Could Vietnam still be called socialist? (Also Laos)

It was never the case in the Soviet Union, granted there were elements of socialist economy. Production, both the means and the yields, were managed by the administration and completely unaccountable to the workers.

Some central organ of management needed to exist to avoid collapse
This Maoism was just Dengism before Dengism was a thing

Maybe. That is, however, not socialism.
And that's a good thing.

what is socialism and which societies achieved it

...

None, of course. There are significant elements of socialism around the world, which is how it has been with past formations too.
Sorry to say it, but read Marx. Or at least Wiki.

Its fully Socialism with capitalist characteristics

Attached: 20124306218_ecbe33329b_b.jpg (1024x686, 233.58K)

where and what do you mean "elements of socialism"?

When the government does stuff.
Like the US army.

Attached: che porky.png (576x566, 221.74K)

A mate of mine wrote a paper on Laos' intergration into the global economy.
docs.google.com/document/d/1TUaeJMIZCUvIH0v-pP8RT4rBJf2ICDOMAHh5G6KmWyM/edit?usp=drivesdk
In short Laos is dengist, however despite its intergration into the WB, IMF & WTO it has not fallen into the corruption and debt trap many other states have. This is likely due to the discipline of the LPRP in not only their adherence to the economic plans (which have mostly been exceeded ahead of schedule) but also their anti corruption measures. In short, Laos' extraordinarily development with foreign capital is only possible because of the Leninist discipline of its Communist Party.
We finally prove that communists are the best at capitalism.

Did we need to prove this? I thought this was common sense. A communist knows the system in and out and doesnt fall into its traps.

Vietnam was capitalist before that retard even traveled there

uh, I agree?

Cockshott said it is capitalist you illiterate monkey

It's a complex question. But one can put out the things in Communist Manifesto: progressive taxation, education and healthcare, most importantly, labour rights and labour organisation. Also Syndicate/Coop type businesses.

The communist manifesto was a social democratic promotion program you program.

Vietnam is socialist like China is

Vietnam, like China ( ), lacks universal health care

Vietnam has a handful of multi-billionaires but no healthcare. Cuba has no billionaires and has gone through devastating embargoes but still manages to have universal healthcare.

Vietnam is more interested in building a privatized sweatshop labor force than providing workers control over the mean of production

Yes!
Vietnam and Laos both have a Socialist orientated market economy it is different from Chinas socialist Market economy in that sense that China is way further developed

Vietnam, was very weakend after years of war and their economy was very weak. They realized that they would need economic growth and a development of the production forces before they can advance into socialism. It's similar to China but China is of course now way further developed that Vietnam is but Vietnam is currently the country with the hightes GDP Growth. They have a socialist state sector wich owns the heights of the economy and a Private sector that operates under heavy control of the CPV. Their biggest Problem rn is Corruption and the fight against the internal bourgeoisie.

Laos has much to do. They are in need of heavy industrialisation and economic growth. They have a rather big private sector and they need to face more struggles than Vietnam and China.

I wouldn't call Laos socialist they are rather in state of building socialism

We should support both nonetheless

China has universal healthcare and Cuba lacks the ability of producing their productive forces wich is the essential thing for advancing socialism. Cuba is a great socialist country but they need to act

It was okay, but not Great. It was about to become great and then got sucked in by the West.

could it have ever really been called socialist tho?

That image gave me cancer

Attached: 6fda0341cec3df199d4c61907c02cfce.gif (280x296, 1.61M)

It's a developing capitalist economy with heavy intervention by a state body that calls it'self "communist". In my opinion, it is objectively mot socialism, and whether or not it is on the "road to socialism" is questionable being that non of us truly know the intentions of those in power, and if there are Marxists left in the party.
That won't stop some retards like this dipshit from claiming that it has a "socialist orientated" (lol) market economy, and worshiping it because of it's red aesthetics

Source?

Socialism is when anyone other than America do stuff, and the less American it is the more socialister it is.

Uhhhh idk lul I mean they're communist so they must have universal healthcare right

A daring thesis user. Are you implying that Paul Cockshott travelling to countries is not the only source of their becoming capitalist? Frankly I don't buy it.

Everyone knows that Cockshott's personal presence was the impetus for all capitalism starting with the bourgeois revolutions.

Well, duh, and Social Democracy was the (one and only, before Lenin branched off Communism in 1917) Marxist political ideology.

xinhuanet.com/english/2016-02/26/c_135131604.htm

China's basic healthcare covers 95% of all Chinese citizens. China currently has a "healthy China" campaign where they are working torwads cutting costs by 70%

So you see that China has universal healthcare and is working torwards improving it in the interests of the people

yes
socialism is when your country is capitalist.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (250x300, 134.22K)

Ismail claims China, Vietnam and Laos are actually in the middle of an ongoing NEP-style phase and the leadership of those countries still has an intention of going socialist when the means of production is fully developed. Does anyone here believe this may be correct?

Vietnam and China are too far gone: they both have developed domestic bourgeoisie classes.
However Laos, while accepting capital from the IMF and WB: has no bourgois class developed (yet). There are petit-bourgois elements sure, but Lenin said that was acceptable under the NEP too. If Laos develops a domestic bourgeoisie then it is lost too.

If Ismail believes that then Ismail is a drooling retard and a filthy Bukharinite traitor. Nothing disgusts me more than a would be communist that in this day and age doesn't recognize the objective superiority of economic planning against the market. May as well be full on neolib given how much they worship market organization.

Man those guys sure love dancing arcade games.

Attached: 5f126d7a3aaecdac84584ba0bf9acb9bdb3108d7e1290d652f801eeecb031994.gif (280x235, 844.42K)

Attached: 53cbf2b209337a928b7887e1f19060a8ce668cbb63f8fd69fcca50591dca5a63.jpeg (411x431, 56.37K)

No, I don't believe it about China. If you look at certain indicators, such as the massive credit expansion undertaken since the financial crisis, it becomes clear that China's reliance on capitalist development has simply surrendered their national economy to the domination of capital, rather than the other way around. It would be nice to believe that the Chinese are simply riding out the after-effects of the 2008 crisis and will soon solve the problem via planning, but that hasn't happened. More likely their own internal bourgeoisie and related elements will lead them further down a path that can only end in an internal crisis.

I can't comment on Laos.

Vietnam isn't socialist and they don't claim to be. Their economy is a "socialist oriented market economy." Paul Cockshott has actually visited Vietnam and written, briefly, about his experience there.
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/09/30/reading-material-after-hanoi-conference/

i have bad news for you, comr8…

Attached: ismail_revisionist2.png (892x370 82.88 KB, 33.57K)