Are these still Socialist Nations?

[New Aeyariss]

The countries in question are Russia, China, and Vietnam. Since 1991 I've had no idea if Putin's spending those oil profits on anything other than guns, yachts, and golden toilet paper. China I honestly believe is a terrible excuse for a "Communist" country (Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky have probably been rolling since the great leap forward, let alone Deng's so called "reforms"). As for Vietnam, I really don't know, but I'd like to think the profits it gained from the capitalization the US enforced on it (because Reagan was both a corporatist yes man and a sore loser) were redistributed to the workers to fight poverty. Quit honestly for I know all three are run by soulless capitalists so please tell me how they're doing.

Yes, there are. Only two actually at this moment. Cuba and North Korea, both sad reminders of an ideology that led to murder of 150 000 000 people in less than 80 years since it became mainstream.

Remaining ones such as China or Vietnam are frankly not communist, since they realized that the system has not worked and under guise of various reforms actually created a market economy that is communist in name only. Pragmatism dominated idealism which was destined to fall.

As for Russia... let the fact that Russian oligarchs are among most rich people on this planed tell something about the fact that Russia is no longer a communist county, not even adheres to this ideology any more...

[Soviet Catalonia]

The countries in question are Russia, China, and Vietnam. Since 1991 I've had no idea if Putin's spending those oil profits on anything other than guns, yachts, and golden toilet paper. China I honestly believe is a terrible excuse for a "Communist" country (Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky have probably been rolling since the great leap forward, let alone Deng's so called "reforms"). As for Vietnam, I really don't know, but I'd like to think the profits it gained from the capitalization the US enforced on it (because Reagan was both a corporatist yes man and a sore loser) were redistributed to the workers to fight poverty. Quit honestly for I know all three are run by soulless capitalists so please tell me how they're doing.

Yes, there are. Only two actually at this moment. Cuba and North Korea, both sad reminders of an ideology that led to murder of 150 000 000 people in less than 80 years since it became mainstream.

Remaining ones such as China or Vietnam are frankly not communist, since they realized that the system has not worked and under guise of various reforms actually created a market economy that is communist in name only. Pragmatism dominated idealism which was destined to fall.

As for Russia... let the fact that Russian oligarchs are among most rich people on this planed tell something about the fact that Russia is no longer a communist county, not even adheres to this ideology any more...

Excuse me, Cuba has the best education system and health system in all the america's. And north korea ...... Aren t really communists - more fascists...

[New Aeyariss]

Excuse me, Cuba has the best education system and health system in all the america's. And north korea ...... Aren t really communists - more fascists...

Somebody had not been looking north .

As for North Korea they are because Fascism and Communism are similar, though not the same, ideologies. Major difference is that communism is ideology of one class, fascism of one nation, and nazism of one race. In terms of practice, methods etc. - they do not differ that much.

[Soviet Catalonia]

Excuse me, Cuba has the best education system and health system in all the america's. And north korea ...... Aren t really communists - more fascists...

Somebody had not been looking north .

As for North Korea they are because Fascism and Communism are similar, though not the same, ideologies. Major difference is that communism is ideology of one class, fascism of one nation, and nazism of one race. In terms of practice, methods etc. - they do not differ that much.

Lol

[Spagna]

As for North Korea they are because Fascism and Communism are similar, though not the same, ideologies. Major difference is that communism is ideology of one class, fascism of one nation, and nazism of one race. In terms of practice, methods etc. - they do not differ that much.

Also that Communism is of no state and would literally the polar opposite of Fascism, but that would disrupt muh horseshoe theory.

[Azurius]

Thank you. Some days (meaning almost every day) I wish I was born Cuban, the shame I have in my own country (though there's still hope if Bernie wins office) is ridiculous.

For the record those calling Castro a tyrant, I would like to point out that not only did he allow those who disagreed with him the chance to emigrate but also throughout the entire civil war his actions were no more atrocious than what is normally done during wartime. I can guarantee that our behavior in Vietnam makes Castro look like Gandhi. Point is, Castro truly wanted Cuba to be free and we're only irritated because we refused to buy his sugar unless the prices were low as the Batista era.

