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.
The link you provided makes it clear that it ultimately agrees with me, down in the history section:
The term state capitalism was first used in the 1880s, and the concept was described in detail in 1896 by Wilhelm Liebknecht, a close associate of Karl Marx, to differentiate state takeover of private enterprises from the socialist state. Liebknecht described socialism as the removal of capitalism, leading to total state control, which he considered different from state capitalism. State takeovers increased during and in the immediate aftermath of World War I in Europe as private firms failed or were taken over to prevent layoffs. France nationalized its railways, airlines, and several other industries. Italy used a state-owned holding company to control a multitude of nationalized companies. In the United States, state and local governments have owned most major airports since the 1920s, and the country’s postal service is part of the federal government. The interwar period also saw the rise of several totalitarian states, with Nazi Germany exercising high control over investment and production.
It’s clearly talking about capitalist states nationalizing industry, which circles back to the fact that the capitalists control the state and private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. This is why socialism isn’t simply “when the government does stuff,” and why China is better described as a socialist market economy.
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.
The link you provided makes it clear that it ultimately agrees with me, down in the history section:
It’s clearly talking about capitalist states nationalizing industry, which circles back to the fact that the capitalists control the state and private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. This is why socialism isn’t simply “when the government does stuff,” and why China is better described as a socialist market economy.