Why the traditional socialist model is unsustainable in the economic sphere

Why is it difficult to sustain the traditional socialist model in the economic sphere why is it difficult to sustain the traditional socialist model in the economic sphere? This is to clarify the relationship between socialism as defined by Marx and the Soviet model of socialism. On the surface, socialism as defined by Marx and the Soviet model of socialism are the same, but in fact, they are different. One is socialism that builds socialism on the basis of highly developed productive forces, and the other is socialism that builds on the basis of low productive forces. Marx's transformation of an imaginary socialism into a realizable socialism was to base socialism on the reality of the development of the productive forces. Capitalism's relations of production, in its early stages of development, greatly advanced the development of the productive forces. Socialism, as defined by Marx, comes at a later stage of capitalism's development, i.e., after the high development of the productive forces, when capitalist private ownership becomes an obstacle to the development of the productive forces, and the elimination of private ownership and the establishment of public ownership of the means of production therefore becomes a necessary condition for the continued development of the productive forces. Therefore, socialism, as defined by Marx, is based on the public ownership of the means of production. The Soviet model of socialism, with its economic base of public ownership of the means of production, was not based on high productivity but on low productivity, so it was obviously not socialism as defined by Marx. The socialism established in the USSR in 1917 was based on the level of productivity in the pre-capitalist period, when the level of productivity was not yet up to the level of elimination of private ownership of the means of production. The elimination of private ownership under these conditions did not conform to the law that relations of production must be adapted to the needs of the development of the productive forces; it eliminated private ownership of the means of production ahead of its time; it lost the intrinsic motivation for the development of the productive forces, and its failure was inevitable. Therefore, the Soviet model, the so-called traditional socialist model, is not the archetype of socialism as defined by Marx, because its productive forces are low and the socialist elements within it are far from being formed. It was a premature child of socialism.

Of course, the traditional socialist model, i.e., the Soviet model, has had difficulty in sustaining itself in the economic sphere, and there are a variety of other factors, which will not be explored here, but only the innate defects of the Soviet socialist model. That is, it is divorced from the actual level of productive forces, over the level of the elimination of private ownership, its economic development lacks internal momentum, the existence of difficulties is inevitable.

It has been proved by the history of social development that at a certain historical stage of social development, capitalist relations of production play a great role in promoting the development of the productive forces. According to Marx's point of view, socialism is the replacement of capitalism is a historical inevitability, it is a higher social form than capitalism, is the inevitable product of the high degree of development of the productive forces in society, because its relations of production is based on the high degree of development of the productive forces in such social conditions, that is to say, under these conditions of socialism, it is possible for people to not run for their lives, and it is possible to Hen have full freedom. Only then is it possible to have a planned arrangement for the economy.

The difficulties of developing the economy on the Soviet socialist model are now recognized in reality. This model of socialism no longer exists, and the other socialist countries that followed in its footsteps either found their way out of reforms or spent their days in misery. When I was young, I was also an admirer of the Soviet model of socialism, and it was only after I left my job, in my reading, and in probing the failures of the USSR, that I came to realize the theoretical error of the Soviet model. This error should be attributed to Lenin, from whom it came. Why do we still have many people who do not understand this? I can not figure it out either.