No true.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba

Sure he caused a mass exodus, but had plenty jailed and killed to. And you wish you were born Cuban? You could always move there if you so wished. It is no paradise, the population is declining due to people fleeing to the US. Cuba is nothing near free. It is a one party regime that permits no opposition.

But yes Batista was a monster and we still backed him.

First of all: The human rights watchlists are extremely biased. When I read about good human rights in america where cooperations controll everything, where even analsex is banned in many states, where you things like the patriotic act or the freedom of information act, I cannot help but to laugh. To anyone with a shred of logic in his mind it is clear that this list is massively biased in favor of america. Besides human rights watch groups like amnesty in the past for example have admitted that they built their rankings on GUESSES as they actually do not have proper data they can present, hence they based their ranking on guesses or what they think is correct, which is utter nonsense. Rankings should go by objective observation and not by the biased guesses of some self appointed gremiums. Also it is more then obvious that the situation of human rights is pretty catastrophic in america to anyone who at least remotely knows about american laws and the american political system. Hell america doesn´t even have a democracy to begin with. As of such should be ranked very low and on par with some african countries in terms of human rights.

Secondly: Fidel for example unlike many others was 1 of the first to for example grant homosexuals full rights, de facto only 17 countries globally exist that grant homosexuals full rights with cuba beeing 1 of them.

Yes cuba is very repressive in terms of business and regulations of the market, also repressive in terms of politial freedoms, you may have democracy but that however is limited to democracy within 1 party. However outside of that you will find that people enjoy a lot of civil rights and often far more civil rights then in many 1st world western countries. Also america in terms of political freedoms is literally not better or actually even worse then cuba, in cuba you may only have 1 party but at least you got democracy and the means to affect this party, something you don´t have in america where the votes are essentially fake and your vote doesn´t even count in the first place.

So if we want to speak about political, civil and economic rights, remember to view both sides and not just 1 side and also remember to view things objectively. But that is something capitalists historically and even today are basically incapable of.

[Soviet Catalonia]

No true.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba

Sure he caused a mass exodus, but had plenty jailed and killed to. And you wish you were born Cuban? You could always move there if you so wished. It is no paradise, the population is declining due to people fleeing to the US. Cuba is nothing near free. It is a one party regime that permits no opposition.

But yes Batista was a monster and we still backed him.

First of all: The human rights watchlists are extremely biased. When I read about good human rights in america where cooperations controll everything, where even analsex is banned in many states, where you things like the patriotic act or the freedom of information act, I cannot help but to laugh. To anyone with a shred of logic in his mind it is clear that this list is massively biased in favor of america. Besides human rights watch groups like amnesty in the past for example have admitted that they built their rankings on GUESSES as they actually do not have proper data they can present, hence they based their ranking on guesses or what they think is correct, which is utter nonsense. Rankings should go by objective observation and not by the biased guesses of some self appointed gremiums. Also it is more then obvious that the situation of human rights is pretty catastrophic in america to anyone who at least remotely knows about american laws and the american political system. Hell america doesn´t even have a democracy to begin with. As of such should be ranked very low and on par with some african countries in terms of human rights.

Secondly: Fidel for example unlike many others was 1 of the first to for example grant homosexuals full rights, de facto only 17 countries globally exist that grant homosexuals full rights with cuba beeing 1 of them.

Yes cuba is very repressive in terms of business and regulations of the market, also repressive in terms of politial freedoms, you may have democracy but that however is limited to democracy within 1 party. However outside of that you will find that people enjoy a lot of civil rights and often far more civil rights then in many 1st world western countries. Also america in terms of political freedoms is literally not better or actually even worse then cuba, in cuba you may only have 1 party but at least you got democracy and the means to affect this party, something you don´t have in america where the votes are essentially fake and your vote doesn´t even count in the first place.

So if we want to speak about political, civil and economic rights, remember to view both sides and not just 1 side and also remember to view things objectively. But that is something capitalists historically and even today are basically incapable of.

Couldnt have said jt better myself.

[Azurius]

Of all socialist nations since 1917, only North Korea still adheres to the classic definition of such. Cuba also is a good one, although it is a bit more liberal - in the sense that it allows more economical freedom. Yet not as much as Vietnam, which essentially has a mixed economy system.

