We can look at the question from the following perspective. If we accept the premise that China operates under state capitalism, what implications does that hold? At its core, capitalism is defined by private ownership of capital, where individuals or entities control labor’s objectives and structure. Enterprises under this system exist primarily to expand their owners’ wealth, with any societal benefits emerging only as incidental byproducts.
State-owned industries, however, serve a fundamentally different purpose, even if their organizational structure superficially mirrors private enterprises. Their primary aim is to mobilize labor toward socially beneficial objectives such as constructing infrastructure, expanding housing, ensuring food security, and similar public goods. Crucially, capital accumulation by private individuals is absent in this model. Profits generated by state industries are reinvested directly into public services, infrastructure, and long-term national development.
While valid critiques can be made about organization of SOEs or potential worker alienation within their hierarchies, the system’s focus on collective welfare, rather than private profit, makes it fundamentally different from actual capitalism. When evaluated by its capacity to prioritize societal needs over individual wealth extraction, this framework is clearly superior.
@Cowbee
This copy and pasted response doesn't relate exactly to anything I said. I never said that socialism is only when the public directly owns the means of production. I said that state capitalism, where the private ownership of the means of production still exists but under state control and regulations, is still capitalism and must be abolished for socialism. This is a sentiment that Engels expressed in "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific," so I'm not pulling this out of thin air.
Taking a snippet from Cowbee:
Given your answers and mentioning of Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, are you arguing that this state ownership isn't actually public ownership and that Dengists are the modern analogue to people from Marx and Engel's time who thought that Prussia under Otto von Bismark was socialist on account of its means of production being owned by the state?
The deal Engels was taking issue with with regards to Bismark is treating nationalized industry in a bourgeois-dominated system as a means to support bourgeois rule as "socialist." Engels was trying to distinguish between nationalization as a deliberate choice to support the bourgeoisie, vs an economic inevitability compelled by increasingly complicated and expansive production, specifically citing structures like railways and the post office as among the first to be required to move into the public sector.
For the PRC, there is already a dictatorship of the proletariat, meaning what the proletariat nationalizes is under proletarian control, and moreover the vast bulk of heavy industry and large firms are under state control, as is in line with Socialist practice.
The percentage of private ownership continued to drop in 2024, accounting for just over 30% now. And of course, the other question is what type of industry is privately owned. The party sits at the commanding heights of the economy, and controls all the essential industries. Capitalist enterprise is strictly supplemental to that, and it very clearly exists in the service of the state as well.
https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/2024/chinas-private-sector-has-lost-ground-state-sector-has-gained-share-among
@yogthos
I'm done with all these justifications for capitalism and billionaires.
People who refuse to learn the basics of what socialism is have no business calling themselves Marxists.
@yogthos
People who try to justify the existence of capitalism and billionaires have no right to call themselves Marxists.
Turns out Marx wasn't an actual Marxist. 🤣
@yogthos
Fuck off, fake Marxist.
Lenin wrote a whole book about people such as yourself https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/
Your issue was with the State re-investing in production using the surplus value from state-run enterprises. In a system where the Proletariat has siezed control, this is Socialist in nature. This is a sentiment Marx expressed in Critique of the Gotha Programme, so I'm not pulling this sentiment out of thin air either. Surplus value will always be extracted, the question is if that's controlled by the working class to redirect into improvements and safety nets, or for the profits of the few.
@Cowbee
No, my issue is with capitalism.
This is what you said, and what I am responding to. Genuinely, what is it exactly that needs to end for a system to be Socialist, in your eyes? No country has ever been Socialist if we define "State Capitalism" in such a manner.
@Cowbee
I already explained to you what state capitalism is: "state capitalism, where the private ownership of the means of production still exists but under state control and regulations,..."
Private ownership of the means of production is what has to end for a system to be socialist. In China, there's plenty of private ownership of the means of production, so it isn't socialist.
I did respond to this though, this is the "one drop" rule and means Socialism has never existed, and is a Mode of Production unique among all in history in that it can only exist as a "pure" system in your eyes.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat holds firm control of key industries and heavy industry in China, the Capitalists exist but hold no real power, just as Marx and Engels described the gradual expropriation of Capital from their hands.
Can you give an example of a Socialist country so we can compare and contrast? Let's not resort to emotional attacks, we've all presumably read Marx here, let's focus on reaching an understanding.