GenZhou

913 readers

1 users here now

GenZhou is GenZedong without the shitposts

See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space (shared with GenZedong). See this thread for more information.

Rules:

This community is explicitly pro-AES (China, Cuba, the DPRK, Laos and Vietnam)
No ableism, racism, misogyny, transphobia, etc.
No pro-imperialists, liberals or electoralists
No dogmatism/idealism
For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
Shitposts will be removed (please post them to /c/GenZedong or elsewhere instead)

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml

ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml

What separates socialism from state capitalism? (I promise I'm not an anarchist) (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 5 days ago by King_Simp@lemmygrad.ml to c/genzhou@lemmygrad.ml

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

So, in discussions about Gaddafi era Libya, people usually say it was state capitalism, from what I've seen anyway. Thats fair and I think I agree (although if you pointed a gun at me and forced me to define it, the best I could think of would be anti-colonial bonapartism, but idk). However, it does make many wonder what splits socialism from state capitalism. For instance, the soviet union under the NEP is fairly regularly called a period of "state capitalism." Bukharin is also usually labeled a right oppurtunist who was open to the Bourgeois elements of the NEP men. Conversely, China and Vietnam today are said to be "market socialist."

In terms of Gaddafi's Libya, what does make it state capitalist versus socialist? Profit motive? Commodity production?

What about post Krushchev soviet union? Was it state capitalist and social imperialist like maoists say?

I know theres not one concrete answer to this. It's not like there's a communism button you can press to confirm communism (I wish), but I am curious

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml 17 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Its a question without an answer. State capitalism isnt really a thing. Or i should say all capitalism is state capitalism? Capitalism is literally backed by capitalist states and neoliberalism as an ideology is based around using the state to increase profits for companies lol. If anything is state capitalism its neoliberalism.

I'm no expert on Libya but I'd say he was probably a social democrat anti-colonialist. As far as i know he pursued your typical social democrat reforms and programs while nationalizing natural resources that had previously been held by colonial powers? Altho pls correct me if my memory is wrong on that. I wouldnt say he was nationalizing out of some desire for collective ownership just out of a desire to get it away from imperialists.

State Capitalism as a term is just used as another bs way for western "leftists" to criticize every AES state they can. If Socialism succeeds suddenly its state capitalism.

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 5 days ago

Or i should say all capitalism is state capitalism?

I think so yeah. I've heard stuff like the US called a "dictatorship of capital" as opposed to a socialist state being a "dictatorship of the proletariat". In that sense, I think "state capitalism" makes way more sense as a label for a dictatorship of capital than otherwise.

[–] Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 5 days ago

I think a lot of the confusion on this comes from the conflation of commerce and capitalism. Capitalism is taught to westerners as just being commerce basically. supply and demand etc. Thats not what capitalism is. Capitalism is the ownership of capital by capitalists. When private entities corps, individuals, etc, can "own" lands, means of productions, natural resources, etc. Commerce is the exchange of goods and services between 2 people or groups of people. Usually by some sort of monetary medium of exchange. Theyre very different things.

Its also used to go after transitionairy governments. China for example, if westerners would actually read what the CPC puts out, makes no claims of being fully socialist yet. They actively talk about their transition, and long term plans. They allow capital accumulation in certain areas, while restricting it in others. I forget the exact term they use but they have tiers of goods and services. Food for example would be an essential service and kept under strict control to avoid profiteering and keep prices manageable. While a luxury item is less regulated in this way as its not considered an essential service. Some industries are fully state controlled and run and others are allowed to be private. some are a mix. Even private companies have party members inside them to make sure everything is above board tho.

So then western anarchists or liberals will come in and say China is state capitalist because, Huawei, BYD, etc exist, or because the government engages in commerce, or whatever. Its nonsense.