"Most Communist Nation?" Topic

Which nation in the world today would you say is the most Communist?

"There isn't one; true Communism has never been tried!" (That's a joke, son. I'd say the one with the highest pile of bodies.)

Difficult, as I don't know a lot about several supposedly 'Communist' states. I would tentatively suggest Vietnam as a starter.

Can there be a communist nation?
Which nation is the most capitalist?)))

Koreans – both of them)))

My understanding is that it would be Cuba or North Korea. TO the best of my knowledge they both still follow communist economics policies.

Vietnam, like China, has gone to a hybrid of free market and heavy handed government control. They both found out communism economics don't work. But, of course, neither will give up all the trappings of communist rule that allows very little if any dissent, and has only no real meaning to any voting that takes place.

Tom

It is good that we are separating the economic theory from the idea of that it is a political theory.

Today? The Navaho nation?

There's never been a "Communist" country, and never can be--unless its population is entirely robotic.

"Communist Russia" was an expression of intention, not of fact. How often did the government announce that they were about to "go" communist, but of course never did?

In the former Soviet Paradise, the saying was, "Communism is a blind man chasing a black cat in a darkened room at midnight screaming "I've got it! I've got it!"

A communist state has no need of government at all--people are perfect and no one ever takes advantage of anyone else, so none is needed. Everything is abundant and shared equally. After all, the cause of all evil is WANT because some have more than others.

Which fully explains why millionaires (indeed, billionaires) lie, cheat, and steal to have MORE. Their want is the kind that can never be filled. But if you believe material things are all there is in the world, then evenly distributing them solves all problems, right?

How anyone can believe such blinkered, narrow minded, "Don't confuse me with the facts" kind of thinking, I can only imagine.

Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Tooth Fairy all have more plausible evidence of validity than Communism.

And don't stand on a single corpse.

TVAG

I thought TMP had a "No politics" rule.

I recommend for you to read Marx for what he really was – an example of mid-19th century utopianism. Those above who say there never has been a communist state are closest to the mark.

Now if we changed "communist" in the title of this poll to "ruthless cult of personality" we might be able to get somewhere.

Extend the time period from today to ever and a whole list of countries/characters will present themselves.

Hmmm, if we take "communism" to be that the ownership of property and the means of production are solely in the hands of the state the country that best fits this description would be Vatican City.

N. Korea.

Don't tempt me!

I'm suprised that this topic hasen't filled the dawghouse to capacity by now.

"communism" to be that the ownership of property

Communism abolishes the concept of private property (basically, real estate … not precisely, but mostly). It makes no statement about personal property (basically, your stuff).

It assigns ownership of the means of production and the means of distribution to the state. So while communism has no opinion on what an individual can own, it does reserve the right to produce something or acquire something to the state.

Likewise, the decision to distribute is reserved for the state, so if you "own" a book, the state can decide that you must "distribute" it to someone else. This is where the concept of the "redistribution of wealth" come from.

I thought TMP had a "No politics" rule.

There is a difference between the discussion of the existence of political philosophies and the realization of them in a specific society (real or fictional) and the advocacy for a political philosophy.

Certainly not China.
China is the Uber Capitalist state.
The workers certainly do not control the means of production. The State sure does.
China is super nationalistic. It persecutes racial minorities.

Sounds a lot more like textbook Fascism than Communism to me.

Ah, the mention of politics, but who's ox gets gored?

Its an interesting discussion, full Marx to anyone who participated!!!

2nd time here but think it's no contest
North Korea

Communism = no state. Under communism, the state is not needed.
Communism = the highest form of democratic government, because there simply cannot be another.
Communism = no money at all. The accumulation of wealth in this society is impossible. Communism is voluntary uncompensated work for the benefit of society. Working for the good of society is an internal need)))
Communism … Only as much as a person is able to become a saint is possible))) If this happens, it will be in the very distant future. As long as human resources are limited, communism is impossible.

Socialism is a completely different system. But it is a stage towards building a communist future, since it must educate a more just person.
Socialism without real democracy can easily slide into totalitarianism, since it is such an economic system that is convenient for a dictatorship. Which is what usually happens.
However, capitalist societies, although more stable politically, just as easily turn into a dictatorship of oligarchic clans. What we are seeing now – where are the previous fair elections and freedom of speech in the West? They degrade and disappear.
The highest forms of socialism are now Switzerland, Northern Europe.
There are also national characteristics, such as a tendency towards totalitarianism. These are already the costs of the existing history. The countries of the East and some European countries, including Russia, are most prone to this.

