No.469146
First off, no actual country conforms to a "system" that is crudely defined and works by the numbers. Every society and the people in it operate in accord with interests that are sensical for them. The US, PRC, USSR, all had orientations for what they did that were about their real condition. If you speak of ruling a state by ideology, it was really being ruled by the interest of one of the major states that could establish itself as an entity whose interests were a thing they could assert. This meant that effectively the US, USSR, and PRC were the only states that mattered after 1945. This was basically how it was set up - the UK was effectively an American outpost and this would be the cope/gripe of the British, though seen another way, everything in the Americas was in one way or another a vassal of the British Empire and it never ended for a moment. The "vassal" of the United States was much larger and richer than the mother country, yet strangely beholden to an intellectual elite in England. This is because the "United States" as an entity was never what it was purported to be by those who thought it was a European nation-state. Those who held the US have always been about dissolving national borders and opening countries up to free trade. So, the United States' ultimate victory was globalization, and once that was established, there was no need for an independent "United States" with its interests. The interests of what is called the United States today are the interests of globalization, and the "nationalist" idea in the United States exists primarily by foreign instigation or those who see it as a way to keep the locals under control. Only a basically irrelevant movement suggests that there is an independent "American" way of life or value system which would assert itself. Americans are taught from an early age to doubt themselves on everything or given a fake pride to heighten their sense of failure and defeat, and maintain only a scattered recollection of what might have been an independent America had history went down a different path. So, you have to get what America is to get what the other countries are, because the entity of the United States is deeply invested in everything the other major states do. It is not that they can command the countries from New York or London, but the new world order established in the 1970s was premised on US-China cooperation to make globalization possible. This setup informed everything that neoliberals could do during that stage of world history - that they had to boost Chinese industry and strip away industry in other core countries, as this was no longer in line with the way the world would be managed.
China's economy is dominated by this relationship with the Americans, even though they now trade with the world and established strong influence in the region. If China ceased to be a partner with American enterprise, it would be destroyed and all this stuff about "building socialism" would have to be entirely redrawn. In the ranks of the Party there is basically no expectation of any socialism beyond lip service, and it is not even denied with any seriousness. China's plan is fairly simple and they state it often enough - they want to marshal China's population to become the world's manufactory, split off a middle class that is conscious of its distinction from the proletarians, and then eliminate the proletarians that do not meet the cut for their intended "socialism" by discouraging them from breeding, or living much of a life. It is an approach that must be tailored to China's position in the world and its history. You couldn't make them into Americans, or do in China what you would do to control Americans. Likewise, the methods China uses to control its people, and their understanding of the deal, would be rejected on sight in America. This is not because there is some essential and inexplicable difference - the two understand each other's history very well and their intellectuals and leaders share notes on what would work for their respective situation. There is a long history in both countries which must be uprooted, including recent history. For China, purging memory of the Cultural Revolution was the standard, and only recently has it become less taboo to speak of what that was. In America, the idea of "freedom" had to be reconstructed so thoroughly that the concept of freedom became its diametric opposite, and the concept that you could do things on your own that had been part of the American project must be reconstructed into making America the most controlled and regimented society on the planet. This is the process underway now - the reversal of long histories in the two largest single blocs of economic and political influence, which had been carried out with direct cooperation between the two up to now.
I really don't see the idea of flipping the hostility against Russia (former Soviet Union) to China, the way certain people want, and there is no way to section off the US entirely from the Old World. Even in the "Fortress America" scenario some Eurasianist retards imagined, the interests ruling America have inroads basically everywhere in the world.
It should be clear there is nothing but eugenics as the guiding idea in every country, and this alliance would maintain "world peace" among those who are partisans of it. So, in the main, all decisions the major states make, which are delivered to their colonies and the contested waste zones, are oriented around a eugenic mission. That takes precedence over any idea of economic cooperation of the older type.
Maybe this answers some of your questions or elucidates certain problems with this argument over what communism or socialism "essentially" is. None of these people thought they were going to make the world run on magic and unicorns, nor did they believe capitalism was a "natural system" or the default and institutional position that had to be abolished. By "abolishing capitalism", it did not refer to an ideology but the practices capitalism entailed - that is, the centralization of wealth in the hands of oligarchs, the domination of the trusts, and so on. That is what people saw as "capitalism" in the early 20th century. People in America did not see capitalism as "you get to sell things", but "you work for the robber barons or you get the hose". The option of "good capitalism" or "democratic capitalism" was anathema to what capitalists openly espoused. The capitalists made it clear they would kill any worker who wasn't useful to them, more and more stridently as eugenics rose to the forefront.