Herargon

North Korea is too extreme to be called socialist, though. I though socialist is basically a less extreme version of communism?

Isn't China investing heavily in Zimbabwe? How does this work in Zimbabwe's economy?

As far as I know, Zimbabwe now also use Yuan, or only using Yuan, as one of their currencies/main currency.

Zimbabwe to make Chinese yuan legal currency after Beijing cancels debts

Wow, China also cancelled Zimbabwe's debt.

Northkorea nonetheless economically speaking is a socialist country where the economy is typically centrally planned. No matter how extreme or not extreme north koreas actually politics are, these do not reflect the economic system neccessarily. Cuba under batista was highly oppressive, but still a capitalist system. As said a countries politics and political system do not reflect a countries economic system.

Understanding the diference between socialism and communism: In fact there are only very small differences and socialism in and off itself remains a broad spectrum of diferent ways to implement socialism or mix it into hybrid forms such as the social market system which essentially is a free market capitalist system that however comes with a socialist welfare state as well as some medium to hefty socialist regulations of said free market.

Communists unlike socialists however strive for a goal of a classless and borderless society, and a society in which the means of production are owned, controlled and managed by the proletariat aka the workers and the people. Socialists however do not neccessarily strive for that goal, and hence socialists might also allow capitalism and capitalist reforms, something that is a total no go for a communist.

[Azurius]

The USSR was socialist throughout its entire existence. It wasn't a pleasant type of socialist, but it was socialist. China was also socialist until the reforms. Vietnam iirc was market socialist at some point, not sure about today.

Never in China, the USSR and it's various puppet states, Mongolia, North Korea, nor Vietnam did workers ever get to democratically vote in the work place. They were never Socialist.

Actually in all these listed countries they did and still even today do to a degree. A lot of cooperatives have been set up in these countries. However the majority of their economies was still centrally owned, planned and run. And hence far away from the ideal of communism in which the means of production are owned and managed by the workers and the people. As of such each of these states understood or understands itself as a socialist country that is in a transitional phase towards achieving actual communism. As of such actual communism was also never achieved and never done.

Also, socialism does not require cooperatives or democratic workers management, that would actually be communism requiring this, not socialism.

To the main question: No, none of these states are truly socialist today.

On vietnam: Vietnam has in 2004(or 2006 I believe, would have to look that up again) and 2009 introduced a huge set of capitalist reforms also including to allow some forms of privatization and private business in some areas. This also got the embargo on vietnam lifted in 2009, which also then resulted in a massive economic growth, however also of course at the cost of rising wealthgaps and poverty due to income inequality.

Cuba has implemented these reforms more recently ever since Raoul Castro took over, who also implemented a limited set of capitalist reforms also allowing small private businesses to a degree as well. Though not as many and broadly as vietnam, cuba has started to also implement the first capitalist reforms. And see here: Like a miracle suddenly the capitalist world is talking about lifting the embargo.

That is how capitalism works, it embargoes truly socialist countries and seeks to force capitalist reforms on these countries which is the only way to get the embargo lifted alongside sucking americas cock at the same time as well.

Finally since this was also brought up, there is another thing that needs to be added, said and a thing commonly overlooked in the history of socialist countries and also on the debatte of economies of socialist countries:

All these examples were doing frightingly well as the sovietunion was still standing. Cuba was by far the most advanced country in southamerica, 70-80% of all modern pesticides, herbicides and also modern farming equipment was used in cuba. Even today cuba in terms of medicine is by far the most advanced, even today medical students in latin america all want to go to cuba to study medicine, because they have the best doctors, equipment, highest standards etc.

Northkorea was easily outpacing southkorea before the fall of the sovietunion and the total embargo on northkorea. Before that northkorea outperformed the south in practically any area, including even raw GDP and GDP growth. These countries stagnating and declining so badly all happened instantly as the sovietunion collapsed since the rest of the world simply embargoed these countries hoping that this would simply kill off the remaining socialist countries. Well except for vietnam that went the same way as china did by introducing a large set of capitalist reforms which as mentioned earlier, also got the embargo on vietnam lifted.

[Wallenburg]

They were never socialist nations to begin with. They weren't even classical communist.

