📜 Post with us on Reddit
📝 Create a new article
🏭 Create a company page
🇬🇧 - in English
🇫🇷 - en Français (FR)
🇵🇹 - em Português (PT)
🇩🇪 - in Deutsch (DE)
🇯🇵 - 日本語で (JA)
Sponsored articles

You can edit almost every page by Creating an account. Otherwise, see the FAQ.

Socialist system

From EverybodyWiki Bios & Wiki

Part of a series on
Marxism–Leninism

The socialist system, that is the socialist form of government, was conceived in Russia after 1917 revolution with the establishment of the world's first socialist state, the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. This article is about the socialist political system and the socialist legal system, and how this state formation constitutes a distinct form of government. The socialist system is not synonymous with socialist state, which encompasses much more (the class dictatorship and the economic system for instance).

This article will focus on the set of institutions that constitutes the socialist state. For a better theoretical understanding of this system, see the socialist state and/or socialist law articles.

Political system[edit]

Government[edit]

In socialist states, the highest administrative agency of state power is the government.[1] It functions as the executive organ of the legislature.[1] In effect, the Soviet has been introduced, with variations, in all socialist states.[2] For most of its existence, the Soviet government was known as the Council of Ministers[1]—identical names were used for the governments of East Germany, Poland, Romania, Hungary and Albania.[3] It was independent of the other central agencies, such as the legislature and its presidium, but the Supreme Soviet was empowered to decide on all questions it wished.[4] The Soviet government was responsible to the legislature, and in between sessions of the legislature, reported to the legislature's standing committee.[5] The standing committee could reorganise and hold the Soviet government accountable, but it could not instruct the government.[5] The government was responsible for the overall economic system, public order, foreign relations and defense.[5] The Soviet model was more-or-less identically implemented in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland and Romania, each state instituting small changes.[3] Exceptions being that, for instance, Czechoslovakia had a president and not a collective presidency,[6] and that in Bulgaria, the State Council was empowered to instruct the Council of Ministers.[7]

Legislature[edit]

Powers and organisation[edit]

The meeting place of the Chinese National People's Congress.

All state power is unified in the legislature in socialist states.[8] This is a firm rejection of the separation of powers found in liberal democracies.[8] The constitution is passed by the legislature, and can only be amended by the legislature.[8] Judicial review and extra-parliamentary review were denounced by Soviet legal theorists as bourgeoisie institutions.[8] They also perceived it as a limitation of the people's supreme power.[8] The legislature together with its suborgans was responsible for overseeing the constitutional order.[8] Since the legislature is the supreme judge of constitutionality, the legislature's own acts cannot, therefore, be unconstitutional.[9]

The USSR Supreme Soviet was the first socialist legislature, and the Soviet legislative system has in effect been introduced, with variations, in all socialist states.[2] The Supreme Soviet convened twice a year, usually for 2-3 days each, making it one of the world's least frequently convened legislatures during its existence.[10] The same meeting frequency was the norm in the Eastern Bloc countries, as well as modern-day China.[11] China's legislature, the National People's Congress (NPC) is modeled on the Soviet one.[12] As with the Soviet one, the NPC is the highest organ of the state, and elects a Standing Committee (the Soviets had a Presidium), and elects the government, the State Council (the Soviet counterpart being the Council of Ministers).[13] In addition, all socialist states the ruling party has either had a clear majority, such as China, or held every seats, as they did in the Soviet Union, in their national legislature.[14]

Western researchers have devoted little attention to legislatures in socialist states.[15] The reason being that, compared to legislatures in liberal democracies (such as the United States Congress), are not significant bodies of political socialisation.[15] For instance, while political leaders are often elected as members of socialist legislatures, these post are not relevant to political advancement.[15] The role of legislatures is different from country to country.[15] In the Soviet Union, the Supreme Soviet did "little more than listen to statements from Soviet political leaders and to legitimate decisions already made elsewhere", while in the legislatures of Polen, Vietnam and Yugoslavia have been more active, and have had an impact on rule-making.[15]

Representativity[edit]

Both Marx and Lenin abhorred the parliamentary systems of bourgeoisie democracy, however, neither of them sought to abolish it.[16] Lenin wrote that it would be impossible to develop proletarian democracy without "without representative institutions."[16] Both of them considered the governing model of the Paris Commune of 1871 to be ideal, in which executive and legislative were combined in one body.[16] More importantly, Marx applauded the election process by "universial suffrage in the various wards and town."[16] While the institution of the socialist legislature might not be important in itself, they "have a place in the literature and rhetoric of the ruling parties which cannot be ignored—in the language of the party's intimacy with working masses, of its alleged knowledge about interests of working people, of social justice and socialist democracy, of the mass line and learning from the people.[17]

