Which countries implemented communist governments and how long did they last?
Executive summary
Five countries still officially governed by communist parties—China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam—trace uninterrupted single‑party rule from mid‑20th century revolutions to the present, while a much longer list of states implemented communist governments for shorter or longer stretches during the 20th century, from the Soviet Union (1922–1991) to multiple Eastern Bloc and post‑colonial regimes [1] [2] [3].
1. Which countries are communist today and since when
The widely cited contemporary list of communist states is China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam; most surveys and reference works identify these five as the remaining countries ruled by communist or Marxist‑Leninist parties [1] [2] [4]. China’s communist government began with the founding of the People’s Republic in 1949 under Mao Zedong and persists under the Chinese Communist Party [5]. Laos and Vietnam became single‑party communist states in the mid‑1970s—Laos in 1975 and Vietnam institutionalized socialist governance after reunification in the 1970s [6] [5]. Cuba’s revolutionary regime took power in the late 1950s and has been ruled by a communist party since the 1960s [4] [1]. North Korea is commonly listed among communist states even as its official ideology and constitutional language have evolved (references to communism were removed from its constitution in 2009), yet it remains a one‑party hereditary regime often grouped with other communist systems in academic and popular sources [7] [2].
2. The major historical cases and how long they lasted
The largest and longest‑lasting communist government in history was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, established in 1922 and dissolved in 1991—roughly seven decades of communist rule in the Soviet space [3] [8]. Communist governments dominated much of Eastern Europe and parts of Asia and Africa through the Cold War era: examples include East Germany, Albania, Yugoslavia, and others that emerged after World War II and collapsed or transformed around 1989–1991 during the Eastern Bloc’s dissolution [8]. China’s uninterrupted communist rule since 1949 makes it another multi‑decadal case; Vietnam and Cuba have similarly sustained single‑party rule for about half a century or more [5] [4] [6].
3. Short‑lived experiments and regional waves
Many post‑colonial or revolutionary regimes adopted communist governments for brief periods—Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge seized state power in 1975 and ruled for only a few years amid catastrophic human costs, while Grenada’s Marxist government fell within days of the 1983 U.S. invasion; other states in Africa, Asia and Latin America had communist or Marxist governments or strong socialist parties for varying short spans during the Cold War [8] [7]. The precise durations of these shorter experiments differ by case and source; comprehensive lists of former communist states collect dozens of national experiences and transitions [9] [10].
4. Why counting “how long” is complicated: definitions and debate
Measuring duration depends on definitions: some sources distinguish between a party in power, a state that self‑identifies as socialist/communist in its constitution, and regimes that practice Marxist‑Leninist governance in form but not in economic substance; scholars also debate whether states like the USSR or China were “state capitalist” rather than communist in Marx’s sense [11] [7]. Reference works therefore vary in which countries they list and how they date the start and end of communist rule; many contemporary summaries caution that several longstanding communist governments have moved toward market reforms while retaining single‑party control, complicating any simple timeline [11] [1].
5. Conclusion: a clear pattern, but a messy map
The pattern is clear: a mid‑20th century wave of communist state formation produced a global set of regimes—some enduring for decades like the Soviet Union, China and Cuba, others brief and turbulent—while today only five states retain formal communist party monopoly; however, assessing exact durations and political character requires case‑by‑case attention and acceptance of definitional disputes in the sources [2] [3] [1].