | |||
| Critical of the economy and government of socialist states, ] such as the Italian ] said that their socialism was a form of political opportunism which preserved rather than destroyed ] because of the claim that the exchange of commodities would occur under ]; the use of ] organisations by the ];<ref name="Bordiga">Bordiga, Amadeo (1952). . Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 11 November 2019.</ref> and that a ] organized by ] was more effective than a vanguard organized by ].<ref>{{cite web|last=Bordiga|first=Amadeo|title=Theses on the Role of the Communist Party in the Proletarian Revolution|url=https://libcom.org/library/role_party_bordiga|publisher=Communist International|access-date=25 March 2019}}</ref> The American Marxist ] also dismissed it as a type of state capitalism<ref name="State capitalism">Howard, M. C.; King, J. E. . {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181102125929/http://www.hetsa.org.au/pdf/34-A-08.pdf|date=2 November 2018}}.</ref> because ] of the means of production is a form of state capitalism;<ref>Lichtenstein, Nelson (2011). ''American Capitalism: Social Thought and Political Economy in the Twentieth Century''. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 160–161.</ref> the ] is a form of democracy and ] is undemocratic;<ref>Ishay, Micheline (2007). ''The Human Rights Reader: Major Political Essays, Speeches, and Documents from Ancient Times to the Present''. Taylor & Francis. p. 245.</ref> and ] is neither ] nor ], but rather, a composite ideology which socialist leaders like ] used to expediently determine what is ] and what is not communism among the ] countries.<ref>Todd, Allan (2012). ''History for the IB Diploma: Communism in Crisis 1976–89''. Cambridge University Press. p. 16. {{ASIN|B01B997S8W}}.</ref> | |||
| === Leninism === | |||
| Although most Marxist–Leninists distinguish between ] and ], Bordiga, who did consider himself a ] and has been described as being "more Leninist than Lenin",<ref>Piccone, Paul (1983). ''Italian Marxism''. University of California Press. .</ref> did not distinguish between the two in the same way Marxist–Leninists do. Both Lenin and Bordiga did not see socialism as a separate mode of production from communism, but rather, just as how communism looks as it emerges out of capitalism before it has "developed on its own foundations".<ref>Lenin, Vladimir (1917). '']''. . Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 27 December 2019.</ref> | |||
| This is coherent with Marx and Engels, who used the terms ''communism'' and ''socialism'' interchangeably.<ref>{{cite book|last=Steele|first=David|title=From Marx to Mises: Post-Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation|publisher=Open Court Publishing Company|year=1992|isbn=978-0-87548-449-5|pages=44–45|quote=By 1888, the term 'socialism' was in general use among Marxists, who had dropped 'communism', now considered an old fashioned term meaning the same as 'socialism'. At the turn of the century, Marxists called themselves socialists. The definition of socialism and communism as successive stages was introduced into Marxist theory by Lenin in 1917 , the new distinction was helpful to Lenin in defending his party against the traditional Marxist criticism that Russia was too backward for a socialist revolution.}}</ref><ref>Hudis, Peter; Vidal, Matt, Smith, Tony; Rotta, Tomás; Prew, Paul, eds. (September 2018 – June 2019). . . Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|978-0190695545}}. {{doi|10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190695545.001.0001}}.</ref> Like Lenin, Bordiga used ''socialism'' to mean what Marx called the ].<ref>Marx, Karl (1875). '']''. . Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 8 February 2020.</ref> For Bordiga, both stages of socialist or ]—with stages referring to ]—were characterized by the gradual absence of money, the market, and so on, the difference between them being that earlier in the first stage, a system of rationing would be used to allocate goods to people, while in communism this could be abandoned in favour of full free access. This view distinguished Bordiga from Marxist–Leninists, who tended, and still tend, to telescope the first two stages and so have money and the other exchange categories surviving into socialism. But Bordiga would have none of this. For him, no society in which money, buying and selling, and the rest survived could be regarded as either socialist or communist—these exchange categories would die out before the socialist rather than the communist stage was reached.<ref name="Bordiga"/> Stalin made the claim that the ] had reached the lower stage of communism and argued that the ] still operated within a socialist economy.<ref>Stalin, Joseph (1951). . Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 27 December 2019.</ref> | |||
