Why does every gommie state eventually liberalize its economy?

Jace Jones
Jace Jones

This is a list of nominally communist states that deviated from their previous policies and initiated economic liberalization.
Not included are the many communist states that collapsed and were replaced by liberal regimes (Albania, GDR, Hungary, Poland, Mongolia)

<USSR
<inb4 autism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroik

<Laos:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Laos#Economic_history

<Cuba:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba#Post-Fidel_reforms

<Vietnam:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Đổi_Mới

<China:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform

<North Korea:
<inb4 autism
carnegie.ru/commentary/59170
carnegie.ru/2016/02/03/resurgence-of-market-economy-in-north-korea-pub-62647
theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/07/north-korea-recipe-for-success-economic-liberalisation-public-executions
nytimes.com/2015/01/22/opinion/north-korea-dabbles-in-reform.html

Attached: raul-castro-with-a-homeless-looking-man.jpg (80.14 KB, 640x461)
Attached: fatty-kim-3.jpg (77.11 KB, 1000x500)

All urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroik
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Laos#Economic_history
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba#Post-Fidel_reforms
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Đổi_Mới
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform
carnegie.ru/commentary/59170
carnegie.ru/2016/02/03/resurgence-of-market-economy-in-north-korea-pub-62647
theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/07/north-korea-recipe-for-success-economic-liberalisation-public-executions
nytimes.com/2015/01/22/opinion/north-korea-dabbles-in-reform.html
scholar.harvard.edu/files/shleifer/files/pervasive_shortages.pdf

Carter Ortiz
Carter Ortiz

Insane amounts of external pressure.

Sebastian Price
Sebastian Price

This and the fact that once the USSR powerhouse succumbed to liberalization the was no way that the others would be able to hold on their own. So really all that was needed to defeat 20th century socialism was to dismantle the USSR, which was eventually successful.

Jace Powell
Jace Powell

Because Communist states are flexible and pragmatic in their governance, of course. There is nothing to prevent one from adopting more or less centralized economy, and the first economic policy of the first communist state, namely, the Soviet Union, was also not totally planned, and pretty much the same as that of any current communist states.

Cooper Garcia
Cooper Garcia

why do forts surrounded by enemies inevitably fall?
I couldn't tell you user. I'd have to be some sort of legendary warlord to figure this out.

Luke Lee
Luke Lee

This is why R. Wolff pushes for co-ops as opposed to state ownership. The argument is that it is more difficult for a right-wing head of state to privatize worker cooperatives than state-owned industries.

Bentley Brown
Bentley Brown

Because they are inflexible and isolated. Capitalism, with all it's flaws, provides huge capital growth, and integrates it's economy with global market system, which is mostly beneficial for such country (although not always, as provided by 3rd world countries). Nearly all of the socialist countries had to introduce some market elements to cope with insufficiency of planned economy (a lot of factor is to be blamed, such as lack of proper technology to correctly allocate resources, huge military expenses and the nature of authoritarian Marxist-Leninist governments), because they were cut off from the external world

Colton Robinson
Colton Robinson

Pretty much what everyone has said. There is a reason Cuba fell into a terrible economic crisis after the USSR fell.

Jace Flores
Jace Flores

wtf i'm a 4 now

I actually think this answer is insufficient. After reading about these countries, I am not getting the impression that they succumbed to external pressure, with the exception of Laos.

Robert Morgan
Robert Morgan

how would there be external pressure? The capitalists saying that they want access to your market is only pressure if they have leverage, which they didn't. China mines/mined nearly all of the worlds rare earth metals, and the USSR was energy independent

Blake Smith
Blake Smith

They were defeated by their enemies and forced to accept terms of surrender which included integration into the global capitalist system.
What is the cold war?

Andrew White
Andrew White

anarcho communism is the only true communism and they are run by statists.

Nathaniel Russell
Nathaniel Russell

what does anarcho communism even mean and how does it differ from "regular" communism?
It's a sincere question.

Luke Cooper
Luke Cooper

Because they all had revolutions when they were still backwards peasant societies with no productive development and these undeveloped states can't singlehandedly stop historic/economic forces from grabbing hold.

Camden Williams
Camden Williams

ancoms are utopian morons with leftist characteristics.

Wyatt Wood
Wyatt Wood

you can`t access the resources in the capitalist market without their money and the only way to get it is through extremely unfair deals or let then sell their products.
also all raw materials are controlled by cartels.

Ian Gonzalez
Ian Gonzalez

I suspected as much.

