After I published a blog article critical of socialism, a reader challenged me for equating socialism too closely with communism. I asked them to name socialist countries that weren’t also communist but they didn’t offer a response. That prompted me to take a closer look at how nations that call themselves socialist actually function, especially when it comes to religion—a core test of civil liberty. And to find out if there really are actual “socialist” countries that don’t slide into communism.
Religious freedom often reflects how a government handles dissent, limits authority, and respects independent institutions. The results of this survey suggest that many socialist states are uncomfortable with those limits and are in turn increasingly repressive.
Today, several countries describe themselves as socialist in their constitutions. Some are one-party Marxist-Leninist regimes like China, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, and North Korea. Others—like India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Guyana, and Tanzania—are multiparty democracies that still retain “socialist” in their official documents. But across both categories, one pattern holds: the state usually sees itself as the source of truth and authority, and religious life is often brought under tight control.
In China, the state manages all religious groups through official channels. Independent churches and unauthorized mosques are illegal. Surveillance, intimidation, and even detention follow those who practice outside the approved structure. Tibetans and Uyghur Muslims face some of the harshest restrictions, including forced re-education programs (U.S. State Department).
In Vietnam, churches must register with the state, and religious gatherings are subject to government oversight. In Cuba, the Communist Party still filters religious activity through a centralized office. Laos operates similarly. North Korea, despite a constitutional promise of religious freedom, allows no independent worship at all. Defectors and rights groups describe secret worship as grounds for long prison terms.
These states share a key trait: they centralize not just economic power, but also ideological authority. Religion, in this system, competes with the ruling party’s worldview. It’s tolerated only when controlled.
Even among multiparty systems, the trend persists. India’s constitutional reference to socialism coexists with new laws that restrict religious conversion and foreign funding of religious NGOs. Bangladesh names Islam as the state religion but still claims socialism as a founding principle. Nepal’s “secular, socialism-oriented” constitution includes anti-conversion clauses that restrict free religious speech.
Some might point to Europe as a model of “socialist success,” but no European country currently defines itself as a socialist state in legal terms. Sweden, Norway, and others have social welfare systems, but these operate within capitalist frameworks and liberal democratic structures. None meet the legal or structural definition used by countries like China or Cuba.
The broader danger in these examples isn’t just religious suppression. It’s what socialism can become when the state is given authority to enforce ideology. Under socialism as practiced in these states, the government often takes control of:
-
Education and media, limiting dissenting views
-
Private property, including religious land and infrastructure
-
Civil associations, including churches, temples, and independent charities
-
Speech and assembly rights, especially when organized outside state structures
Religion highlights these risks because it represents a competing source of identity, community, and loyalty. In socialist states that see themselves as the vanguard of history, that competition is often treated as a threat.
While not every country that references socialism censors religion, few offer strong protections. In some cases, the term “socialist” survives in name only. In others, it reflects a deeper commitment to state-led control over life, belief, and expression.
International religious freedom reports for 2026 are expected to offer updated evidence from several of these countries. Specific attention will likely fall on China, Vietnam, and Nepal, where new policies or enforcement actions have drawn international concern.
Sidebar: Are There Any Socialist Countries That Aren’t Communist?
Yes, but it depends on how you define socialism.
As of November 2025, several countries describe themselves as “socialist” in their constitutions but do not follow a one-party communist model. These include:
-
India – Added “socialist” to its constitutional preamble in 1976. It is a multiparty democracy.
-
Nepal – Describes itself as a “socialism-oriented” federal republic but allows elections and religious freedom, with limits.
-
Sri Lanka – Calls itself the “Democratic Socialist Republic,” though it operates under a democratic system.
-
Bangladesh – References socialism as a founding ideal but maintains Islam as the state religion.
-
Guyana – Retains language about transitioning to socialism but functions as a parliamentary democracy.
-
Tanzania – Originally followed African socialism (“Ujamaa”), but now allows multiple parties and private enterprise.
In practice, these countries differ widely. Most do not implement full state ownership of the economy and maintain varying degrees of religious freedom. While not communist, their use of “socialism” is often symbolic, historical, or limited to economic goals.
QUESTION: If you know of a socialist country that is not also communist, please give the name in the list below and evidence of how the country embraces full-on socialism and not just social programs.
