Again, you are describing the CPSU between 1923-1931. Did that prevent the transition to collectivization throughout the 1930’s?
The NEP was a progression from what had come before, SWCC is a regression in terms of economic relations.
That is much close to socialism than they were back in 1976.
No, markets now comprise a huge proportion of the economy now, most economic output comes from the private sector. It would require a massive transition to get the economy to become socialist.
The NEP was a progression from what had come before, SWCC is a regression in terms of economic relations.
Selling peasants to oil barons and industrialists is not "an improvement in terms of economic relations." It did help develop the USSR's productive capacities in important ways, though.
No, markets now comprise a huge proportion of the economy now
Neither socialism or capitalism is defined by "markets"
most economic output comes from the private sector.
True. The CPC has taken serious steps to increase national control of industry this year [1] Also, the entire private sector is loaded with incredible amounts of debt to the national bank, which provides the legal grounds for nationalization.
The mechanisms exist for a transition to socialism. The current administration has taken clear moves in that direction. The CPC has been pretty clear on their commitments to building socialism. And history has demonstrated that the CPC follows through on their commitments.
None of this is to say "China will definitely be socialist by 2035." I can not see the future. However, their current actions are consistent with that aim.
It would require a massive transition to get the economy to become socialist.
It would require a transition, yes. It does not require the development of the productive capacities necessary for socialism, which China lacked in the 1970's. That is why I say China is the closest it has ever been to socialism.
Maybe Mao's China could develop the capacity to both resist imperialism and provide continued material improvements to the people, necessary to prevent color revolution. The USSR and Eastern Bloc failed horribly in this regard. It is reasonable that the CPC decided to pursue a different path.
Selling peasants to oil barons and industrialists is not “an improvement in terms of economic relations.” It did help develop the USSR’s productive capacities in important ways, though.
When did they do that? I'm not familiar with that aspect of the NEP
Having state control over all major industries and utilities is an improvement over what existed in the Russian Empire though
Neither socialism or capitalism is defined by “markets”
Markets require commodity exchange, commodity exchange presupposes private property. Capitalism is literally defined as the private property of the means of production and the production of commodities for exchange. Markets are the beating heart of capitalism.
True. The CPC has taken serious steps to increase national control of industry this year [1] Also, the entire private sector is loaded with incredible amounts of debt to the national bank, which provides the legal grounds for nationalization. The mechanisms exist for a transition to socialism. The current administration has taken clear moves in that direction. The CPC has been pretty clear on their commitments to building socialism. And history has demonstrated that the CPC follows through on their commitments. None of this is to say “China will definitely be socialist by 2035.” I can not see the future. However, their current actions are consistent with that aim.
Khruschev said that the USSR would achieve communism by 1980. We all know how that turned out.
It remains to be seen if the CPC will actually turn to socialism, what evidence do you have that the CPC follows through on their commitments?
Maybe Mao’s China could develop the capacity to both resist imperialism and provide continued material improvements to the people, necessary to prevent color revolution. The USSR and Eastern Bloc failed horribly in this regard. It is reasonable that the CPC decided to pursue a different path.
Basically, the entire reason why China hasn't fallen to a colour revolution in the past 30 years is that they haven't challenged western capital nearly as much as the Soviets did. In fact, the reform and opening-up process likely helped western capital a lot by giving them the opportunity to outsource to a skilled, cheap labour pool in the 1990s and 2000s. China is not as anti-imperialist as people on this site like to make them out to be. Even if the state is committed to anti-imperialism, there is only so much you can oppose imperialism while at the same time being a part of their supply chains.
The NEP was a progression from what had come before, SWCC is a regression in terms of economic relations.
No, markets now comprise a huge proportion of the economy now, most economic output comes from the private sector. It would require a massive transition to get the economy to become socialist.
Selling peasants to oil barons and industrialists is not "an improvement in terms of economic relations." It did help develop the USSR's productive capacities in important ways, though.
Neither socialism or capitalism is defined by "markets"
True. The CPC has taken serious steps to increase national control of industry this year [1] Also, the entire private sector is loaded with incredible amounts of debt to the national bank, which provides the legal grounds for nationalization.
The mechanisms exist for a transition to socialism. The current administration has taken clear moves in that direction. The CPC has been pretty clear on their commitments to building socialism. And history has demonstrated that the CPC follows through on their commitments.
None of this is to say "China will definitely be socialist by 2035." I can not see the future. However, their current actions are consistent with that aim.
It would require a transition, yes. It does not require the development of the productive capacities necessary for socialism, which China lacked in the 1970's. That is why I say China is the closest it has ever been to socialism.
Maybe Mao's China could develop the capacity to both resist imperialism and provide continued material improvements to the people, necessary to prevent color revolution. The USSR and Eastern Bloc failed horribly in this regard. It is reasonable that the CPC decided to pursue a different path.
When did they do that? I'm not familiar with that aspect of the NEP
Having state control over all major industries and utilities is an improvement over what existed in the Russian Empire though
Markets require commodity exchange, commodity exchange presupposes private property. Capitalism is literally defined as the private property of the means of production and the production of commodities for exchange. Markets are the beating heart of capitalism.
Khruschev said that the USSR would achieve communism by 1980. We all know how that turned out.
It remains to be seen if the CPC will actually turn to socialism, what evidence do you have that the CPC follows through on their commitments?
Basically, the entire reason why China hasn't fallen to a colour revolution in the past 30 years is that they haven't challenged western capital nearly as much as the Soviets did. In fact, the reform and opening-up process likely helped western capital a lot by giving them the opportunity to outsource to a skilled, cheap labour pool in the 1990s and 2000s. China is not as anti-imperialist as people on this site like to make them out to be. Even if the state is committed to anti-imperialism, there is only so much you can oppose imperialism while at the same time being a part of their supply chains.