5 ms·

Marxists have a term for what you're describing: "state capitalism."

by kyllo 7y ago

basq 7y ago
I've seen the term 'market socialism' used when describing China's system.
- tokai 7y ago
  Market socialism, as fare as I'm aware, is defined by social ownership of the means of production. State capitalism would definitely be more appropriate to describe China. Especially in the marxist sense of the term. edit: I spoke with a Chinese student once, whom preferred the term dictatorial capitalism.
  - thedudeabides5 7y ago
    Xi calls it “socialism with Chinese characteristics” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_with_Chinese_characteristics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_with_Chinese_chara...
  - jlawson 7y ago
    >social ownership of the means of production Slightly off topic but can you clarify what 'social ownership' means, exactly? I've been trying to figure this out for a few weeks now. I just ask since you seem to know. Wikipedia says, "The two major forms of social ownership are society-wide public ownership and cooperative ownership." What's the practical difference between 'society-wide public ownership' and government ownership? The government is supposed to represent the people. What's the practical difference between 'cooperative ownership' and corporate ownership? A corporation is just a group of shareholders, often including millions of individuals and employees of the company. e.g. In America the government owns parkland, and people can use it. Is that 'social ownership' of the parkland? Or 'government ownership'? What's the difference? e.g. In the West, many corporations are owned by millions of shareholders. Sometimes the majority of ownership is ultimately from small shareholders, largely through pension funds. Is that 'social ownership' or 'corporate ownership'? What's the difference? What are some existing, real, sustained examples of 'social ownership' in real history? I feel like this term is either super general and not particularly meaningful, or it's one of those cases where the definition changes according to the argumentative needs of the moment, or it's just a euphimism for government control without a practical difference.
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      >What's the practical difference between 'society-wide public ownership' and government ownership? The government is supposed to represent the people. Typically, socialists (and even market socialists) contend that the current democratic establishment does not represent the people, usually going off Lenin's conception of "bourgeois democracy". This is also behind the most common Marxist rejection of achieving socialism through non-revolutionary means. Compare, for instance, how Lenin described what he figured Soviet Socialism would turn out to be - control by the soviets, not by the state. Of course it didn't really turn out that way, and in Economic Problems of the USSR, Stalin effectively admitted as such. >What are some existing, real, sustained examples of 'social ownership' in real history? This is a difficult question because one would either have to draw from pre-capitalist modes of production to answer the question, or one would have to argue that the USSR/Stalinism implemented such social ownership. I have already described why the second is not appropriate (see here[0] too) but the first is also not appropriate because "social ownership" is not a transhoistorical term, it was intended to describe a future mode of production in which it is one of the components of socialism (market or otherwise) - its applicability, therefore, does not encompass pre-capitalist or capitalist modes of production. For the notion of the critique of transhistorical categories, see Marx's discussion on the "Robinsonades"[1] and Patrick Murray's argument on Marx's improvement over David Ricardo and Adam Smith[2]. That said, you would probably have to look deeper into anthropology to find if such a society did indeed exist - that is to say, a society in which as far as we can tell today the will of the producers themselves was actually reflected in the ownership and control of the means of production and its products. Finally, a note: Marx himself, to my knowledge, never used the term "social ownership". In fact, his argument against Proudhon was that plain "social ownership" results in a state where "society becomes a general capitalist". The term was used by Engels once, but he quotes Marx as follows: >Marx assumes on page 56 “a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour-power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour-power of the community[3] As such, I tend to avoid using the term, as do most academic Marxists. [0] "On the Question of Soviet Socialism" (2011) by Paresh Chattopadhyay, a rejoiner to David Laibman's thesis of the USSR having achieved "formal" socialism but not "real" socialism; (Chattopadhyay doubts that it even achieved "formal" socialism in the Marxian sense). https://www.jstor.org/stable/25769087 https://www.jstor.org/stable/25769087 [1] https://marxism.csbs.utah.narkive.com/qeQK04SD/marx-on-robinsonades-in-das-kapital https://marxism.csbs.utah.narkive.com/qeQK04SD/marx-on-robin... [2] "Marxs “Truly Social” Labour Theory of Value: Part II, How is Labour that Is Under the Sway of Capital Actually Abstract?" Historical Materialism, Number 7 (Winter 2000) [3] "Anti-Dühring" by Frederick Engels (1877), chapter XIII. Dialectics. Negation of the Negation; available here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch11.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhrin...
_iyig 7y ago
Another word for it might be, “national socialism.” Many more parallels there than with Marxism, in my moderately informed opinion.
- cmrdporcupine 7y ago
  OP is not saying China is Marxist. He's saying that some Marxian theorists call what in China "state capitalism." I.e. not socialism, but capitalism administered/mediated by the state. This is by no means universal though. Other Marxists would call it a "degenerated worker's state" or "bureaucratic collectivism" or just "Stalinism"
- dang 7y ago
  Would you please stop posting flamebait to HN? We've already had to ask you this recently. We ban accounts that keep doing it, so please stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - _iyig 7y ago
    I don’t have a way to convince you that I’m posting in good faith, but for what it’s worth, I guarantee you that I’m not trolling or seeking to cause disruption. As others have pointed out, the traditional Western concept of the private-public division doesn’t exist in China. It is in fact similar to historical economic conditions in fascist Europe; specifically, the state-controlled labor unions (and ban on private unions), mandatory party cells within private companies, military involvement in commercial enterprises, and synthesis of the one-party state and a market economy. I understand that some in the HN community are allergic to comparisons between fascist systems and contemporary societies. I understand they may downvote and flag such comments, and that this creates headache for you. I’m sorry for the headache. I don’t think I’m wrong, and I think my comment was a perfectly valid point to raise. If the sensibilities of HN readers and moderators will not tolerate it, then so be it.
    - dang 7y ago
      The problem is with tossing classic provocations like "national socialism" into a thread without insulating them from what will otherwise be the classic effect: flamewar. If you have a thoughtful point to make, that's of course fine, but you need to pack it in flame retardant, because you're in a highly flammable zone here. Just as you'd take extra care with a campfire in a dry forest, or with matches around a gas station.
merdreubu 7y ago
Yup, usual Marxist bullshit. The problem is there's a giant Communist Party, more than 90 million people strong, full of hardcore Marxists that controls the state, the army (because the PLA is actually the armed wing of the Party) and some corporations. But somehow, this is "state capitalism" or whatever.
- Sag0Sag0 7y ago
  Given that "state capitalist" or "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is the way that the members of the party describe China's economic system I think the economic system probably is "state capitalism" after all. Next time understand what your talking about before commenting, idiot.
- dang 7y ago
  Would you please stop using HN for ideological warfare? This is not what the site is for, and it destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - obese_by_nature 7y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20675363 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20675363 This is not pseudoscience -- unlike many of the other comments on GMOs and hormones. It's backed by research and the FDA. Tell me where I'm wrong

Marxists have a term for what you're describing: "state capitalism."

by kyllo 7y ago

Marxists have a term for what you're describing: "state capitalism."

basq 7y ago

I've seen the term 'market socialism' used when describing China's system.

tokai 7y ago
Market socialism, as fare as I'm aware, is defined by social ownership of the means of production. State capitalism would definitely be more appropriate to describe China. Especially in the marxist sense of the term. edit: I spoke with a Chinese student once, whom preferred the term dictatorial capitalism.
- thedudeabides5 7y ago
  Xi calls it “socialism with Chinese characteristics” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_with_Chinese_characteristics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_with_Chinese_chara...
- jlawson 7y ago
  >social ownership of the means of production Slightly off topic but can you clarify what 'social ownership' means, exactly? I've been trying to figure this out for a few weeks now. I just ask since you seem to know. Wikipedia says, "The two major forms of social ownership are society-wide public ownership and cooperative ownership." What's the practical difference between 'society-wide public ownership' and government ownership? The government is supposed to represent the people. What's the practical difference between 'cooperative ownership' and corporate ownership? A corporation is just a group of shareholders, often including millions of individuals and employees of the company. e.g. In America the government owns parkland, and people can use it. Is that 'social ownership' of the parkland? Or 'government ownership'? What's the difference? e.g. In the West, many corporations are owned by millions of shareholders. Sometimes the majority of ownership is ultimately from small shareholders, largely through pension funds. Is that 'social ownership' or 'corporate ownership'? What's the difference? What are some existing, real, sustained examples of 'social ownership' in real history? I feel like this term is either super general and not particularly meaningful, or it's one of those cases where the definition changes according to the argumentative needs of the moment, or it's just a euphimism for government control without a practical difference.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    >What's the practical difference between 'society-wide public ownership' and government ownership? The government is supposed to represent the people. Typically, socialists (and even market socialists) contend that the current democratic establishment does not represent the people, usually going off Lenin's conception of "bourgeois democracy". This is also behind the most common Marxist rejection of achieving socialism through non-revolutionary means. Compare, for instance, how Lenin described what he figured Soviet Socialism would turn out to be - control by the soviets, not by the state. Of course it didn't really turn out that way, and in Economic Problems of the USSR, Stalin effectively admitted as such. >What are some existing, real, sustained examples of 'social ownership' in real history? This is a difficult question because one would either have to draw from pre-capitalist modes of production to answer the question, or one would have to argue that the USSR/Stalinism implemented such social ownership. I have already described why the second is not appropriate (see here[0] too) but the first is also not appropriate because "social ownership" is not a transhoistorical term, it was intended to describe a future mode of production in which it is one of the components of socialism (market or otherwise) - its applicability, therefore, does not encompass pre-capitalist or capitalist modes of production. For the notion of the critique of transhistorical categories, see Marx's discussion on the "Robinsonades"[1] and Patrick Murray's argument on Marx's improvement over David Ricardo and Adam Smith[2]. That said, you would probably have to look deeper into anthropology to find if such a society did indeed exist - that is to say, a society in which as far as we can tell today the will of the producers themselves was actually reflected in the ownership and control of the means of production and its products. Finally, a note: Marx himself, to my knowledge, never used the term "social ownership". In fact, his argument against Proudhon was that plain "social ownership" results in a state where "society becomes a general capitalist". The term was used by Engels once, but he quotes Marx as follows: >Marx assumes on page 56 “a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour-power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour-power of the community[3] As such, I tend to avoid using the term, as do most academic Marxists. [0] "On the Question of Soviet Socialism" (2011) by Paresh Chattopadhyay, a rejoiner to David Laibman's thesis of the USSR having achieved "formal" socialism but not "real" socialism; (Chattopadhyay doubts that it even achieved "formal" socialism in the Marxian sense). https://www.jstor.org/stable/25769087 https://www.jstor.org/stable/25769087 [1] https://marxism.csbs.utah.narkive.com/qeQK04SD/marx-on-robinsonades-in-das-kapital https://marxism.csbs.utah.narkive.com/qeQK04SD/marx-on-robin... [2] "Marxs “Truly Social” Labour Theory of Value: Part II, How is Labour that Is Under the Sway of Capital Actually Abstract?" Historical Materialism, Number 7 (Winter 2000) [3] "Anti-Dühring" by Frederick Engels (1877), chapter XIII. Dialectics. Negation of the Negation; available here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch11.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhrin...

_iyig 7y ago

Another word for it might be, “national socialism.” Many more parallels there than with Marxism, in my moderately informed opinion.

cmrdporcupine 7y ago
OP is not saying China is Marxist. He's saying that some Marxian theorists call what in China "state capitalism." I.e. not socialism, but capitalism administered/mediated by the state. This is by no means universal though. Other Marxists would call it a "degenerated worker's state" or "bureaucratic collectivism" or just "Stalinism"
dang 7y ago
Would you please stop posting flamebait to HN? We've already had to ask you this recently. We ban accounts that keep doing it, so please stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- _iyig 7y ago
  I don’t have a way to convince you that I’m posting in good faith, but for what it’s worth, I guarantee you that I’m not trolling or seeking to cause disruption. As others have pointed out, the traditional Western concept of the private-public division doesn’t exist in China. It is in fact similar to historical economic conditions in fascist Europe; specifically, the state-controlled labor unions (and ban on private unions), mandatory party cells within private companies, military involvement in commercial enterprises, and synthesis of the one-party state and a market economy. I understand that some in the HN community are allergic to comparisons between fascist systems and contemporary societies. I understand they may downvote and flag such comments, and that this creates headache for you. I’m sorry for the headache. I don’t think I’m wrong, and I think my comment was a perfectly valid point to raise. If the sensibilities of HN readers and moderators will not tolerate it, then so be it.
  - dang 7y ago
    The problem is with tossing classic provocations like "national socialism" into a thread without insulating them from what will otherwise be the classic effect: flamewar. If you have a thoughtful point to make, that's of course fine, but you need to pack it in flame retardant, because you're in a highly flammable zone here. Just as you'd take extra care with a campfire in a dry forest, or with matches around a gas station.

merdreubu 7y ago

Yup, usual Marxist bullshit. The problem is there's a giant Communist Party, more than 90 million people strong, full of hardcore Marxists that controls the state, the army (because the PLA is actually the armed wing of the Party) and some corporations. But somehow, this is "state capitalism" or whatever.

Sag0Sag0 7y ago
Given that "state capitalist" or "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is the way that the members of the party describe China's economic system I think the economic system probably is "state capitalism" after all. Next time understand what your talking about before commenting, idiot.
dang 7y ago
Would you please stop using HN for ideological warfare? This is not what the site is for, and it destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- obese_by_nature 7y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20675363 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20675363 This is not pseudoscience -- unlike many of the other comments on GMOs and hormones. It's backed by research and the FDA. Tell me where I'm wrong