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.
@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/