I think what gets overlooked in these discussions is that capital was legally liquidated, but still existed in the soviet union in extensive black markets. The presence of private property wasn’t totally abolished, but was forced under the table and out of sight. Even with the black markets, the soviet economy of course was still more planned and controlled than the PRC’s present form, but it wasn’t a clear cut case of abolishing private property in the USSR.
What matters in determining if a country is socialist or not is if the working class is in control of the state, and public ownership the principle aspect of the economy. Both the PRC and the USSR at all points have fit that understanding (with the exception of the last days of the soviet union), to greater or lesser degrees. It isn’t whether private ownership has been legally abolished, or the ratio of private to public.
Of course, over time the state’s goal is to collectivize production and distribution. I don’t think we disagree there. However, I think such direct comparisons of the ratios of such and such countries as an indication of whether or not a country is meaningfully “socialist” at a nominal level isn’t quite right.
As for Russia and Belarus, I do agree that Belarus is likely closer. I think the greatest reason why they would adopt a model closer to China’s is moreso because of compatibility with the Chinese economy, and that perhaps they would collectivize at similar rates, for better and worse.
I would say that we should make sure to carefully make a distinction between saying capital existed in a continuous form in the Soviet Union as the black market vs observing that it was the exchange of illegal commodities smuggled in. I do suppose that does unto itself form a sort of capitalist market as its the importation of commodities from capital states in pursuit of profit, yet the existence of a illegal commodity market doesn’t mean capital existed within the Soviet Union. The illegal commodity markets did not form a distinctive expropriating class that could influence the governance of the State as you mentioned in your second paragraph. The distinction also holds fairly true for China as well due to the fact that capitalists may exist within the state’s economic system they are kept on an extremely tight lease by the party to ensure they do not collaborate amongst themselves and with international finance capital to organize themselves into their own class. Key difference for me stands on the fact that they still exist and are allowed to exert their influence on the decision processes of the state. This may be limited to the individual level instead of a class level, yet it demarcated a clear difference for the Soviet Union during the transition from the NEP to a planned economy and I would argue that key point aught be considered the one of the sections in the line in the ground that demarcates a socialist economy from a mixed economy. Of course all in all this is more of an academic discussion at the end of the day because we’re not the ones that planned the Soviet economy nor the ones planning the Chinese economy thus I think there’s plenty of holes in my understanding of how they would draw concrete and definite delineations among the stages of socialist construction.
I agree, this is purely academic. I don’t think you’re wrong, per se, this is largely a semantical argument. Beyond the mercantilist commodity markets, there was also cooperative ownership in the agricultural sector. No socialist economy has ever been “pure,” even the DPRK has private ownership in special economic zones like Rason. That’s why I put an emphasis on looking at which aspect of the economy is principle, and which class is dominant.
China’s Socialist Market Economy is quite different from the soviet model. In some ways, it’s lagging behind even the Maoist era when it comes to societal guarantees. At the same time, I do believe that we have to understand that the path they’ve chosen has largely worked out heavily in favor of the PRC, and allowed them to surpass the USSR in other areas.
I believe when we try to identify socialism as what the soviets did, we are making an error (not saying you do that). We need to apply dialectical materialism consistently towards how we view socialist states and their progress.
I think what gets overlooked in these discussions is that capital was legally liquidated, but still existed in the soviet union in extensive black markets. The presence of private property wasn’t totally abolished, but was forced under the table and out of sight. Even with the black markets, the soviet economy of course was still more planned and controlled than the PRC’s present form, but it wasn’t a clear cut case of abolishing private property in the USSR.
What matters in determining if a country is socialist or not is if the working class is in control of the state, and public ownership the principle aspect of the economy. Both the PRC and the USSR at all points have fit that understanding (with the exception of the last days of the soviet union), to greater or lesser degrees. It isn’t whether private ownership has been legally abolished, or the ratio of private to public.
Of course, over time the state’s goal is to collectivize production and distribution. I don’t think we disagree there. However, I think such direct comparisons of the ratios of such and such countries as an indication of whether or not a country is meaningfully “socialist” at a nominal level isn’t quite right.
As for Russia and Belarus, I do agree that Belarus is likely closer. I think the greatest reason why they would adopt a model closer to China’s is moreso because of compatibility with the Chinese economy, and that perhaps they would collectivize at similar rates, for better and worse.
I would say that we should make sure to carefully make a distinction between saying capital existed in a continuous form in the Soviet Union as the black market vs observing that it was the exchange of illegal commodities smuggled in. I do suppose that does unto itself form a sort of capitalist market as its the importation of commodities from capital states in pursuit of profit, yet the existence of a illegal commodity market doesn’t mean capital existed within the Soviet Union. The illegal commodity markets did not form a distinctive expropriating class that could influence the governance of the State as you mentioned in your second paragraph. The distinction also holds fairly true for China as well due to the fact that capitalists may exist within the state’s economic system they are kept on an extremely tight lease by the party to ensure they do not collaborate amongst themselves and with international finance capital to organize themselves into their own class. Key difference for me stands on the fact that they still exist and are allowed to exert their influence on the decision processes of the state. This may be limited to the individual level instead of a class level, yet it demarcated a clear difference for the Soviet Union during the transition from the NEP to a planned economy and I would argue that key point aught be considered the one of the sections in the line in the ground that demarcates a socialist economy from a mixed economy. Of course all in all this is more of an academic discussion at the end of the day because we’re not the ones that planned the Soviet economy nor the ones planning the Chinese economy thus I think there’s plenty of holes in my understanding of how they would draw concrete and definite delineations among the stages of socialist construction.
I agree, this is purely academic. I don’t think you’re wrong, per se, this is largely a semantical argument. Beyond the mercantilist commodity markets, there was also cooperative ownership in the agricultural sector. No socialist economy has ever been “pure,” even the DPRK has private ownership in special economic zones like Rason. That’s why I put an emphasis on looking at which aspect of the economy is principle, and which class is dominant.
China’s Socialist Market Economy is quite different from the soviet model. In some ways, it’s lagging behind even the Maoist era when it comes to societal guarantees. At the same time, I do believe that we have to understand that the path they’ve chosen has largely worked out heavily in favor of the PRC, and allowed them to surpass the USSR in other areas.
I believe when we try to identify socialism as what the soviets did, we are making an error (not saying you do that). We need to apply dialectical materialism consistently towards how we view socialist states and their progress.
I lost two replies to screen refreshes in two days. I’m sad
I hate when that happens, comrade. Sorry to hear that.