Instigator
Points: 0

China and Vietnam are still Socialist Nations

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
Nemiroff
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Required rating
1
Contender
Points: 1
Description
"Although the number of employees of private enterprises has overtaken the number of employees of state- and collectively-owned companies, the basic economic agenda is set by the state. Private production is encouraged by the state only because it contributes to modernisation, technological development and employment. While some Marxists may insist that markets can have no place under socialism, it’s difficult to reconcile such a view with Marx’s own view of socialism as a transitional stage on the road to communism. China has proven in reality that it can use (heavily regulated) market mechanisms in order to more rapidly develop the productive forces and improve the living standards of its people." https://www.invent-the-future.org/2018/10/is-china-still-socialist/
Round 1
Published:
"In recent years, many analysts have concluded that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is engaged in all-out capitalist restoration,1 and some have reached similar conclusions about the Vietnamese Communist Party (VCP).2
Both are largely agricultural countries that experienced peasant-based, Communist-led revolutionary movements. Both began openings to the market and private sector in the late 1970s, but still maintain large state economic sectors and ruling Communist parties.
In these underdeveloped countries, an injection of private sector activity and the market has helped boost the productive forces for a long transition period to lay the material basis for socialism. However, there was an enormous difference in the level of productive forces between the two when they launched their reforms.
China's reforms began following 30 years of bureaucratic-socialist development in conditions of peace. China "had a rate of accumulation as a share of total output of around 33-35 percent in 1978-79, compared with Vietnam's 12-13 percent ... the Chinese economy was already generating large surpluses before the transition started."3
Vietnam's reforms began in 1986-89, following decades of war, US bombing and destruction on an apocalyptic scale, partition, the Chinese invasion, the decade-long Cambodian war and international embargo. As the Cambodian war and embargo came to an end in 1989, the collapse of Vietnam's East bloc trading partners dealt a final blow. By 1990, Vietnamese GDP per capita had dropped to $78."In recent years, many analysts have concluded that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is engaged in all-out capitalist restoration,1 and some have reached similar conclusions about the Vietnamese Communist Party (VCP).2
Both are largely agricultural countries that experienced peasant-based, Communist-led revolutionary movements. Both began openings to the market and private sector in the late 1970s, but still maintain large state economic sectors and ruling Communist parties.
In these underdeveloped countries, an injection of private sector activity and the market has helped boost the productive forces for a long transition period to lay the material basis for socialism. However, there was an enormous difference in the level of productive forces between the two when they launched their reforms.
China's reforms began following 30 years of bureaucratic-socialist development in conditions of peace. China "had a rate of accumulation as a share of total output of around 33-35 percent in 1978-79, compared with Vietnam's 12-13 percent ... the Chinese economy was already generating large surpluses before the transition started."3
Vietnam's reforms began in 1986-89, following decades of war, US bombing and destruction on an apocalyptic scale, partition, the Chinese invasion, the decade-long Cambodian war and international embargo. As the Cambodian war and embargo came to an end in 1989, the collapse of Vietnam's East bloc trading partners dealt a final blow. By 1990, Vietnamese GDP per capita had dropped to $78." http://links.org.au/node/14In 1986 the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) launched market economic reforms, these reforms, known as the Doi Moi Reforms, intended to facilitate the transition from a centralized economy to a “socialist-oriented market economy” by combining government planning with free-market incentives.
Since the introduction of the Doi Moi Reforms and the apparent “revisionism” of the CPV, Vietnam has long been criticized by Leftists (especially by those in the West) for supposedly abandoning the cause of socialism and Marxism-Leninism in favor of free-market capitalism. Throughout this article, I will explore socialism today in Vietnam, and whether or not this criticism of the Communist Party of Vietnam is justified.Socialist-Oriented Market Economy
The official term for the economic system that exists in Vietnam today is a “socialist-oriented market economy”. In order to understand what the ideological basis of the socialist-oriented market economy in Vietnam, one must first understand the concept of the primary and advanced stages of socialism. The primary stage of socialism is distinguished by underdeveloped productive forces which prohibit the further development of socialism. In 1986, when the 6th Party Congress of the CPV initiated the Doi Moi economic reforms, the official party line described the current state of Vietnam as being in the primary stage of socialism, and in order to progress, that a temporary, market-oriented economy would have to exist in Vietnam in order to develop the productive forces. Economic reforms like this, which on the surface seem troubling or revisionist, but are not a new concept within Marxism-Leninism:nasmuch as we are as yet unable to pass directly from small production to socialism, some capitalism is inevitable as the elemental product of small production and exchange; so that we must utilise capitalism (particularly by directing it into the channels of state capitalism) as the intermediary link between small production and socialism, as a means, a path, and a method of increasing the productive forces. Lenin, 1921" https://medium.com/@otelocarvalho/socialism-today-in-vietnam-ac22ce2edf47

Published:
Definition:
Socialism is a populist economic and political system based on public ownership (also known as collective or common ownership) of the means of production. Those means include the machinery, tools, and factories used to produce goods that aim to directly satisfy human needs. 


