Topic on Talk:Socialist market economy

We should not be treating Capitalist economies, such as "Socialist market economies", so well.

Market "Socialism" is at best, totally contradictory to the aims of creating the Communist mode of production. Communism requires the abolition of commodity production, and markets themselves are a means of commodity production, therefore, in order reach Communism, Market "Socialism" must not exist.

Furthermore, Market "Socialism" is itself an oxymoron. Markets, which commonly have private ownership of the means of production, constantly recreate bourgeois-exploitive relations. Hence, why Titoist Yugoslavia relied so much on IMF loans, and why it slowly became an economic puppet of the West, because, like Capitalism itself, Market "Socialism" logically ends with the consolidation in the hands of the few, and monopoly.

The term Market "Socialism" was created by crypto-capitalist revisionists and opportunists of the likes of Josip Tito and particularly Deng Xiaoping in order to enrich themselves at the expense of their people. Hence, why the "People's" Republic of China has over 75% of their economy in the hands of its capitalists (The PRC has the largest amont of billionaires in the world, much Socialism).

I suggest we apply a much more critical view to this right-deviationist anti-Marxist theory.

We should not be treating Capitalist economies, such as "Socialist market economies", so well. Market "Socialism" is at best, totally contradictory to the aims of creating the Communist mode of production. Communism requires the abolition of commodity production, and markets themselves are a means of commodity production, therefore, in order reach Communism, Market "Socialism" must not exist.

Socialism is by definition a contradiction between the capitalist economy and the nascent communist society. The way we speak about socialism does not come from Marx himself, at that time, Marx used the terms "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably, making no distinctions between the two. At the end of his life, he only acknowledged a distinction between a "first phase" and "higher phase" of communist society in Critique of the Gotha Program.

Socialism the way we use it today was first conceived (as far as I know) by Lenin in The state and revolution. Here is how Lenin understands it:

Marx makes a sober estimate of exactly how socialist society will have to manage its affairs. Marx proceeds to make a concrete analysis of the conditions of life of a society in which there will be no capitalism, and says:

“What we have to deal with here [in analyzing the programme of the workers' party] is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes.”

It is this communist society, which has just emerged into the light of day out of the womb of capitalism and which is in every respect stamped with the birthmarks of the old society, that Marx terms the “first”, or lower, phase of communist society.

But when Lassalle, having in view such a social order (usually called socialism, but termed by Marx the first phase of communism), says that this is “equitable distribution”, that this is “the equal right of all to an equal product of labor”, Lassalle is mistaken and Marx exposes the mistake. [highlights are my own]

So Lenin used socialism to describe what Marx called the first phase of communism, that is, the society still stamped with the birthmarks of the old (capitalist) society. This understanding of socialism is still accurate, and not even the experience of the USSR managed to create a socialism which abolished the production of commodities, which is what you claim is socialism. In contrast with your views, here is what Stalin had to say about commodity production and socialism in Economic problems of socialism in the USSR:

Commodity production must not be regarded as something sufficient unto itself, something independent of the surrounding economic conditions. Commodity production is older than capitalist production. It existed in slave-owning society, and served it, but did not lead to capitalism. It existed in feudal society and served it, yet, although it prepared some of the conditions for capitalist production, it did not lead to capitalism. Why then, one asks, cannot commodity production similarly serve our socialist society for a certain period without leading to capitalism, bearing in mind that in our country commodity production is not so boundless and all-embracing as it is under capitalist conditions, being confined within strict bounds thanks to such decisive economic conditions as social ownership of the means of production, the abolition of the system of wage labour, and the elimination of the system of exploitation?

The USSR at the time of Stalin had commodity production as well. This was the same position of Lenin when adopting the NEP to the conditions of the Russian Empire and the peasant economy. And it was the position of Deng Xiaoping when adopting the Reform and Opening Up.

I am not versed on Tito, so I cannot give my opinion on it, but your understanding of socialism is way ahead of the historical conditions of our times. Not even the USSR, which I consider the most advanced socialist experience yet, had abolished commodity production, and you are claiming socialism market socialism is an "oxymoron", when in fact it is a redundancy. There's no socialism without markets.

I am indeed fully aware, and accepting of, the fact that in the early stage of Socialism, it will necessarily have many features of Capitalism, including the existance of commodity production and markets.

I apologize if I failed to make my argument clear, but commodity production and markets can not exist if Socialism is to advance into Communism. Deng's entire "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" ideology fails to understand this. Commodity production, or in other words, economic goods that are given in exchange for money, must be slowly phased out of the economy as Socialism develops. In Stalin's USSR, this was already occurring - more-and-more goods were being given to the people in a way that was not a commodity. Given a few more decades, commodity production could have ended totally in the USSR. Unfortunately, Stalin's government, and therefore his economic policies, were couped and removed by a revisionist clique of Khrushchev.

As to the role of markets, they inherently create, as Marx put it, "commodity fetishism". Markets themselves are totally related to commodites, and therefore are capitalistic in nature. Markets are a network of non-state owned (under Socialism, this means that the proletarians to do not control a market) economic institutions which are present to sell commodites. Markets are furthermore capitalistic in the way that the people who run a market are almost always of petite-bourgeois if not bourgeois-proper class.

