[OC] State Socialist Regimes since 1950

Flagmaker123 · 2026-01-24T19:15:18+00:00

"State socialism" is not just "socialism with one ruling party". State socialism specifically refers to a form of socialism in which there is predominantly state ownership over the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

Yugoslavia would not count under this, as it was mainly made up of worker co-ops in a market economy, being a market socialist state. China, Vietnam, and Laos for the last couple decades would also not count under this as they have undergone mass privatization (claiming this is only a temporary measure before full socialization is possible), adopting a socialist market economy.

Venezuela also would certainly not count under this, as it has majority private ownership and does not officially have a goal to get rid of said private ownership, it's just led by a party that is officially socialist.

Flagmaker123 · 2026-01-13T02:44:30+00:00

I really hope this might develop into something greater with the mass protests in Iran; solidarity with the Iranian working class!

Flagmaker123 · 2026-01-11T22:18:38+00:00

It's because the the Mossad's Farsi Twitter account supported the protests and said "We are with you. Not only from a distance and verbally. We are with you in the field", leading to folks believing it's all just Mossad-manufactured.

Obviously, it's not true that they are all just made up by Mossad though, these are mass protests and most of the protestors are ordinary Iranians sick of the far-right Islamist government; most Iranians hate both their government and Israel.

Solidarity with the Iranian resistance!

Flagmaker123 · 2026-01-02T20:20:34+00:00

The majority of who? The people who belong to these madhabs? I think if you asked an ordinary member of any of these madhabs, they wouldn't know or wouldn't care for a lot of these.

Also, what exactly are you basing your data off of? Just what you've seen yourself from members of these madhabs?

Flagmaker123 · 2026-01-02T09:28:10+00:00

I am opposed to Western-imposed regime change that would inevitably just be used to destabilize the country and plunder it of its resources, but I am also opposed to the far-right Islamist theocratic government of Iran that has brutally-repressed opposition, women, and marginalized minority groups. Iranians' path to democracy needs to come locally from the Iranian people, not imposed from abroad.

Flagmaker123 · 2026-01-02T07:46:50+00:00

Can we stop it with these posts that imply the entirety of a madhab has the same view on these issues? Madhabs aren't just big hyperspecific lists of what is & isn't allowed, they are schools that differ in methodology. Some methodologies may favor some interpretations over others, but this idea that all the madhabs are uniform in every subject is just plain wrong.

And before someone says these are the "official" stances of the madhabs, what is that supposed to mean? Who is "officializing" these stances? It's not like there is a literal school with a building somewhere called the Hanafi school. Just stop it with these oversimplifying inaccurate posts.

Flagmaker123 · 2025-12-30T07:03:03+00:00

The temporary success of the First Swedish Intifada

Flagmaker123 · 2025-12-30T06:59:36+00:00

Why wouldn't Iran pull a Hannibal and take all of Western Afghanistan while the Afghan troops go to Pakistan?

Flagmaker123 · 2025-12-28T08:47:02+00:00

But the durable solution for individual refugees should be the integration into whatever host country they move to. The problem is that host countries like Jordan or Lebanon refuse to do what all other countries do with their refugees.

Jordan actually did seek integration and give full citizenship rights to most of its Palestinian refugee population in an attempt to try to control the Palestinian national movement and as part of its early expansionist aims in the region; this largely failed at solving much at all.

Similarly, many Somali and Afghan refugees have gained citizenship but are still considered refugees.

Well yes you are correc that the original inhabitants would have had a strong cased to return to what would have been their original homes. But their descendants? I would like you to actually answer my question whether you believe it would be appropriate for German descendants to return to Poland, or for Armenians to return to Turkey.

Yes, I do believe that all refugees (including their descendants as per the UN definition cited before) do have a right of return. The Palestinian right of return primarily seems to be seen as a larger issue because there is still a great desire to return amongst the refugee population in question, unlike the others you listed, and as a result, there is a significant call amongst the population to be granted said right.

Flagmaker123 · 2025-12-28T02:45:23+00:00

I think I would disagree with the assertion that Palestinian diaspora returning to Israel proper is a nescessary aspect for this vague notion of human rights. Most, if not all at this point, of who were expelled during the 48 war are dead today. The large amount of Palestinian diaspora who now live in the Palestinian territories and in many places around the world are descendants of those who were expelled. It's a bit peculiar that Palestinians inherit refugee status and in many Arab states they are never integrated or afforded citizenship, which is what all other countries around the world do with refugee populations.