| Marx did not use the term ''socialism'' to refer to this development and instead called it a communist society that has not yet reached its higher-stage.<ref>Marx, Karl (1875). . '']''. Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 27 December 2019.</ref> The term ''socialism'' to mean the lower-state of communism was popularized during the ] by Lenin. This view is consistent with, and helped to inform early concepts of, socialism in which the law of value no longer directs economic activity, namely, that monetary relations in the form of ], ], interest, and ] would not operate and apply to Marxist socialism.<ref>{{cite book|last=Bockman|first=Johanna|title=Markets in the name of Socialism: The Left-Wing origins of Neoliberalism|publisher=Stanford University Press|year=2011|isbn=978-0-8047-7566-3|page=20|quote=According to nineteenth-century socialist views, socialism would function without capitalist economic categories, such as money, prices, interest, profits and rent. Rather, it would function according to laws other than those described by current economic science. While some socialists recognized the need for money and prices (at least during the transition from capitalism to socialism), socialists more commonly believed that the socialist economy would soon administratively mobilize the economy in physical units without the use of prices or money.}}</ref> Unlike Stalin, who first claimed to have achieved socialism with the ]<ref>{{cite book|last=Reinalda|first=Bob|year=2009|title=Routledge History of International Organizations: From 1815 to the Present Day|publisher=Routledge|page=765|isbn=9781134024056}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Laidler|first=Harry W.|year=2013|title=History of Socialism: An Historical Comparative Study of Socialism, Communism, Utopia|publisher=Routledge|page=412|isbn=9781136231438}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Smith|first=S. A.|year=2014|title=The Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism|publisher=Oxford University Press|page=126|quote=The 1936 Constitution described the Soviet Union for the first time as a 'socialist society', rhetorically fulfilling the aim of building socialism in one country, as Stalin had promised.|isbn=9780191667527}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|editor-last1=Fu|editor-first1=Hualing|editor-last2=Gillespie|editor-first2=John|editor-last3=Nicholason|editor-first3=Penelope|editor-last4=Partlett|editor-first4=William Edmund|year=2018|title=Socialist Law in Socialist East Asia|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=58|isbn=9781108424813}}</ref> and then confirmed it in the '']'',<ref>{{cite journal |last=Ramana |first=R. |date=June 1983 |title=Reviewed Work: China's Socialist Economy by ] |journal=Social Scientist |volume=11 |issue=6 |pages=68–74 |doi=10.2307/3516910 |jstor=3516910}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=McCarthy|first=Greg|year=1985|editor-last=Brugger|editor-first=Bill|title=Chinese Marxism in Flux, 1978–1984: Essays on Epistemology, Ideology, and Political Economy|publisher=M. E. Sharpe|pages=142–143|isbn=0873323238}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Evans|first=Alfred B.|year=1993|title=Soviet Marxism–Leninism: The Decline of an Ideology|publisher=ABC-CLIO|page=48|isbn=9780275947637}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Pollock|first=Ethan|year=2006|title=Stalin and the Soviet Science Wars|publisher=Princeton University Press|page=210|isbn=9780691124674}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Mommen|first=André|year=2011|title=Stalin's Economist: The Economic Contributions of Jenö Varga|publisher=Routledge|pages=203–213|isbn=9781136793455}}</ref> Lenin did not call the Soviet Union a socialist state, nor did he claim that it had achieved socialism.<ref>Lenin, Vladimir (21 April 1921). . Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 10 February 2020. "No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Soviet Socialist Republic implies the determination of the Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the existing economic system is recognised as a socialist order."</ref> He adopted state capitalist policies,<ref name="Lenin 1917"/><ref name="Lenin 1918"/><ref name="Lenin 1921"/><ref name="Pena 2007"/> defending them from left-wing criticism,<ref>Lenin, Vladimir (June 1920). '']''. . Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 10 February 2020.</ref> but arguing that they were necessary for the future development of socialism and not socialist in themselves.<ref>Lenin, Vladimir (29 April 1918). Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 10 February 2020. " Reality tells us that state capitalism would be a step forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism in Russia, that would be a victory."</ref><ref>Lenin, Vladimir (21 April 1921). . Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 10 February 2020. "State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months' time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in this country."</ref> On seeing the Soviet Union's growing coercive power, Lenin was quoted as saying that Russia had reverted to "a bourgeois tsarist machine barely varnished with socialism".<ref>Serge, Victor (1937). . New York: Pioneer Publishers. p. 55.</ref> | |||