The Marxist–Leninist parties, by having legislatures, try to keep ideological consistency between supporting representative institutions and safeguarding the leading role of the party.[16] The seek to use the legislatures as a linkage between the rulers and the ruled.[16] These institutions are representative, and usually mirror the population in areas such as ethnicity and language, "yet with occupations distributed in a manner skewed towards government officials."[16] Unlike in liberal democracies, legislatures of socialist states are not to act as a forum for conveying demands or interest articulation—they meet too infrequently for this to be the case.[18] This might explain why socialist states have not developed terms such as delegates and trustees, eg to give legislature representatives to vote according to their best judgement or in the interest of their constituency.[18] Scholar Daniel Nelson notes that "As with the British parliament before the seventeenth-century turmoil secured its supremacy, legislative bodies in communist states physically portray the 'realm' ruled by (to stretch an anaology) 'kings'. Members of the assemblies 'represent' the population to whom the rulers speak and over whom they govern, convening a broader 'segment of society'... than the court itself."[18] Despite this, it doesn't mean that the socialist states use legislatures to strengthen their communication with the populace—the party, and not the legislature, could take that function.[18]

Ideologically it has another function; to prove that socialist states don't only represent the interests of the working class, but all social strata.[19] Socialist states are committed to establish a classless society use legislatures to show that all social strata, whether you are a bureaucrat, worker or intellectual are committed and have interests in building such a society.[19] At last, as the case is in China, national institutions such as the legislature "must exist which brings together representatives of all nationalities and geographic areas."[19] It does not matter if the legislatures only rubber stamp decisions, because by having them it shows that socialist states are committed to incorporate minorities and areas of the country by included them in the composition of the legislature.[19] At last, in socialist states there is usually a high proportion of members who are government officials.[20] In this instance, it might mean that its less important what legislatures do, and more important who its representatives are.[20] A member of a socialist legislature, at central and local level, are usually either government or party officials or leading figures in their community, or national figures, outside the communist party.[20] This goes to show that legislatures are tools to garner popular support for the government; in which leading figures campaign and spread information about the party's policies and ideological development.[20]

Military[edit]

Control[edit]

Socialist states have established two types of civil-military systems. The armed forces of most socialist states have historically been state institutions based on the Soviet model,[21] but in China, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam the armed forces are party-state institutions. This section will explain the differences between the statist (Soviet) model and the party-state model (by using China as an example).

In the Soviet model, the Soviet armed forces was led by the Council of Defense, an organ formed by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, while the Council of Ministers was responsible for formulating defense policies.[22] The party leader was ex officio the Chairman of the Council of Defense.[22] Below the Council of Defense there was the Main Military Council, which was responsible for the strategic direction and leadership of the Soviet armed forces.[22] The working organ of the Council of Defense was the General Staff, which was tasked with analysing military and political situations as they developed.[23] The party controlled the armed forces through the Main Political Directorate (MPD) of the Ministry of Defense, a state organ that functioned "with the authority of a department of the CPSU Central Committee."[24] The MPD organised political indoctrination and created political control mechanism at the center to the company level in the field.[25] Formally the MPD was responsible for (1) organising party and Komsomol organs as well as subordinate organs within the armed forces; (2) ensuring that the party and state retains control over the armed forces; (3) evaluates the political performance of officers; (4) supervising the ideological content of the military press and (5) supervising the political-military training institutes and their ideological content.[25] The head of the MPD was ranked fourth in military protocol, but was not a member of the Council of Defense.[26] The Administrative Organs Department of the CPSU Central Committee was responsible for implementing the party personnel policies and supervised the KGB, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Defense.[27]

In the Chinese party-state model, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is a party institution.[28] In the preamble of the Constitution of the Communist Party of China it is stated that "The Communist Party of China (CPC) shall uphold its absolute leadership over the People's Liberation Army and other people's armed forces."[28] The PLA carries out its work in accordance with the instructions of the CPC Central Committee.[29] Mao Zedong described the PLA's institutional situation as follows; "Every communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun'. Our principle is that the party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party."[30] The Central Military Commission (CMC), is both an organ of the state and the party—it is an organ of the CPC Central Committee and an organ of the national legislature, the National People's Congress.[31] The CPC General Secretary is ex officio party CMC Chairman and the President of the People's Republic of China is by right state CMC Chairman.[31] The composition of the party CMC and the state CMC are identical.[31] The CMC is responsible for the command of the PLA and determines national defense policies.[31] There are 15 departments that report directly to the CMC, that are responsible for everything from political work to administration of the PLA.[32] Of significance here is that the CMC eclipses by far the prerogatives of the CPSU Administrative Organs Department, while the Chinese counterpart to the Main Political Directorate supervises not only the military, but intelligence, the security services and counterespionage work.[33]

