We can look at the question from the following perspective. If we accept the premise that China operates under state capitalism, what implications does that hold? At its core, capitalism is defined by private ownership of capital, where individuals or entities control labor’s objectives and structure. Enterprises under this system exist primarily to expand their owners’ wealth, with any societal benefits emerging only as incidental byproducts.
State-owned industries, however, serve a fundamentally different purpose, even if their organizational structure superficially mirrors private enterprises. Their primary aim is to mobilize labor toward socially beneficial objectives such as constructing infrastructure, expanding housing, ensuring food security, and similar public goods. Crucially, capital accumulation by private individuals is absent in this model. Profits generated by state industries are reinvested directly into public services, infrastructure, and long-term national development.
While valid critiques can be made about organization of SOEs or potential worker alienation within their hierarchies, the system’s focus on collective welfare, rather than private profit, makes it fundamentally different from actual capitalism. When evaluated by its capacity to prioritize societal needs over individual wealth extraction, this framework is clearly superior.
@yogthos
Also, just to add, state capitalism is still capitalism. State ownership alone doesn’t do away with capitalism or the exploitation it entails. It is essentially the final stage of capitalism that must be abolished for the establishment of socialism. 2/2 #socialism #capitalism
If the state owns it, and the state also owns the money printer and also the banks (which are another form of money printing), then it’s not compelled to be run in the M-C-M’ capitalist mode of production, because it doesn’t need to make a profit, or even break even.
Furthermore, the capitalists in China have virtually no political power. Just look at the number of rich people who’ve received the death sentence with reprieve, or the property developers who were left to flail and go bankrupt, or the sorry state of billionaire Jack Ma.
@davel
The Chinese state doesn’t own all of the means of production, and capitalists (particularly rich capitalists) still have plenty of economic power, so it’s not like the capitalist class in China is completely without power.
This is still the “One Drop Rule,” I would like to see why you think Socialism is unique among Modes of Production in that it must be judged by purity. Do you have an example of a Socialist country we can look at to compare? In the PRC, Capitalists have some little power, but since they have little to no influence over heavy industry or primary industries, their influence over the economy as a whole is minimized.
I didn’t say the capitalist class is completely without power, only that it is comparatively very, very weak.
Meanwhile the Chinese state has various trump cards on private enterprises. They impose their representatives onto the boards, they impose veto powers, and they impose employee representation/unionization. And their ultimate trump card is eminent domain/nationalization, which the Chinese state doesn’t hesitate to do.
@davel
The Chinese capitalists are “very, very weak,” yet there were 814 billionaires as of 2024. Comparatively, there are only 800 billionaires in America.
#capitalism #socialism
https://www.statista.com/statistics/299513/billionaires-top-countries/#%3A%5C%7E%3Atext=According+to+the+Hurun+Global%2Cresided+in+the+United+States.
China has over 3x burgerland’s population. The least controversial fact about China is that it is a big country full of many Chinese.
Quantity of wealth doesn’t equal political power if the relations of Capital and the class in power are different. Billionaires in the US control heavy industry and finance, billionaires in the PRC do not. Getting rich off of the rubber ball factory doesn’t mean you have power over the rubber factory.
Oh hey, quick question what’s the respective size of population of the two countries?
Also, China lost 36% of its billionaires in recent years. Hows the trend in the states going?
https://www.businessinsider.com/china-lost-36pc-billionaires-three-years-rich-list-hurun-economy-2024-10
So China has 1/4th the billionaires per capita, but that’s largely beside the point. Having a lot of money doesn’t necessarily translate into having a lot of political power, which I already addressed above with examples.
You can’t just analyze things at this surface level and call it a day. As Mao said, you must investigate! Socialist states can’t simply skip steps, fast-forwarding to some pure form of socialism, especially states that started from a stage of pre-industrial, illiterate feudalism; and especially when under the constant economic & military threat of the imperial core lead by the US. They have to go through the steps to develop their productive forces as quickly as possible, and some limited capitalism in the early stages of development is part of China’s path to get there. Most historically prominent Marxists would have recommended the same.
Gabriel Rockhill » 🔊 Understanding Siege Socialism
@davel
“Having a lot of money doesn’t necessarily translate into having a lot of political power,”
I’m not going to listen to someone who won’t even acknowledge how economic power translates to political power. This is the dumbest, non-Marxist take I’ve ever heard, more like something a Social-Democrat would say, which seems to be how many “Marxists” who support modern-day China tend to sound.
#socialism #capitalism
How does money translate to political power? What is it that Billionaires do in the US to exert their power? Can they do the same in the PRC? This is a foundational question any Marxist must analyze and investigate to begin to understand how to establish Socialism to begin with.
So far, you have avoided answering that question, and resorted to insults towards others trying to coax that answer out of you.
Yup, you’re not going to read or listen to any of the links that any of us have shared. I think you’ve listened S4A’s confident, shallow, non-dialectical-materialist analysis, and that’s the end of it as far as you’re concerned.
@davel
You having the audacity to label someone else’s analysis as “non-dialectical-materialist,” yet not understanding that economic power, especially that of billionaires and millionaires, does translate to political power is the reason I’m not taking you seriously.
The idea that Socialism means only and exclusively full ownership in public hands is wrong, and anti-Marxist. To take such a stance means either Capitalism and Feudalism have never existed either, the sort of “one-drop” rule, or that Socialism itself is a unique Mode of Production that needs to be judged based on “purity” while the rest do not, a conception that has roots in idealism rather than Materialism.
Modes of Production should be defined in a manner that is consistent. If we hold this definition for Socialism, then either it means a portion of the economy can be Socialist, ie USPS, or a worker cooperative, or it means an economy is only Socialist if all property has been collectivized.