| === Libertarian socialism === | |||
| A variety of non-state, libertarian communist and socialist positions reject the concept of a socialist state altogether, believing that the modern state is a byproduct of capitalism and cannot be used for the establishment of a socialist system. They reason that a socialist state is antithetical to socialism and that socialism will emerge spontaneously from the ] level in an ], developing its own unique political and economic institutions for a highly organized ]. Libertarian communists, including ], ], ], and ], also reject the concept of a socialist state for being antithetical to socialism, but they believe that socialism can only be established through revolution and dissolving the existence of the state.<ref name="McKay 2008"/><ref name="AFAQ H"/><ref name="AFAQ I"/> Within the socialist movement, there is criticism towards the use of the term socialist states in relation to countries such as China and previously of Soviet Union and Eastern and Central European states before what some term the "collapse of ]" in 1989.<ref>Committee for a Workers' International (June 1992). . Marxist.net. Retrieved 4 November 2019.</ref><ref>Ted Grant (1996). . Retrieved 4 November 2019.</ref><ref>Anthony Arnove (Winter 2000). . ''International Socialist Review''. '''10'''. Retrieved 4 November 2019.</ref><ref>Walter Daum (Fall 2002). . ''Proletarian Revolution''. '''65'''. Retrieved 4 November 2019.</ref> | |||
| Anti-authoritarian communists and socialists such as anarchists, other democratic and libertarian socialists, as well as revolutionary syndicalists and left communists<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.internationalism.org/node/609|title=4. State Capitalism|publisher=International Communist Current|date=30 December 2004|access-date=25 June 2019}}</ref> claim that the so-called socialist states actually presided over state capitalist economies and cannot be called socialist.<ref name="State capitalism"/> Those socialists who oppose any system of state control whatsoever believe in a more decentralized approach which puts the means of production directly into the hands of the workers rather than indirectly through state bureaucracies<ref name="McKay 2008"/><ref name="AFAQ H"/><ref name="AFAQ I"/> which they claim represent a new elite or ].<ref>{{cite book|first=Milovan|last=Đilas|author-link=Milovan Đilas|year=1983|orig-year=1957|title=The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System|edition=paperback|publisher=Harcourt Brace Jovanovich|location=San Diego|isbn=0-15-665489-X}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first=Milovan|last=Đilas|year=1969|title=The Unperfect Society: Beyond the New Class|translator-first=Dorian|translator-last=Cooke|publisher=Harcourt, Brace & World|location=New York City|isbn=0-15-693125-7|url=https://archive.org/details/unperfectsociety00djil}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first=Milovan|last=Đilas|author-link=Milovan Đilas|year=1998|title=Fall of the New Class: A History of Communism's Self-Destruction|edition=hardcover|publisher=Alfred A. Knopf|isbn=0-679-43325-2|url=https://archive.org/details/fallofnewclasshi00djil}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first=Leon|last=Trotsky|author-link=Leon Trotsky|year=1991|orig-year=1937|title=The Revolution Betrayed: What is the Soviet Union and Where is it Going?|edition=paperback|publisher=Labor Publications|location=Detroit|isbn=0-929087-48-8|url=http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/index.htm}}</ref> This leads them to consider state socialism a form of state capitalism<ref name="Bordiga"/> (an economy based on centralized management, capital accumulation and wage labor, but with the state owning the means of production)<ref>{{cite book|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/keywordsvocabula00willrich|chapter-url-access=registration|title=Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society|last=Williams|first=Raymond|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=9780195204698|edition=revised|series=Oxford paperbacks|location=New York|date=1985|page=|chapter=Capitalism|quote=A new phrase, state-capitalism, has been widely used in mC20, with precedents from eC20, to describe forms of state ownership in which the original conditions of the definition – centralized ownership of the means of production, leading to a system of wage-labour – have not really changed.|author-link1=Raymond Williams|access-date=30 April 2017|orig-year=1976}}</ref> which Engels stated would be the final form of capitalism rather than socialism.<ref>Engels, Friedrich (1880). '']''. . Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 8 February 2020.</ref> | |||
