this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2025
86 points (84.7% liked)
Memes
53610 readers
1929 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
You got me digging.. Liebknecht (and others) discussed it at the 1891 SPD Reichsparteitag (available at the internet archive in hard to read German) Liebknecht warned that state capitalism was the worst form, and not true socialism ... ie. don't equate the expansion of state corporate power with socialism.
His opinion was that even when the state owns or controls industries, the capitalist mode of production (markets, wage labour, accumulation) remains intact rather than being replaced with genuine social ownership. It was apparently a rebuttal to "state socialism as reformist ideology", asserting that merely placing capital in state hands does not abolish exploitation, and could even be a harsher form of it.
That was at a time when there were no socialist states.
Lenin apparently turned it on its head, declaring that the state can be proletarian and not bourgeois, and that state capitalism under a proletarian state is a step forward, not backwards.
By Liebknechts criteria, china has state capitalism (and not socialism, which he treated as mutually exclusive)
And China would probably fail Lenin's own conditions for socialist transition, because China presents state capitalism as a stable system and not a transitional one (ie. as a means, not a mode).
China calls itself socialist anyway, but it's definitely with chinese characteristics like party control and private capital making millionaires. Healthy & peaceful criticism/discussion should be welcomed, along with recognising what they are doing well.
Overall, I think times change and capital ownership is an extremely practical concept that we probably won't break away from anytime soon. Leibknechts warnings should still be heeded.
I think a simple way to view it is this: the state is a weapon, not a class or a faction. What it accomplishes and who it oppresses depends on who wields it.
I like the analogy.
That also makes the state a prime target for capture, for many different reasons but unfortunately often with the same result (a nation full of wage slaves who don't control the means of production, and a few who wield the power).
Even when socialists are in power, there are no guarantees... but the stated intent is there, which is a very good start and can serve as a stablising force. Ultimately, it is the actions of a government and its leaders that will be judged, and often in hindsight.
Correct, socialism isn't when the government does stuff. Bismark was not a socialist for nationalizing industry in the context of a bourgeois state with private ownership as principle.
This is the difference between state capitalism and a socialist market economy, ie between a state ruled by capitalists with private ownership as principle yet strong state control (Nazi Germany, the Republic of Korea, US Empire, etc) vs one where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working class in control of the state and markets for smaller and medium firms, ie PRC and Vietnam.
Sure.
Lenin did not turn this on its head. Lenin corrected the Second International, who were reconciling a bourgeois state with "socialism," ie social democracy or state capitalism. The state can be proletarian, correct, this is true since Marx and Engels theorized about the state, and it is the proletarian state that withers away.
Incorrect, see my point distinguishing state capitalism with socialist market economies.
Further incorrect. China presents its socialist market economy as the initial stages of socialism:
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics describes China's model of socialism and unique features like the Mass Line, not that private property still exists. Every socialist state in history has had some level of private property, even the DPRK, but the Marxist analysis of private property in the context of a socialist state is that it exists in a form that prepares its own socialization.
Overall, I think if you want to discuss socialist theory and whatever any given theorist would approve or disprove of, you should actually read them.
China has continually softened its stance regarding this being a transitional period. It's an open ended stage, being increasingly framed as a permanent feature. Calling it a stage is a stablising concept, but falls short of a roadmap.
It could be that the current system has become too comfortable for some, or that it is increasingly seen as a viable long term approach, or both. Or maybe they have a secret roadmap so external actors don't interfere.
Watch this space, I guess.
They haven't, though. They've always maintained that it's transitional, just that it will likely take a long time. This is true since Mao.
I'm perhaps being overly critical (I like to see roadmaps and concrete progress, but instead I see the markets expanding), but assuming that they manage it, it would be monumental.