The reason the Soviets didn't last was mostly political and less economic. Both things are never isolate, anyways, but the Soviet Union could've lasted indefinitely if the leadership honestly spent effort solving problems. Instead, they openly adopted a capitalist line and sabotaged the country in the last moments. This had nothing to do with the economy of the country.
The Soviets also spearheaded space exploration and satellite technology, before capitalist economies reproduced these achievements. This was a thriving economy in the 20th century, obviously very efficient, showing enough surplus to advance innovative research. Development of production at a scale unparalleled in history.
The Chinese political economic tactic to survive in a capitalist landscape was basically concentrating production and population (increased market demand) and thus making all countries essentially dependent on China and its market so that it could have the freedom to develop its own mode of production unlike the USSR. This was a certainly a step ahead of the Soviets, to which capitalist countries so far haven't found any solution to respond with. Because attacking China is attacking the whole world market, so capitalist countries can't do anything about it without also destroying themselves in the process.
Market allocation decentralizes research because every bourgeois is competing with each other for a more efficient production and marketing. You don't need someone to oversee the operation of a company and conceive of ways to make it more efficient. The fact that (petty) bougies do it is because they are directly attached to the company and its profits. They are the ones who directly benefit from it, so they are very interested in that. So markets can advance the development of productive forces in some industries.
The problem is that it obviously allows exploitation of the proletariat and concentration of capital, resulting in a myriad of social problems. It also risks giving the bourgeoisie too much power, which should be constantly put in check to make sure capital cannot touch the political institutions.
TL;DR: The Soviets at its peak (60's - 70's) had a superior model in terms of development of productive forces compared to the capitalist economies and in terms of relations of production, while the Chinese has a superior model in terms of strategy.
The problem is that it obviously allows exploitation of the proletariat and concentration of capital, resulting in a myriad of social problems. It also risks giving the bourgeoisie too much power, which should be constantly put in check to make sure capital cannot touch the political institutions.
So would you say then that the Chinese economic model has to eventually become completely planned to get rid of these contradictions?
The Chinese economic model is already completely planned, the difference is that the market is part of their plan. Each enterprise plan on their own (and medium to large ones already have the presence of communist party members in the planning process), and at the same time, the country directs development through investment.
Not really, no. In some aspects, yes.
The reason the Soviets didn't last was mostly political and less economic. Both things are never isolate, anyways, but the Soviet Union could've lasted indefinitely if the leadership honestly spent effort solving problems. Instead, they openly adopted a capitalist line and sabotaged the country in the last moments. This had nothing to do with the economy of the country.
The Soviets also spearheaded space exploration and satellite technology, before capitalist economies reproduced these achievements. This was a thriving economy in the 20th century, obviously very efficient, showing enough surplus to advance innovative research. Development of production at a scale unparalleled in history.
The Chinese political economic tactic to survive in a capitalist landscape was basically concentrating production and population (increased market demand) and thus making all countries essentially dependent on China and its market so that it could have the freedom to develop its own mode of production unlike the USSR. This was a certainly a step ahead of the Soviets, to which capitalist countries so far haven't found any solution to respond with. Because attacking China is attacking the whole world market, so capitalist countries can't do anything about it without also destroying themselves in the process.
Market allocation decentralizes research because every bourgeois is competing with each other for a more efficient production and marketing. You don't need someone to oversee the operation of a company and conceive of ways to make it more efficient. The fact that (petty) bougies do it is because they are directly attached to the company and its profits. They are the ones who directly benefit from it, so they are very interested in that. So markets can advance the development of productive forces in some industries.
The problem is that it obviously allows exploitation of the proletariat and concentration of capital, resulting in a myriad of social problems. It also risks giving the bourgeoisie too much power, which should be constantly put in check to make sure capital cannot touch the political institutions.
TL;DR: The Soviets at its peak (60's - 70's) had a superior model in terms of development of productive forces compared to the capitalist economies and in terms of relations of production, while the Chinese has a superior model in terms of strategy.
So would you say then that the Chinese economic model has to eventually become completely planned to get rid of these contradictions?
The Chinese economic model is already completely planned, the difference is that the market is part of their plan. Each enterprise plan on their own (and medium to large ones already have the presence of communist party members in the planning process), and at the same time, the country directs development through investment.
I see. So in which way then can the exploitation of the proletariat end?
There's no cake recipe