The Soviet economic model was based around immediate survival. The Chinese model, not facing the same existential threat of a Barbarossa style invasion as the USSR, is focused more on long-term competitiveness and integration into the global economy which is necessary to develop soft power.
the soviets paved the way for china, they made mistakes and china learned from them.
I find it odd that you ask so many ambiguous, broad and open ended questions never showing your cards (any hunches, opinions or investigation of your own) and when people leave answers your only interaction with them is just asking more question in the same way.
They’re an info-broker. Not your stereotypical movie one; one can be simply an “info-broker” by asking open-ended questions to ascertain certain “standards” either they realize it or not. A collector if you will. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing depending on the framing of the information given to whomever the source is or if they’re actually just collecting some of their own. Seen this a few times.
They’re purposefully feeling and testing out the community. They ask questions related to our personal circles, how we interact with others and indirectly questioning our organizational capacities. Is it no coincidence they ask constantly about open-ended questions about our personal lives and organizational capacities? Does this mean they’re a “Fed” or I’m accusing them of anything nefarious? Not at all, actually, quite the opposite. Perhaps, they are curious.
Good call. I think those who have been giving them glib and joking responses are doing it right. If they are looking for actual information, they should ask for further reading, not expecting the community to do their theory work for them.
I have a working theory involving the ganja.
Ngl I’ve been getting the same weird vibe from them for a while. Particularly when the questions are framed as “is this thing that we generally support actually bad, or maybe not?”
The thing you should find strange is the indirect questioning of our social capabilities. That’s the only thing I’m concerned about. I posted a picture above. They seem quite interested in that.
The Chinese economic model is a different one to the Soviet model. They have different goals and aims and exist within different circumstances so it is pointless to compare them like this.
- China good, USSR bad.
- China bad, USSR badder.
- USSR good, China gooder.
I have covered all possible comparisons from across all ideologies, pick your answer.
(1924-1965) USSR Amazing, China (Not enough data/ Civil War)
(1965-1980) USSR Good, China facing growing pains
(1980-1995) USSR Atrocious, China decent and rapidly improving
(1995-2010) Ex-USSR Disaster, China good but many problems remain
(2010-Present) Ex-USSR Horrific, China Amazing
Did I get the general comparison right?
I wrote a joke answer because such comparisons are stupid. So what if China’s model is better than USSR’s, can it be copy-pasted onto the currently non-existent USSR? If USSR used China’s current model back then, would the China in that version of history have developed as quickly as it did? How would such a model even look like when used by the USSR, such a question can only be answered by first analyzing the conditions of China and the USSR. Countries have relations with each other and different models will result in different relations.
Of course we can attempt to compare models/policies/theories using certain outcomes like per capita GDP/life expectancy/etc., but that doesn’t automatically turn the winning model into a blueprint that everyone can use. This is why we emphasize that Marxism must be adapted to every nation’s specific conditions, the process that links theory to praxis cannot be copied wholesale.
I occasionally see comrades debate about whether China should support political movements/revolutions in other countries, the answer is an obvious NO when you look at history. The CPC has had its own share of lessons from left-deviationists that follow the Comintern and Stalin. Mao Zedong wasn’t always the revered leader as his emphasis was on peasants in rural areas, unlike the “classical” thought of cities and working class.
Even if you disregard history, foreigners are not as informed about local conditions as locals, so it would be arrogant for China to attempt to guide or lead the political struggles in another country. It’s even more inadvisable when you consider the leftist infighting that exists in various western countries.
So in your opinion China playing a big role in BRICS is enough of the role for the international proletariat?
Would you also say that the concept of exporting Revolution is just wrong?
I don’t think China’s involvement in BRICS is a big role currently, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is probably China’s biggest international contribution in terms of common development for proletariats across the world.
Depends on what you mean by exporting revolution. I think the “exporter” should not be hierarchically above the local communist party, something like Comintern’s leadership relation with respect to the CPC in the early years should be avoided as it will lead to many problems, like misunderstanding the local conditions. The CPC maintains relations with various parties (both communist, like Cuba’s PCC and Russia’s CPRF, and non-communist like Russia’s United Russia party) on equal terms, that’s probably good enough until international conditions change.
By exporting the Revolution, I meant exporting an armed Revolution by exporting weapons and military equipment and soldiers, the way China and Cuba were doing back in the day.
Can you explain where and when did China export armed revolution? If you are referring to Vietnam and DPRK, those were military aid to existing socialist states and not exporting armed revolution.
The China model gets me cheap knockoff plushies so therefore it is better
:homer-backs-into-bushes:
I think the short answer is I wouldn’t attempt to adequately compare apples to oranges in a Lemmy post, not that I even could in this case, as I don’t think I’m qualified to. Both Russia and China had different material conditions, not only between each other but also within each one over the span of decades. And the two economic models evolved over time as well—neither was static—which means you’d want to investigate their evolution over time.
Furthermore, keep in mind that you can’t simply copy your favorite economic snapshot of a country in a moment in time, and then paste it into, say, Burgerland today, because those are different material conditions.
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.
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.
I see. So in which way then can the exploitation of the proletariat end?
Ben Norton makes tons of great videos about the Chinese economy. Here’s one from 7 days ago.
I watched this video. This video is actually the reason why I asked this question. He just briefly mentioned how the 2 economies are dissimilar and explains the Chinese Market Socialism, but he doesn’t go into detail about the Soviet Planned economy in general.
In terms of abolition of exploitation, availability of social welfare, and equity, the Soviet system (post NEP) was superior. In terms of integration with the global economic system of the world as it stands and rapidity of development, the Chinese system (SWCC era) is superior. But the material conditions of these countries and the historical epoch they existed in dictated both of these structures, and I believe they are both well suited socialist economies to those conditions. You must remember the USSR’s own similar period of economic development during the NEP before making comparisons like this
