u/International_Scar81

From my understanding, capitalism was reintroduced by Soviet, Chinese, etc bureaucracies more or less voluntarily. That's a bit confusing to me since capitalism should mean the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, not the dictatorship of the bureaucracy.

So my question is: is modern China(or any other former socialist economy) controlled by "their" bureaucracy or is it dominated by the markets? If the bureaucracies are still in change, then how? What makes China different from countries like America, that are completely controlled by the markets? If the capital is in change then why did the bureaucracy give up their power? ik Cuba has recently been forced to reform and open up by America basically waging war on them but surely countries like USSR could defend themselves, right?

I know it sounds like a stupid question but I keep hearing about how Khrushchevite Soviet Union destroyed everything the revolution stood for so the question I'm really asking is: was USSR(1953-1989) salvageable or was a political revolution the only way out at that point? So that's why I'm asking if we should regret the dissolution, if USSR was doomed the second Khrushchev took over, should we even care about it?

Same question about modern China, is it essentially a regular capitalist country or is there something special about that makes a political revolution unfavourable?

Also, I don't really get what was so bad that the Khrushechevites did in the USSR from the (very limited) research I did, so can somebody recommed some literature on the topic?

War does not contradict the fundamentals of private property—on the contrary, it is a direct and inevitable outcome of those fundamentals. Under capitalism the smooth economic growth of individual enterprises or individual states is impossible. Under capitalism, there are no other means of restoring the periodically disturbed equilibrium than crises in industry and wars in politics.

Of course, temporary agreements are possible between capitalists and between states. In this sense a United States of Europe is possible as an agreement between the European capitalists ... but to what end? Only for the purpose of jointly suppressing socialism in Europe, of jointly protecting colonial booty against Japan and America, who have been badly done out of their share by the present partition of colonies, and the increase of whose might during the last fifty years has been immeasurably more rapid than that of backward and monarchist Europe, now turning senile. Compared with the United States of America, Europe as a whole denotes economic stagnation. On the present economic basis, i.e., under capitalism, a United States of Europe would signify an organisation of reaction to retard America's more rapid development. The times when the cause of democracy and socialism was associated only with Europe alone have gone for ever.

- On The Slogan for a United States of Europe (1915)