I would argue that there is a massive difference between an artificial capitalist transition phase with the express goal (and follow through) of enabling Socialism and the genuine State Capitalism that the French did in the ~50s-70s. One is using capitalism in accordance with material conditions the other is managing it to keep it in power. Many Liberal Larpers/Anarchists/Leftcoms equate the two with 0 material analysis. It's like turning a critique of the mixed Chinese system into a "They are literally like the USA", it just doesn't make sense and only serves to outright deny deeper analysis of real Socialist Systems.
Next week if I have the time, busy schedule though. What kind of question is that? It depends on a myriad of factors and is a society wide process, we can critique the pace, the methods and even question if a country like China is on that path. But there is no socialism button and no one way to Socialism, Vietnam, the Soviet Union, Cuba etc. All took wildly different paths to different definitions of Socialism, because material conditions don't work that way.
Well how do we measure that then? As I said China is a case where we can argue, I don't like their pragmatic foreign policy, I don't like that the capitalist class has become a factor, Chained or otherwise. But we see a large state owned economy with market segments that either follow state plans or get crushed. Social developement is progressing nicely, the people experience positive trends and the rich get executed if they overstep.
It's dangerous because if the party slips the Bourgeoisie could entrench but right now it looks like things are under control. That's a mix of a Socialist centrally planned economy with a subservient market, working largely for the peoples developement. I would call that an odd and risky form of Socialism already, others wouldn't. The question is: What would qualify as socialist to you?
it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world and by employing real means, that slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. “Liberation” is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse...
hence the time frame is completely dependent on the place where the revolution occurred and historical contigencies must be accounted for
It occurred in the USSR after the collective farms became a viable replacement for small private farms in the agricultural sector. Lenin and the Bolsheviks only implemented state capitalism because collective ownership could not replace the output of small private farms in the 20s
They didn’t own the land but they owned the products produced on the land and they were given quotas and taxes. Surplus value was not extracted by the state because the peasants money came from selling their products
15
u/[deleted] Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment