If Stalin was against Bukharin he would’ve been against Deng. I see too many people glazing red social democracy. The DTOB is wearing the skin of the DTOP and people are falling for it.
If Stalin was against Bukharin he would’ve been against Deng. I see too many people glazing red social democracy. The DTOB is wearing the skin of the DTOP and people are falling for it.
But private sector of the economy is growing, not shrinking. The phasing out won’t happen because capital is inherently expansive. The computational problem making the vast sea of inputs and outputs of light industry is made obsolete with modern computing / cybernetics. Also the inefficiencies weren’t just due to computation but the Sino Soviet split + imperial trad restrictions combined limiting the diversity of products and services possible to implement at scale. It’s 2026, I think the development is sufficient. Besides, believing that capitalism can develop you better than socialism is completely asinine.
Taking issue with private sector growth demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the setup of the economy and the point of said secondary sector. Emerging, underdeveloped industries naturally require flexible capital for trial and error, this is an objective law. As long as the state firmly controls the lifelines of finance, energy, communications, transportation, and heavy industry, (The commanding heights), private sector growth merely serves state-led socialist construction.
As for your belief that modern computing and cybernetics can solve the input-output problems of light industry, this technological utopianism is utterly naive. Even assuming unlimited computing power, computing was never the only bottleneck to the shortage of light industry in the Soviet Union. Research and development time, skilled labor, and supply chain infrastructure, among others, these material factors cannot be created by code. Faced with massive and rapidly changing consumer demand, the market itself is an extremely efficient distributed information processing mechanism. Ignoring the objective advantages of decentralized production and insisting on a unified planned directive is not materialism.
Your statement that development by 2026 is sufficient reveals how impoverished your understanding of the realities of China is. China is still in, and will remain for a time in, the primary stage of socialism. Per capita productivity, regional development imbalances, and the bottlenecks in core technologies clearly show us that productivity is far from reaching a level where market mechanisms can be completely abolished.
From the time of Marx himself Marxists have understood the importance of utilizing a secondary market and private capital to develop socialist construction. If you can only react with moral knee-jerk reactions to different modes of production, failing to understand their benefits, drawbacks, and the historical continuity leading to each superseding the next, then you’d be better off not calling yourself a Marxist.
You see China’s economy not as a mosaic of sectors with different levels of development, but as a monolith. This is not materialist analysis. The commanding heights are already socially owned, and the limit of marketization is centralization, when markets themselves become impedements to growth, rather than facilitators of it. Marx believed capitalism played a historically progressive role in preparing the basis of communism not based off of vibes, but instead looked at what markets do: develop small producers into centralized production, at which point they outlive the market phase and decay unless nationalized. Read Marx.
Marx and Lenin were “completely asinine”? Sure we can discuss if they were correct or not, but after that huge post correcting you, you retreat to this?