Because markets create exploitive capitalistic social and economic relations, they are therefore something which must be slowly removed from a Proletarian dictatorship, if Communism is to form.

Lastly, about your claim that:

"This was the same position of Lenin when adopting the NEP to the conditions of the Russian Empire and the peasant economy. And it was the position of Deng Xiaoping when adopting the Reform and Opening Up."

This is completly false. The NEP existed for the sake of developing the productive forces in order to turn the present state-capitalist economy into a socialist one, while still maintaining a Socialist state in the process. Their was nothing Socialist about the "People's" Republic of China, not even under Mao Zedong. The "Communist" Party of China, during the days of Mao, was a social-fascist revistionist party, which was perfectly willing to share power with the petite-bourgeoisie in their nation. Mao Zedong himself was a careerist and Han-Chinese Ultranationalist, who cared little about the Proletarian revolution, and only about the betterment of China.

In the wise words of Enver Hoxha:

"Chinese propaganda presents it as a revolution launched spontaneously from below, by the masses. But in reality it had to be organized. By whom? Here the figure of Lin Piao emerges. But how is it possible for such a Cultural Revolution to be launched by one person; while the Party and its Central Committee remain in the background? Only the Central Committee of the Party can take such decisions. It is a fact since 1956, when the 8th Congress of the CPC was held, more than five years have elapsed since the time when the 9th. Congress should have been convened. Why is this?

Normally, also, Plenums of the Central Committee of a Marxist-Leninist Party are held twice a year; but the recent Plenum of the CC of the CPC was held after four years delay! Then who is leading the Party? I suspect that since 1956, Mao has been left on the sidelines and turned into a mere symbol. Recently the Party has been completely over-shadowed by the name of, Mao Tse-tung. Behind the fanaticisation around the person of Mao Tse-tung lies something very dangerous."

The Chinese Revolution was doomed from the start, it was always capitalist and revisionist in nature. Deng simply persisted in Mao's revisionism, and sold out his people to Western corporations, and today, the PRC is one of the most unequal countries on this planet, largely because of Market "Socialism".

lmfao

Uh oh. It looks like we got a revisionist here!

Comrade, that is false. How can an Anti-revisionist, one who studies and is inspired by great Anti-revisionist theorists, and who is actively critical of revisionists, be a themselves a revisionist? Revisionism is defined as the act of distorting a critical Marxist theory, often for some careerist goal. By being critical of revisionist ideas like "market socialism", which are fundimentally Anti-Marxist, I am doing the very opposite of Revisionism - Anti-revisionism.

What a completely uneducated and slanderous claim!

你差不多得了，你不仅反对邓小平连毛泽东都反对，这是有史以来我听过最奇怪最可笑最愚蠢的话，马克思主义提议实施公有制是改善人民生活的方式，而不是社会主义的目标。你已经本末倒置了，是你在歪曲马克思主义，你是真正的修正主义者

你差不多得了，你不仅反对邓小平连毛泽东都反对，这是有史以来我听过最奇怪最可笑最愚蠢的话，马克思主义提议实施公有制是改善人民生活的方式，而不是社会主义的目标。你已经本末倒置了，是你在歪曲马克思主义，你是真正的修正主义者

If I am understanding what you said correctly, you are false. Socialism does not refer to some abstract idea of "Making peoples' lives better". Socialism is an economic mode of production, with a clear definition, not idealistic utopia as you seem to be claim it is.

Nations such as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, the German Democratic Republic, the People's Socialist Republic of Albania, and many others, have been able to almost totally remove private ownership of the means of production within a small amount of decades. The People's Republic of China has not done any of this, Deng and his successors turned the majority of the Chinese economy into private, often Western hands. By a Marxist definition, the People's Republic of China is Capitalist, more particularly, State-Capitalist, its economy being largely in the hands of the bourgeoisie.

那么请问为什么你会反对毛泽东

社会主义是为了施行公有制还是为了改善生活水平？在实行公有制的苏联，落后的轻工业阻碍了生活水平的提高，再或者邓小平前的中国，不合理的农业制度阻碍了农业生产。在这种情况下，你将这些制度称为公有制但却得不到人民的支持，那么你认为的社会主义该如何发展？在中国革命时，竭尽全力支持中共的农民是因共产党承诺会让他们过上好生活而支持共产党的，而不是因为共产党要实行公有制而支持共产党的。腾讯宣布拿出500亿支持乡村振兴战略，电商平台以负利润率销售贫困地区产品不是资本家良心发现而是他们要追随共产党的要求。且中国的能源医疗供水教育等等关乎国计民生的领域都是国有的，如何称为主要掌握在资产阶级手中

Socialism is defined as an economic system in which the Proletariat owns the means of production and state apparatus, not to "improve living standards". By that definition, every economic system in history - Primitive Communism, Slavery, Feudalism, and Capitalism must have been "Socialism", as they were at one point in history progressive to society.

"In the Soviet Union, where public ownership was implemented, backward light industry hindered the improvement of living standards"

You sound exactly like Liberals and other Capitalists. The reason why living standards were somewhat hindered later on in the existance of the USSR was because they had to instead spend money and resouces on the military in order to defend aganist the Western nations (and later on, China, when it betrayed the USSR). It was not as if the people in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were poor, they all had free housing, healthcare, jobs, and education, whereas in the People's Republic of China, thing such as healthcare are often privately owned, unemployment levels are higher than that of the United States of America, and wealther families can get tutors and such.

"In this case, you call these systems public ownership but they are not supported by the people, so how do you think socialism should develop?"

False, publically-owned economies in Eastern Europe and Asia were supported by the people. Even today, most people in Eastern Europe enjoyed their economy more when it was publically-owned. Socialism will first appear from State-Capitalism. For example, with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, this phase was the New Economic Policy. However, unlike the People's Republic of China, the Soviet Union was able to leave this State-Capitalist phase, and create a Socialist and Planned Economy within 20 years. It was a similar case in Cuba, or Korea, or Albania, or really in any other Socialist state.

"The sale of products in poor areas by e-commerce platforms at negative profit margins is not the conscience of capitalists, but they have to follow the requirements of the Communist Party. Moreover, China's energy, medical care, water supply, education and other fields related to national economy and people's livelihood are all state-owned. How can it be called that it is mainly in the hands of the bourgeoisie?"

Of course, many other Capitalist nations have some requirements for the bourgeoisie, such as environmental regulations. That still does not mean that the bourgeoisie do not exploit people and rule the government. In China, the "Communist" party and bourgeois class have mixed; many Communist party members are Bourgeois as well, therefore, many of these state-owned economic fuctions maintain Capitalist relations.

In short, you sound exactly like a European Social Democrat who falsely calls themselves a "Socialist". China is as Socialist as Sweden is - that is to say - it is Capitalist.

Translation/翻译

社会主义被定义为无产阶级拥有生产资料和国家机器的经济制度，而不是为了“提高生活水平”。根据这个定义，历史上的每一个经济体系——原始共产主义、奴隶制、封建主义和资本主义都必须是“社会主义”，因为它们在历史上的某个时刻向社会发展。

“在实行公有制的苏联，落后的轻工业阻碍了生活水平的提高”

你听起来很像自由主义者和其他资本家。苏联存在后生活水平受到一定阻碍的原因是，他们不得不在军队上花钱和资源以保卫反对派的西方国家（后来，中国背叛了苏联） .不是说苏维埃社会主义共和国的人民很穷，他们都有免费的住房、医疗保健、工作和教育，而在中华人民共和国，医疗保健之类的东西往往是私有的，失业率是比美国高，有钱的家庭可以找家教之类的。

"在这种情况下，你将这些制度称为公有制但却得不到人民的支持，那么你认为的社会主义该如何发展？"

东欧和亚洲的虚假公有经济得到人民的支持。即使在今天，东欧的大多数人都更喜欢公有经济。社会主义将首先出现在国家资本主义中。例如，对于苏维埃社会主义共和国联盟，这一阶段是新经济政策。然而，与中华人民共和国不同的是，苏联能够在 20 年内摆脱这个国家资本主义阶段，并建立社会主义和计划经济。在古巴、韩国、阿尔巴尼亚，或者实际上在任何其他社会主义国家，情况都是类似的。

“电商平台以负利润在贫困地区销售产品，这不是资本家的良心，而是必须按照共产党的要求。而且中国的能源、医疗、供水、教育等涉及国计民生的领域都是国有的，怎么能说主要掌握在资产阶级手里呢?"

当然，许多其他资本主义国家对资产阶级也有一些要求，比如环境法规。这还不是说资产阶级不剥削人民，不统治政府。在中国，“共”党与资产阶级混杂；许多共产党员也是资产阶级，因此，这些国有经济职能中有许多保持资本主义关系。

简而言之，你听起来就像一个错误地称自己为“社会主义者”的欧洲社会民主党人。中国和瑞典一样是社会主义的——也就是说——它是资本主义的。

你看起来就像网左PLUS

如果你认为实施公有制不是为了提高生活水平，那么我想你的理论绝不会被人们所支持。日用品缺乏，免费的住房拥挤且质量堪忧，免费医疗同样质量堪忧。如今中国依然有大批的苏式楼房，保暖性能弱，层高小，过道拥挤。最关键的问题是，在北京上海等大城市，人均居住面积小于十平方米。农村地区的医疗相当于没有，“医生”有一本小册子，告诉他什么样的症状需要使用什么样的药品。仅此而已。这是五十年前的中国，苏联的情况会好于中国，但也仍需提升。这并不是说苏联共产党是坏的，但苏联需要向民生投入更多精力。我不知道你口中的医疗私有是哪里听来的，在厦门的几乎所有大医院都是国有的，绝大多数地方也都是如此。在五十年前中国的计划经济体系下人们不能随意去其他地区，农村人口不能随意去到城市，故失业率低。苏联应该也是同样的缘故。国企领导的财产会受到监管，甚至不能被他人请吃饭