Markets are the coordination mechanism, while the ownership structure is clearly capitalist in nature, because a huge amount of capital in China is privately owned. And yes, I am aware many prefer to call their brand of state capitalism “socialist market economy” instead.
That the state owns significant amounts (and the majority in key sectors) is a good thing.
Not a goal? Economic equality does seem to be a goal of China’s socialism… Common prosperity, with a reduction of extreme inequality as one of the key tenets.
I did. The fact that private capital exists in China does not make it capitalist. Capitalism, as a mode of production, refers to a broad system, not private ownership in general. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, you cannot slice out private ownership as a static, disconnected thing and call it capitalism, it must be judged within the context of its existence. It isn’t just that the state owns a significant amount, but that the state owns the commanding heights of industry, the large firms and key industries, finance sector, and more, with the working class in control of said state.
State capitalism refers to capitalist states, run by capitalists with private ownership as the principle aspect, but with large degrees of state control. Nazi Germany is another good example of state capitalism, a strong bourgeois state is not the same as a socialist market economy.
Marx railed against equalitarians. Equality isn’t the goal, but reducing disparity while focusing on improving the lives of the working classes. If that means billionaires existing as a tactical contradiction, then this isn’t a mark against socialism, but instead a contradiction that requires solving down the line. As China remains integrated into the world market, billionaires do exist, but they hold no political power.
Capitalism can and does exist outside of capitalist states (China being an example of this)…this is obviously a matter of differing definitions. That’s OK, but I’d suggest some links to formal definitions. Perhaps there’s a wiki somewhere?
edit: I think nazi germany’s economy fits the term command capitalism better than state capitalism.
You’re fundamentally treating capitalism differently from socialism, which is your error. Socialism isn’t when the government does stuff, just like capitalism isn’t when private property. As for definitions, here’s Prolewiki on State Capitalism and on Socialist Market Economy.
I don’t care much for the opinions of liberals on what they think constitutes socialism or capitalism, which is what you mean by “traditional.” There’s no reason to take liberal words any more seriously than socialists, especially on socialism.
The term “state capitalism” has existed for a long time (originally by one of Karl Marx’s buddies, I think I read), and is used by economists the world over.
Trying to rewrite its definition without acknowledging its well established existing meaning is disingenous and dishonest (on the part of whoever started it or refuses to acknowledge the oversight).
It’s perfectly fine to say “I/we prefer term X because …” though.
You might have to provide your definitions…
Markets are the coordination mechanism, while the ownership structure is clearly capitalist in nature, because a huge amount of capital in China is privately owned. And yes, I am aware many prefer to call their brand of state capitalism “socialist market economy” instead.
That the state owns significant amounts (and the majority in key sectors) is a good thing.
Not a goal? Economic equality does seem to be a goal of China’s socialism… Common prosperity, with a reduction of extreme inequality as one of the key tenets.
I did. The fact that private capital exists in China does not make it capitalist. Capitalism, as a mode of production, refers to a broad system, not private ownership in general. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, you cannot slice out private ownership as a static, disconnected thing and call it capitalism, it must be judged within the context of its existence. It isn’t just that the state owns a significant amount, but that the state owns the commanding heights of industry, the large firms and key industries, finance sector, and more, with the working class in control of said state.
State capitalism refers to capitalist states, run by capitalists with private ownership as the principle aspect, but with large degrees of state control. Nazi Germany is another good example of state capitalism, a strong bourgeois state is not the same as a socialist market economy.
Marx railed against equalitarians. Equality isn’t the goal, but reducing disparity while focusing on improving the lives of the working classes. If that means billionaires existing as a tactical contradiction, then this isn’t a mark against socialism, but instead a contradiction that requires solving down the line. As China remains integrated into the world market, billionaires do exist, but they hold no political power.
Capitalism can and does exist outside of capitalist states (China being an example of this)…this is obviously a matter of differing definitions. That’s OK, but I’d suggest some links to formal definitions. Perhaps there’s a wiki somewhere?
edit: I think nazi germany’s economy fits the term command capitalism better than state capitalism.
You’re fundamentally treating capitalism differently from socialism, which is your error. Socialism isn’t when the government does stuff, just like capitalism isn’t when private property. As for definitions, here’s Prolewiki on State Capitalism and on Socialist Market Economy.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/state-capitalism is the traditional definition, which I think fits pretty well.
I don’t care much for the opinions of liberals on what they think constitutes socialism or capitalism, which is what you mean by “traditional.” There’s no reason to take liberal words any more seriously than socialists, especially on socialism.
Don’t be rude, Cowbee.
The term “state capitalism” has existed for a long time (originally by one of Karl Marx’s buddies, I think I read), and is used by economists the world over.
Trying to rewrite its definition without acknowledging its well established existing meaning is disingenous and dishonest (on the part of whoever started it or refuses to acknowledge the oversight).
It’s perfectly fine to say “I/we prefer term X because …” though.