| === Trotskyism === | |||
| Some ] following on from ] deny that it is socialism, calling it state capitalism.<ref>Cliff, Tony (1948). . Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 8 February 2020.</ref> Other Trotskyists agree that these states could not be described as socialist,<ref>Mandel, Ernest (1979). . Ernest Mandel Internet Archive. Retrieved 8 February 2020.</ref> but deny that they were state capitalist.<ref>Taaffe, Peter (1995). ''The Rise of Militant''. . "Trotsky and the Collapse of Stalinism". Bertrams. "The Soviet bureaucracy and Western capitalism rested on mutually antagonistic social systems". {{ISBN|978-0906582473}}.</ref> They support ]'s analysis of pre-restoration Soviet Union as a workers' state that had ] into a ] which rested on a largely nationalized industry run according to a production plan<ref>Trotsky, Leon (1936). . Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 11 November 2019.</ref><ref>Trotsky, Leon (1938). . In '']''. Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 11 November 2019.</ref><ref>. From "A Petty-Bourgeois Opposition in the Socialist Workers Party" (1939). Marxists Internet Archive. In Trotsky, Leon (1942). ''In Defense of Marxism''. Retrieved 8 February 2020.</ref> and claimed that the former Stalinist states of ] and Eastern Europe were ]s based on the same relations of production as the Soviet Union.<ref>] (November 1951). . ''Fourth International''. Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 11 November 2019.</ref> Some Trotskyists such as the ] have at times included African, Asian, and Middle Eastern socialist states when they have had a ] economy as ].<ref>Grant, Ted (1978). . ''The Unbroken Thread''. Retrieved 21 June 2020.</ref><ref>Jayasuriya, Siritunga. . United Socialist Party. Retrieved 21 June 2020.</ref> Other socialists argued that the ] promoted capitalists from within the party and outside their countries.<ref>Walsh, Lynn (1991). . "Chapter 5". Socialist Alternative. Retrieved 21 June 2020.</ref> | |||
| == List of communist states == | |||
| {{Main list|List of communist states}} | {{Main list|List of communist states}} | ||
| [[File:Socialist states by duration of existence.png|thumb|400px|This is a combined map of all countries that declared themselves socialist states under any definition at some point in their history, color-coded for the number of years they said they were socialist: | |||
| {{legend|#FF0000|Over 70 years}} | |||
| {{legend|#FF6600|60–70 years}} | |||
| {{legend|#B0B000|50–60 years}} | |||
| {{legend|#00CC00|40–50 years}} | |||
| {{legend|#0000FF|30–40 years}} | |||
| {{legend|#000033|20–30 years}} | |||
| {{legend|#9966FF|10–20 years}} | |||
| {{legend|#e066ff|Under 10 years}}|center]] | |||
| {| class="wikitable sortable" | {| class="wikitable sortable" | ||
| |+Overview of current socialist states | |+Overview of current socialist states | ||
| !scope="col"| Country/Territory | !scope="col"| Country/Territory | ||
| !scope="col"| System | |||
| !scope="col"| Establishment | !scope="col"| Establishment | ||
| !scope="col"| Party | !scope="col"| Party | ||
| Line 128: | Line 43: | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| |scope="row"| {{flag|China}} | |scope="row"| {{flag|China}} | ||
| | People's Republic | |||
| | 1949 | | 1949 | ||
| | {{CCP flag}} | | {{CCP flag}} | ||
| Line 134: | Line 48: | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| |scope="row"| {{flag|Cuba}} | |scope="row"| {{flag|Cuba}} | ||
| | Socialist Republic | |||
| | 1961 | | 1961 | ||
| | {{Flagicon image|Flag of the Communist Party of Cuba.svg}} ] | | {{Flagicon image|Flag of the Communist Party of Cuba.svg}} ] | ||
| Line 140: | Line 53: | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| |scope="row"| {{flag|North Korea}} | |scope="row"| {{flag|North Korea}} | ||
| | Democratic People's Republic | |||
| | 1948 | | 1948 | ||
| | {{Flagicon image|flag of the Workers' Party of Korea.svg}} ] | | {{Flagicon image|flag of the Workers' Party of Korea.svg}} ] | ||
| | The official state ideology is '']'', which is based on Marxism–Leninism.<ref name=lee / |
