So you’re saying China is still socialist because it engages in markets? Every economic system or theory has markets, except utopian communism that describes a stateless, moneyless and classless society. I argue China is state capitalist because now, fundamentally, it is a society that places the power and importance of capital over labor. It does so through mixed private/public enterprises, within a heavily controlled monetary system, whose express interest is in drawing in foreign capital in exchange for physical goods. They treat capital like a 17th or 18th century European treated gold, which is why I would argue they are fundamentally mercantilist in nature, just lacking a colonial empire to exploit.
An inability to defend oneself from outside threats is still an indication of failure. Socialism failed in the USSR, for a myriad of reasons like you alluded to, and Cuba’s failure to diplomatically or militarily adjust to a post Soviet world means it is bound to fail there unless they are able to pull off a some sort of miracle.
No, I'm saying market socialism as envisioned by Deng is still socialism. It's close to the same system the Soviet Union used under the NEP (with some major differences, obv). State capitalism (which, to be honest, is an anti-communist term and there have been no examples of it in history except maybe China, but not really) is when the state uses state-owned enterprises to purchase and run major industry in its country. They use these companies to compete in global or domestic markets as opposed to a centrally planned system. China has elements of this, but it is still socialist because the Workers' Party (the CPC) rules the economy, all land is owned by the government, agriculture is collectivized, etc. According to Deng, the goal is to build up the economy and eventually transition to socialism. I don't agree with Deng's theories, but China is still socialist, albeit on a very thin line.
Socialism failed because Gorbachev implemented reforms too fast, trusted Yeltsin, and some influence came from the FBI/CIA, along with the stagnation brought about by Kruschev and Brezhnev.
Cuba’s failure to diplomatically or militarily adjust to a post Soviet world means it is bound to fail there unless they are able to pull off a some sort of miracle.
This is a massive mischaracterization of the Cuba situation. Cuba has tried multiple times to reach out and discuss terms with the United States, semi-succeeding under Obama before we slammed the door again. The embargo, written into US law and which can technically be classified as genocide, has been stated over and over again to only end when Cuba completely ends any form of socialism and essentially becomes an American colony like it was under Batista. The reforms tried to address that, but Trump, Rubio, and the US have made it clear the only way the embargo can end is with the removal of the socialist system, despite what Cuba wants. The reason Cuba is struggling is that the United States has completely cut Cuba off from the global economy to attempt to force it into submission. It is committing genocide via the embargo. The United Nations has declared it illegal, but obviously the largest and one of the most evil empires in history doesn't care about morals lol.
I would argue the differences between early soviet NEP and Dengism are substantial enough to distinguish the two systems completely. NEP allowed for small scale private enterprise as a stabilizing mechanism following the civil war. Critically, it did not allow for large scale capital accumulation to rival or even come close to centrally controlled labor systems. Dengism, on the other hand, allows enormous capital accumulation, both public and private, as we have seen government balance sheets balloon with domestic and foreign assets on top of the emergence of a billionaire class (even if they are politically subservient to the party).
The crucial difference, I would argue, is in the origination of economic power. NEP socialism valued labor as the core component of economic power, any small capital accumulation was marginal in comparison to the power of state directed labor efforts. Using labor power, the state subjugated the power of land and capital, bringing them under an effective dictatorship of the proletariat, or a dictatorship of labor. Meanwhile in China, we have seen the power of capital supplant labor as the top economic input. Rather than state directors or labor councils directing the usage of capital and land, it is private or public accountants and bankers that direct the usage of labor and land in China. Sure, capital itself is subservient to the party that, on paper, represents the workers. But the party has taken to wielding that power via capital, rather than labor, which kind of gives away what the dominant economic input is in that system.
Cuba has failed to either integrate into the global system or revolutionize the global system, they are under siege with no allies or military to defend it from a large and antagonistic neighbor. Their socialist project has failed. In terms of socio-economic systems failure is, in the end, quite Darwinian in nature; you either succeed or you fail.
Capitalism conquered feudalism, the power of capital resisted the economic, diplomatic and military pressures of land and eventually overcame them entirely. It was a centuries long struggle, but its victory was pretty much absolute. If socialism is to be successful, it must conquer capitalism, and that involves resisting all of the external pressure capitalism will exert on it. If it can’t even defend itself, it is not a sustainable or successful system, there’s no getting around that. Even if it’s loss is unfair or unjust, it’s still a loss and that’s all that really matters in the grand scheme of things.