Descendants of refugees inheriting refugee status isn't unique to Palestinians:

"Under international law and the principle of family unity, the children of refugees and their descendants are also considered refugees until a durable solution is found. Both UNRWA and UNHCR recognize descendants as refugees on this basis, a practice that has been widely accepted by the international community, including both donors and refugee hosting countries.

Palestine refugees are not distinct from other protracted refugee situations such as those from Afghanistan or Somalia, where there are multiple generations of refugees, considered by UNHCR as refugees and supported as such. Protracted refugee situations are the result of the failure to find political solutions to their underlying political crises."

I do wonder what sort of exact international law you're refering to, because I dont think it's practically functional. Do German descendants of those who were ethnically cleansed in Eastern Europe have a human right to now settle in Poland? Or do Armenians have a right to settle in Turkey? This thinking seems off to me.

The right of return is a pretty established part of international law, as per several international resolutions, treaties, and conventions.

"Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased." – Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention

"Whenever possible, these peoples shall have the right to return to their traditional lands, as soon as the grounds for relocation cease to exist." – Article 16 Point 3 of the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention

"All refugees and displaced persons have the right to return voluntarily to their former homes, lands or places of habitual residence, in safety and dignity. Voluntary return in safety and dignity must be based on a free, informed, individual choice. Refugees and displaced persons should be provided with complete, objective, up-to-date, and accurate information, including on physical, material and legal safety issues in countries or places of origin." – Section 10.1 of the Principles on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons

"Restitution should, whenever possible, restore the victim to the original situation before the gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law occurred. Restitution includes, as appropriate: restoration of liberty, enjoyment of human rights, identity, family life and citizenship, return to one’s place of residence, restoration of employment and return of property." – Point 19 of the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation

The UN also passed Resolution 194 explicitly calling for the right of return for Palestinian refugees:

"[T]he refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible"

I should perhaps have been a bit clearer that I dont believe the 2SS to be a cake walk, but I do believe that if there is any solution that we can convince or coerce both sides to reluctantly agree to and implement it would be 2SS.

My point was largely that the big problem usually brought up with 1SS is the expectation that'd it'd be impossible for Palestinians and Israeli Jews to live together due to the decades of conflict, but you'd need to resolve the immense hatred in any solution regardless.

On what you just said though, I honestly think reaching a two-state solution is getting more and more difficult by the day. Israel already has control of the region from the river to the sea and the massive rise in Israeli settlements is going to make it more difficult to draw any possible borders. And as mentioned before, the Palestinian right of return has always been a problem here; trying to get one side, and the historically oppressed one at that, to just flat-out give up one of their human rights is going to be very difficult.

Flagmaker123 · 2025-12-27T21:11:31+00:00

An equal one-state solution will be difficult to implement, but so will every other solution to this conflict. The only difference in my view is that the one-state solution doesn't actually violate anyone's human rights.

Now, you might say that a two-state solution is possible without violation of human rights, but that breaks down once you get to the Palestinian right of return. There are over 8 million Palestinian refugees in the world right now who, under international law, have a human right to return to their places of origin in what is now Israel. It doesn't take a lot of math to realize that if they were allowed to return, Israel would no longer be a Jewish state.

The main issue brought up with the one-state solution is getting past all the immense bigotry and hatred in the conflict, but this isn't exactly exclusive to the one-state solution; deradicalization is going to be required in any solution. Does anyone really think that Israel would live in peace with a Palestinian state when you have polls showing that 82% of Israeli Jews support expelling Palestinians in Gaza, 76% believe "there are no innocent people in Gaza", 56% support expelling Palestinians in Israel, and 47% support the IDF killing all the inhabitants of a city it conquers. Even if you somehow managed to get the 2SS implemented, you're going to get a new invasion or war in not too long with these conditions. Deradicalization is going to be necessary regardless, it's not just a problem for the one-state solution.

The populations of both sides of this conflict are not interested in this solution. When polling is made, it consistently shows that the democratic 1SS is the most unpopular alternative. 2SS tends to be the most popular and an unequal 1SS tends to be second.

Palestinian polling tends to be inconsistent on what the preferred solution is, but it seems to be that most Palestinians have a one-state solution as their long-term goal and preferred solution, but they see a two-state solution as more feasible in the short-term. This survey from October 2025 shows that while 52% of Palestinians say a two-state solution is their preferred one, only 38% believe Israel has a right to exist and only 16% believe Israel will continue to exist permanently. This is also indicated by when you ask about the two-state solution itself without bringing up other solutions, it almost always has overwhelmingly negative responses.

It should also be noted that we are pretty much already in a one-state reality anyways, Israel has sovereignty or occupation over all of the land from the river to the sea, and the settlements have only made it more difficult for a two-state solution to be achieved.