Representation[edit]

Unlike in liberal democracies, active military personnel are members and partake in civilian institutions of governance.[34] This is the case in all socialist states.[34] For instance, the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) has elected at least one active military figure to its CPV Politburo since 1986.[35] In the period 1986–2006, active military figures sitting in the CPV Central Committee stood at an average of 9,2 percent.[35] Military figures are also represented in the national legislature, the National Assembly, and other representative institutions.[35] In China, the two CMC vice chairmen have had by right office seats in the CPC Politburo since 1987.[36]

Ruling party[edit]

Leading role[edit]

Every socialist state has been led by a Marxist–Leninist party.[37] This party seeks to represent and articulate the interests of the classes exploited by capitalism.[37] It thus seeks to lead the exploited classes to achieve communism.[37] However, the party cannot be identified with the exploited class in general.[37] It membership is composed of members with advanced consciousness who are above sectional interests.[37] The party therefore represents the advanced section of the exploited classes and through them leads the exploited classes by interpreting the universal laws governing human history towards communism.[38]

In Foundations of Leninism, Stalin wrote "the proletariat [working class] needs the Party first of all as its General Staff, which it must have for the successful seizure of power.... But the proletariat needs the Party not only to achieve the [class] dictatorship; it needs it still more to maintain the [class] dictatorship."[39] The current Vietnamese constitution is a case in point, which states in Article 4 that "The Communist Party of Vietnam, the vanguard of the Vietnamese working class, simultaneously the vanguard of the toiling people and of the Vietnamese nation, the faithful representative of the interests of the working class, the toiling people, and the whole nation, acting upon the Marxist–Leninist doctrine and Ho Chi Minh's thought, is the leading force of the state and society".[40] In similar form, the Communist Party of China describes itself as "the vanguard of the Chinese working class, the Chinese people, and the Chinese nation."[41] As noted by both the CPV and the CPC, the ruling parties of socialist states are vanguard parties. Lenin theorised that vanguard parties were "capable of assuming power and leading the whole people to socialism, of directing and organising the new system, of being the teacher, the guide, the leader of all the working and exploited people in organizing their social life without the bourgeoisie."[42] This idea eventually evolved into the concept of the party's "leading" role in leading the state,[42] as seen above in Vietnam's constitution and CPC's self-description.[40][41] The Yugoslav communists opposed the concept of "the leading role of the party", arguing instead for "a leading role".[43] Arguing that the party had to share the leading role in cooperation with other mass organisations, such as the Socialist Alliance of Working People in their own country.[44]

Internal organisastion[edit]

The Marxist–Leninist governing party organises itself around the principle of democratic centralism, and through it, the state too.[45] It means that (1) all directing bodies of the Party, from top to bottom, shall be elected; (2) that Party bodies shall give periodical accounts of their activities to their respective Party organizations; (3) that there shall be strict Party discipline and the subordination of the minority to the majority and (4) that all decisions of higher bodies shall be absolutely binding on lower bodies and on all Party members.[45]

The highest organ of a Marxist–Leninist governing party is the party congress.[46] The congress elects the central committee and, often but not always, either a auditing commission and a control commission (or both).[46] The central committee, as the party's highest decision-making organ in between party congresses, elects a politburo and a secretariat amongst its members, as well as the party's leader.[46] When the central committee is not in session, the politburo is the highest decision-making organ of the party, and the secretariat the highest administrative organ.[46] In certain parties, either the central committee or the politburo elects amongst its members a standing committee of the politburo, which acts as the highest decision-making organ in between sessions of the politburo, central committee and the congress. This leadership structure is identical all the way down to the primary party organisation of the ruling party.[46]

Judicial system[edit]

Constitution[edit]

Role of constitutions[edit]