Socialism is a broad category, the most extreme form of which is communism. Having a private market may negate extreme forms of socialism, but not all so having some capitalist aspects goes not negate a socialist title. 

HOWEVER, pro, along with many others, believe that having a command economy is the complete definition of socialism when in reality it is a minor aspect compared to public ownership and equality. 

In china and other "socialist" nations the people arent allowed any decisions, they are given no voice, they live in fear of a totalitarian government where power belongs to the few and they arent even allowed unfilitered access to information. This is not socialism. This is an autocracy, or oligarchy at best. The public owns nothing, has no rights, and does not have equality. They are little more then slaves.

Furthermore, they were never socialist states. They didn't start socialist and then failed into a dictatorship. Their first kings were their revolutionary leaders. They were made to be dictatorships from the start.

So, no, they are not still socialist. They were never socialist to begin with.
Round 2
Published:
I never said they were free or life was all roses i said they still fit a traditional definition of socialism which is a state run and directed economy and both china and Vietnam are still dominated by state directed economies with significant numbers of large state industry "Socialist-Oriented Market Economy
The official term for the economic system that exists in Vietnam today is a “socialist-oriented market economy”. In order to understand what the ideological basis of the socialist-oriented market economy in Vietnam, one must first understand the concept of the primary and advanced stages of socialism. The primary stage of socialism is distinguished by underdeveloped productive forces which prohibit the further development of socialism. In 1986, when the 6th Party Congress of the CPV initiated the Doi Moi economic reforms, the official party line described the current state of Vietnam as being in the primary stage of socialism, and in order to progress, that a temporary, market-oriented economy would have to exist in Vietnam in order to develop the productive forces. Economic reforms like this, which on the surface seem troubling or revisionist, but are not a new concept within Marxism-Leninism:
Inasmuch as we are as yet unable to pass directly from small production to socialism, some capitalism is inevitable as the elemental product of small production and exchange; so that we must utilise capitalism (particularly by directing it into the channels of state capitalism) as the intermediary link between small production and socialism, as a means, a path, and a method of increasing the productive forces. Lenin, 1921" https://medium.com/@otelocarvalho/socialism-today-in-vietnam-ac22ce2edf47
Thus, even those who judge that the Chinese system today is not socialist might consider that the socialist ideal is still influential, and the system may continue to evolve in the direction of stronger “socialist” and redistributive institutions. As that happens, the mix of attributes will change, and a “Chinese model” of socialism may begin to emerge.
the mix of attributes will change, and a “Chinese model” of socialism may begin to emerge.https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.31.1.3 those that study china admit china has  adapted to use market forces but that the values of socialism guide its trajectory https://www.equaltimes.org/china-seeks-to-become-a-socialist?lang=en#.XY-oOudKh7M
Socialism is an economic system, the discussion of human rights is valid but not here, we aren't debating whether China respects democratic values obviously it does not it is admittedly authoritarian, thats not the debate, the debate is about its economic aspects, let avoid going off the subject to issues outside the parameters of the debate subject
Published:
I never said that you stated their lives were free. I said by definition socialism requires citizens to be free as they are the ruling and ownership power. This isnt about you, but about the definition of socialism. 

The traditional definition of socialism is not a command economy. Strong central government is not mentioned anywhere in Karl Marx's communist theory (i cannot demonstrate a lack of a statment, it is up to my opponent to show were strong central government is mentioned in "traditional" socialist theory). Socialism is defined first and foremost by "public ownership of the means of production". The fearful and/or misinformed people of those nations own nothing. That is not socialism by any definition.

In order to understand what the ideological basis of the socialist-oriented market economy in Vietnam, one must first understand the concept of the primary and advanced stages of socialism.

The mentioned stages of socialism are an invention of Mao Zedong and is nowhere found in original socialist theory or most modern socialist platforms. Mao Zedong created a ruthless dictatorship in which he and a small group of party members own and regulate the proliteriate. His theory is not socialism no matter what he tries to call it.

May i recommend using the entire definition of a term instead of cherry picking convenient parts. A dictatorship with a *ruling CLASS* cannot be socialist by definition.
Round 3
Published:
Socialism is an invented theory, and so what? Original theory? no such thing, the idea  has been around since the bible Jesus talked about creating it as did the original Christians , there are a myriad number of Socialist theories i never states we were talking about Marxist Leninism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism  Different self-described socialists have used the term "socialism" to refer to different things, such as an economic system, a type of society, a philosophical outlook, a collection of moral values and ideals, or even a certain kind of human character. Some definitions of socialism are very vague[17] while others are so specific that they only include a small minority of the things that have been described as socialism in the past. There have been numerous political movements which called themselves "socialist" under some definition of the term—some of these interpretations are mutually exclusive and all of them have generated debates over the true meaning of socialism.

