The USSR dissolved into capitalism. It had a nationalist movement in the aftermath of shock therapy, and socialism is rising in popularity. The KPRF had 63,000 new members over the last few years and is the second largest political party. To begin with, fascism is capitalism in decay, it isn’t removable from that context.
As for the PRC, it is democratic, moreso than liberal democracy. Further, inequality is decreasing in the 2020s, and morever socialism is not defined purely by the scale of disparity, but by the mode of production.
To the first paragraph, that is exactly what I’m saying; socialism gives way to capitalism, which according to comments elsewhere in this post is fascism.
I never said that the PRC is or isn’t democratic, I implied that it wasn’t socialist. Workers need to sell their labour to survive and do not have a stake in the companies they work for. Well besides what they can buy on exchanges. Labour, housing, food and health care are all commodities.
Socialism doesn’t give way to capitalism naturally, the USSR didn’t collapse, it was dissolved. It didn’t need to be.
As for the PRC, it’s absolutely socialist, even if it isn’t fully automated luxury gay space communism yet. The large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and the working class is in control. There is still commodity production and markets play a heavy role, but that’s because markets do have some level of use when it comes to developing the structures necessary to run a fully centrally planned economy, and as long as the large firms and key industries are publicly owned, the private sector doesn’t actually have the power in society. This is socialism.
In the first paragraph, I’m really unsure what you’re trying to say with collapse vs dissolve, but the end result was that socialism evolved into what ever version of capitalism it is now
State owned corporations are not incompatible with capitalism. The level of public ownership in China now is roughly equal to that of the 1960s UK as a proportion of GDP.
And you never addressed my concern that the workers must exchange their labour for the ability to survive, I’m sure the plight of the Chinese worker has direct analogues with Brazil, the UK and many other capitalist countries. Heck if you are born with the wrong hukou, you can be denied health care and your children their education
I explained outright what my point on the USSR was, it did not need to end, but was done from the top-down. Socialism wasn’t in danger of collapse at the time of the Soviet Union’s dissolution.
As for the PRC, I’m well aware that capitalist systems have public sectors, that wasn’t my point. My point was that the large firms and key industries are publicly owned. Overwhelmingly so. Further, the state is run by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. By having the large firms and key industries publicly owned and run, this form of ownership is the principle aspect, and thus has dominance over the rest of the economy.
Britain, on the other hand, was and still is a capitalist country dominated by private capital. Having some level of public sector for things like healthcare while private capital has absolute dominance over finance, the large firms, etc means ultimately it’s the bourgeoisie that have power. It also has a literal monarchy. Further, Britain runs on imperialism to subsidize a lot of these costs for safety nets.
I did address that Chinese workers don’t have the same level of safety nets, I said China is in the primary, initial stages of socialism. Ideally there shouldn’t need to be wage labor, and there should be more robust safety nets, but those don’t determine if a system is socialist or not. Socialism is a mode of production, so it’s important to actually center the relation to production, and as I already established public ownership forms the principle aspect of the PRC.
So why did they voluntarily dissolve the union? And to my point, did socialism end when they dissolve the union? My point was that socialism gives way to capitalism and by extension fascism.
With China, my point is that they were more socialist and they’re becoming more capitalist. SOE do not make a country socialist. The UK was my first example and I never said they were socialist, I was saying that China by GDP has a similar concentration of state owned enterprises as the UK in the post war period, leading me to believe that they have collapsed into capitalism. Despite rising incomes, these benefits have been unequally spread across society. Look at GINI and wealth distribution by income, i will admit that in the 2020s it has plateaued, but even still their gini by income and wealth is worse than my home country of Australia (incidentally our largest bank was partially state owned until 1991.) Despite China being far more equal before Deng xiaoping reformed the economy.
China now is socialist light, not even at Nordic levels by most measurements Wealth and income inequality is worse than many capitalist countries, people living in cities earn far more than those in regional areas. Education, retirement pensions, health care and housing are tied to where you were born.