For the former, this definition fails to take into account the context to which portions of the economy play in the broader scope, and therefore which class holds the power in society. A worker cooperative in the US, ultimately, must deal with Capitalist elements of the economy. Whether it be from the raw materials they use being from non-cooperatives, to the distributors they deal with, to the banks where they gain the seed Capital, they exist as a cog in a broader system dominated by Capitalists in the US. Same with USPS, which exists in a country where heavy industry and resources are privatized, it serves as a way to subsidize transport for Capitalists. The overall power in a system must be judged.
For the latter, this “one drop” rule, if equally applied, means Feudalism and Capitalism have never existed either. There is no reason Socialism should be judged any differently from Capitalism or Feudalism.
What Socialism ultimately is is a system where the Working Class is in control, and public ownership is the principle aspect of society. If a rubber ball factory is privately owned but the rubber factory is public, the public sector holds more power over the economy. In the Nordics, heavy industry is privatized for the most part, and social safety nets are funded through loans and ownership of industry in the Global South, similar to being a landlord in country form. In the PRC, heavy industry and large industry is squarely in the hands of the public, which is why Capitalists are subservient to the State, rather than the other way around.
As for the purpose of Socialism, it is improving the lives of the working class in material and measurable ways. Public ownership is a tool, one especially effective at higher degrees of development. Markets and private ownership are a tool, one that can be utilized more effectively at lower stages in development. Like fire, private ownership presents real danger in giving Capitalists more power, but also like fire this does not mean we cannot harness it and should avoid it entirely, provided the proper precautions are taken.
Moreover, markets are destined to centralize. Markets erase their own foundations. The reason public ownership is a goal for Marxists is because of this centralizing factor, as industry gets more complex public ownership increasingly becomes more efficient and effective. Just because you can publicly own something doesn’t mean the act of ownership improves metrics like life expectancy and literacy, public ownership isn’t some holy experience that gives workers magic powers. Public ownership and Private ownership are tools that play a role in society, and we believe Public Ownership is undeniably the way to go at higher phases in development because it becomes necessary, not because it has mystical properties.
Ultimately, it boils down to mindsets of dogmatism or pragmatism. Concepts like “true Socialism” treat Marx as a religious prophet, while going against Marx’s analysis! This is why studying Historical and Dialectical Materialism is important, as it explains the why of Marxism and Socialism in a manner that can be used for real development of the Working Class and real liberation.
@Cowbee
This copy and pasted response doesn’t relate exactly to anything I said. I never said that socialism is only when the public directly owns the means of production. I said that state capitalism, where the private ownership of the means of production still exists but under state control and regulations, is still capitalism and must be abolished for socialism. This is a sentiment that Engels expressed in “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,” so I’m not pulling this out of thin air.
Taking a snippet from Cowbee:
Given your answers and mentioning of Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, are you arguing that this state ownership isn’t actually public ownership and that Dengists are the modern analogue to people from Marx and Engel’s time who thought that Prussia under Otto von Bismark was socialist on account of its means of production being owned by the state?
The deal Engels was taking issue with with regards to Bismark is treating nationalized industry in a bourgeois-dominated system as a means to support bourgeois rule as “socialist.” Engels was trying to distinguish between nationalization as a deliberate choice to support the bourgeoisie, vs an economic inevitability compelled by increasingly complicated and expansive production, specifically citing structures like railways and the post office as among the first to be required to move into the public sector.
For the PRC, there is already a dictatorship of the proletariat, meaning what the proletariat nationalizes is under proletarian control, and moreover the vast bulk of heavy industry and large firms are under state control, as is in line with Socialist practice.
The percentage of private ownership continued to drop in 2024, accounting for just over 30% now. And of course, the other question is what type of industry is privately owned. The party sits at the commanding heights of the economy, and controls all the essential industries. Capitalist enterprise is strictly supplemental to that, and it very clearly exists in the service of the state as well.
https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/2024/chinas-private-sector-has-lost-ground-state-sector-has-gained-share-among
@yogthos
I’m done with all these justifications for capitalism and billionaires.
People who refuse to learn the basics of what socialism is have no business calling themselves Marxists.
@yogthos
People who try to justify the existence of capitalism and billionaires have no right to call themselves Marxists.
Turns out Marx wasn’t an actual Marxist. 🤣
Removed by mod
Your issue was with the State re-investing in production using the surplus value from state-run enterprises. In a system where the Proletariat has siezed control, this is Socialist in nature. This is a sentiment Marx expressed in Critique of the Gotha Programme, so I’m not pulling this sentiment out of thin air either. Surplus value will always be extracted, the question is if that’s controlled by the working class to redirect into improvements and safety nets, or for the profits of the few.
@Cowbee
No, my issue is with capitalism.
This is what you said, and what I am responding to. Genuinely, what is it exactly that needs to end for a system to be Socialist, in your eyes? No country has ever been Socialist if we define “State Capitalism” in such a manner.
@Cowbee
I already explained to you what state capitalism is: “state capitalism, where the private ownership of the means of production still exists but under state control and regulations,…”
Private ownership of the means of production is what has to end for a system to be socialist. In China, there’s plenty of private ownership of the means of production, so it isn’t socialist.
I did respond to this though, this is the “one drop” rule and means Socialism has never existed, and is a Mode of Production unique among all in history in that it can only exist as a “pure” system in your eyes.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat holds firm control of key industries and heavy industry in China, the Capitalists exist but hold no real power, just as Marx and Engels described the gradual expropriation of Capital from their hands.
Can you give an example of a Socialist country so we can compare and contrast? Let’s not resort to emotional attacks, we’ve all presumably read Marx here, let’s focus on reaching an understanding.