Introduction

“Actually existing socialism” (“AES”) is a concept and term used to an excessive degree by modern revisionists, especially ones belonging to the Dengist tendency which views the modern Chinese state as a dictatorship of the proletariat. Other revisionists, like Brezhnevites, may not view China as socialist but will still endorse other, smaller revisionist countries like North Korea or Cuba as socialist. The Communist Workers’ Platform USA is an instance of the latter.¹

Criticism or even the slightest questioning of the five countries belonging to “actually existing socialism,” China, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, and Cuba, is treated as a capitulation to Western imperialist propaganda and invokes shunning on the part of these revisionists.

Marxism demands ruthless criticism of all that exists. To place a certain grouping of countries on a pedestal as quasi-utopian reprieves from capitalism-imperialism and to support them with the firmest fanaticism is nothing more than anti-materialism and a betrayal of Marxism.

Anti-revisionists must not and should not stop criticism of a country simply because it claims to espouse “communism” in its constitution or bear a red banner. We seek to understand a country on the basis of its underlying mode of production and relations of production to assess its true character. Therefore, we will analyze each of the five “AES” countries, its origins, and seek to provide an answer to the following question: does “actually existing socialism” exist in the present-day?

The Origins of “Actually Existing Socialism”

“Actually existing socialism” is not a new concept, nor necessarily an invention of the Chinese revisionists. The term has its origins in the revisionist Soviet Union under Brezhnev, where the concepts of “real socialism” and “developed socialism” prevailed for the longest time.²

“Actually existing socialism,” like “developed socialism,” was popularized with the intention of suggesting that the Khrushchevite-Brezhnevite model and its restoration of capitalism were the “be-all, end-all” of socialism, models which no alternative could arise. Suddenly, the social-imperialist system of the Warsaw Pact countries was the pinnacle of development!

No criticism could be levied at the countries of “actually existing socialism” without accusations of capitulation to imperialist propaganda. The Soviet revisionists, in their hegemonic interests, sought to manipulate the global communist movement to suit their social-imperialist interests. “Marxism-Leninism,” to them, became less a matter of developing revolution at home, applying theory to concrete conditions, and more so defending the “socialist” USSR. In this manner, the revisionist parties which branded themselves “communist” became assets to Soviet hegemony.

In the modern day, the term continues to be used by neo-Brezhnevites but has also seen adoption by Dengists and other adherents of Chinese revisionism. The only distinction between the Brezhnevite usage and the Dengist usage is that instead of the “socialist” headquarters being the Soviet Union, it became the modern People’s Republic of China.

The Countries of Modern “Actually Existing Socialism”

To fully address the concept of “actually existing socialism,” we must tackle each “AES” state individually. All of these countries have the commonality of explicitly upholding “communism” in their governing documents (minus DPR Korea, which removed any reference to communism in its constitution in 2009³).

People's Republic of China

The modern People’s Republic of China has been under the control of the revisionist Communist Party of China since its inception under Mao Zedong in 1949 (see Hoxha’s Can the Chinese Revolution be Called a Socialist Revolution?). It is one of the largest imperialist players on the world stage, with massive exports of capital to countries in the periphery, especially in Africa and Asia.⁴

Chinese social-imperialism has manifested in various ways. This includes Jiang Zemin’s “Going Global” strategy and the more recent Belt and Road Initiative which seeks to circulate Chinese capital and investments across Eurasia.

Domestically, China’s social-imperialism manifests as social-fascism. The majority of the Chinese economy is under private ownership and even the state-owned enterprises operate under capitalist principles. The Chinese revisionists have sought to promote the private sector to no end and never speak about the end to private property besides vague promises meant to deceive the Chinese proletariat.⁵ Chinese workers are repressed by a police force exceeding one million members, including their attempts to unionize outside of the state-ran labor union.

There is no way China can be thought of as socialist beyond its basic symbols and rhetoric. With a corporatist economic model, state organs meant to repress the masses, and imperialist features, it has much more in common with open fascism.

Lao People’s Democratic Republic

Laos followed a similar course to Vietnam as mentioned before, both being neighboring countries. However, in 1986, the so-called “New Economic Mechanism" was introduced, effectively similar to the capitalist restoration in Vietnam and China. This system encouraged private property, removed government control and regulation, and promoted private investment from imperialist states.

In the modern day, the revisionist government of Laos has allowed the country to be turned into an imperialized state. It legally allows and encourages investment from overseas imperialists.⁶ These policies have resulted in massive land-grabs by foreigners and have further impoverished the peasantry. Inequality runs rampant in Laos, much like with other modern instances of revisionism.⁷ The country is deep into debt which exceeds its GDP, particularly with China. True socialist states do not permit their countries to become semi-colonies beholden to imperialists and social-imperialists.⁸

Republic of Cuba

The modern state of Cuba was founded in 1959 following a revolution which ousted United States-sponsored military dictator Fulgencio Batista and replaced the regime from a pro-US one into a pro-USSR one. The new leader, Fidel Castro, did not initially present himself as a Marxist-Leninist but quickly proclaimed himself one to garner the support of the Soviet social-imperialists.

Near the instant Cuba became a “socialist state,” it became subjugated to the whims of Soviet social-imperialism as it functioned as its running dog, sending troops to Soviet proxy forces across the globe. Further, Cuba was a sugar colony of the Soviets, its economy lacking even the most basic diversification and instead was made to export to the Soviet Union.⁹

After the fall of the Warsaw Pact countries in the late 1980s and ‘90s, the monoproductive Cuban economy was given a major hit and entered into the “Special Period.” However, in the 21st century, Cuba would adopt even more clearly capitalist reforms and realigned itself with the Russian and Chinese camp of imperialism. Socialism was never developed in Cuba.¹⁰

Democratic People's Republic of Korea

Introduction to the DPRK

Amongst the left, the question of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, hereafter to be referred to as “the DPRK” or “North Korea,” is a contentious one. Many think that they are the most socialist out of any “actually existing socialist” country. To others they are an enigma, unable to be studied due to the prevalence of liberal and rightist propaganda. Here we will not be dealing with rightist “criticisms” of the DPRK, as they are devoid of substance and often boil down to platitudes about “democracy,” and “authoritarianism,” or otherwise simply lies.

This, however, does not mean that the DPRK is a socialist utopia that firmly adheres to its own line, isolated from the rest of the world and secretive. Far from it. We wish to present historical and contemporary critiques of the supposed “socialist” state of North Korea from a principled anti-revisionist perspective.

The Revisionism of Kim Il Sung

Kim Il Sung’s revisionism is not too dissimilar from Mao Zedong’s, the mechanistic understanding of revolutions, the class collaboration, the denial of the proletarian dictatorship. This makes sense, Kim Il Sung proclaimed in 1945 that the Korean people must provide active support for the Chinese revolution, a Chinese revolution which was bourgeois in character (See E. Hoxha’s Can the Chinese Revolution be Called a Proletarian Revolution?).

Kim Il Sung denied the need for a proletarian dictatorship, “The establishment of the power of proletarian dictatorship by force was followed as a last resort in some countries…In the northern half (of Korea - Ed.)…this was not necessary”.¹¹ and advocated for third positionism(!) by saying “The democracy we aspire to is fundamentally different from that of western capitalist countries, nor is it a slavish copy of that in a socialist country… Ours is a new type of democracy most suited to the realities of Korea.”

But Lenin teaches us that there is no third way, there is either proletarian democracy or bourgeois democracy, proletarian rule or bourgeois rule, for capitalism did not make a third ideology.

The Juche Idea

The idea of juche was elaborated on by Kim Jong Il in the aptly titled work, “On the Juche Idea” in which the revisionism of North Korea is laid out most clearly. The DPRK is not a country led by the proletariat, it is a country led by a Bonapartist regime and autocracy, as their leading force is the Juche idea, and the Juche idea is derived from one person, the leader. “The Juche idea is the precious fruit of the leader’s profound, widespread ideological and theoretical activities, and its creation is the most brilliant of his revolutionary achievements.”11 This is the direct negation of Leninism, it is a return to Blanquism and conspiracism, a mockery of Leninism, asserting that “The revolutionary ideas of the working class are originated by distinguished leaders.”¹²

Furthermore, Juche is the negation of Marxism itself. Marxism at its simplest is scientific socialism, the class struggle, and dialectical materialism, but Juche is idealist, perceiving humanity’s subjective reality as the main motive behind the drive to socialism, but to the jucheists “It can be said that the history of the communist movement spanning a hundred and scores of years is a history of working-class leaders creating and developing revolutionary ideas, a history in which these ideas have been applied to transform the world.” But the history of communism is not ideas, Marx famously said that “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.”¹³

