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.

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    32·
    3 days ago

    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.