Many cap_it_al_ist thinkers believe that the collapse of Ea_st_ern Bl_oc and the transformation to ma_rk_et economy in C_h_i_n_a and Vi_et N_a_m have decisively proved that so[ci]al[is]m has f_ailed. Many of them don't want to unceasingly criticize so[ci]al[is]m any more. But according to the implication revealed by C_h_i_n_es_e si_xiang zheng_zhi (id_eo_lo_gical education) textbooks, genuine so[ci]al[is]m seems never f_ail any more.
The textbooks' explanation for the reason why C_h_i_n_a introduces ma_rk_et economy is that the productive abilities are not so advanced in C_h_i_n_a. This means ma_rk_et economy is fit for a society where the productive abilities are not so advanced. So what if a society has achieved the advanced productiveness one day? They don't express this explicitly. But everyone can understand "that day" is left to the plan_ned economy: plan_ned economy is fit for a society which has the advanced productiveness. What the textbooks want to say is that: we cannot help but to choose ma_rk_et economy, because we are at this stage in the river of history; so[ci]al[is]m doesn't f_ail; ma_rk_et so[ci]al[is]m is the so[ci]al[is]m of un-developed society; if our productive abilities become advanced, we will re-establish plan_ned economy again, then we are in a real M_a_r_xist socialist society.
As to the so-called "distribution according to one's work" (the consequence of labor theory of value), they also have something to withstand the attack. You may ask, "Why people in different corporations who do the same thing receive different wages?" Many people think this is the denial of M_a_r_x' "socially necessary working time". But the apologist also think this is an invalid attack. Because these apologist have reduced the "socially necessary working time" to every corporation. They say that each corporation has its own "socially necessary working time", and each "socially necessary working time" is not necessarily the same. Outside the corporation we see different people get different rewards for doing the same thing; but inside it (only the state-owned corporation) people "absolutely" get rewards "according to their works"----- this is genuine M_a_r_xi_sm, and the M_a_r_xi_sm of our e_p_o_c_h/stage: the stage of un-developed so[ci]al[is]m or the primary stage of so[ci]al[is]m. M_a_r_x' labor theory of value is thus immune.
Their key argumentation is that: M_a_r_xism is dynamic. It evolves. So it must be divided into different stages. Different stages of M_a_r_xism have different characteristics. The characteristics of different stages can contradict each other ---- this is the rule of "dialectics". Their fundamental principles have never been denied ---- they will be put into practice when we are at the higher stage, not now. And we are marching toward the higher stage, so we are not betraying M_a_r_xism.
So it is not surprise why C_h_i_n_es_e g_ove_rn_me_nt encourages pr_iv_at_e corporations while refuses to acknowledge the pr_iv_at_e ownership. The former represents the inevitability of our e_p_o_c_h, while the latter represents the acceptance of the forthcoming "advanced stage of so[ci]al[is]m" and the persistence in M_a_r_xism. There are many contradictory elements in C_h_i_n_es_e g_ove_rn_me_nt's policy. But if C_h_i_n_es_e g_ove_rn_me_nt uses the weapon of " historical stage + developing M_a_r_xism", every contradiction seems to be able to be explained away.
I think the continuous criticism of M_a_r_xism and so[ci]al[is]m is still necessary. Many things do change with time. But there is no clear boundary between things that change and things that don't change. Some things that change always being took as the evidence that other things change to. Taking US_SR and M_a_o Em_pir_e as the negative evidences that disprove so[ci]al[is]m is not enough. Because the apologist of so[ci]al[is]m would argue that the f_ault does not lie in so[ci]al[is]m or M_a_r_x but in the attempt to "transcend our e_p_o_c_h": practicing M_a_r_x' teachings rigorously only works in the advanced stage of so[ci]al[is]m, not the un-developed so[ci]al[is]m like US_SR. In the primary stage of so[ci]al[is]m, a pragmatic flexibility is not the denial of so[ci]al[is]m, it's temporary, after having improved our productive abilities, we will do whatever M_a_r_x asked us to do. But what is "temporary"? 10 years? 50 years? 100 years? 500 years? Comparing to the human history, they are all "temporary". This argument is inf_allible. You may think it's not a valid argument through a scientific perspective therefore deserves no criticism. But ordinary people ---- especially ordinary people lived in socialist state ---- don't know what is "scientific" (What the Bosses say are all scientific).
Resorting to the historical f_acts as evidences is important. But if we want to destroy so[ci]al[is]m thoroughly, we should deconstruct it through a theoretical course. We should prove that no matter in the lower stage or higher stage, so[ci]al[is]m would all f_ail. And we should also clearly define our key terms such as "cap_it_al_ism" or "so[ci]al[is]m", because the propaganda of socialist regimes always subverts our definition. (Many people in socialist country believe that F_ascism is an extreme form of cap_it_al_ism, while the f_act is that f_ascism is a kind of (non-M_a_r_xist) so[ci]al[is]m. And many people think "metaphysics" means "anti-dialectics".) Refuting the "dialectics" is also important, or else people would accept contradictions. In a word, so[ci]al[is]m still does not surrender now, we should pay attention to its new intrigues all the time.