Marxist–Leninists view the constitution as the fundamental law and as a instrument of force.[47] The constitution is the source of law and legality.[48] Unlike in liberal democracies, the Marxist–Leninist constitution is not a framework to limit the power of the state.[48] To the contrary, a Marxist–Leninist constitution seeks to empower the state—believing the state to be an organ of class domination, and law to be the expression of the interests of the dominant class.[48] It is the belief of Marxist–Leninists that all national constitutions do this, to ensure that countries can strengthen and enforce their own class system.[48] In this instance it means that Marxist–Leninists conceive of constitutions as a tool to defend the socialist nature of the state, and attack its enemies.[48] This contrasts with the liberal conception of constitutionalism that "law, rather than men, is supreme."[49]

A Marxist–Leninist constitution is ever changing, unlike the fixed nature of liberal democratic constitutions.[50] Andrey Vyshinsky, a Procurator General of the Soviet Union during the 1930s, notes that the "Soviet constitutions represent the sum total of the historic path along which the Soviet state has traveled. At the same time, they are the legislative basis of subsequent development of state life."[50] That is, the constitution sums up what already has been achieved.[51] This belief is also shared by the Communist Party of China; "the Chinese Constitution blazes a path for China, recording what has been won in China and what is yet to be conquered."[50] A constitution in a socialist state has an end.[52] For instance, the preamble of the 1954 Constitution outlines the historical tasks of the Chinese communists; "..step by step, to bring about the socialist industrialisation of the country and, step by step, to accomplish the socialist transformation of agriculture, handicraft and Capitalist mode of production|capitalist industry and commerce."[52]

The constitution was therefore a tool to analyse the development of society.[53] The Marxist–Leninist party in question would have to study the correlation of forces, literally society's class structure, before enacting changes.[53] Several terms were coined for different developmental states by Marxist–Leninists legal theorists; new democracy, people's democracy, socialist state and the primary stage of socialism for instance.[51] This is also why amendments to constitutions are not enough; major societal changes needs a constitution which corresponds with the reality of the new class structure.[51]

With Khrushchev's repudiation of Stalin's practices and the Communist Party of China repudiation of Mao, Marxist–Leninist legal theories began to emphasise "the formal, formerly neglected constitutional order".[54] Deng Xiaoping, not long after Mao's death, noted "Democracy has to be institutionalised and written into law, so as to make sure that institutions and laws do not change whenever the leadership changes or whenever the leaders change their views... The trouble now is that our legal system is incomplete... Very often what leaders say is taken as law and anyone who disagrees is called a lawbreaker."[55] Li Buyan, in 1986, wrote that "the policies of the Party usually are regulations and calls which to a certain extent are only principles. The law is different; it is rigorously standardised. It explicitly and concretely stipulates what the people should, can or cannot do."[56] These legal developments have been echoed in later years in Cuba, Laos and Vietnam. This has led to the development of the communist concept of socialist rule of law, which runs parallel to (and is disctint) to the liberal term of the same name.[57] The emphasise has more squarely, in the last years, on the constitution as both a legal document and a paper which documents society's development, as noted by Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Communist Party of China in 2013; "No organisation or individual has the privilege to overstep the Constitution and law."[58]

Constitutional supervision[edit]

After Stalin's death, several socialist states have experimented with some sort of constitutional supervision.[59] These organs were designed to safeguard the supreme power of the legislature.[59] Romania was the first to experiment with constitutional supervision, when it established a Constitutional Committee in 1965.[59] It was elected by the legislature, and leading jurists sat in the committee, but it was only empowered to advice the legislature.[59] Keith Hand comments that "It was not an effective institution in practice."[59] Hungary and Polen experimented with constitutional supervision in the early 1980s.[59] Hungary established the Council of Constitutional Law, which was elected by the legislature and consisted of several leading jurists.[59] It was empowered to review the constitutionality and legality of statutes, administrative regulations, and other normative documents, however, if the agency in question failed to heed it advice it needed to petition the legislature.[59] The Soviets established the Constitutional Supervision Committee in 1989, which "was subordinate only to the USSR constitution."[60] It was empowered "to review the constitutionality and legality of a range of state acts of the USSR and its republics. Its jurisdiction included laws [passed by the legislature], decrees of the Supreme Soviet’s Presidium, union republic constitutions and laws, some central administrative decrees, Supreme Court explanations, and other central normative documents."[60] If the committee deemed the legislature to have breached legality, the legislature was obliged to discuss the issue but could reject it if more than 2/3 voted against the findings of the Constitutional Supervision Committee.[60] While it was constitutionally powerful, it lacked enforcement powers, was often ignored and it failed to defend the constitution during the coup against Mikhail Gorbachev.[61]

