3 ms·

Bullshit and hyperbole. There are various degrees of capitalism, and saying that if the state doesn't put corporations at its same level, eventually it'll becom

Bullshit and hyperbole. There are various degrees of capitalism, and saying that if the state doesn't put corporations at its same level, eventually it'll become more or less like China, is pushing a certain type of agenda. Have a look at Europe, there's fully privatised states, and some that might be regarded wrongly, from an American point of view, as socialist, yet still actually capitalist in economic philosophy.

vinceguidry 9y ago
I don't see it as a struggle between state and industry per se, but rather as the difference between one type of aristocracy over another. I'm not sure what you mean by "fully privatised states." Privatization effectively does two things. It exposes the health of the organization to the market, and it takes the control out of the hands of the ruling class. It is unclear how you could do that to an entire state. If you remove from it the ability to collect taxes, that would do the trick, but also effectively destroy the ability of the state to govern, making it no longer a state. The closest analogue to this may be Somalia, which is effectively a medieval feudal regime that persisted into the 21st century. Somalia's national government has no real control over the country and can only cajole, never force. Somalia's federal government is playing a 'fake it til you make it game' which apparent when you see that their actual collected taxes is only 30% of what they say should be being collected. Customs were 68% of the entire government revenue in 2016. Another "private government" is the Vatican, which sustains itself largely on donations from Catholics throughout the world. As there is nothing compelling Christians to donate, the Vatican is much more market-oriented than most states. I have already gone over Russia's system of tributary taxation, but that's a voluntary system as well that the Russian state could not survive without in it's current form. It's estimated that by midcentury, the system will be replaced with a more conventional one. Putin's successor won't be as capable as he is in keeping the current order humming.

vinceguidry 9y ago

I don't see it as a struggle between state and industry per se, but rather as the difference between one type of aristocracy over another. I'm not sure what you mean by "fully privatised states." Privatization effectively does two things. It exposes the health of the organization to the market, and it takes the control out of the hands of the ruling class. It is unclear how you could do that to an entire state. If you remove from it the ability to collect taxes, that would do the trick, but also effectively destroy the ability of the state to govern, making it no longer a state. The closest analogue to this may be Somalia, which is effectively a medieval feudal regime that persisted into the 21st century. Somalia's national government has no real control over the country and can only cajole, never force. Somalia's federal government is playing a 'fake it til you make it game' which apparent when you see that their actual collected taxes is only 30% of what they say should be being collected. Customs were 68% of the entire government revenue in 2016. Another "private government" is the Vatican, which sustains itself largely on donations from Catholics throughout the world. As there is nothing compelling Christians to donate, the Vatican is much more market-oriented than most states. I have already gone over Russia's system of tributary taxation, but that's a voluntary system as well that the Russian state could not survive without in it's current form. It's estimated that by midcentury, the system will be replaced with a more conventional one. Putin's successor won't be as capable as he is in keeping the current order humming.