China and Vietnam are socialist mainly because Socialists are still in charge trying to find workable policies to eventually attain socialism neither marx nor lenin said  communsim would happen over night and pointed to socialism as a transitionary phase where capitalism would EVENTUALLY b transformed Lenin even allowed capitalism to remain in the same fashion to allow an undeveloped society to develop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy  The New Economic Policy (NEP) (Russian: новая экономическая политика, novaya ekonomicheskaya politika) was an economic policy of Soviet Russia proposed by Vladimir Lenin in 1921 as a temporary expedient. Lenin characterized the NEP in 1922 as an economic system that would include "a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control", while socialized state enterprises would operate on "a profit basis".[1]
Published:
Socialism is an invented theory, and so what? Original theory? no such thing,
my opponent from R3

 i said they still fit a traditional definition of socialism
my opponent from R2

You are the one who said traditional aka original theory, and of course there is such a thing. Socialism, like any economic theory is a human invention with a specific origin date and not something found in nature. There absolutely is an original theory.

 the idea  has been around since the bible Jesus talked about creating it as did the original Christians
? no it hasn't, it is up to you to substantiated your claims. This seems unbelievable.

i never states we were talking about Marxist Leninism
I'm not sure where Leninism entered the conversation, but you were specifically referencing Mao Zedong's version of communism, which is still a dictators' version of a system of the people. The two cannot both be true, the socialism of dictators is a fraud.

Different self-described socialists have used the term "socialism" to refer to different things, such as an economic system, a type of society, a philosophical outlook, a collection of moral values and ideals, or even a certain kind of human character.
From your own link on economic systems, the part that references socialism:
"Social ownership of the means of production"
again that is the key distinction between socialism and not socialism. also key words "ALL OF WHICH FEATURE social ownership" despite the many different kinds of socialism, that is what makes the socialism.

Can socialism have a central planning economy? yes
Can non socialists have a central planning economy? yes
But if the people do not own and control the means of production, it is not socialism UNDER ANY DEFINITION. These are frauds. These are nothing more then dictatorships with a centrally planned economy. The people own NOTHING. 

My opponent made no attempt at demonstrate public ownership within these states, which is the defining aspect of socialism, thus I rest my case that these nations are not, and never have been socialist as per the definition in R1. Thank you.
Added:
--> @billbatard
What is more important: that they call themselves socialist? Or that they actually act socialist?
Hint: words are cheap, actions matter.
Contender
#8
Added:
if socialists are in charge of a one party state thats proof enough they are socialist if they are in control and still have socialist values nothing else matters
Instigator
#7
Added:
Half way through voting bump
Contender
#6
Added:
Any dictator can run a command economy. Just think of the kings of middle ages. They didnt regulate the economy (cause there wasnt much economy), but they could. They could claim all the money and property as theirs. They can even claim people or their lives. The whole nation belongs to them. State ownership =/= public ownership in all cases.
Contender
#5
Added:
Yes, they are certainly command economies.
They dont have public ownership or equality so they still arent socialist. Decisions are made for them, not by them. Therefore not socialist.
Contender
#4
Added:
both china and Vietnam have significant state industryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Government-owned_companies_of_Vietnam
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/state-owned-enterprises-are-hard-habit-china-doesnt-want-break
Instigator
#3
Added:
--> @billbatard
"he dialetical materialsim and historical materialsim"
not sure what this means.
as for the rest of your post, yes. Also I believe any form of socialism invented by and in order to support a dictator with zero public input is not a legitimate socialist theory. Its a dictatorship with public ownership of nothing. It is a propaganda lie to placate the public.
Just because you have a command economy doesn't mean the public has any control over it. And if the public does not control the means of production, you dont have socialism. Public ownership is the key defining characteristic of socialism. If that is missing, its not socialism. Everything else is irrelevant.
Contender
#2
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
he dialetical materialsim and historical materialsim , in your words phases of socialism were "invented' not by mao but by the father of communism MARX
Instigator
#1
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Dictatorships inspired by socialism, does not prove the nations are socialist. Con used a trustworthy definition to show what socialism actually is, and it's more than a name, it's quite simply the workers owning the means of production; to which neither country in question was demonstrated to live up to no matter what they call themselves. Pro on the other hand, did his usual borderline plagiarism (write your own argument, and support it with sources and choice quotes from them... at least use the indent quotation tool to mark what's copied when it's so long).