[The Forsworn Knights]

Socialism is not Communism.
Communism is a FORM of Socialism.
Since folks are talking Capitalism in here, it is just as easy to say that capitalism is fascism, and that all capitalists are Nazis.

Russia is a dictatorship led by Vladamir Putin. Putin tells no tales of being a communist, and is the leader of the United Russia political party. Putin and his United Russia cronies were put in power on the KGB, which has been described by many as the most powerful gang in Russia, taking much of its power from its vast government funding and name.

China is certainly not communist, it would be better to say that the corporations run the government than to say that the government runs the corporations.

I will say it right now, I have no clue about Vietnam.

tl;dr for the below statements: Communism is such an extremist form of socialism that it can barely claim to be a Socialist ideology, and is easily corrupted to the point where the government implodes. Fascism/Nazism is extremist Capitalism.

Communism is Socialism taken so far off the end of the earth that its nothing more than a mangled mess, and can barely be called Socialism anymore, and believes that everyone will work as hard as they can with no incentive for their extra work.

Fascism is Capitalism taken so far off the end of the earth that its nothing more than a mangled mess, and believes that the corporations will not completely screw everyone over to make an extra buck.

Democratic socialism believes that while some things are better done by the government (EG: Preventing a drug company from suddenly upping the price on a life-saving pill simply to make more money. As the Government does not have that profit motive, or state-owned hospitals to prevent privately-owned hospitals from using life-endangering practices to maximise profit.)
Socialism also believes that some things are still done much better with regulation as needed by privately-owned organizations, such as all matters of the church, resturants, grocery stores, the film industry, newspapers, and so forth.

(True Capitalism)/Capitalism believes that corporations should not be regulated what-so-ever, and that if left unregulated corporations can assist the economy. In practice, this always leads to a crash in the economy after a little while, and always leads to mass corruption.
The form of Capitalism you see in countries like The United States is not true Capitalism in that very minor restrictions are placed on companies.

[Azurius]

Russia - no way

China - Still Communist

Vietnam - Still Communist

Communism would imply that the state doesn't actually exist, since that's the goal of Socialism in the long run, to create a stateless society, both Vietnam and China are states, so they're obviously not Communist.

Plus, China and Vietnam have been state Capitalist, China since the reforms of Deng and Vietnam since the Doi Moi's introduction of a market economy.

Though this is not a neccessity of communism, the clear conclusion that marx and engels came to however, is that the state has no place in a truly communist society, as the state itself can be used as a tool for the bourgiosie(upperclass) to take power and oppress and exploit the other classes below them. A state may also act as a catalyst allowing such classes in the first place.

Hence marx and engels argued that during the transition the state is something that is to slowly wither away, however also not something to just violantly overthrow like in anarchism(here in also lie some of the differences between socialism, communism and anarchism). Hence they argued the state overtime would become obsolete and slowly wither away as the transition goes on towards actual communism as the endgoal. Hence yes, in actual communism a state doesn´t exist and is also as a concept rejected.

Excuse me, Cuba has the best education system and health system in all the america's. And north korea ...... Aren t really communists - more fascists...

Somebody had not been looking north .

As for North Korea they are because Fascism and Communism are similar, though not the same, ideologies. Major difference is that communism is ideology of one class, fascism of one nation, and nazism of one race. In terms of practice, methods etc. - they do not differ that much.

This is nonsense. Fascism and communism are totally inherintly different idiologies in theory, and also in praxis they differ greatly.

Fascism in economics bases on corporatism and the merging of national industries into 1 large entity, which is then controlled like a puppet by the ruling fascist party. This was done in nazigermany, spain, china under shek and then later in taiwan, japan etc. etc. Industries were merged into 1 existing that simply takes over or 1 new corporate entity. Thus of course also remaining privately owned by the corporation owner, however the corporation owner still due to the laws and power the fascist party holds, still a puppet to that fascist party who can replace someone else as owner at any given time on their whim. As of such the corporate owner will have to dance to the fascist parties line or he will simply be kicked out and replaced, and in the worst case scenario even jailed or executed as a "traitor".

Opposed to communism in which the economy is either ran by worker owned cooperatives or by a centrally state planned economy or a mix of both. In economy there is already a huge difference as to how the economy is managed.

