Ask Lemmygrad

1184 readers

29 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Shaggy0291@lemmygrad.ml

GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml

SovereignState@lemmygrad.ml

QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml

yogthos@lemmygrad.ml

Do you think a communist party would need to follow a long term mixed economy for successful socialism? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 3 months ago by WilliamA@lemmygrad.ml to c/asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A planned economy has been tried. However, even after removing all market mechanisms, corruption amongst the party managed to shatter the union.

As much as Deng is hated, he managed to set the foundation of a mixed economy, which, as we can see by the great growth of China, was probably the correct thing to do.

Later adaptations by the CCP managed to incorporate precautions to prevent internal corruptions, and furthermore, bourgeoisie corruption to avoid the dissolution of China and shock therapy.

Furthermore, after the dissolution of the USSR, many communist parties followed China in pursue of a mixed economy, leading to growth and the betterment of society as a whole.

That's not to say that China doesn't have its flaws. Particularly in its neutrality and lack of action internationally.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 32 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

I think it's necessary in the context of a stable global hegemon, because capitalism is so organized and centralized under a single imperial power. We have to identify the primary contradiction and struggle against it, which can make for strange bedfellows.

In previous eras it was possible for revolutionaries to play the imperial powers off against each other, like the Haitians playing the British off against the French and the Russian revolutionaries playing the Germans off against the Tsar. Today, the West is unified and so playing them off against each other isn't going to work. This limits revolutionary possibilities strictly within nationalism, which means collaboration with the national bourgeois forces against imperialism.

That means appeasing bourgeois patriots in national liberation struggles and in the ongoing struggle against imperial hegemony.

For now.

[–] haui@lemmygrad.ml 19 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Brillantly put! Thank you. Thoughts like this are why I love grad. Reading theory and studying history is important but having comrades to talk to who provide insights of their own beats pure theory any day.

[–] WilliamA@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

lemmygrad flag stalin heart hands

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Aw shucks 😳

[–] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 13 points 3 months ago

I think, ongoing disintegration of the world order and deepening crisis of capitalism will make planned economy preferable anyway.

[–] WilliamA@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 3 months ago

Great insight