In Tuesday’s (April 6) Preface to the column, I described the long intellectual and moral journey that provides the foundation for my thinking, a journey through black nationalism, Catholic philosophy, Latin American anti-imperialism, Cuban socialism, and traditional American conservatism. I believe that each of these schools of thought has important pieces to contribute to the formulation of the necessary road for humanity in the construction of a more just, democratic, and sustainable world.
Bravo Charles. Very succinct definitions of these concepts and ideologies that get straight to the point. Could you provide us with similar definitions for Maoism or for contemporary Chinese communism though (i.e. Deng and Xi Jin Ping)? In their emphasis on pragmatism, the latter seems to have some commonalities with Fidelism.
I concur with your observation, that Chinese socialism evolved toward a pragmatic socialism with Deng and Xi Jin Ping; and that, similarly, revolutionary Cuba in the early 1960s took a pragmatic approach to the economy, with its pragmatism expanded in the early 1990s and again with the new social and economic model of recent years. Vietnam also took a pragmatic turn in the 1980s. So the three vanguard socialist nations are pragmatic with respect to the economy, developing a “socialist third way.” On the other hand, they are “pure” with respect to the political process, with structures of people’s power; in contrast to the structures of representative democracy in the Western “democracies,” which ensure indirect control by the power elite. In the case of Cuba, the longstanding political power of the delegates of the people leads to its economic pragmatism, because economic flexibility is desired by the people.
I plan to fully address these issues in future posts, including an effort to address in some detail the extremely important case of China.
Bravo Charles. Very succinct definitions of these concepts and ideologies that get straight to the point. Could you provide us with similar definitions for Maoism or for contemporary Chinese communism though (i.e. Deng and Xi Jin Ping)? In their emphasis on pragmatism, the latter seems to have some commonalities with Fidelism.
Hello Andrej. Thank you for your post.
I concur with your observation, that Chinese socialism evolved toward a pragmatic socialism with Deng and Xi Jin Ping; and that, similarly, revolutionary Cuba in the early 1960s took a pragmatic approach to the economy, with its pragmatism expanded in the early 1990s and again with the new social and economic model of recent years. Vietnam also took a pragmatic turn in the 1980s. So the three vanguard socialist nations are pragmatic with respect to the economy, developing a “socialist third way.” On the other hand, they are “pure” with respect to the political process, with structures of people’s power; in contrast to the structures of representative democracy in the Western “democracies,” which ensure indirect control by the power elite. In the case of Cuba, the longstanding political power of the delegates of the people leads to its economic pragmatism, because economic flexibility is desired by the people.
I plan to fully address these issues in future posts, including an effort to address in some detail the extremely important case of China.
Best wishes,
Charles
Thanks Charles. I think a study analyzing these three cases as a third way socialist option would be a great subject for a future post on your blog :)
Best,
A