| The official state ideology is '']'', which is based on Marxism–Leninism.<ref name=lee>Lee, Grace (Spring 2003)) . v.3, n.1. ''Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs''. Quote: "The DPRK claims that juche is Kim Il Sung’s creative application of Marxist-Leninist principle to the modern political realities in North Korea."</ref><ref name=looking>Oh, Kongdan Oh and Hassig, Ralph C. (2000) ''North Korea Through the Looking Glass''. p.13. Washington, DC.: Brookings Institution Press. {{isbn|0815764359}}. Quote: "Even though Marx's predictions have fallen wide of the mark, Marxism-Leninism remains a cornerstone of North Korean ideology."</ref>Herskovitz, Jon and Kim, Christine (September 28, 2009) ]</ref> although his successor and son Kim Jong Un partly reversed this policy.<ref>{{cite web |last=Atsuhito |first=Isozaki |date=21 June 2021 |title=A Revival of North Korean Communism?: The rhetoric is there. But what does it mean? |url=https://thediplomat.com/2021/06/a-revival-of-north-korean-communism/ |access-date=2 December 2022 |website=] |quote=In his closing address at the Conference of Cell Secretaries of the Workers’ Party of Korea in late April, Kim mentioned the word “communism” six times. His recent claim that North Korea aims to become a “communist utopia” is a notable change in rhetoric.}}</ref> | ||
| |- | |||
| |scope="row"| {{flag|Laos}} | |||
| | Democratic People's Republic | |||
| | 1975 | |||
| | {{Flagicon image|Flag of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party.svg}} ] | |||
| | With the market gradually liberalized since the adoption of a new economic mechanism. | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| |scope="row"| {{flag|Vietnam}} | |scope="row"| {{flag|Vietnam}} | ||
| | Socialist Republic | |||
| | 1976 | | 1976 | ||
| | {{Flagicon image|Flag of the Communist Party of Vietnam.svg}} ] | | {{Flagicon image|Flag of the Communist Party of Vietnam.svg}} ] | ||
Revision as of 17:38, 14 February 2024
 | This article or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this article or section has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This article was last edited by TheUzbek (talk | contribs) 10 months ago. (Update timer) |
| Part of the Politics series | ||||||||
| Basic forms of government | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| List of forms · List of countries | ||||||||
Source of power
|
||||||||
Power ideology
|
||||||||
|
Power structure |
||||||||
|
Related |
||||||||
 Politics portal | ||||||||
A socialist state is a purported base and superstructural relation that a communist state reaches. The base of the socialist state is the socialist mode of production. The superstructure is the class character of the state, which in this case is the dictatorship of the proletariat (or a variant of thereof) in which the proletariat acts as the ruling class. The exception to this rule was the Soviet Union. From 1961 onwards, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) argued it had created a developed socialist society where the proletarian dictatorship had been replaced by a socialist state of the whole people since all the exploitative classes had been defeated. The Communist Party of China vehemently opposed this theory, and argued that every state formation had to have a ruling class. The majority of communist states have not been able to establish a socialist state system. These states had, according to Marxist–Leninist teachings, reached a lower form of development and designated themselves, or were designated as, for example, state of socialist orientation and people's democratic state.
Political theories
Marxist theory of the state
Main article: Marx's theory of the stateKarl Marx and subsequent thinkers in the Marxist tradition conceive of the state as representing the interests of the ruling class, partially out of material necessity for the smooth operation of the modes of production it presides over. Marxists trace the formation of the contemporary form of the sovereign state to the emergence of capitalism as a dominant mode of production, with its organizational precepts and functions designed specifically to manage and regulate the affairs of a capitalist economy. Because this involves governance and laws passed in the interest of the bourgeoisie as a whole, and because government officials either come from the bourgeoisie or are dependent upon their interests, Marx characterized the capitalist state as a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Extrapolating from this, Marx described a post-revolutionary government on the part of the working class or proletariat as a dictatorship of the proletariat because the economic interests of the proletariat would have to guide state affairs and policy during a transitional state. Alluding further to the establishment of a socialist economy where social ownership displaces private ownership and thus, class distinctions on the basis of private property ownership are eliminated, the modern state would have no function and would gradually "wither away" or be transformed into a new form of governance.