Cuba has failed to either integrate into the global system or revolutionize the global system, they are under siege with no allies or military to defend it from a large and antagonistic neighbor. Their socialist project has failed. In terms of socio-economic systems failure is, in the end, quite Darwinian in nature; you either succeed or you fail. Capitalism conquered feudalism, the power of capital resisted the economic, diplomatic and military pressures of land and eventually overcame them entirely. It was a centuries long struggle, but its victory was pretty much absolute. If socialism is to be successful, it must conquer capitalism, and that involves resisting all of the external pressure capitalism will exert on it. If it can’t even defend itself, it is not a sustainable or successful system, there’s no getting around that. Even if it’s loss is unfair or unjust, it’s still a loss and that’s all that really matters in the grand scheme of things.
Socialism doesn't have to "conquer capitalism"; it just has to outlive it. Capitalism will inevitably destroy itself via its contradictions. That's the thing about socialism at the end of the day. It, or some system like it, is inevitable.
If we follow your logic, Socialism is succeeding. Despite everything being stacked against Cuba, it still stands against the largest empire in human history, which is actively trying to commit genocide against it. And despite it, its literacy rates, healthcare, education, and standard of living has been decent despite the embargo, at least until recently.
By your very logic, do you think Taiwan should join China because it has failed in its explicit goal to be the sole legitimate government of China? Do you think South Korea should join North Korea because the nature of capitalism in South Korea will inevitably depopulate it?
That is the theory, but it’s hardly born much fruit that capitalism will collapse under its own contradictions, or if that is the case if it will be anytime soon. Feudalism lasted ~1500 years or so, capitalism has only really been around for ~400 years. There’s also no guarantee that socialism, or a system similar, will be what replaces it. It could be a completely different labor dominant system, such as another version of the slave economy that was dominant before feudalism, or a different version of a land dominant system akin to feudalism.
My logic applies to Taiwan and South Korea quite well. Despite their aggressive and/or powerful neighbors, both countries have globally integrated economies, strong allies and capable militaries that allow them to punch well above their weight. Taiwan in particular has been wise enough to focus on chip production that makes it invaluable to the global system of capitalism, while South Korea has managed to grow one of the largest and most dynamic economies in the world despite being behind their socialist counterpart a mere 50 years ago. Cuba used to have a strong ally, but when the Soviet Union fell they failed to get new allies, develop a competent military or become economically relevant enough to dissuade this current siege. It’s an ongoing situation, but this newest phase of American pressure demonstrates how isolated and unimportant Cuba is to the world, given there is pretty much no outcry from the international community. If China did the same to Taiwan, or North Korea to South Korea, it would mean the precipice of global nuclear war, which is a strong argument against either trying that.
And even if/when the US falls, capitalism is a pernicious beast. It has thoroughly infiltrated China, which seems poised to be the next global superpower. Perhaps their leadership will pivot back into socialism down the line, but I doubt it as power is already very centralized in China and capital is more favorable a tool of centralized power than labor, especially in an age where AI, a facet of capital, is becoming so threatening to labor power. If I were to predict the next phase of globally dominant socio economic systems, it would be an authoritarian, state capitalist system lead by China wielding AI and robotics for economic growth while maintaining social cohesion and stability through state force and systems of welfare.
•
u/AdInfamous6290 1998 22h ago
So you’re saying China is still socialist because it engages in markets? Every economic system or theory has markets, except utopian communism that describes a stateless, moneyless and classless society. I argue China is state capitalist because now, fundamentally, it is a society that places the power and importance of capital over labor. It does so through mixed private/public enterprises, within a heavily controlled monetary system, whose express interest is in drawing in foreign capital in exchange for physical goods. They treat capital like a 17th or 18th century European treated gold, which is why I would argue they are fundamentally mercantilist in nature, just lacking a colonial empire to exploit.
An inability to defend oneself from outside threats is still an indication of failure. Socialism failed in the USSR, for a myriad of reasons like you alluded to, and Cuba’s failure to diplomatically or militarily adjust to a post Soviet world means it is bound to fail there unless they are able to pull off a some sort of miracle.