Communism

2679 readers

270 users here now

Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml

ComradeClucky@lemmy.ml

162

Protestation (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 day ago by protestation@discuss.tchncs.de to c/communism@lemmy.ml

68 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what special economic zones are in the DPRK. They are not as they are in the PRC, where they are capitalist safehavens. In the DPRK, these are zones for international trade. All industry is still publicly owned.

The DPRK does have limited private property in its Special Economic Zones. See A Capitalist in North Korea: My Seven Years in the Hermit Kingdom. Foreign investment and ownership happens there too, such as from the Emperor Group owning a casino and whatnot, a group based in Hong Kong.

This just isn’t true, though. The public sector in China is the same as the public sector in most mixed economies: Transportation, parts of agriculture, some electrical and telecomms, etc. It is no different. In fact, China has a larger private sector compared to its public sector than some of these western countries. China’s healthcare system is more privatized than most of these western countries. Your analogy with the rubber vs the ball just doesn’t apply here; China’s primary industries are all privately owned except for certain areas in agriculture. I do very much pay attention to this, because I am waiting with bated breath for it to change.

Good news, public ownership does control the large firms and key industries in China:

Your point that some western counteies have higher ratios is exactly why we need to identify the principal aspect of the Chinese economy, and not compare simple ratio. Otherwise, western economies would have far more similar results than the dramatically different results they do. The private sector in China is relegated to small and medium secondary firms, and is about half sole-proprietorships and cooperatives. On wikipedia, there is a very good point:

State-owned enterprises accounted for over 60% of China's market capitalization in 2019[4] and estimates suggest that they generated about 23-28% of China's GDP in 2017 and employ between 5% and 16% of the workforce.[5] Ninety-one (91) of these SOEs belong to the 2020 Fortune Global 500 companies.[6] Almost 867,000 enterprises have a degree of state ownership, according to Franklin Allen of Imperial College London.[7]

In other words, although the number of people employed is smaller than the private sector, and the GDP is lower, state owned enterprises still dominate the economy because they are the largest and most important. This is only looking at SOEs, too, not the rest of the public sector.

That's why I suggest that you listen more to our comrades from China, rather than assume that every socialist model has to look exactly like the USSR. China's conditions are different, and their socialist system is working well and continuing to develop to higher stages of socialist development.

[–] ferret@hub.workersofthe.world 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

@Cowbee [he/they]

The DPRK does have limited private property in its Special Economic Zones. See A Capitalist in North Korea: My Seven Years in the Hermit Kingdom. Foreign investment and ownership happens there too, such as from the Emperor Group owning a casino and whatnot, a group based in Hong Kong.

I've read the book. Yes, it's foreign-owned operating on DPRK soil. There is no private industry native to the DPRK as there is in China.

If China's mineral industry is publicly owned, that's news to me. My understanding that its mineral industry (most of what you've listed) is all private, including its overseas endeavours. I'll have to look more into this, thank you.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Regarding foreign ownership of industry in the DPRK, why would this not be counted? Dialectics teaches us that we can't just slice out parts which are in reality connected. As for mineral industries, again, wikipedia has this to say:

Mining is extensively regulated in the PRC and involves numerous regulatory bodies. The state owns all mineral rights, regardless of the ownership of the land on which the minerals are located. Mining rights can be obtained upon government approval, and payment of mining and prospecting fees.

During the Mao Zedong era, mineral exploration and mining was limited to state-owned enterprises and collectively owned enterprises and private exploration of mineral resources was largely prohibited. The industry was opened to private enterprises during the reform and opening up in the 1980s and became increasingly marketized in the 1990s. In the mid-2000s, the Chinese government sought to consolidate the industry due to concerns about underutilization of resources, workplace safety, and environmental harm. During that period, state-owned enterprises purchased smaller privately owned mines. China's mining industry grew substantially and the period from the early 2000s to 2012 is often referred to as a "golden decade" in the mining industry.

No problem on sharing this, I spend a good deal of time trying to understand China's model of socialism.

[–] ferret@hub.workersofthe.world 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

@Cowbee [he/they] It's not counted because it's not any more a part of the DPRK's economy than is any other foreign trade. The government allows foreign-owned businesses to operate on DPRK soil for the trade benefits inherent in that, but it is still foreign trade, as opposed to economic activity of the country itself.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Is it not? Foreign trade is also connected to the DPRK's economy. It isn't a hard line, but blurry. Not either-or, but both-and. Dialectics helps us see the interconnection, the link between the general and the particular.

[–] ferret@hub.workersofthe.world 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

@Cowbee [he/they] Well, if we take that to its natural conclusion, then no country can possibly be socialist because the global economy with which all countries trade and interact is broadly capitalist. Same reason that Korean teams working in Siberian lumberyards doesn't make Russia more socialist, the DPRK trading with capitalist countries doesn't make it more capitalist. Yes, there are connections, but as the world exists, with hard borders and economic measurements and ownership in terms of nationhood in most cases, the line is quite clear.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

That's an example of the wrong lesson. I agree that we need to be careful with the general and the particular, but we cannot cleanly sever them. Again, it isn't either-or, but both-and, and we identify the nature of something by identifying its principal aspect. The DPRK is socialist because public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state. The USSR was socialist even when it was under the NEP, and even when it had black markets. Cuba is socialist despite having private property, same with China and Vietnam.