In politics it is the same game, politics in communism can vary and range from a 1 socialist party running either democratically or even as a dictatorship(a practice coming from hegel in fact known as "realsozialismus" or "realsocialism" in english), to social democracy, council democracy and direct democracy or a mix of those.

Fascism and communism and even socialism are inherintly different from each other, and comparing each other and dubbing them similiar shows a lack of knowledge and understanding of these systems.

[Eastern Equestria]

No. There is not a single country on Earth that mandates the social ownership and democratic control of it's means of production. Not China, not Vietnam, not Cuba, not Venezuela.

[New Aeyariss]

This is nonsense. Fascism and communism are totally inherintly different idiologies in theory, and also in praxis they differ greatly.

Okay, let's check.

Fascism in economics bases on corporatism and the merging of national industries into 1 large entity, which is then controlled like a puppet by the ruling fascist party. This was done in nazigermany, spain, china under shek and then later in taiwan, japan etc. etc. Industries were merged into 1 existing that simply takes over or 1 new corporate entity. Thus of course also remaining privately owned by the corporation owner, however the corporation owner still due to the laws and power the fascist party holds, still a puppet to that fascist party who can replace someone else as owner at any given time on their whim. As of such the corporate owner will have to dance to the fascist parties line or he will simply be kicked out and replaced, and in the worst case scenario even jailed or executed as a "traitor".

Have you actually realized that almost the same economic system was implemented in USSR? The party dominated everything, managing economy. Same in other communist counties like Poland, where government issued the economic plans in form of legislation and everyone had to follow.

Opposed to communism in which the economy is either ran by worker owned cooperatives or by a centrally state planned economy or a mix of both. In economy there is already a huge difference as to how the economy is managed.

There is none. Six years plan anyone? Besides when we do open the Communist manifesto, go to the chapter 2, then go to the bottom and read Marx's version of ten commandments, what do we see:

evertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

In labor and social policy, the Manifesto calls for:

The quick enactment of a law of the state that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers;
A minimum wage;
The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions;
To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants;
Reorganization of the railways and the transport sector;
Revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance;
Reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55.

This is the same as was done in Nazi Germany, only exception was left that there is free market, when in fact Ministry of Economy regulated all the economic activity.

In politics it is the same game, politics in communism can vary and range from a 1 socialist party running either democratically or even as a dictatorship(a practice coming from hegel in fact known as "realsozialismus" or "realsocialism" in english), to social democracy, council democracy and direct democracy or a mix of those.

"Every provisional political set-up following a revolution requires a dictatorship, and an energetic dictatorship at that."
- Karl Marx, Neue Rheinische Zeitung 14. Sep. 1848

Fascism and communism and even socialism are inherintly different from each other, and comparing each other and dubbing them similiar shows a lack of knowledge and understanding of these systems.

Well, shall I count living in county that used to be communist and collecting tales of my family about life in PRL as knowledge?

[Lansuo]

None at all. I'd say the one country that still maintains a quasi socialist system (which really is pushing the definition) would be Cuba. A huge stretch but I think Cuba is more socialist than say, Vietnam or good gods China.

[Winterseria]

Cuba?

[Soviet Catalonia]

Cuba?

Yes, cuba is socialist. They have only 1.5% under poverty line (compared to 13.5% in US). They have a brilliant health service and education service.

[Crockerland]

North Korea is the only one left, except maybe Cuba.

[Lansuo]

Cuba?

Yes, cuba is socialist. They have only 1.5% under poverty line (compared to 13.5% in US). They have a brilliant health service and education service.

Cuba is definitely more consistent ideologically tin comparison to China, Laos, and Vietnam.

But calling them socialist is a bit odd, they're quasi socialist if anything. Even then it's pushing it.

[Azurius]

Socialism is not Communism.
Communism is a FORM of Socialism.
Since folks are talking Capitalism in here, it is just as easy to say that capitalism is fascism, and that all capitalists are Nazis.

Russia is a dictatorship led by Vladamir Putin. Putin tells no tales of being a communist, and is the leader of the United Russia political party. Putin and his United Russia cronies were put in power on the KGB, which has been described by many as the most powerful gang in Russia, taking much of its power from its vast government funding and name.

China is certainly not communist, it would be better to say that the corporations run the government than to say that the government runs the corporations.