Caleb Reyes
Caleb Reyes

The name of the game in capitalism is accumulation. Who accumulates the most, the fastest, wins. For a small country like Cuba with the world's number one imperial power less than a hundred miles off shore and which keeps them constantly under blockade, you can probably imagine that this is pretty difficult, not only because of the US, but because of the natural resources they have access to, the massive shocks to their economy such as the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and environmental disasters that make development difficult, hurricanes for instance.

For large countries like Russia or China, the accumulation game is ameliorated somewhat by their size. Much of what they need to create an industrial basis for society is already at hand. Before their revolutions, both had an intellectual class with the sort of background that would enable them to develop. They had universities and scholastic infrastructure, and usually at least the rudiments of an industrial base to start from.

Both had to overcome tremendous deficits to catch up, though, to the very nations that had enriched themselves at their expense. China was pretty much in a state of civil war from 1849 to 1949. I can't reckon at the ultimate wisdom of Deng's economic policies, but imo from a Marxist perspective it makes sense. To catch up to the West in industrial, technical, and intellectual capital would take decades, and not helped in the least bit by hundreds of millions of peasants who for all intents and purposes were living in the 19th century. Opening China meant capital comes in, it meant access to Western universities, it meant advancement and eventual parity with the West much faster than they would be able to accomplish on their own. It might be a deal with the devil, but for now it's paying dividends.

China mines the majority on paper, but that's because all of the African mining companies like Apple rely on are illegal and go uncounted. They aren't anywhere near energy dependent, and there are numerous other industrial inputs that they need or needed, not the least of which was capital.

Dominic Turner
Dominic Turner

socialist states were defeated by capitalists withholding access to their sweet, sweet commodities
really makes me think

Camden Green
Camden Green

Anarcho communism eschews hierarchy wherever possible in favour of horizontal organization. Bakunin, Proudhon, and Kropotkin are some names you should look for if you'd like to know more about it.

Jordan Smith
Jordan Smith

Resources and cheap labor. It helps when a country is devastated by American bombers and crippled demographically as a result.

William Collins
William Collins

Because even the most dogmatic MLs eventually realize that command economies are less efficient than market economies.

Jayden Cox
Jayden Cox

Except that isn't true.

Ayden Nguyen
Ayden Nguyen

It objectively is: scholar.harvard.edu/files/shleifer/files/pervasive_shortages.pdf

Aiden Carter
Aiden Carter

What said, huge amounts of pressure.

Threats of war, sanctions, often outright blockades of your economy, the constant threat of assassionation, sabotage and other forms of espionage, so on and so forth. Back down, begin to let porky in, and all that goes away and the West treats you as the great savior of your country to boot.

Attached: DengXiaoping.Time-.1979.png (91.15 KB, 342x450)
Attached: Pizza-Hut---Gorbachev.mp4 (1.2 MB, 320x240)

Wyatt Bailey
Wyatt Bailey

Countless tons of stuff is thrown out every day simply because no one can afford to buy it. Markets are anything but efficient.

Wyatt Edwards
Wyatt Edwards

Ironic, USSR economy became least efficient with free market reforms.

Colton Hill
Colton Hill

For a certain value of "efficient", which in bourgeois economic terms is just a euphemism for "profitability".

Colton Parker
Colton Parker

ancoms are utopian morons with leftist characteristics.

They are people who think too far ahead of their time.

Gabriel James
Gabriel James

That's what utopianism is.
Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.
t. Marx

Matthew Perez
Matthew Perez

Because actual socialist governments allowed the bureaucratic strata to gain too much power and influence. They used that power and influence to enrich themselves, by privatizing state-owned industry into their own hands.

Austin Hernandez
Austin Hernandez

This. A planned economy is feasible but it’s clear that the models used by 20th century experiments were flawed. That’s why new models need to be experimented with. A good policy would be to establish market socialism immediately post revolution, and then set about conducting small scale planning experiments and computer simulations, determining what works best and gradually scaling it up until there is a fully planned economy.

Attached: CA01AFC3-C3A7-4CC4-A970-5C3B9FCF2C40.jpeg (133.68 KB, 622x510)

Eli Gonzalez
Eli Gonzalez

This paper where harvard students talk out of their ass counts as objective proof
For one the paper seems to be a more complex argument from nature as it is implying that it in the interest of planners to accept bribes out of their greedy nature to increase prices, which leads to my second point, the fucking paper doesn't even know what socialism is. It's treating a socialist economy exactly like a capitalist one where the planners are basically the bourgeoisie with the only difference being that they don't get to take surplus value. The entire premise is based around money and profitability which makes no sense in a socialist context.