Influenced by the pre-Marxist utopian socialist philosopher Henri de Saint-Simon, Friedrich Engels theorized the nature of the state would change during the transition to socialism. Both Saint-Simon and Engels described a transformation of the state from an entity primarily concerned with political rule over people (via coercion and law creation) to a scientific "administration of things" that would be concerned with directing processes of production in a socialist society, essentially ceasing to be a state. Although Marx never referred to a socialist state, he argued that the working class would have to take control of the state apparatus and machinery of government in order to transition out of capitalism and to socialism. The dictatorship of the proletariat would represent this transitional state and would involve working class interests dominating government policy in the same manner that capitalist class interests dominate government policy under capitalism (the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie). Engels argued that as socialism developed, the state would change in form and function. Under socialism, it is not a "government of people, but the administration of things", thereby ceasing to be a state by the traditional definition. With the fall of the Paris Commune, Marx cautiously argued in The Civil War in France that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes. The centralized state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature—organs wrought after the plan of a systematic and hierarchic division of labor originates from the days of absolute monarchy, serving nascent middle class society as a mighty weapon in its struggle against feudalism". In other words, "the centralized state power inherited by the bourgeoisie from the absolute monarchy necessarily assumes, in the course of the intensifying struggles between capital and labor, 'more and more the character of the national power of capital over labour, of a public organized for social enslavement, of an engine of class despotism'".
One of the most influential modern visions of a transitional state representing proletarian interests was based on the Paris Commune, in which the workers and working poor took control of the city of Paris in 1871 in reaction to the Franco-Prussian War. Marx described the Paris Commune as the prototype for a revolutionary government of the future, "the form at last discovered" for the emancipation of the proletariat. Engels noted that "all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers. In this way, an effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism was set up". Commenting on the nature of the state, Engels continued: "From the outset, the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working class, once come to power, could not manage with the old state machine". In order not to be overthrown once having conquered power, Engels argues that the working class "must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment". Engels argued such a state would be a temporary affair and suggested a new generation brought up in "new and free social conditions" will be able to "throw the entire lumber of the state on the scrap-heap".
Leninist theory of the state
Main article: LeninismWhereas Marx, Engels, and classical Marxist thinkers had little to say about the organization of the state in a socialist society, presuming the modern state to be specific to the capitalist mode of production, Vladimir Lenin pioneered the idea of a revolutionary state based on his theory of the revolutionary vanguard party and organizational principles of democratic centralism. Adapted to the conditions of semi-feudal Russia, Lenin's concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat involved a revolutionary vanguard party acting as representatives of the proletariat and its interests. According to Lenin's April Theses, the goal of the revolution and vanguard party is not the introduction of socialism (it could only be established on a worldwide scale), but to bring production and the state under the control of the soviets of workers' deputies. Following the October Revolution in Russia, the Bolsheviks consolidated their power and sought to control and direct the social and economic affairs of the state and broader Russian society to safeguard against counterrevolutionary insurrection, foreign invasion, and to promote socialist consciousness among the Russian population while simultaneously promoting economic development.
These ideas were adopted by Lenin in 1917 just prior to the October Revolution in Russia and published in The State and Revolution. With the failure of the worldwide revolution, or at least European revolution, envisaged by Lenin and Leon Trotsky, the Russian Civil War and finally, Lenin's death, war measures that were deemed to be temporary, such as forced requisition of food and the lack of democratic control, became permanent and a tool to boost Joseph Stalin's power, leading to the emergence of Marxism–Leninism and Stalinism, as well as the notion that socialism can be created and exist in a single state with theory of socialism in one country.
Lenin argued that as socialism is replaced by communism, the state would "wither away" as strong centralized control progressively reduces as local communities gain more empowerment. As he put it succinctly, "o long as the state exists, there is no freedom. When there will be freedom, there will be no state". In this way, Lenin was thereby proposing a classically dynamic view of progressive social structure which, during his own short period of governance, emerged as a defensive and preliminary bureaucratic centralist stage. He regarded this structural paradox as the necessary preparation for and antithesis of the desired workers' state which he forecast would follow.
.jpg)
Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union and the leader of the Bolshevik party.
Leon Trotsky, founder of the Red Army and a key figure in the October Revolution.
Socialist states
For a more comprehensive list, see List of communist states.| Country/Territory | Establishment | Party | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
 China
|
1949 |  Chinese Communist Party
|
With free market reforms progressively implemented from the government of Deng Xiaoping, up to the current socialism with Chinese characteristics. |
 Cuba
|
1961 |  Communist Party of Cuba
|
Initially, with a political-economic system one-party and statist. After the fall of the Soviet Union and with the end of Comecon, Cuba progressively adopted some market reforms to allow private property in certain sectors. |
 North Korea
|
1948 |  Workers' Party of Korea
|
The official state ideology is Juche, which is based on Marxism–Leninism.Herskovitz, Jon and Kim, Christine (September 28, 2009) "North Korea drops communism, boosts "Dear Leader"" Reuters</ref> although his successor and son Kim Jong Un partly reversed this policy. |
 Vietnam
|
1976 |  Communist Party of Vietnam
|
From the economic opening known as Đổi Mới, Vietnam practices the so-called socialist-oriented market economy. |
See also
|
|
References
- Engels, Friedrich (1962). Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus bein ZK der SED (ed.). Die Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe. Karl Marx-Friedrich Engels: Welke (in German). Vol. 20. Berlin: Dietz Verlag.
- Engels, Friedrich (1962). Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus bein ZK der SED (ed.). Die Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe. Karl Marx-Friedrich Engels: Welke (in German). Vol. 21. Berlin: Dietz Verlag.
- Engels, Friedrich (1880). "The Development of Utopian Socialism". Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Marxists.org. Retrieved 12 January 2016.
In 1816, he declares that politics is the science of production, and foretells the complete absorption of politics by economics. The knowledge that economic conditions are the basis of political institutions appears here only in embryo. Yet what is here already very plainly expressed is the idea of the future conversion of political rule over men into an administration of things and a direction of processes of production.
- "Henri de Saint-Simon". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved 27 December 2019.
- "Socialism". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved 27 December 2019.
- "Withering away of the state". In Scruton, Roger (2007). The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Political Thought (3rd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
- "Withering Away of the State". In Kurian, George Thomas, ed. (2011). The Encyclopedia of Political Science. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
- ^ Marx, Karl (1871). The Civil War in France. "The Paris Commune". Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 27 December 2019.
- Van Den Berg, Axel (2018) . The Immanent Utopia: From Marxism on the State to the State of Marxism. Transaction Publishers. p. 71. ISBN 9781412837330.
- Engels, Friedrich (1891). "On the 20th Anniversary of the Paris Commune". In Marx, Karl (1871). The Civil War in France. Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 8 February 2020.
- Engels, Friedrich (18 March 1891). "The Civil War in France (1891 Introduction)". Marxists Internert Archive. Retrieved 27 December 2019.
- Fleming, Richard Fleming (1989). "Lenin's Conception of Socialism: Learning from the early experiences of the world's first socialist revolution". Forward. 9 (1). Retrieved 27 December 2015.
- Lenin, Vladimir (1917). The State and Revolution. p. 70. cf. "Chapter V, The economic basis for the withering away of the state".
- Freeden, Michael; Sargent, Lyman Tower; Stears, Marc, eds. (15 August 2013). The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 371. ISBN 9780199585977.
- Lee, Grace (Spring 2003)) "The Political Philosophy of Juche". v.3, n.1. Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs. Quote: "The DPRK claims that juche is Kim Il Sung’s creative application of Marxist-Leninist principle to the modern political realities in North Korea."
- Oh, Kongdan Oh and Hassig, Ralph C. (2000) North Korea Through the Looking Glass. Chapter 2: "The Power and Poverty of Ideology" p.13. Washington, DC.: Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 0815764359. Quote: "Even though Marx's predictions have fallen wide of the mark, Marxism-Leninism remains a cornerstone of North Korean ideology."
- Atsuhito, Isozaki (21 June 2021). "A Revival of North Korean Communism?: The rhetoric is there. But what does it mean?". The Diplomat. Retrieved 2 December 2022.
In his closing address at the Conference of Cell Secretaries of the Workers' Party of Korea in late April, Kim mentioned the word "communism" six times. His recent claim that North Korea aims to become a "communist utopia" is a notable change in rhetoric.
| Socialism by country | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| By country | |||||||||||||
| History | |||||||||||||
| Regional variants | |||||||||||||
| Current and historical socialist states |
| ||||||||||||
| History of socialism | |||||||||||||