The Chinese leadership has argued against establishing a constitutional supervisory committee, due to their association with failed socialist states of Europe.[62] More noteworthy, as of 2018, none of the surviving socialist states (Cuba China, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam) have experimented with constitutional supervision committees or constitutional supervision of anykind outside the existing framework.[63]

Legal system[edit]

Main article: Socialist law

All socialist states have been established in countries with a civil law system.[64] The countries of Eastern Europe had formally been governed by the Russian Empire, German Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire—all of whom had civil law legal system.[64] Cuba had a civil law system imposed on them by Spain, China introduced civil law to overlay with Confucian elements and Vietnam used French law.[64] Since the establishment of the Soviet Union, there has been a scholarly debate on whether socialist law is a separate legal system or is a part of the civil law tradition.[64] Legal scholar Renè David wrote that the socialist legal system "possesses, in relation to our French law, particular features that give it a complete originality, to the extent that it is no longer possible to connect it, like the former Russian law, to the system of Roman law."[65] Similarly, Christoper Osakwe concludes that socialist law is "an autonomous legal system to be essentially distinguished from the other contemporary families of law."[66] Proponents of socialist law as a separate legal system, have identified the following features;[66]

  1. that socialist law is to disappear with the withering away of the state;[66]
  2. the rule of the Marxist–Leninist party;[66]
  3. that socialist law is subordinate, and reflect changes to, the economic order (the absorption of private law by public law);[66]
  4. that socialist law has a religious character, and[67]
  5. that socialist law is prerogative rather than normative.[67]

Legal officials argue differently for their case than Westerners.[68] For instance, "The predominant view among Soviet jurists in the 1920s was that Soviet law of that period was Western-style law appropriate for a Soviet economy that remained capitalist to a significant degree."[68] This changed with the introduction of the planned economy, and the term "socialist law" was conceived to reflect this in the 1930s.[68] Hungarian legal theorist Imre Szabó acknowledged similarities between socialist law and civil law, but noted that "four basic types of law may be distinguished: the laws of the slave, feudal, capitalist and socialist societies."[69] Using the Marxst theory of historical materialism, Szabó argues that socialist law cannot belong to the same law family since the material structure is different from the capitalist countries, their superstructure (state) has to reflect these differences.[70] In other words, law is a tool by the ruling class to govern.[70] as Renè David notes, socialist jurists "isolate their law, to put into another category, a reprobate category, the Romanist laws and the common law, is the fact that they reason less as jurists and more as philosophers and Marxists; it is in taking a not strictly legal viewpoint that they affirm the originality of their socialist law."[71] However, some socialist legal theorists differentiated between type of law and family of law, such as Romanian jurist Victor Zlatescu "The distinction between the law of the socialist countries and the law of the capitalist countries is not of the same nature as the difference between Roman-German law and the common law, for example. Socialist law is not a third family among the others, as appears in certain writings of Western comparatists."[72] In other words, socialist law is civil law, but its a different type of law for a different type of society.[72]

Yugoslav jurist Borislav Blagojevic noted "great number of legal institutions and legal relations remain the same in socialist law", further stating that it is "necessary and justified" to put them to use if they are "in conformity with the corresponding interests of the ruling class in the state in question."[73] Importantly, socialist law has retained civil law institutions, methodology, and organisation.[74] This can be discerned by the fact that East Germany for instance retained the 1896 German civil code until 1976 while Polen used existing German, French, Austrian and Russian civil codes until its adoption of its own civil code in 1964.[75] Scholar John Quigley writes that "Socialist law retains the inquisitorial style of trial, law-creation predominantly by legislatures rather than courts, and a significant role for legal scholarship in construing codes."[74]

References[edit]

Footnotes[edit]