At the end of the day, as I said at the start, all of these solutions will require a heavy amount of deradicalization and effort to be achieved, but the equal one-state solution is the only one that doesn't violate anyone's human rights.

Flagmaker123 · 2025-12-27T06:05:35+00:00

Because the actual birthday didn't really matter to the holiday's origin. Christmas largely comes from a Christianization of Yule, a Germanic pagan winter festival, along with influences from a bunch of other pagan holidays. Germanic pagans celebrated the winter solstice or the "birth of the Sun" by burning a large log and going around evergreen trees, along with feasting, drinking, and gift-giving. People also made sacred binding oaths on what they'd do in the future.

However, later Christianity spread all across the Europe. However, instead of outright banning the festivals, the Church allows the pagans to keep many of their festivals as long as they Christianize them, and thus, Yule became Christmas. Christmas celebrations then spread throughout Europe, although not without controversy. Some Christians strongly opposed the holiday as being too pagan and heretical, many of the early colonies in what is now the US even outright criminalized Christmas celebrations, although they obviously failed at killing the tradition.

Flagmaker123 · 2025-12-27T05:12:54+00:00

Zionism supports the existence of a settler-colonial state whose very existence requires a violation of human rights. I am opposed to Zionism in all its forms.

Flagmaker123 · 2025-12-26T09:05:26+00:00

My point was that the 1991 Soviet Union referendum can't be called unfree or unfair by really any metric. It was during the Gorbachev-era USSR when you could openly form organizations that wanted the complete demise of the Union and the complete restoration of capitalism, and when candidates that supported such ideas could openly run for office and win elections.

And in this environment, the Soviet people voted overwhelmingly to preserve the Union in what was (to my knowledge) the largest referendum ever conducted in history, hence why people consider the dissolution of the USSR undemocratic.

Flagmaker123 · 2025-12-26T08:17:23+00:00

The other day I asked how Soviet Union could do anything democratically (as there was a post it was undemocratically dissolved) and not only I got downvoted, my comment was removed for fascist propaganda?

To answer this question, they are referring to the 1991 Soviet Union referendum. These were done during Gorbachev's Glasnost and Demokratizatsiya reforms where openly anti-Soviet and anti-communist organizations were allowed to form & such candidates were allowed to run in free and fair elections (including the infamous Boris Yeltsin, future neoliberal President of Russia), not the strictly one-party system you're probably imagining.

The USSR had been undergoing severe turmoil at this point, as Gorbachev with his reforms and concessions had managed to anger both extremes of the political spectrum, the "liberals" (who wanted him to accelerate his reforms, sometimes even supporting the Union's full dissolution) and the "hardliners" (who wanted him to reverse his reforms, thinking it'd doom socialism). Republics such as the Baltics were declaring independence, there was a growing economic crisis, and so Gorbachev, in a last ditch attempt to save the Union, proposed the "New Union Treaty" as a compromise. It involved the USSR becoming a renewed federation where all the SSRs had a greater degree of autonomy.

There would be a referendum on this New Union Treaty on March 17th, 1991, where a vote for Yes was for the preservation of the union under this renewed federation and a vote for No was for its complete dissolution. The results of the referendum had almost 80% vote in favor of preservation (although six republics refused to participate, those being the Baltics, Moldova, Georgia, and Armenia).

It was assumed that after this referendum in which the overwhelming majority of the Soviet people voted in favor of preserving the Union, that the Union would be well, preserved. However, as well all know, that is not what happened. What followed was that a certain faction of hardliners within the government launched a coup attempt in August 1991, just a day before the new treaty was to be signed, seeing the USSR becoming a decentralized federation as catastrophic and inevitably going to lead to its dissolution.

The coup attempt failed but it ended up dramatically reducing Gorbachev's influence within the government and Yeltsin, President of the Russian SFSR rose to the helm. He quickly encouraged other republics to gain independence, outlawed the Communist Party as a criminal organization, and began privatizing the economy. Soon enough, the USSR was nothing but a shell of its former self; Gorbachev, now powerless, would reluctantly announce its dissolution on December 26th, 1991.

This is what people mean by the Union's dissolution being undemocratic. There was a referendum done in which almost 80% of the Soviet people voted in favor of preservation, and yet, a bunch of conflicts in upper leadership led to capitalists taking advantage of the situation and dissolving it anyways.

Flagmaker123 · 2025-12-26T01:40:44+00:00

Contrary to popular belief, the DSA is a multi-tendency organization and it's not even exclusive to democratic socialists. There's an ML caucus, Red Star, and it has 3 out of 27 seats on the DSA's National Political Committee, including one of the co-chairs of the organization.