"Castro is a color is a redder than red"--The Clash

Of all the Communist parties in the world, the Cubans are the only ones who still believe in an international socialist revolution to overthrow capitalism. Were it not for Cuba, Mandela would have died on Robben Island and South Africa would still be apartheid. Last of the true believers.

North Korea is a deformed workers state.

+1 Cuprum2

Cuba
North Korea
Venezuela

The only one I can think of which might be close to the grim Cold War caricature of "communism" is North Korea.

Both Vietnam and China have gone down the authoritarian capitalist route, and although it is fifteen years since I last visited Cuba, it was already pretty far down that road. I remember one of the hotel staff asking what our impressions of communism were, and I had to laugh. Having negotiated grim border crossings and attempting to buy anything at all in various Warpact countries in the 1980s, I know what real communism looks like, and it sure as heck isn't downtown Havana or Saigon.

+1 to Cuprum as well. I find our transatlantic cousins have very odd ideas about what communism is and isn't.

full Marx to anyone who participated

We seem to have covered all the engels.

"Fascist – Communist a distinction without a difference."

I don't know who said it. But from a practical view of how people are treated, I have to agree.

I would say – any radical … Regardless of his beliefs)))

It's amazing how pervasive anti-communist propaganda is decades after the end of the Cold War.

+3 Cuprum

USA

It's amazing how many "communists" have never read any communist philosophy.

It's amazing how many millions of people were murdered by communists in the 20th century, yet some people today have such fanciful notions about this evil ideology.

Is not on or two of the Kurd factions "Communists", e.g. YPK, etc.? Of course they are not a nation … yet … if ever. With most of "old" Kurdistan being in Northern Iraq, IIRC. And things rarely change in that region but blood is still being shed.

SO MANY nations and factions called themselves "communist" in the past that had not the slightest relation to communism.
It's like Fascism. If you're Bad, you're a Fascist. Or if you're Bad, you're a communist.
I challenge anyone who points to Mao and the millions he killed to factually define him as a "communist". Simply because he called himself one does not make it so.
The Nazis called themselves "National Socialist". What was "socialist" about them, besides calling themselves such?

I advise you to count how many people in the 20th century were killed by those who called themselves "democrats." About the same killers who considered themselves supporters of capitalism – I just do not say)))
For profit people kill many hundreds of years – at the heart of almost every war is the desire to enrich themselves.

This is a good illustration of capitalism. It's a pity I can't find this aria in the English translation. I'll try to do it myself)))

YouTube link

Aria Mephistopheles

On earth, the whole human race
Honors one sacred idol,
He reigns over the entire universe
That idol is Golden calf!

In tenderness of the heart,
Glorifying the idol
People of different castes and countries
They dance in an endless circle
Surround the pedestal
Surround the pedestal!

Satan rules the dance there,
He rules the dance there!
Satan rules the dance there,
He rules the dance there!

This idol is golden
Despises the will of heaven
Taunting her, he cheats
holy law of heaven!

To please the god of gold
Country against country goes to war;
And human blood like a river
It flows along the damask blade!

People are dying for metal
People are dying for metal!

Satan rules the dance there,
He rules the dance there!
Satan rules the dance there,
He rules the dance there!

Yes, capitalism kills hundreds and communist kill millions just another sign that communists are much better at everything.

For profit people kill many hundreds of years – at the heart of almost every war is the desire to enrich themselves.

People kill people, economic systems do not. People just pick an economic system that allows them to accomplish what they want and justifies their injustices. Just as there is no such thing as "gun violence" as guns are inanimate objects that can be used for good or evil. Money, love, cars, computers, the internet, cutlery, blunt objects, tools, etc. are inanimate objects that can be used for good or evil too.

Any government or economic system gives a level of freedom and self-determinism to the people. At one end of the spectrum is Total Freedom, at the other end is Total Tyranny. Within that entire spectrum lies all of the "-isms" that the Human Race has attempted to implement that granted more or fewer liberties and freedoms to the people with the politicians generally making false promises to the "Useful Idiots" to stay in power. They are justified in taking more of the people's assets and freedoms to stay in power.