Ryan Lopez
Ryan Lopez

It's treating a socialist economy exactly like a capitalist one where the planners are basically the bourgeoisie
This describes basically 90% of the criticism of the big names in antisocialism like Hayek, Mises, etc.

Ryder Powell
Ryder Powell

command economies
not the same as central planning, read Cockshott

Charles Cook
Charles Cook

Didn't Poland already liberalize their economy a decade into its existence as a socialist state?

Attached: 1499984831003.png (3.22 MB, 1967x1967)

Jason Foster
Jason Foster

give unchecked power to a "revolutionary" vanguard
said vanguard eventually realizes they could be a lot richer as a bourgeoisie than as communist leaders, and turns the party apparatus against proletarian resistance

Don't say we didn't warn you.

Josiah Wood
Josiah Wood

Most leftcoms contemporary to Leninwere basically Leninists themselves, if less effective Leninists.

Andrew Turner
Andrew Turner

I think this is the critical of ML. Sure bureaucrats aren't bourgeoise and their rule can still count as DoP, but what can be done to deter them from basically stealing state enterprises through privatization?

Ian Murphy
Ian Murphy

critical counterpoint I meant

Lincoln Rogers
Lincoln Rogers

democracy?

Henry Morris
Henry Morris

I think largely the best way to do so without getting ahead of ourselves (i.e. abolishing money, or destroying all capitalist countries in the world) would just be to improve the democratic system. Let worker councils veto bureaucrat/planner decisions, or example.

Josiah Butler
Josiah Butler

a buzzword, be more descriptive retard

Joseph Torres
Joseph Torres

why can't we have a constitutionally socialist democracy?

Lincoln Robinson
Lincoln Robinson

You're being dumb, the USSR and other ML states (even le evil north korea) already have muh democracy in place. Asking for more of this vague democracy is nothing but what our faggot neighbors at /pol/ call "virtue signaling" if you're not willing to go into any sort of detail into what do you mean.

Adrian Bell
Adrian Bell

basically described what I had in mind although I think popular referendums should also be a thing.

Cameron Smith
Cameron Smith

Possibly like what the USSR would have been if Yeltsin didn't usurp the system during the "coup".

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (2.1 MB, 1500x1200)

Alexander Morgan
Alexander Morgan

The "bureaucrats" in the late soviet union didn't control things like food and housing, as those aren't worth much money. The real bureaucratic aristocracy was in charge of the big expensive weapons systems. Note how that particular legacy of the soviet union is alive and well while its former people are left out in the cold.

Isaac Wood
Isaac Wood

Enver Hoxha talks about this in "The Khruschevites"

Here is his analysis of the symptoms:

<If a detailed analysis is made of the political, ideological and organizational directives of Stalin in the leadership and organization of the party, the war and the work, in general, mistakes of principle will not be found, but if we bear in mind how they were distorted by the enemies and applied in practice, we will see the dangerous consequences of these distortions and it will become obvious why the party began to become bureaucratic, to be immersed in routine work and dangerous formalism which sapped its strength and strangled its revolutionary spirit and enthusiasm. The party became covered by a heavy layer of rust, by political apathy, thinking mistakenly that the head, the leadership, operates and solves everything on its own. From such a concept, the situation was created that in every instance and about everything they would say, “this is the leadership’s business”, “the Central Committee does not make mistakes”, “Stalin has said this, and that’s all there is to it”, etc. Stalin might not have said many things, but they were covered with his name.

<The apparatus and the officials became “omnipotent”, “infallible” and operated in bureaucratic ways under the slogans of democratic centralism and bolshevik criticism and self-criticism, which were no longer bolshevik in reality.

<In such conditions bureaucratic administrative measures began to predominate over revolutionary measures. Vigilance was no longer operative because it was no longer revolutionary, regardless of all the boasting about it. From a vigilance of the party and the masses, it was being turned into a vigilance of bureaucratic apparatus and transformed, in fact, if not completely from the formal viewpoint, into a vigilance of the state security organs and the courts.

<It is understandable that in such conditions, non-proletarian, non-working class feelings and views began to take root and to be cultivated in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and in the consciousness of many of the communists. Careerism, servility, charlatanism, unhealthy cronyism, anti-proletarian morality, etc., began to spread. These evils eroded the party from within, smothered the feeling of class struggle and sacrifice and encouraged seeking the “good life”, with comforts, with privileges, with personal gains and the least possible work and effort. In this way the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois mentality was created, and this was expressed in such words and thoughts as: “We worked and fought for this socialist state and we triumphed, now let us enjoy the benefits from it”, “we can’t be touched, the past excuses us for everything.” The greatest danger was that this outlook was becoming established even in the old cadres of the party with a splendid past and proletarian origin, even in the members of the Presidium of the Central Committee, who ought to have set an example of purity to the others. There were many such people in the leadership, in the apparatus, and they made adroit use of the revolutionary words and phrases and the theoretical formulas of Lenin and Stalin, reaped the laurels of the work of others and encouraged the bad example. Thus, a worker aristocracy made up of bureaucratic cadres was being created in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

