3 ms·

I would not define what China does as "capitalism without freedom and with a Soviet 'politburo' type structure acting [...] as a hyper-Keynesian backstop to mar

I would not define what China does as "capitalism without freedom and with a Soviet 'politburo' type structure acting [...] as a hyper-Keynesian backstop to markets". Compare the Chinese government form to the following bullet list: - Exalts nation and race over the individual? Mostly true. - Centralized, authoritarian, and often dictatorial government? True. - Strong and charismatic leader? Mostly true (strong yes, charismatic no) - Strict governmental control over opposition, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly? True. - Severe social regulations? True. - Crucial role of heroes? Partly true, less so now than in the past. - Strong attachment to moral, nationalistic values? True. - Glory of the state over the individual? Mostly true. - The individual is required to put the interest of the state before his personal goals/needs? True. - Strong governmental involvement in economy an production? True. - The State has strong influence over investment and industries? True. - In order to receive the support of the government, businesses need to promise that their main interest is the enhancement of the country? True. - Opposed to free market economy? Mostly true, freedom within the confines of what the state allows is not true freedom. This list comes from a definition of fascism [1], not capitalism or socialism. There are many ways to make such lists and none of them have veritable claims to authenticity but in general China does tend towards fascism and state capitalism more than it does towards capitalism. They actually seem to follow a course laid out by Benito Mussolini who claimed that "...dynamic or heroic capitalism and the bourgeoisie could be prevented from degenerating into static capitalism and then supercapitalism only if the concept of economic individualism were abandoned and if state supervision of the economy was introduced. Private enterprise would control production but it would be supervised by the state. ..." This closely resembles current-day China, more or less exactly where it concerns 'state capitalism' and to a large extent where it concerns fascism. [1] http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/ideology-politics/difference-between-socialism-and-fascism/ http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/ideo... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Economy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism#Use_by_Italian_Fascists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism#Use_by_Italia...

peatmoss 9y ago
> freedom within the confines of what the state allows is not true freedom. I guess most nations have regulations of what is or is not allowed. I can't, for example, buy my neighbor and press him into forced labor, or buy a meth lab and sell meth to my neighbor's kids in the US. I guess I'd have to go to some failed nation state like Somalia to have that kind of freedom—a true libertarian paradise. The reality of most nations is that they exist on a continuum. China is more authoritarian / curtailing of freedom than most, but less so than, say, North Korea. The US is less authoritarian / curtailing of freedom than many but more so than many developing countries that lack regulatory protections.
- Yetanfou 9y ago
  Economic policy is a spectrum, from total absence of regulation (laissez-faire capitalism or libertarianism) to total control. At certain positions on this spectrum markers have been placed to make it easier to describe them. Both the positions of these markers as well as their meaning are open to debate but it is clear that a restriction on enslaving your neighbour lies on a different position of the spectrum than the type of 'deep interest' the Chinese government takes in the economy.

peatmoss 9y ago

> freedom within the confines of what the state allows is not true freedom. I guess most nations have regulations of what is or is not allowed. I can't, for example, buy my neighbor and press him into forced labor, or buy a meth lab and sell meth to my neighbor's kids in the US. I guess I'd have to go to some failed nation state like Somalia to have that kind of freedom—a true libertarian paradise. The reality of most nations is that they exist on a continuum. China is more authoritarian / curtailing of freedom than most, but less so than, say, North Korea. The US is less authoritarian / curtailing of freedom than many but more so than many developing countries that lack regulatory protections.

Yetanfou 9y ago
Economic policy is a spectrum, from total absence of regulation (laissez-faire capitalism or libertarianism) to total control. At certain positions on this spectrum markers have been placed to make it easier to describe them. Both the positions of these markers as well as their meaning are open to debate but it is clear that a restriction on enslaving your neighbour lies on a different position of the spectrum than the type of 'deep interest' the Chinese government takes in the economy.