People's greed infiltrates all systems and facets of human activity no matter what government or economic system is being used and politicians, narcissists, and tyrants understand this very well. Unfortunately, you'd can't legislate morality because people can ignore and break laws. I wonder if our Creator is rethinking that "Free Will" feature he put in for Homo Sapiens. I know dictators and tyrants see it as a problem. If there is such a thing as "Original Sin" it may be greed because that seems to be a common denominator for the failure of all of the "-isms" we've tried so far.

Hypothetically, if Earth made me or you the "Benevolent Dictator for Life" putting us in charge of all of the planet's resources and governments I'm sure we could bring about peace and equality to the entire planet for the rest of time, right? Of course, we could. We're just so much smarter, insightful, compassionate, and fair than others in the past.

The new "-isms" that sprang up in the 1840's want to replace the status quo by appealing to people who see themselves as victims of the current "-ism" system that is failing them. There is some truth to that and they are not necessarily evil people. Many are those that see themselves as losers and intellectual "Do-Gooders" that want to do "good" with other people's money. Any competitive system is going the "fail" to a lesser or greater degree for the unlucky, lower IQ's and those too lazy to compete. Not everyone can finish in 1st place on this planet.

Equality is a great idea. However, since we are not all created physically and intellectually equal how can we implement it? A person with a 120 IQ will have a greater potential for success and accumulation of wealth than someone with a 75 IQ. How do we equalize those two? It doesn't appear we can lift the 75 IQ to a 120 but we can get the 120 down to a 75 with a lobotomy.

Another way is to steal/confiscate/tax the 120 IQ seizing his wealth and assets and giving them to the 75 IQ. Sounds good but there is less incentive for the 120 IQ and even less for the 75 IQ other than to force the 120 IQ to work harder eliminating some of their freedom. To stay in power politicians will make promises that they can't keep to both sides. Does that sound familiar?

There is another way to do it by eliminating everyone with an IQ over 75. The Communists did that to the Kulaks and other intellectuals. That's didn't work very well. Cambodia tried it too. Their "-ism" version failed. Mao tried by attempting to make everyone equal to the lowest common denominator: equally poor, equally ignorant, and equally unhealthy. That is something a Tyrant using an "-ism" (propaganda and force) can successfully accomplish, at least until millions of people die of disease and starvation and overthrow the government and put in another "-ism". New boss is same as the old boss.

Unfortunately, you can't make everyone equal by giving them more freedom and fewer rules and restrictions either unless the people are moral enough to abide by the rules and help those more unfortunate than themselves. Human greed and the false promise of politicians that want to play one side against the other (more propaganda) kill that option.

Another way to establish equality is to eliminate the below-average "undesirables" and losers in a competitive system. The intellectual Eugenics movement advocated this and the after-effects are still with us targeting "undesirable minorities" just as Margaret Sanger and other intellectuals advocated and many still today. Either it's not working or they are not trying hard enough. Evidently, they want more government money to try harder.

Some "-ism's" are at their heart are freer to allow competition but as in any contest, there are cheaters and players that bribe the officials (greed) who will pick the winner. Ideally, the government is the referee to make sure the playing field is kept level (no monopolies). However, it's easier to win an election by promising one or both sides that you'll help them win and if you raise enough money for them they can do it. Why not make a false promise when you can print all of the money you need to stay in power? Especially if the propaganda apparatus is supporting you and silencing your critics.

What about a straight democracy, the majority always rules. Isn't Democracy the best thing ever? If there are more people with an IQ below 120 than above 120 then the lower IQ group gets to democratically implement equality and equity using a tyrannical government that can violate any "rights" the 120 IQ group may have to implement these noble goals. If that includes taking their weapons and silencing them so much the better. It will make it easier if propaganda geared to generate "hate" towards this group is mainstreamed. Mission accomplished! What "-ism" is that called today.

No matter what "-ism" society attempts to implement today they'll still find a reason to discriminate, marginalize, silence, persecute, hate and kill people who oppose or disagree with them, many times with the aid of the government if it helps them retain their power.

The only way we can hope to accomplish anything fair and somewhat workable, fair and ideal for society is to love and respect our neighbors, including the ones that disagree with us, and help those less fortunate and not "sub-contract" our good works to corrupt politicians which in itself is an "-ism". That message threatens some "-isms" grasp on power and needs to be silenced and persecuted. Sound familiar?