The USSR was socialist, Russia widely considered to be it’s successor, is not
The idea that socialism gives way to capitalism necessarily implies that socialism naturally gives way to capitalism, ie this is something that is economically compelled, rather than a decision to be made. The USSR was not economically compelled to dissolve. Perestroika was damaging, and there were multiple issues with the Khrushchev, Gorbachev, and Yeltsin eras leading to lack of faith in the political institutions that were not due to socialism, but due to more complex factors. Your claim also requires states like Cuba, China, Vietnam, etc to necessarily be becoming capitalist, when the opposite is true.
Secondly, on to China. Private property is not itself capitalism. Private property is the basis of capitalism, but existed well befote capitalism, and exists in socialism as well. Concentration of state owned industry has nothing to do with it, what matters is which is the principle aspect, ie which governs the large firms and key industries, ie the aspects of the economy that have power, as well as which class has control of the state. Britain is capitalist because the large firms and key industries are private and the state is controlled by capitalists and a vestigial monarchy. China is socialist because the large firms and key industries are publicly owned and the state is owned by the proletariat.
China is not becoming “more capitalist.” The market reforms were corrective measures from their ultraleft period, where they tried to achieve higher levels of public control than were realistically efficient for their level of development. Public planning works best on developed industry, China was underdeveloped yet tried to go beyond their means. This resulted in uneven and unstable growth.
The Nordic countries are capitalist because the large firms and key industries are privately owned, the state is under control of capitalists, and they fund their safety nets from imperialism. Having a public oil industry doesn’t upset that balance. Socialism does not mean equality either, it is a mode of production driven by worker ownership and control as the principle aspect.
As for the urban/rural divide, this is changing. China is developing rapidly, and now towns and rural areas are being specifically targeted for development. Even before this, though, uneven development of the towns and cities does not mean it isn’t socialist. You have a very liberal understanding of socialism that appears to be based on vibes alone, and not on Marxist analysis.
The USSR dissolved into capitalism. It had a nationalist movement in the aftermath of shock therapy, and socialism is rising in popularity. The KPRF had 63,000 new members over the last few years and is the second largest political party. To begin with, fascism is capitalism in decay, it isn’t removable from that context.
As for the PRC, it is democratic, moreso than liberal democracy. Further, inequality is decreasing in the 2020s, and morever socialism is not defined purely by the scale of disparity, but by the mode of production.
To the first paragraph, that is exactly what I’m saying; socialism gives way to capitalism, which according to comments elsewhere in this post is fascism.
I never said that the PRC is or isn’t democratic, I implied that it wasn’t socialist. Workers need to sell their labour to survive and do not have a stake in the companies they work for. Well besides what they can buy on exchanges. Labour, housing, food and health care are all commodities.
Socialism doesn’t give way to capitalism naturally, the USSR didn’t collapse, it was dissolved. It didn’t need to be.
As for the PRC, it’s absolutely socialist, even if it isn’t fully automated luxury gay space communism yet. The large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and the working class is in control. There is still commodity production and markets play a heavy role, but that’s because markets do have some level of use when it comes to developing the structures necessary to run a fully centrally planned economy, and as long as the large firms and key industries are publicly owned, the private sector doesn’t actually have the power in society. This is socialism.
In the first paragraph, I’m really unsure what you’re trying to say with collapse vs dissolve, but the end result was that socialism evolved into what ever version of capitalism it is now
State owned corporations are not incompatible with capitalism. The level of public ownership in China now is roughly equal to that of the 1960s UK as a proportion of GDP.
And you never addressed my concern that the workers must exchange their labour for the ability to survive, I’m sure the plight of the Chinese worker has direct analogues with Brazil, the UK and many other capitalist countries. Heck if you are born with the wrong hukou, you can be denied health care and your children their education
I explained outright what my point on the USSR was, it did not need to end, but was done from the top-down. Socialism wasn’t in danger of collapse at the time of the Soviet Union’s dissolution.
