What's the difference between actual capitalism and what people refer to as state capitalism?

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.

41 comments

It is funny how left anticommunists like CAT have such a hard time with simple arguments and avoid engaging the facts. Reminds of Michael Parenti's essay on Left Anticommunism and the unfalsibiable doctrine
Many on the U.S. Left have exhibited a Soviet bashing and Red baiting that matches anything on the Right in its enmity and crudity.
When will it be the day where they actually support anti imperialist struggle instead of disorganization?
Red-baiting leftists contributed their share to the climate of hostility that has given U.S. leaders such a free hand in waging hot and cold wars against communist countries and which even today makes a progressive or even liberal agenda difficult to promote.
- What's interesting is that CAT is apparently a supporter of the DPRK. Their insistence on dodging the "One Drop Rule" error in analysis really paints their whole issue in a nutshell, which stems from a lack of thorough understanding of Dialectical thinking.
  
  I wonder if they will keep supporting the DPRK after knowing what the Rason Special Economic Zone is. 🤔

@yogthos
"...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."
D00h!! 😉

@yogthos
"...capital accumulation by private individuals is absent in this model."
There are billionaires in China and capitalists in general who accumulate capital. If state capitalism is when the government controls the economy and essentially acts as a single huge corporation, extracting surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production, then it would be more accurate to call China a mixture of state-capitalism with private-capitalism. 1/2 #socialism #capitalism
- It's a tired and boring argument from people who don't actually understand what socialism is. It's not about whether a country has billionaires, but which class holds power in society. Socialism is a transitional stage between capitalist relations and communism.
  https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/3228-lenin-s-three-theoretical-arguments-about-the-dictatorship-of-the-proletariat
  https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/
- @yogthos
  Also, just to add, state capitalism is still capitalism. State ownership alone doesn't do away with capitalism or the exploitation it entails. It is essentially the final stage of capitalism that must be abolished for the establishment of socialism. 2/2 #socialism #capitalism
  
  The idea that Socialism means only and exclusively full ownership in public hands is wrong, and anti-Marxist. To take such a stance means either Capitalism and Feudalism have never existed either, the sort of “one-drop” rule, or that Socialism itself is a unique Mode of Production that needs to be judged based on “purity” while the rest do not, a conception that has roots in idealism rather than Materialism.
  Modes of Production should be defined in a manner that is consistent. If we hold this definition for Socialism, then either it means a portion of the economy can be Socialist, ie USPS, or a worker cooperative, or it means an economy is only Socialist if all property has been collectivized.
  For the former, this definition fails to take into account the context to which portions of the economy play in the broader scope, and therefore which class holds the power in society. A worker cooperative in the US, ultimately, must deal with Capitalist elements of the economy. Whether it be from the raw materials they use being from non-cooperatives, to the distributors they deal with, to the banks where they gain the seed Capital, they exist as a cog in a broader system dominated by Capitalists in the US. Same with USPS, which exists in a country where heavy industry and resources are privatized, it serves as a way to subsidize transport for Capitalists. The overall power in a system must be judged.
  For the latter, this “one drop” rule, if equally applied, means Feudalism and Capitalism have never existed either. There is no reason Socialism should be judged any differently from Capitalism or Feudalism.
  What Socialism ultimately is is a system where the Working Class is in control, and public ownership is the principle aspect of society. If a rubber ball factory is privately owned but the rubber factory is public, the public sector holds more power over the economy. In the Nordics, heavy industry is privatized for the most part, and social safety nets are funded through loans and ownership of industry in the Global South, similar to being a landlord in country form. In the PRC, heavy industry and large industry is squarely in the hands of the public, which is why Capitalists are subservient to the State, rather than the other way around.
  As for the purpose of Socialism, it is improving the lives of the working class in material and measurable ways. Public ownership is a tool, one especially effective at higher degrees of development. Markets and private ownership are a tool, one that can be utilized more effectively at lower stages in development. Like fire, private ownership presents real danger in giving Capitalists more power, but also like fire this does not mean we cannot harness it and should avoid it entirely, provided the proper precautions are taken.
  Moreover, markets are destined to centralize. Markets erase their own foundations. The reason public ownership is a goal for Marxists is because of this centralizing factor, as industry gets more complex public ownership increasingly becomes more efficient and effective. Just because you can publicly own something doesn’t mean the act of ownership improves metrics like life expectancy and literacy, public ownership isn’t some holy experience that gives workers magic powers. Public ownership and Private ownership are tools that play a role in society, and we believe Public Ownership is undeniably the way to go at higher phases in development because it becomes necessary, not because it has mystical properties.
  Ultimately, it boils down to mindsets of dogmatism or pragmatism. Concepts like “true Socialism” treat Marx as a religious prophet, while going against Marx’s analysis! This is why studying Historical and Dialectical Materialism is important, as it explains the why of Marxism and Socialism in a manner that can be used for real development of the Working Class and real liberation.
  
  If the state owns it, and the state also owns the money printer and also the banks (which are another form of money printing), then it’s not compelled to be run in the M-C-M' capitalist mode of production, because it doesn’t need to make a profit, or even break even.
  Furthermore, the capitalists in China have virtually no political power. Just look at the number of rich people who’ve received the death sentence with reprieve, or the property developers who were left to flail and go bankrupt, or the sorry state of billionaire Jack Ma.

Their primary aim is to mobilize labor toward socially beneficial objectives
Debatable, and certainly not necessarily true. Fascism can also feature state-owned industries, or at least all industry is considered subordinate to the state. Even if the leaders have good intentions, their priorities may not align with the general populace. The way I see it, the workers do not own the means of production; the state does. Having single-party rule, high levels of censorship, and being generally authoritarian makes things even more problematic, because it hurts the argument that, "the workers own the state, so it's socialism."
- The important factor to test is whether the Proletariat has power, or the Bourgeoisie. Single-party rule does not mean a system is anti-democratic, what matters is if you can actually influence policy and engage with the party, or if the bourgeoisie is the class that can and does do that. As for "authoritarianism" and "censorship," all states do that, what matters is which class is wielding it against which.

41 comments