These are not arguments against accusations of state capitalism. State capitalism doesn’t mean that stuff isn’t state owned, or that the state doesn’t crack down on billionaires.
State capitalism refers to the idea of a state owning the means of productions and engaging in capitalist practises through state owned or controlled enterprises. Saying that the state owns companies in china is like… perpendicular to the argument to whether China engages in state capitalism. These links are mostly irrelevant to the question.
And who controls the state in China? This is the fundamental problem with the term “state capitalism”, which Lenin addressed:
“The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.“
Then your argument is not about whether or not china is state capitalist but about whether or not the Communist Party of China is earnestly communist and truly represents the working class in its political aims. That is an entirely sifferent question and is not much affected by whether or not they have state run enterprises.
Ok let’s assume that the Chinese state is owning the means of productions and is engaging in capitalist practises through state owned or controlled enterprises. Then it would not be fair to call it state capitalist, but state socialist. As capitalism implies that the communist nomenclature is keeping all the surplus value/wealth for themselves, which is not true.
State capitalist does not imply such a thing. State capitalism is whem the state does capitalism ehich it is perfectly possible to do in a way where it is attenpting to forward a communist aim. This was the case in the ussr.
A lot of people get hung up on the term “state capitalism” when discussing transitional phases. The key point they miss is that while the form might resemble capitalism (wage labor, state as the employer), the content and purpose are fundamentally different.
Under bourgeois capitalism, the entire purpose is the private accumulation of capital. Social good is an incidental byproduct, at best. In a socialist transition, the state uses these same economic forms as a tool for social development by building infrastructure, providing healthcare, ensuring food security, and directing the entire economic surplus back into society. It’s the difference between a machine designed to enrich a class of owners, and one designed to uplift the entire working class.
These are not arguments against accusations of state capitalism. State capitalism doesn’t mean that stuff isn’t state owned, or that the state doesn’t crack down on billionaires.
State capitalism refers to the idea of a state owning the means of productions and engaging in capitalist practises through state owned or controlled enterprises. Saying that the state owns companies in china is like… perpendicular to the argument to whether China engages in state capitalism. These links are mostly irrelevant to the question.
And who controls the state in China? This is the fundamental problem with the term “state capitalism”, which Lenin addressed:
Then your argument is not about whether or not china is state capitalist but about whether or not the Communist Party of China is earnestly communist and truly represents the working class in its political aims. That is an entirely sifferent question and is not much affected by whether or not they have state run enterprises.
Ok let’s assume that the Chinese state is owning the means of productions and is engaging in capitalist practises through state owned or controlled enterprises. Then it would not be fair to call it state capitalist, but state socialist. As capitalism implies that the communist nomenclature is keeping all the surplus value/wealth for themselves, which is not true.
State capitalist does not imply such a thing. State capitalism is whem the state does capitalism ehich it is perfectly possible to do in a way where it is attenpting to forward a communist aim. This was the case in the ussr.
A lot of people get hung up on the term “state capitalism” when discussing transitional phases. The key point they miss is that while the form might resemble capitalism (wage labor, state as the employer), the content and purpose are fundamentally different.
Under bourgeois capitalism, the entire purpose is the private accumulation of capital. Social good is an incidental byproduct, at best. In a socialist transition, the state uses these same economic forms as a tool for social development by building infrastructure, providing healthcare, ensuring food security, and directing the entire economic surplus back into society. It’s the difference between a machine designed to enrich a class of owners, and one designed to uplift the entire working class.