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 [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      2·
      1 day ago

      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…

      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.

      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.

      • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭@mastodon.social
        05·
        1 day ago

        @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.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          3·
          1 day ago

          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.