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Feldbrugge 1985, p. 202.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 White, Gardner & Schöpflin 1987, p. 86.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Staar 1988, p. 36 (Bulgaria), 65 (Czechoslovakia), 133 (Hungary), 161 (Romania), 195 (Poland).
  4. ↑ Feldbrugge 1985, pp. 202–203.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Feldbrugge 1985, p. 203.
  6. ↑ Starr 1987, p. 64.
  7. ↑ Dimitrov 2006, p. 170.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 Hand 2016, p. 2.
  9. ↑ Hazard 1985, p. 163.
  10. ↑ White, Gardner & Schöpflin 1987, p. 91.
  11. ↑ White, Gardner & Schöpflin 1987, pp. 114–115.
  12. ↑ White, Gardner & Schöpflin 1987, p. 114.
  13. ↑ White, Gardner & Schöpflin 1987, p. 115.
  14. ↑ White, Gardner & Schöpflin 1987, p. 82.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 Nelson 1982, p. 1.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 Nelson 1982, p. 7.
  17. ↑ Nelson 1982, p. 6.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 Nelson 1982, p. 8.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 Nelson 1982, p. 9.
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 Nelson 1982, p. 10.
  21. ↑ Kramer 1985, p. 47.
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 Snyder 1987, p. 28.
  23. ↑ Snyder 1987, p. 30.
  24. ↑ Loeber 1984, p. 13.
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Staff writer 1980, p. 1.
  26. ↑ Staff writer 1980, p. 3.
  27. ↑ Kokoshin 2016, p. 19.
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 Mulvenon 2018, p. 3.
  29. ↑ Mulvenon 2012, p. 251.
  30. ↑ Blasko 2006, p. 6.
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 Blasko 2006, p. 27.
  32. ↑ Garafola, Cristina L. "People's Liberation Army Reforms and Their Ramifications". RAND Corporation. Retrieved 15 May 2018.
  33. ↑ Kokoshin 2016, p. 23.
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 Staff writer 1980, p. 7.
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 35.2 Thayer 2008, p. 68.
  36. ↑ Miller 2018, p. 4.
  37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 37.2 37.3 37.4 Harding 1981, p. 27.
  38. ↑ Harding 1981, pp. 27–28.
  39. ↑ Steiner 1951, p. 58.
  40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 Bui 2016, p. 223.
  41. ↑ 41.0 41.1 Li 2017, p. 219.
  42. ↑ 42.0 42.1 Evans 1993, p. 20.
  43. ↑ Neal, p. 55.
  44. ↑ Neal, pp. 55–56.
  45. ↑ 45.0 45.1 White, Gardner & Schöpflin 1987, p. 131.
  46. ↑ 46.0 46.1 46.2 46.3 46.4 Staff writer. "Central Committee". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 16 May 2018.
  47. ↑ Chang 1956, p. 520.
  48. ↑ 48.0 48.1 48.2 48.3 48.4 Chang 1956, p. 521.
  49. ↑ Chang 1956, p. xi.
  50. ↑ 50.0 50.1 50.2 Chang 1956, p. 522.
  51. ↑ 51.0 51.1 51.2 Chang 1956, p. xii.
  52. ↑ 52.0 52.1 Chang 1956, p. 524.
  53. ↑ 53.0 53.1 Triska 1968, p. xii.
  54. ↑ Chang 1956, p. xiii.
  55. ↑ Keith 1992, p. 112.
  56. ↑ Keith 1992, p. 114.
  57. ↑ Keith 1992, p. 118.
  58. ↑ Wan, William; Qi, Li (3 June 2013). "China's constitution debate hits a sensitive nerve". The Washington Post. Retrieved 3 May 2018.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
  59. ↑ 59.0 59.1 59.2 59.3 59.4 59.5 59.6 59.7 Hand 2016, p. 3.
  60. ↑ 60.0 60.1 60.2 Hand 2016, p. 4.
  61. ↑ Hand 2016, p. 5.
  62. ↑ Hand 2016, p. 15.
  63. ↑ Hand 2016, p. 16.
  64. ↑ 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.3 Quigley 1989, p. 781.
  65. ↑ Quigley 1989, p. 782.
  66. ↑ 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4 Quigley 1989, p. 783.
  67. ↑ 67.0 67.1 Quigley 1989, p. 784.
  68. ↑ 68.0 68.1 68.2 Quigley 1989, p. 796.
  69. ↑ Quigley 1989, pp. 798–99.
  70. ↑ 70.0 70.1 Quigley 1989, p. 799.
  71. ↑ Quigley 1989, p. 797.
  72. ↑ 72.0 72.1 Quigley 1989, p. 800.
  73. ↑ Quigley 1989, p. 802.
  74. ↑ 74.0 74.1 Quigley 1989, p. 803.
  75. ↑ Quigley 1989, p. 801.

Bibliography[edit]

General[edit]

References for when the individuals were elected to the office of CPC leader, the name of the offices and when they established and were abolished are found below:

Articles and journal entries[edit]

Books[edit]


This article "Socialist system" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:Socialist system. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.


Retrieved from "https://en.everybodywiki.com/index.php?title=Socialist_system&oldid=962118"
License CC BY-SA 3.0
Powered by MediaWiki
Powered by Semantic MediaWiki