Socialist Republic of Vietnam

The Republic of Vietnam, much like Laos, North Korea, and Cuba, originated from a national liberation movement. However, unlike the other examples, Vietnam started as a proletarian national liberation movement, not a bourgeois one. The initial leader of the Vietnamese revolution, Ho Chi Minh, was a staunch Marxist who particularly emphasized Leninism and its importance to their movement.¹⁴ Additionally, North Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh oversaw an ambitious degree of collectivization and socialization of production, despite the fact that they were only half a nation under siege, they recognized that they must continue to advance toward socialism regardless of the status of South Vietnam.^15:88 An opportunist would not have gone down the same course, an opportunist would take any excuse to slow or misdirect the advance toward socialism, but as we can see, Minh did not do so.

Nevertheless, opportunism would later come to the forefront in the Republic of Vietnam, when the death of Ho Chi Minh would lead to the rise of a revisionist clique who would reverse socialist construction in Vietnam. The post-Minh leadership would come to completely abandon the socialized economy in the 1980s with the Doi Moi reforms which, much like Dengist reforms in China, allowed and encouraged private sector enterprises.¹⁶ The rampant growth of the capitalist private sector after these reforms completely restored capitalism in Vietnam. The growth coincided, expectedly, with the shrinkage of public enterprise. The shrinkage was so significant that by 2016 the percentage of the Vietnamese workers employed in the public sector, 7.4%, was less than the percentage of United States workers employed in the United States public sector, 12.9%.¹⁷ To call a state "socialist" when the state in question has even less public enterprise than the leading neoliberal state is ridiculous.

Furthermore, the Vietnamese revisionists have begun to build themselves up as a regional power, via practicing imperialist "foreign investment" with Laos.¹⁸ Capitalism cannot remain local and must seek out new markets, it is the nature of capitalist production to do so, so when Vietnamese enterprises seek to create "projects" and "ventures" in Laos it is a clear sign that Vietnamese capitalism is seeking out new markets. This imperialist exporting of capital into Laos is no small event either, in 2025 the total amount of capital being exported from Vietnam into Laos was equal to roughly 5.8 billion dollars.¹⁹ A truly socialist state would not engage in these imperialist practices, nor would it have any need to since it would not require capital growth, but Vietnam's "socialism" certainly does show an undeniable need for capital growth.

Those who attempt to label Vietnam "socialist" in the modern day, despite its aforementioned domestic and foreign capitalist practices, are either committed Dengists who believe social-democratic economics is "socialism", Third Worldists who believe that a small country being "radical" constitutes "socialism", or those who are fooled by Vietnam's claim that it is the same socialist republic as led by Minh. To be a Marxist necessitates knowing what capitalism is and knowing when a state is capitalist regardless of its rhetoric. Vietnam still uses "Communist" rhetoric but true Marxists can see past it and recognize the material reality of Vietnam's mode of production. True Marxists must acknowledge the truth that Vietnam is a capitalist state regardless of rhetoric which claims otherwise.

Other Supposed “AES” States

Revisionists and opportunists sometimes include other countries of supposed socialism in the category of “AES” as well. These include Venezuela and Nicaragua. Needless to say, these countries have made no progressions towards the socialist mode of production, dictatorship of the proletariat, and attacks on private property. They are social democratic in nature.

Conclusion

The concept of modern “actually existing socialism” represents a diversion from the truth about what are in fact modern revisionist countries which have universally restored capitalism and even, in the case of China, become world imperialist powers in their own right.

“AES” has always been used, from its origins in the Khrushchevite-Brezhnevite USSR, to justify uncritical defense and veneration of revisionist countries as the “peak” of socialism. With this concept, the corporatism and social-imperialism of China becomes a model of socialism for the whole world to follow!

Socialism is not symbols. It is not rhetoric. It is the revolutionary transformation of one mode of production to another, an entire epoch of heightened class struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie which is marked by either the restoration of capitalism or, as we aspire to, the final defeat of the capitalist class and realization of communism.

In writing this, we do not wish to suggest that there was never really existing socialism. The USSR and PSR Albania were of course socialist and excellent examples of that mode of production. Rather, we hope to shed some light on the distorters of Marxism who wish to circulate the claim that socialism exists in the present day.

How we are to address the problem of historical socialist states is another topic better suited to its own article.

---

Contact: [email protected]