So, I've been thinking about this post lately:
In essence, I am curious to see if it is true that two systems can exist in one country because I've also been thinking about how many early capitalist countries still had some feudal and slaveholder tendencies, such as a powerful nobility and dependency on slaves. If this hypothesis is true, then that may be the answer I was looking for.
To me, the idea of two economic systems present in a society, especially one working to the song of the workers state is at best a balancing act. While it might provide a 'branch' between international economies, it also acts as a means of exploitation open to foreign markets. While this might generate immediate revues to the state or its holdings in this SEZ it raises the question not only to their people, but to world workers and governments of how viable a socio-economic system REALLY is.
I guess on the flip side of the coin one can argue it as a means of transition between economic states as in feudal societies, however nobility traded in title for title to become the bourgeoisie and the serfs traded in title for worker. While the range of exploitation diminished the exploitation still remains today. There is nothing preventing a government working to a new society from implementing basic reforms as time goes on with holdings in corporations, allowing small businesses, co-ops, and so on as over time there is less economic shock, but to allow a 'special economic zone' as seen in many countries simply acts as a means to allow international exploitation.
Just look at the USA. A pioneer of bourgeois development, but at the same time, a slave holding society. Look at Germany 1949-1990: One country, two systems and states. Because a "country" is such an arbitrary definition (as opposed to "state" or "nation" - it's somewhere in between, very foggy and hard to delineate) all sorts of contradictory things can happen in it.
Yes two systems can exist within one country, however I don't believe a nation cannot effectively follow M-L and work with other systems, but like it was said above Capitalism can work with feudalism. I think the Chinese government said they operated two systems one for Hong Kong and one for the rest of China.
I feel that not only might there be capitalist enterprises in supposedly socialist republics, there can also be socialist enterprises in capitalist economies. For example in Spain there is a company, which is worker owned, and operated, called the Mondragon Corporation. And as for state run enterprises,some states in America have there own state run stores.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage_control_state Plus, North Dakota has it's own state owned bank.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_North_Dakota So I feel that socialism can be built to a degree within the existing private market based system.
IMO, this is not possible. If you look at the Netherlands, we are a monarchy, but not at all feudalist. The fact that a country may have remnants of feudalism (monarchy, landlordism) does not mean that 2 systems exist. Capitalism and the bourgeoisie are firmly in control in these lands and the olders systems have been negated long ago. The feudal class has no real power anymore.
Works the same way the other way around. Back when bourgeois classes were not in control of society, but part of the big masses of people, there was no case of capitalism either; there may have been (rich) merchants, but since they were not in control, that means the system is controlled by other means. The system is a totality of things and class relations.
Do you mean the USA of 150 years ago? There is no such thing as slave labour (apart from wage labour of course, but this is capitalism) present in the USA, is there?
Last edited by Comrade Kaiwen on 17 Jan 2012, 12:09, edited 1 time in total.
Terror without virtue is fatal; virtue without terror is impotent.
yes, of course I mean the situation as it was 150 years ago.
I don't think one system can co-exist with another without one side trying to overpower the other.
Kind of a bad example.
It led to tension between the northern and southern states, which broke the country in half. Both sides had sought profit through what they thought would be profitable (industrialization, agriculture).
We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.- Nikita Khrushchev
That's like saying two classes can't exist in a country because there's class struggle.
...or that the moon can't rotate around the earth because we'll lose it at some point.
This is purely a question of states. Separate states can allow for separate economic and political systems. National sovereignty (an artificial construct which can potentially be extended anywhere) can thus fall under the umbrella of multiple states. Everyone accepts Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan to be a part of the country of China, but because of their different states, multiple economic and political systems can exist within the "nation" of China.
The only time where I struggle to think of this happening is with communism as this does not possess a state.
Yes,but one "system" will most likely overcome the other.Tzarist Russia under Stolypin was just starting to dissolve the remnants of feudalism in Russia (although not thoroughly).
The Chinese fairytale of "one country,2 systems" can today clearly be recognized as a scam.What little social security (and other socialist features present in historical "real-socialist states") China had (the so called iron rice-bowl) is all but gone now.
That's why i think that a real socialist country cannot allow such things.The Soviet Union completely incorporated the Baltics,Bukovina and Western Ukraine/Belarus into the existing Soviet system.
Certainly there are 2 different "systems" in PRC and Hong Kong (just as there are 2 different "systems" in Scotland and England or Flanders and Wallonia),but both are capitalist countries.
The difference between the PRC mainland and Hong Kong is far, far bigger than that between England and Scotland. It's more like Sweden and the USA.
You're correct indeed. The thing that in this comparison HK is more like Sweden and the Mainland is more like the US only serves to further condemn the PRC government.
Well, China's one-country two-systems policy in HK is based on a joint declaration with the British. If they had gotten HK back without the need for a treaty, I doubt they would have used the two-systems framework. I went to HK recently and was surprised (shocked, actually) to see Falun Gong protesters on the streets. Then I remembered that HK is not only economically but politically separate.
It seems to be working so far. Both the mainland and HK are experiencing economic healthy growth and maintaining their respective political systems. If Taiwan merges with the mainland it will work for them too.
Alternative Display:Mobile view