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 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.