<Regrettably, such a process of degeneration developed under the “joyful” and “hopeful” slogans that “everything is going well, normally, within the laws and norms of the party”, which in fact were being violated, that “the class struggle is still being waged”, that “democratic centralism is safeguarded”, “criticism and self-criticism continues as before”, that “there is steel unity in the party”, “there are no more factional, anti-party elements”, “the time of Trotskyite and Bukharinite groups is passed”, etc., etc. Generally speaking, even the revolutionary elements considered such a distorted concept of the situation to be a normal reality and, this is the essence of the drama and the fatal mistake, therefore, it was considered that there was nothing to be alarmed about, that the enemies, the thieves, the violators of morality were being condemned by the courts, that the unworthy members were being expelled from the party, and new members admitted to it, as usual, that the plans were being realized although there were some that were not being realized, that people were being criticized, condemned, praised, etc. Hence, according to them, life was proceeding normally, and thus it was reported to Stalin: “Everything is going normally.” We are convinced that if Stalin, as the great revolutionary he was, had known the reality of the situation in the party, he would have struck a crushing blow at this unhealthy spirit and the entire party and the Soviet people would have risen to their feet to support him because, quite correctly, they had great trust in Stalin.

Attached: enver-hoxha-02.jpg (95.12 KB, 800x516)

Levi Lee
Levi Lee

Another quote from "The Capitalist Character of the Relations of Production in the Soviet Union", describing the actual material conditions that gave rise to revisionism:

<But, although the process of the capitalist degeneration in the Soviet Union and the other revisionist countries began with the counterrevolutionary transformations in the field of the superstructure, this did not degenerate spontaneously, outside and independently of the relations of production, isolated from the entirety of the economic-social structure. The socialist relations of production in these countries, especially the relations in the field of distribution, had been violated in several separate aspects and directions. Through the extension of the system of bonuses and, in general, the extensive use of supplementary material stimuli, the conditions were created for the birth of differentials and disproportions in the field of distribution, for the creation of the stratum of bureaucrats and technocrats, who, as time confirmed later, became the main social support of the revisionist cliques which usurped the power of the working class in those countries.

Robert Allen
Robert Allen

Imperialism and Gorby fucking up thus fucking up the satellite states.

Remember they were banking on world revolution and the fall of the capitalist powers after 1917, and it didn't happen, so they had to make due with the situation they had.

Jordan Rogers
Jordan Rogers

They are not just Harvard students, Andrei Shleifer is the most cited American economist.

Also, why do you think that individuals will not pursue their material self-interest in a socialist economy?

dude who cares about efficiency it’s just a bourgeois term anyway lmao

So, is this the power of Marxist-Leninist economics?

Waste has existed in planned economies as well.

Asher Ortiz
Asher Ortiz

Gomulka was a revisionist and was against socialism, he was apart of the Khruschov clique, how could one support the Polish regime after 1956 at all? It was a dictatorship

Jason Lewis
Jason Lewis

Why didn't he continue the socialist revolution in 1945 though?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (189.59 KB, 318x382)

Dominic Ward
Dominic Ward

beauraucrats aren't bourgeoise
They're still state capitalists or perpetuate the political class so DOP would probably be best to describe them.
what could be done.
Abolish the state and currency, be it throught federalism, exchange through workers councils, or establishing communes. If that can't happen outright, the state should have more horizontal as opposed to vertical via democratic confederalism, or have a similar method found within the Paris Commune (albeit we should be better armed than before).

Hunter Bell
Hunter Bell

I think he was focusing on rebuilding the USSR. Invasions into your territory tend to do that, not to mention maintaining control over new territories you seized from the Nazis.

Alexander Cruz
Alexander Cruz

not rallying the proletariat in the liberated nations to direct their energies toward the imperialists and crush the porkies once and for all

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (605.85 KB, 1217x769)

Justin Sullivan
Justin Sullivan

sounds administrative to me
revolution export with war, pretty ridiculous
ww2 was an exception because it rolled back an attacking force, there was no question about the liberating character
there's a difference between supporting revolutions and autistically invading and calling ot one
the people and soviet soldiers were tired of war too, so there's not much of that energy you're talking about
not saying there couldn't have been more done but be realistic here

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit