Socialist oriented market economy Puns

Title

The draft report goes on to say that the socialist-oriented market economy of Vietnam has advanced production relations corresponding to the development level of production forces; and has different forms of ownership and multiple economic sectors of which the state sector plays the leading role and the private sector is an important driving force of the economy. Stakeholders of different economic sectors are equal, cooperative and competitive under law. The market plays the essential role in effectively mobilizing and distributing resources for development and is the major motive to liberalize the production capacity. Resources are distributed by the State under strategies, master plans and plans in conformity with the market mechanism.

https://vietnamlawmagazine.vn/new-concept-of-socialist-oriented-market-economy-introduced-4582.html

i know you don't think this is socialism few do, but is it really capitalism? is it? or is it a transitional thingie?

Since in the real-world, US spearheaded an economy grounded on capitalism, what if US adapted a different form of economic system.

Do most communists support the socialist market economy model?

From my experience, most communists only mention Cuba and DPRK as socialist states. Some mention China, but some also claim it is capitalist. Other than asktankies, I cannot remember the last time a communist acknowledged Laos and Vietnam as AES.

Are they in the minority? iirc they reject the socialist market economy model as "revisionist." Or are they just not as well read as the ppl that recognize all 5 as AES states?

This is what I think Socialism failed, not in perpetuity but in initial attempts, like when a young kids hops on a bike or tries to swim and nearly kill himself because hes too young and no one taught him what to do

Socialism made two gig mistakes, or Socialists made two big mistakes

First they got the time line wrong

in the preface of Evolutionary Socialism:

‘’The theory which the Communist Manifesto sets forth of the evolution of modern society was correct as far as it characterized the general tendencies of that evolution. But it was mistaken in several special deductions, above all in the estimate of the time the evolution would take.’’

Bernstein did not assert that the materialist theory of history is wrong, because he was defending Marx and Engels from the accusation or the notion that they were rigid economic determinists. Bernstein was also criticizing some of the ‘’vulgar Marxists’’ of that era and their simplifications of historical processes entirely for political reasons. Bernstein asserts that Marxist theories were always nuanced and never absolute, and therefore there is no question of wether their theory of history is absolutely right or wrong.

https://bobocheesechimp.medium.com/in-defense-of-eduard-bernstein-90d8bbb6a97a

Regardless of how Bernstein’s thinking related to Marx and Engels, it is also important to note that this interpretation of the materialist conception of history is incredibly accurate with the hindsight of 120 years of history. Everywhere across the globe, working-class movements emerged in response to the capitalist system and many such movements eventually did compel a move towards a more egalitarian order.

Conclusion

The so-called revisionism of Eduard Bernstein is more of a mythical attack than a careful reading of his works. Bernstein was not attempting to destroy or refute Marxism, but rather to improve it so that it could serve the cause of social democracy well. In many instances, Bernstein’s views were directly aligned with those of Marx, and more so than even some of Bernstein’s so-called ‘’orthodox’’ critics. Bernstein was critiquing ‘’vulgar Marxism’’ and oversimplified and rigid interpretations of Marxism more often than he was critiquing these ideas all together.

Second transition its going to take centuries not years

The theory stipulated that China was in the [primary stage of socialis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Socialism%3F#:~:text=I%20am%20convinced%20there%20is,be%20oriented%20toward%20social%20goals.

I mean those arguments bellow.

• 1 - Imperfect information.

Yes, we humans are not omniscient nor all knowing. Yes people will try to scam you, exploit you and profit of you. And if they want to, most definitely they will find a way to do so.

But that is because some people will try to screw other up regardless. Regardless if they are in the government or a business.

And government also aren't omniscient to know what everyone else is doing and prevent scams.

• 2 - Profit motive

Yes people are greedy. Not it is not because of money.

If not for money, people will bargain with goods, with power or influence, there will always be people trying to profit of other ways.

• 3 - Monopolies.

If you think all monopolies are bad, you already conceded because the government is a monopoly on itself, therefore anarchy.

If you don't believe all monopolies are, then I'd love to see the explanation of how can a monopoly be good.

SOCIALISTS

How do you deal with these problems instrisic to us humans?

And no. Capitalism is not when markets and profit.

Even though the US may seem to sabotage their economies, I don’t think is is major enough to the economic failures of socialism.

This post follows from a very recent revelation to me about how planned economies are supposed to develop out of market economies organically. Before, I thought of planned economies as closed systems where the state manually abolishes the value form to build a socialism, but realistically it works more like one big company that expands and expands to eventually cover production as a whole whereby market interactions between spheres of production disappear, kind of like how trade within a vertically integrated company between its vertical components ceizes to exist. A very interesting realization, upon which I am significantly altering my own models, but which also lead me to the question in the title: why would you guys (market socialists) be opposed to it?

• The "board of directors" gets elected democratically (who instead have the title of "economic ministers);
• The "firm" still competes in a market (which is the global market economy);
• Everyone who works in this "worker co-op" is secured of their job, even if productivity rises, and would simply experience a reduction in working hours instead of becoming unemployed;
• Workers can quit their jobs whenever they want;
• Worker's wages are set according to their market price in the labor market.

Does Laos follow the same socialist market economy as China and Vietnam?

or is it closer to Cuba/ DPRK economy?

I may be misreading the wiki but, it seems to say Laos is an example of the socialist market economy model.

But is there a reason why Laos has a "Below Average" business environment rating unlike China and Vietnam "easy" rating? They are all the same socialist market economies right?

Do you think DPRK should follow the socialist market economy model?

Like what Vietnam and China did right? iirc Vietnam and China abandoned central planning and embraced some markets while maintaining DOTP and AES. Now, China has 0% poverty and Vietnam also experienced more growth right?

But I know some MLs that say that DPRK shouldn't do that because it will make DPRK revisionist and/or capitalist.

Also is there a reason why Kim Jong-il did not like China's reforms? As seen in:

Kim now spoke to him only to criticize him, specifically admonishing him for taking too close an interest in China's capitalist reforms.[6] Remarking on his role as advisor to Kim Jong-il, Hwang stated: "When I proposed something, he would pretend to listen at first, but in the end, he would never listen.

View Poll

WEF (Wage Earner Funds) would play out a bit like this except instead of permanent WEF, the capital stock is given to the individual workers at a company thus making it a labor managed and worker owned firm (cooperative), private capitalist enterprises would be banned from forming to prevent the rise of capitalism again.

53% in support of temporary state owned WEF in order to transition all enterprises to labor managed worker owned firms

16.3% neutral

30.6% against temporary state owned WEF in order to transition all enterprises to labor managed worker owned firms

22.4% margin in favor of temporary state owned WEF in order to transition all enterprises to labor managed worker owned firms

View Poll

Hi all, I am doing a deeper dive into the current theories of both socialist market economy of China, and socialist-oriented market economy of Vietnam. One of the first academic papers I am reading I've linked below, I am starting small and just ripped it straight out of the Wiki page for socialist-oriented market economy. There is other stuff I've read on these subjects but I've noticed that the main gist of both is that:

A.) The primary stage of socialism should begin after the productive forces are sufficiently developed because Marx envisioned for this stage to happen once capitalist countries developed enough.

B). The USSR made the mistake of going from a natural economy to a planned economy too soon without having sufficiently developed their productive forces.

But do these theories take economic imperialism into account and just how the Global North under-develops the Global South, and how that is the actual source of their development? One paper that I am reading by a Marxist Vietnamese professor does not even factor this into the equation when explaining how a socialist-market oriented economy will achieve parity with imperialist nations.

They write that the US has reached a stage where it is ripe for a socialist planned economy. How can they say this considering the US has gutted most of it's productive base? 80% of industrialized labor is in the global south. The economies of the global north are largely distributive and service economies. The west controls the global supply chains that actually produce. The paper almost insinuates the US and other Western nations just built themselves up without imperialism? That they just went through a natural progression.

The full development of a market economy to reach the level of the Western nations would require imperialism, no? All of the critiques I read of the USSR in socialist-oriented market economy theory doesn't take into account that the USSR was:

A.) surrounded by enemies and had to maintain a war economy that emphasized the military/defense over creating a consumer economy.

B) the USSR was not imperialist and the Eastern Bloc countries are what besieged countries would look like without engaging in imperialism.

I am still relatively new to all of this so please forgive my ignorance if I have missed something really important.

[http://bibliotecavirtual.clacso.org.ar/ar/libros/cuba/if/marx/documentos/22/Market%20Economy%20and%20Socialist%20Road.pdf](http://bibliotecavirtual.clacso.org.

So Ive been wondering about this for a few days now, and decided to ask.

Could an economy exist, wherein a larger part of the economy is decentrally planned (DP), while a smaller portion retains a market socialist organisation?

It would be democratic socialism with a grassroots democracy (decentralised democracy), with more power dispersed at the local level than central.

Let me clarify, im not thinking of a country wherein part of the organisational subdivisions (like regions) have a market soc economy and other ones have DP or smth, rather each subdivision has a DP facet of the economy, and a market soc facet.

So could this type of economy even really exist?

Thanks

Hello everyone, I am new to Reddit and decided to share something I have been working on compiling the past few weeks in celebration of the CPC's 100th anniversary. It is a collection of books, journal articles, and speeches from various Chinese leaders since Deng Xiaoping. I plan to continue adding on to it or make a part 2 version that has more topics.

I split the document into different sections:
Socialist Market Economy & Modernization
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
Chinese leaders
Additional Readings (Various articles and videos)
Links to Journals
Learn Chinese

Hope this document will be useful to you in your efforts to better understand China!
Google Document