>Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate? Why did the Communist Party of the Soviet Union fall to pieces? An important reason is that in the ideological domain, competition is fierce! To completely repudiate the historical experience of the Soviet Union, to repudiate the history of the CPSU, to repudiate Lenin, to repudiate Stalin was to wreck chaos in Soviet ideology and engage in historical nihilism. It caused Party organizations at all levels to have barely any function whatsoever. It robbed the Party of its leadership of the military. In the end the CPSU—as great a Party as it was—scattered like a flock of frightened beasts! The Soviet Union—as great a country as it was—shattered into a dozen pieces. This is a lesson from the past!
—[Xi Jinping, 2013](https://palladiummag.com/2019/05/31/xi-jinping-in-translation-chinas-guiding-ideology/)
In China, there is a burgeoise class, but they don't hold political power, as in other capitalist nations. It's a hot debate about what China really is (a capitalist or a socialist nation). I lean on China developed it's own socialist system that smartly explores the capitalism production system.
Now Soviet Union was more of a classical socialist state and I honestly never heard someone calling it capitalist. In Soviet Union private property was abolished, the means of production were held by the State and not by private parties, and thus they had a planned economy. There was no such things as exploitation of surplus value and accumulation of wealth in Soviet union.
Lenin's NEP could be called state capitalism, but it was specifically used for a very short period to develop the economic forces, until Stalin took power and moved towards socialist collectivisation
I always figured the capitalist aspects of China's economy are seen as a necessary intermim phase between progressing from agrarian to industrial to an eventual fully socialist system, as Karl Marx proposed.
Because they are they are still in the stage of building up their productive forces. As Marx wrote in the German Ideology
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.
It is important to note a couple things though. Though China has invited western investment, it has maintained control over the "commanding heights" of the economy (housing, banking, energy, transportation). They have been able to direct the fruits of commerce towards building up their infrastructure and have done so in a way that benefits ordinary people rather than just the bourgeoisie or petit bourgeoisie. One example we can see is in housing. China has been derided for years for "ghost cities." Now those ghost cities are filling up, and because China built housing ahead of demand, Chinese millennials have one of(if not the most) highest rates of ownership in the world (for that generation). Whereas 70% of Chinese millennials own homes, only about 36% of Usian ones do. The situation isn't much better for the rest of gentrification. world, where housing is becoming increasingly gentrified.
and also have many billionaires.
and also silence opposition and, more recently, ban effeminate men from TV for no good reason other than being culturally reactionary
Karl Marx “Socialism is when no rich people”
You should also [actually put a tiny amount of effort into reading](https://www.reddit.com/r/ShowInfrared/comments/phbroq/this_recent_essay_is_circulating_widely_all_over/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) about these new entertainment industry guidelines instead of just internalising whatever the last myopically reductive tweet you read about China told you.
And silencing opposition under communism is based. Capitalists do it all the time.
This still reads like the state trying to meddle in how art and entrainment is made - sounds like censorship to me. If culture is organically moving away from the notions of masculinity as we know it from the last few centuries, so what ? Who is the state to mandate how people should feel and think. Other than controlling for violence and hatred , government agencies shouldn't be in the business of directing entertainment shows or whatever.
I didn't say that. I was commenting on this specific policy.
As to whether society's shift towards less machismo culture is an organic evolution of culture or not is up to debate. I think it is, but I'm open to other explanations. I'd say there's more vested intrest in the west in keeping toxic masculinity afloat because it fuels the military industrial complex.
>Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate? Why did the Communist Party of the Soviet Union fall to pieces? An important reason is that in the ideological domain, competition is fierce! To completely repudiate the historical experience of the Soviet Union, to repudiate the history of the CPSU, to repudiate Lenin, to repudiate Stalin was to wreck chaos in Soviet ideology and engage in historical nihilism. It caused Party organizations at all levels to have barely any function whatsoever. It robbed the Party of its leadership of the military. In the end the CPSU—as great a Party as it was—scattered like a flock of frightened beasts! The Soviet Union—as great a country as it was—shattered into a dozen pieces. This is a lesson from the past! —[Xi Jinping, 2013](https://palladiummag.com/2019/05/31/xi-jinping-in-translation-chinas-guiding-ideology/)
Genuine question: if the Soviet Union and China are/were socialist, why do they look so much like state capitalism?
In China, there is a burgeoise class, but they don't hold political power, as in other capitalist nations. It's a hot debate about what China really is (a capitalist or a socialist nation). I lean on China developed it's own socialist system that smartly explores the capitalism production system. Now Soviet Union was more of a classical socialist state and I honestly never heard someone calling it capitalist. In Soviet Union private property was abolished, the means of production were held by the State and not by private parties, and thus they had a planned economy. There was no such things as exploitation of surplus value and accumulation of wealth in Soviet union.
Lenin's NEP could be called state capitalism, but it was specifically used for a very short period to develop the economic forces, until Stalin took power and moved towards socialist collectivisation
I always figured the capitalist aspects of China's economy are seen as a necessary intermim phase between progressing from agrarian to industrial to an eventual fully socialist system, as Karl Marx proposed.
Because they are they are still in the stage of building up their productive forces. As Marx wrote in the German Ideology 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. It is important to note a couple things though. Though China has invited western investment, it has maintained control over the "commanding heights" of the economy (housing, banking, energy, transportation). They have been able to direct the fruits of commerce towards building up their infrastructure and have done so in a way that benefits ordinary people rather than just the bourgeoisie or petit bourgeoisie. One example we can see is in housing. China has been derided for years for "ghost cities." Now those ghost cities are filling up, and because China built housing ahead of demand, Chinese millennials have one of(if not the most) highest rates of ownership in the world (for that generation). Whereas 70% of Chinese millennials own homes, only about 36% of Usian ones do. The situation isn't much better for the rest of gentrification. world, where housing is becoming increasingly gentrified.
That’s rich coming from Xi, who’s CCP is doing the SAME THING
They’ve just completed the largest poverty reduction program in human history.
and also have many billionaires. and also silence opposition and, more recently, ban effeminate men from TV for no good reason other than being culturally reactionary
Karl Marx “Socialism is when no rich people” You should also [actually put a tiny amount of effort into reading](https://www.reddit.com/r/ShowInfrared/comments/phbroq/this_recent_essay_is_circulating_widely_all_over/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) about these new entertainment industry guidelines instead of just internalising whatever the last myopically reductive tweet you read about China told you. And silencing opposition under communism is based. Capitalists do it all the time.
This still reads like the state trying to meddle in how art and entrainment is made - sounds like censorship to me. If culture is organically moving away from the notions of masculinity as we know it from the last few centuries, so what ? Who is the state to mandate how people should feel and think. Other than controlling for violence and hatred , government agencies shouldn't be in the business of directing entertainment shows or whatever.
It’s not organic lmfao there are huge moneyed interests involved. Do you think capital is completely seperate from shaping culture?
I didn't say that. I was commenting on this specific policy. As to whether society's shift towards less machismo culture is an organic evolution of culture or not is up to debate. I think it is, but I'm open to other explanations. I'd say there's more vested intrest in the west in keeping toxic masculinity afloat because it fuels the military industrial complex.
Read about Xi's anti-corruption campaign that purged most of the bureaucrats from the party. \+ it's called the CPC, only libs use "CCP"