I will say it right now, I have no clue about Vietnam.

tl;dr for the below statements: Communism is such an extremist form of socialism that it can barely claim to be a Socialist ideology, and is easily corrupted to the point where the government implodes. Fascism/Nazism is extremist Capitalism.

Communism is Socialism taken so far off the end of the earth that its nothing more than a mangled mess, and can barely be called Socialism anymore, and believes that everyone will work as hard as they can with no incentive for their extra work.

Fascism is Capitalism taken so far off the end of the earth that its nothing more than a mangled mess, and believes that the corporations will not completely screw everyone over to make an extra buck.

Democratic socialism believes that while some things are better done by the government (EG: Preventing a drug company from suddenly upping the price on a life-saving pill simply to make more money. As the Government does not have that profit motive, or state-owned hospitals to prevent privately-owned hospitals from using life-endangering practices to maximise profit.)
Socialism also believes that some things are still done much better with regulation as needed by privately-owned organizations, such as all matters of the church, resturants, grocery stores, the film industry, newspapers, and so forth.

(True Capitalism)/Capitalism believes that corporations should not be regulated what-so-ever, and that if left unregulated corporations can assist the economy. In practice, this always leads to a crash in the economy after a little while, and always leads to mass corruption.
The form of Capitalism you see in countries like The United States is not true Capitalism in that very minor restrictions are placed on companies.

That is most definitely bullshit. First of all the gangs you today in russia are unpolitical, and are definitely not of the KGB which doesn´t exist since long ago by now. Secondly why would those loyal to the KGB who mostly reside in the KPRF which is russias communist party, put a centralist party like united russia in power to undermine their own authority? That makes no sense at all i´m sorry. And lastly united russia was a result of a merger of several non socialist parties and came to power by that merger and nothing else. That the opposition however never had a chance and was unfairly pushed aside remains as a fact nonetheless.

United russias policies and governing are classified as a "controlled democracy" where democratic opposion max exist but face heavy repressions and are unable to hold a fair competition with the leading party which is united russia.

Next: First of all communism was often corrupted by outside factors and often on full purpose by these outside powers to. The total unharsh treatment of socialist parties also led to a lot of them radicalizing or going extreme as a result of unfair repressions and attacks by the rest of the world.

Communism is most definitely a socialist theory, if you read what communism actually is it is undoubtedly a socialist theory, also fun fact: In the early stages communism and communist theory in fact was far less radical then actual socialism and socialist theory, see hegel and see his system of "realsocialism" for that. Then again socialism was born in a time when political extremism was unfortunately the norm. And pretty much all parties and idiologies followed and centralized around hardliners and hardliner theories, even pure democrats followed such hardline theories and are today hence dubbed as "radical democrats".

And no that is bullshit to and this clearly shows that you have not read or understood communism at all, but instead just copy and paste some stupid lines from anti-communists you found online as these are typical anti-communist arguments and are totally false and wrong.

Communism in fact gives you an incintive to work harder since you OWN a part of the company you work in, you hence also have a voice and a vote within the company as to how the company is ran and managed. This also includes deciding the wages of each worker individually. Typical in such a model you would be paid by work performance and how well you do at work, which gives you a perfect incintive to actually perform better unlike in capitalist companies where you often simply get a set wage by your boss no matter how good or bad you do, and hence the only incintive you have is the incintive that your boss or manager doesn´t fire you. So basically as long as you please them you can slack off at work all you want, and a lot of people do exactly that here in the 1st world in capitalism.

Next you got another motivator that derives from the fact that you as a worker own a part of the company you work in yourself. You are not merely a worker, this is also partially YOUR company as well, and as of such you automatically perform better since you are also trying to push your company to success. In capitalism where the company is owned by a private owner who gives a shit? It is not your company. And you get paid a fixed wage anyway, as long as you get paid that who gives a shit how well the company performs or not? Exactly only few people actually give a damn, as they could care less about the company as long as their paycheck comes floating in from their boss.

So yeah, you gravely misinterpreted communism here reciting phony anti-communist slogans that come from capitalists who haven´t even read adam smith and understood their own theory of capitalism, let alone understood other theories.

Anyway yeah, true capitalism or what we actually today dub as anarcho-capitalism, does work that way. However if you actually read adam smith you will find that he himself said the only way for capitalism to work and sustain itself is in fact by heavy regulations, as of such smith himself also advocated for example to tax people based on their netto income. Because he himself argued that otherwise his system of capitalism was prone to failure and simply wouldn´t work. In the end adam smith also dubbed his theory of capitalism as a failure, however, others picked that theory up and glorified it like some bible, despite what adam smith himself had so say on that matter.

[New Aeyariss]

Next: First of all communism was often corrupted by outside factors and often on full purpose by these outside powers to. The total unharsh treatment of socialist parties also led to a lot of them radicalizing or going extreme as a result of unfair repressions and attacks by the rest of the world.

Excuse me but with all due respect, if we take original quotes of Marx and Engels into account, they seem to totally disagree with you just as you claim John Smith disagrees with capitalism. I will post several quotes in here, please do not that I by no way am endorsing them not attempting to bait, just citing historical communist quotes to prove my point:

"This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom."
- Friedrich Engels, "Schelling and Revelation: Conclusion", 1841

"The French Revolution was the rise of democracy in Europe. Democracy is, as I take all forms of government to be, a contradiction in itself, an untruth, nothing but hypocrisy (theology, as we Germans call it), at the bottom. Political liberty is sham-liberty, the worst possible sort of slavery; the appearance of liberty, and therefore the worst servitude. Just so also is political equality for me; therefore democracy, as well as every other form of government, must ultimately break to pieces."
- Friedrich Engels, "Frankreich", 1843

"...the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terrorism."
- Karl Marx, "The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 7 November 1848.

"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."
- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels "Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung", Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 19, 1849

"Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way."
- Karl Marx, "Forced Emigration", New York Tribune 1853:

"Among all the nations and sub-nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and are still capable of life -- the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary holocaust. ["world storm" ? J.D.] For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary. ...these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character ... [A general war will] wipe out all these racial trash [Völkerabfälle - original was given at Marxist websites as "petty hidebound nations" J.D.] down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward."
- Friedrich Engels, "The Magyar Struggle," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, January 13, 1849

"The man is too wise. And on top of that, such offensive, vulgar, democratic arguments! To denigrate violence as something to be rejected, when we all know that in the end nothing can be achieved without violence!"
- Friedrich Engels to Wilhelm Blos, (Letter, 21 February 1874):

As we can observe above, original founding fathers of communism weren't so afraid of expressing their calls for violent revolution.

[The House of Petain]

Russia doesn't label itself as socialist whatsoever.
China is becoming massively westernised, so I could see that being questioned.
Not too sure about Vietnam, though. It's also being quite westernised lately.

Considering Vietnam essentially embraced capitalism after the war ended, no, it's not socialist.

[Newzie]

Nearly every country in the world, including the ones you list, are based on state capitalist economic systems. The relevance of socialism doesn't go beyond a few traces and influences. I'm not sure there's any country in the world that could be described as socialist (and definitely not pure socialist). Cuba and North Korea are debatable.

[Lansuo]

Russia doesn't label itself as socialist whatsoever.
China is becoming massively westernised, so I could see that being questioned.
Not too sure about Vietnam, though. It's also being quite westernised lately.

Considering Vietnam essentially embraced capitalism after the war ended, no, it's not socialist.

Pretty much yeah for Vietnam.

Laos appears to be doing something similar but it does not seem to be working all too well for them.

[Azurius]

This is nonsense. Fascism and communism are totally inherintly different idiologies in theory, and also in praxis they differ greatly.

Okay, let's check.

Fascism in economics bases on corporatism and the merging of national industries into 1 large entity, which is then controlled like a puppet by the ruling fascist party. This was done in nazigermany, spain, china under shek and then later in taiwan, japan etc. etc. Industries were merged into 1 existing that simply takes over or 1 new corporate entity. Thus of course also remaining privately owned by the corporation owner, however the corporation owner still due to the laws and power the fascist party holds, still a puppet to that fascist party who can replace someone else as owner at any given time on their whim. As of such the corporate owner will have to dance to the fascist parties line or he will simply be kicked out and replaced, and in the worst case scenario even jailed or executed as a "traitor".

Have you actually realized that almost the same economic system was implemented in USSR? The party dominated everything, managing economy. Same in other communist counties like Poland, where government issued the economic plans in form of legislation and everyone had to follow.

Opposed to communism in which the economy is either ran by worker owned cooperatives or by a centrally state planned economy or a mix of both. In economy there is already a huge difference as to how the economy is managed.

There is none. Six years plan anyone? Besides when we do open the Communist manifesto, go to the chapter 2, then go to the bottom and read Marx's version of ten commandments, what do we see:

evertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

In labor and social policy, the Manifesto calls for:

The quick enactment of a law of the state that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers;
A minimum wage;
The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions;
To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants;
Reorganization of the railways and the transport sector;
Revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance;
Reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55.

This is the same as was done in Nazi Germany, only exception was left that there is free market, when in fact Ministry of Economy regulated all the economic activity.

In politics it is the same game, politics in communism can vary and range from a 1 socialist party running either democratically or even as a dictatorship(a practice coming from hegel in fact known as "realsozialismus" or "realsocialism" in english), to social democracy, council democracy and direct democracy or a mix of those.

"Every provisional political set-up following a revolution requires a dictatorship, and an energetic dictatorship at that."
- Karl Marx, Neue Rheinische Zeitung 14. Sep. 1848

Fascism and communism and even socialism are inherintly different from each other, and comparing each other and dubbing them similiar shows a lack of knowledge and understanding of these systems.

Well, shall I count living in county that used to be communist and collecting tales of my family about life in PRL as knowledge?

Do you realize that there is a grave difference between a corporation and a cooperative? Obviously you don´t and this 1 of the gravest mistakes many people make.

And again this is planned economy where the party literally runs and controlls the economy, in fascism this is not the case, the companies are still owned and ran by corporate owners. They are also in private hands as well and not in public hands like the state for example. There is a huge difference here that you just brush aside as it it didn´t exist.

And also no, there were no times in the USSR were literally everything was state owned and ran, a few areas where turned over to cooperatives and owned by the workers themselves even if the amount of those was small. Then came krushev who in fact even introduced very minor forms of private industry. It is not for nothing that krushev is dubbed as a revisionist. And also no communist theory, as well as the USSR itself, ever allowed corporations in any form or shape, unlike fascism which is based on corporatism.

If you are to short sighted to even realize these simple differences then I can´t help you. But nonetheless you are false i´m sorry.

Next: First of all: Mussolini just like hitler used Popular socialist SLOGANS to gain supporters and rise to power. All fascists except for the ones set up by the west like batista in fact did this, be it mussolini, franco, shek or hitler. Hitler for example promised to also abolish interest rates in 1930, and wrote a lot on that. As soon as he was in power in 1933 nothing changed and interest rates continued to exist as they had before. It is the same game with mussolini adopting a populist line to gather in supporters ro rise to power. And as soon as he was in power like hitler, he kept capitalism and rather went for corporatism, examples of that in history and their corporate policies are rampant and to many to even count.

Secondly: No this was neither done in italy nor in nazigermany if you read about their economies and how they were managed. As of such it is easy to see that this was nothing but a populist shame to gather voters. And again it is a common practive, even today, for fascists to lure in voters by making socialist promises.

Next point: Way to go to totally take things out of context. With dictatorship the dictatorship of the proletariat is meant, i.e. the dictatorship of the workers. And guess what a dictatorship of the masses results in? It results inevitably in democracy actually. Also if you read marx and engels you will see whilst they took from hegels ideas and refined them, they also criticized his ideas in a lot of other areas. There is in fact an entire pamplethe by marx and engels dedicated to the criticism oh hegel. And 1 point criticized by marx and engels was in fact hegels statist realsocialist system. Which lenin then later took on to change that into the vanguard theory using a realsocialist model of hegel which is meant as a temporar vanguard to guide a society from feudalism or capitalism towards socialism. This is what the entire vanguard theory bases on.

Also one has to ask if what you say is true, then how come that concepts like the dictatorship of the proletariat, council communism/democracy, social democracy, direct democracy etc. All were put into existance by mostly communist scholars?

As said you totally take things out of historical context here and again show us that you literally understood nothing about socialism and communism in history, nor their theory, at all.