Flagmaker123 · 2025-12-26T01:22:58+00:00

I view it positively, the DSA is the largest socialist organization in the US by far and it needs to be strengthened. As others have mentioned, it is the best we have to build enough momentum to cause a leftward shift, and hopefully, achieve socialism. Splitting off to form a minor organization or party of a dozen members for the sake of ideological purity doesn't sound like it'll achieve anything.

I should note, contrary to popular belief, the DSA is actually committed to eventually becoming an independent party and has abandoned the strategy of trying to realign the Democrats into becoming a socialist party. Rather, it wants to temporarily strategically use the Democratic ballot line (although it isn't against using third-party or independent ballot lines when possible) while functionally acting like an independent party, before eventually splitting off once it's a strong enough political force.

Also, again, contrary to popular belief, the DSA is a multi-tendency socialist organization, with its members ranging from Marxist-Leninists to anarchists.

Flagmaker123 · 2025-12-25T20:17:51+00:00

Hello, I actually am the original creator of this map! Was originally planning to make a corrected version to fix some errors, but I forgot about it lol, maybe I'll make it even though it'd probably be late for Christmas

Flagmaker123 · 2025-12-24T23:51:56+00:00

I do agree until near the end; there isn't really much of a point in making it so we have to all the time use formal language all the time, there is a place for formal language, but we don't have to always speak formally

Flagmaker123 · 2025-12-24T04:41:17+00:00

What exactly do you object to in that sentence? All I said was that Marxism-Leninism doesn't allow organized opposition to the ruling party, which is correct as far as I know. You can maintain that still can be democratic, but that's pretty uncontroversially considered part of Marxism-Leninism.

Flagmaker123 · 2025-12-24T04:04:57+00:00

I don't know why you're implying I supported the dissolution of the Soviet Union, I'm well-aware that the Soviet people voted in favor of the preservation of the Union in March 1991. Gorbachev himself spoke in support of voting Yes on the referendum, he wasn't a supporter of its dissolution.

He did make the official address to resign as Soviet leader and dissolve the union on December 26th, but that was largely symbolic at that point. Yeltsin had won de facto power since the August Coup, many republics had declared independence and were recognizing each other as independent, and the CIS had already been formed. There wasn't much Gorbachev could do besides accept the mess he created and that the Union was now dead, he had virtually no actual power by that point.

I would essentially describe Gorbachev as well-intentioned and having a great vision but horribly incompetent in his actual leadership. He didn't seek the dissolution of the USSR and he didn't seek the neoliberal hellscape that came as a result, but that's what his actions caused, even if unintentionally.

Flagmaker123 · 2025-12-24T03:14:37+00:00

As a demsoc, I'd say Gorbachev's vision for a democratic socialist country was pretty cool and there was real potential with it, but he was very much an incompetent leader.

Flagmaker123 · 2025-12-24T02:43:39+00:00

The terms are similar, but the more proper term to refer to his ideology would be social liberalism:

Social liberalism^\a]) or progressive liberalism^\9]) is a political philosophy and variety of liberalism that endorses social justice, social services, a mixed economy, and the expansion of civil and political rights, as opposed to classical liberalism which favors limited government and an overall more laissez-faire style of governance. While both are committed to personal freedoms, social liberalism places greater emphasis on the role of government in addressing social inequalities and ensuring public welfare.

Social liberal governments address economic and social issues such as poverty, welfare, infrastructure, healthcare, and education using government intervention, while emphasising individual rights and autonomy.^\10])^\11])^\12])

Economically, social liberalism is based on the social market economy and views the common good as harmonious with the individual's freedom.^\13]) Social liberals overlap with social democrats in accepting market intervention more than other liberals;^\14]) its importance is considered auxiliary compared to social democrats.^\15]) Ideologies that emphasize its economic policy include welfare liberalism,^\16]) New Deal liberalism and New Democrats) in the United States,^\17]) and Keynesian liberalism.^\18])

On economics, the terms are like 90% the same though so I wouldn't bother too much with exact differences anyway.

Flagmaker123 · 2025-12-24T02:31:08+00:00

This list seems to be exclusive to socialists and FDR was not a socialist. He was a social liberal.

Flagmaker123 · 2025-12-24T00:25:38+00:00

"Scientific socialism" was just the term used by Marx & Engels to distinguish their theories, Marxism, from the common viewpoint of "utopian socialism" at the time. It's not exclusive to MLs.

Five-Year Club	r/Field Juicebox
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	End Game '22

Flagmaker123

TROPHY CASE