As for the PRC, I’m well aware that capitalist systems have public sectors, that wasn’t my point. My point was that the large firms and key industries are publicly owned. Overwhelmingly so. Further, the state is run by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. By having the large firms and key industries publicly owned and run, this form of ownership is the principle aspect, and thus has dominance over the rest of the economy.
Britain, on the other hand, was and still is a capitalist country dominated by private capital. Having some level of public sector for things like healthcare while private capital has absolute dominance over finance, the large firms, etc means ultimately it’s the bourgeoisie that have power. It also has a literal monarchy. Further, Britain runs on imperialism to subsidize a lot of these costs for safety nets.
I did address that Chinese workers don’t have the same level of safety nets, I said China is in the primary, initial stages of socialism. Ideally there shouldn’t need to be wage labor, and there should be more robust safety nets, but those don’t determine if a system is socialist or not. Socialism is a mode of production, so it’s important to actually center the relation to production, and as I already established public ownership forms the principle aspect of the PRC.
So why did they voluntarily dissolve the union? And to my point, did socialism end when they dissolve the union? My point was that socialism gives way to capitalism and by extension fascism.
With China, my point is that they were more socialist and they’re becoming more capitalist. SOE do not make a country socialist. The UK was my first example and I never said they were socialist, I was saying that China by GDP has a similar concentration of state owned enterprises as the UK in the post war period, leading me to believe that they have collapsed into capitalism. Despite rising incomes, these benefits have been unequally spread across society. Look at GINI and wealth distribution by income, i will admit that in the 2020s it has plateaued, but even still their gini by income and wealth is worse than my home country of Australia (incidentally our largest bank was partially state owned until 1991.) Despite China being far more equal before Deng xiaoping reformed the economy.
China now is socialist light, not even at Nordic levels by most measurements Wealth and income inequality is worse than many capitalist countries, people living in cities earn far more than those in regional areas. Education, retirement pensions, health care and housing are tied to where you were born.
The USSR was socialist, Russia widely considered to be it’s successor, is not
The idea that socialism gives way to capitalism necessarily implies that socialism naturally gives way to capitalism, ie this is something that is economically compelled, rather than a decision to be made. The USSR was not economically compelled to dissolve. Perestroika was damaging, and there were multiple issues with the Khrushchev, Gorbachev, and Yeltsin eras leading to lack of faith in the political institutions that were not due to socialism, but due to more complex factors. Your claim also requires states like Cuba, China, Vietnam, etc to necessarily be becoming capitalist, when the opposite is true.
Secondly, on to China. Private property is not itself capitalism. Private property is the basis of capitalism, but existed well befote capitalism, and exists in socialism as well. Concentration of state owned industry has nothing to do with it, what matters is which is the principle aspect, ie which governs the large firms and key industries, ie the aspects of the economy that have power, as well as which class has control of the state. Britain is capitalist because the large firms and key industries are private and the state is controlled by capitalists and a vestigial monarchy. China is socialist because the large firms and key industries are publicly owned and the state is owned by the proletariat.
China is not becoming “more capitalist.” The market reforms were corrective measures from their ultraleft period, where they tried to achieve higher levels of public control than were realistically efficient for their level of development. Public planning works best on developed industry, China was underdeveloped yet tried to go beyond their means. This resulted in uneven and unstable growth.
The Nordic countries are capitalist because the large firms and key industries are privately owned, the state is under control of capitalists, and they fund their safety nets from imperialism. Having a public oil industry doesn’t upset that balance. Socialism does not mean equality either, it is a mode of production driven by worker ownership and control as the principle aspect.
As for the urban/rural divide, this is changing. China is developing rapidly, and now towns and rural areas are being specifically targeted for development. Even before this, though, uneven development of the towns and cities does not mean it isn’t socialist. You have a very liberal understanding of socialism that appears to be based on vibes alone, and not on Marxist analysis.