In our discussions of bolshevism and its legacy we set a new standard in our various manifestos and other materials: we also produced a way to model a new (neo-) communist framework DMNC: democratic market neo-communism, as ecological socialism. This is both a rough blueprint for action but also a way to model the complexities of socialist reconstruction. This combination disallows the use of the term ‘socialism’ in isolation, so to speak, and demands a multi-term type of system that reckons politics: the democracy dialectic, economy: the planning/market dialectic, and the idea of a Commons with a set of economic rights.
By this standard, neither the Russian/Bolshevik nor the Chinese model are either socialist or communist. We assign them an F for failed.
The Chinese case has however spontaneously invented so of the features for success here, e.g. the place of markets in socialism, but overall the result fails the definition and certainly failed our DMNC model.
The reality must be faced that socialism has no historical exemplars and that the various attempts as failures did not achieve the basic definition.
So, neither Russian nor Chinese outcomes are socialist, end of story.
The current left has crippled itself with the deadweight of fake exemplars (and the Marxist foundation which may or may not be at fault for the failed outcomes) which they can neither reject nor defend and whose legacies have turned radical leftism into a near dead-letter.
Preaching this sermon to the current Chinese outfit would seem presumptuous, but in fact, it is, very much so, and we must disown the whole failed legacy of the Second International with its Marxist canon.
That canon can be defended as prior to but not the reason for a given outcome. But even so, we will never convince critics of that and may as well start over.
The problem is really that of a transition against counterrevolution that forces foreclosure on democracy. But the problem has to be resolved somehow. There is no future finally for the kind of Stalinist endstate of bolshevism strivings. We must simply enforce the conclusion: socialism/communism (we don’t distinguish the terms) have no historical exemplars.
Dragan Plavšić considers what China’s modern history tells us about the nature of the Chinese state today Source: China: a socialist force for good or an imperial superpower in the making? An histo…