Since the dawn of mankind, there have been various philosophies and religions that have advocated that. However, human greed shows an easier path, and many people are being tempted and led astray by the false promise of equality and material happiness and seek to silence the "love thy neighbor" message. Lenin called them "Useful Idiots".

Wolfhag

Democracy is the worst for of government, except for all the others.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, America is not a true democracy it's a republic, but you get the general idea.

No, Wolfhag, you twist)))

Everyone is not perfect and never will be. Including each of us.

A "benevolent dictator" (like any "democratic" president) is just a representative of the highest circles of society. He cannot go against the will of the majority of these influential circles, act against them. In this case, it will be replaced in one way or another. And if in a democratic country he can be removed in elections, then where this is not possible, he will be removed by force. Therefore, democracy has no alternatives. But democracy is different … Very different. How many workers are there in your parliament? How many doctors? School teachers? Why are their interests represented by others? Or are all representatives of these professions unable to represent their own interests themselves? Are they stupid? Incompetent? Are there people in power whose incomes are not in the millions and billions? Is this democracy? In my opinion, this is the power of money bags)))

When communists talk about equality, they don't talk about absolute equality. It would be just silly. The stupid is not equal to the clever, the old is not equal to the young, the illiterate is not equal to the educated. But … Everyone should have equal opportunities to take their place in this world. Why are the children of wealthy parents entitled to a better education, a better career, and so much more? What is their merit? Were they born into a successful family? And it's all? If the son of a rich father is an idiot (I'm not talking about the medical sense of the word))), then he still has a much better chance of getting all the benefits in life than a guy whose parents are poor. Is money a criterion of intelligence and ability? These people start from different positions in life – is that fair? What is the fault of a guy from a poor family?

Why is wealth needed? Will you eat ten times more? Are you going to wear ten times as many pants? Will you be using a gold toilet? In my opinion, there is a reasonable limit of comfort, exceeding which is ordinary stupidity. Oh, I know – you will invest this money in the business to earn even more money that you do not need, in fact)))
I don't know about others, but I have always enjoyed my work. And I do my own thing for this very reason))) Of course, I will work where they pay more for it. But if work turns into hard labor for me, then I will give it up. Even to the detriment of my income. I guess I'm a crazy commie with dislocated brains)))

To say that the communists in Russia have excluded from life all those with high intelligence is stupidity. Look at what Russia was like before the arrival of the communists and what it became under them. An advanced industrial power, advanced science, excellent public education, and so on … You see the hypertrophied dark sides of Soviet reality – but basically you don't want to see the light ones)))
John F. Kennedy "Special Message to Congress on Education" January 29, 1963:
Nevertheless, it is worthwhile noting that the Soviet Union recognizes that educational effort in the 1960's will have a major effect on a nation's power, progress and status in the 1970's and 1980's. According to a recent report prepared for the National Science Foundation, Soviet institutions of higher education are graduating 3 times as many engineers and 4 times as many physicians as the United States. While trailing behind this country in aggregate annual numbers of higher education graduates, the Soviets are maintaining an annual flow of scientific and technical professional manpower more than twice as large as our own. At the same time, they have virtually eliminated illiteracy, with a 23-fold increase since the turn of the century in the proportion of persons with an education beyond the 7th grade. This nation's devotion to education is surely sufficient to excel the achievements of any other nation or system.
This quote perfectly characterizes the triumph of dullness and mediocrity in the USSR))) And this is the country where, before the arrival of the Bolsheviks, 75% could not write their name … What serious changes in 40 years, don't you think?

From your speech about democracy, I understood that you are in favor of the dictatorship of people with a high IQ?))) Or people with the correct skull shape? Do they know better and are they the ones who have to decide what people with low and medium IQ need? Wait … And when the level of progress reaches such possibilities that the physical labor of a person becomes simply unnecessary, ineffective – where will you go to the low-intellectual part of the population (people with the wrong skulls)? Gas chamber? Lobotamia? Sterilization? Oh no. I remember. During the Great Depression in the United States, a similar problem was already solved … Public works for a symbolic fee in a swamp or desert.

By the way, who and how will determine whose IQ is high enough? Will such measurements be reliable and objective? Wouldn't it be possible to write down all your opponents as low-intellectual degenerates?
It seems to me that this is a very dangerous way – to divide people according to innate characteristics. Somewhere we already went through all this not so long ago…

And by the way – tell me where and when exactly Lenin used the expression: "useful idiots." I'm so tired of fake quotes)))

Well where did the expression come from ? Marx ? Really I though Lenin said it ?

Why is wealth needed?

Capitalism is not perfect, but it has propelled humanity forward. From innovations in technology, healthcare, science, farming, standard of living, etc; almost everything has advanced and become better for humanity because of competition under capitalism.

Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are busy driving taxicabs and cutting hair. – George Burns

Yugoslavia's Tragic Lesson to the World"And by the way – tell me where and when exactly Lenin used the expression: "useful idiots." I'm so tired of fake quotes)))

link

Of course, Lenin never said that, not writing in English. So I suppose you could translate the passage with different words. The phrase in English was popularized by Bogdan Raditsa, a journalist supporter of Tito and advocate of Stalin and Lenin.

Do I get to be tired of people claiming "fake" who haven't bothered to look things up?

Or, just call fake on claims that Communist theory says there should be no state? Certainly not according to Marx, Lenin, or Stalin.

And, please don't refer to Engels' "Withering of the State". That is not a description of Communism or how it works. It is a Engels' opinion of a future world condition if everyone were Communist. The same utopian belief is held by some advocates of pretty much any political system. It is not about the what or how of Communism, just one person's fantasy about a future that has never happened, even at the micro level. Or put another way, do you accept Capitalism as a perfect, harmonious, stateless system because Henry Ford believed it could be?

I don't think there are any true communist states, in part because it does not work well as a practical basis for government. It has been used as a veneer for government by dictators instead, I think. Fascism is not much different in its practical functions. Both have supported strong central leader personality cults, with some lip service paid to communist or democratic ideals for show.

To be fair, Lenin never used not only "useful idiot", he had never used "полезный идиот" too. Never-ever. We had tons of discussions on the subjects here in Russia. The first time it was mentioned as attributed to Lenin was in one of Karl Radek letters.

Also, there's mentioning of Litvinov, a comissar for foreign affairs, who used synonimous phrase in 1920 when talking about acknowledging Tzarist Russia debts. It was never used to describe communist supporters in the West before 1948.

There was an interesting article in The New York Times magazine on the subject
link

''We get queries on useful idiots of the West all the time,'' said Grant Harris, senior reference librarian at the Library of Congress. ''We have not been able to identify this phrase among his published works.''

But coming back to original question of another thread – my answer can be "any of my two grandfathers".

One joined US communist party in 1917. He was send to USA for training before WWI, decided that communism is the ideal future and then returned to Russia to build it. Spent more than 10 years in exiles and gulags for being American spy, but he was a firm beleiver in the ideals of communism, he just thought that we couldn't make it right. Another of my grandfathers joined Communist Party of the Soviet Union when he was on the front in 1941, as many others he thought of this step as means to fight the enemy better. After the war, especially after he retired, he became sceptical of the ability of our state to build a real communism (it was in first half of 1980s), he died before Soviet Union collapsed.

And we have millions of communists who were living their lifes and doing their jobs without hunting dissidents or dreaming of world domination…

And as for this particular thread – there wasn't a true communist state so far, and most likely will not be…

To be fair, Lenin never used not only "useful idiot", he had never used "полезный идиот" too. Never-ever. We had tons of discussions on the subjects here in Russia.

Once again, I recommend you actually read Lenin:

link

As I said, the English phrase, or any of multiple direct transliterations may or may not appear. However, the idea that the proletariat, those that Communism purports to help, are too stupid to understand what is good for them and the benevolent intelligentsia of Communist theory, and it is appropriate for them to make sacrifices for the "greater good" that they don't understand, and even that it is not just acceptable, but expected to "lead" them to do so, that idea runs through whole thing.

Every time Lenin refers to the proletariat, they are necessary to bring about the world revolution, but too dumb to understand it for themselves.

And we have millions of communists who were living their lifes and doing their jobs without hunting dissidents or dreaming of world domination…

That's because they are the useful idiots. Too dumb, by Lenin's reckoning to understand Communism, but perfectly useful to cause it to happen.

This is my favorite bit about how the smart people like Lenin need to shepherd the stupid proles:

Современное социалистическое сознание может возникнуть только на основании глубокого научного знания В самом деле, современная экономическая наука настолько же является условием социалистического производства, как и современная, скажем, техника, а пролетариат при всем своем желании не может создать ни той, ни другой, обе они возникают из современного общественного процесса Носителем же науки является не пролетариат, а буржуазная интеллигенция

Modern socialist consciousness can arise only on the basis of deep scientific knowledge. In fact, modern economic science is as much a condition of socialist production as, for example, modern technology, and the proletariat, with all its will, cannot create either one or the other, both of them emerge from the modern social process. The bearer of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia.

No, he's not calling anyone a "useful idiot". If you're looking for a specific phrase, you might not find it. If you're looking for the idea, you can't miss it.

In the Western polemics "useful idiots" are mostly used for the people on the West, willingly or unwillingly supporting communist ideas:

"The phrase "useful idiots," often attributed to an earlier Vladimir, referred to Westerners who had been successfully manipulated by Soviet propaganda.

Lenin in his earlier works was indeed facing a question, how to lead unorganized and uneducated proletariat to revolution, it was especially difficult as he, unlike Marx, had to deal with mostly "peasant" illiterate proletariat. Naturally, there was a need of a party to lead them. After revolution he wroye plenty of works o getting education and science to proletariat. Not sure if there're English translations, but as you know Russian, you can also read it I guess.

Известные слова Ленина «учиться, учиться и учиться» были написаны им в работе «Попятное направление русской социал-демократии», написанной в конце 1899 и опубликованной в 1924 году в журнале «Пролетарская революция» № 8-9[6]:
В то время, как образованное общество теряет интерес к честной, нелегальной литературе, среди рабочих растёт страстное стремление к знанию и к социализму, среди рабочих выделяются настоящие герои, которые — несмотря на безобразную обстановку своей жизни, несмотря на отупляющую каторжную работу на фабрике, — находят в себе столько характера и силы воли, чтобы учиться, учиться и учиться и вырабатывать из себя сознательных социал-демократов, «рабочую интеллигенцию».
Возможно, Ленин использовал фразу А. П. Чехова из произведения «Моя жизнь», глава VI, первая публикация которого была в приложении к «Ниве» в 1896 году[7]:
Учиться нам нужно, учиться и учиться, а с глубокими общественными течениями погодим: мы ещё не доросли до них и, по совести, ничего в них не понимаем.
Похожее повторение было сделано в статье «Лучше меньше, да лучше» («Правда» № 49, 4 марта 1923 г.)[8]:
Нам надо во что бы то ни стало поставить себе задачей для обновления нашего госаппарата: во-первых — учиться, во-вторых — учиться и в-третьих — учиться и затем проверять то, чтобы наука у нас не оставалась мёртвой буквой или модной фразой (а это, нечего греха таить, у нас особенно часто бывает), чтобы наука действительно входила в плоть и кровь, превращалась в составной элемент быта вполне и настоящим образом.
В докладе на IV конгрессе Коминтерна «Пять лет российской революции и перспективы мировой революции» («Правда», № 258, 15 ноября 1922 г.; «Бюллетень IV конгресса Коммунистического Интернационала» № 8 от 16 ноября 1922 г.)[9] слово было повторено дважды:
Основаны советские школы, рабочие факультеты, несколько сотен тысяч молодых людей учатся, учатся, может быть, слишком быстро, но, во всяком случае, работа началась, и я думаю, что эта работа принесет свои плоды<…>
Вся партия и все слои России доказывают это своей жаждой знания. Это стремление к учению показывает, что важнейшей задачей для нас является сейчас: учиться и учиться.
В «Планах доклада „Пять лет российской революции и перспективы мировой революции" на IV конгрессе Коминтерна» («Правда». № 17. 21 января 1926 г.; журнал «Вопросы истории КПСС». — 1959. — № 2.) сказано:[10]
Будут ещё лучше, если в дальнейшем будем учиться (это я вам гарантирую).

There was a huge drive to deploy knowledge and education, with the emphasize on technical and applied science, as well as controlled philosophy and political economics.

Socialism and communism are not about leading dumb sheep herds. The so-called "new man", which the system failed to achieve, had to be ideologically correct, but smart. In the end Soviet Union would not be fighting WWII, sending satellites to space and scaring the world wih hydrogen bomb if we had just uneducated idiots.

We probably had too many people with higher education in the end of the socialist period than we should.

China is doing similar things – giving controlled knowledge to population but keeping ideology as they see fit.

Regardless of who said it … the sentence about "useful dupes" is accurate, IMO …