You’re conflating production with Capitalism, and ignoring that the principle ownership of China’s economy is public, not private. I don’t think you’ve genuinely engaged with Socialism as a concept, you are over-generalizing Capitalism to periods and forms of production it doesn’t apply to.
I think even deeper than that, they just conflate Capitalism with economics. There’s a good bit to what you’re saying too, though. They see anything outside traditional notions of economics as utopian.
It’s a fundamentally different economic system at the principle aspect. For starters, public ownership does not mean production goes straight into the pockets of gov officials, they are paid salaries. Secondly, publicly owned services are usually not for profit, or even at cost, through taxpayer money or otherwise. Finally, Capitalists are a specific type of Capital owner, small handicraftsman, feudal lords, etc aren’t Capitalists but do own Capital. Even further, gov officials aren’t the owners of publicly owned industry, but indirect administrators. Managers and accountants in businesses aren’t the owners.
That’s like saying HR sets their own salaries, or Payroll. That’s not really accurate in reality.
The reason you’re running into problems is that you lack a consistent definition of Capitalism, you’re basically using it as a catch-all term for “economics.”
You’re getting farther and farther away from your original point.
I’m well aware of the answers to these questions, I want to know your perspective because I want to identify where your view is getting mixed up, specifically.
You’re conflating production with Capitalism, and ignoring that the principle ownership of China’s economy is public, not private. I don’t think you’ve genuinely engaged with Socialism as a concept, you are over-generalizing Capitalism to periods and forms of production it doesn’t apply to.
deleted by creator
I think even deeper than that, they just conflate Capitalism with economics. There’s a good bit to what you’re saying too, though. They see anything outside traditional notions of economics as utopian.
deleted by creator
Yep, seems like they are writing themselves into pretzels with contradictory stances.
deleted by creator
It’s a fundamentally different economic system at the principle aspect. For starters, public ownership does not mean production goes straight into the pockets of gov officials, they are paid salaries. Secondly, publicly owned services are usually not for profit, or even at cost, through taxpayer money or otherwise. Finally, Capitalists are a specific type of Capital owner, small handicraftsman, feudal lords, etc aren’t Capitalists but do own Capital. Even further, gov officials aren’t the owners of publicly owned industry, but indirect administrators. Managers and accountants in businesses aren’t the owners.
deleted by creator
That’s like saying HR sets their own salaries, or Payroll. That’s not really accurate in reality.
The reason you’re running into problems is that you lack a consistent definition of Capitalism, you’re basically using it as a catch-all term for “economics.”
deleted by creator
Not at all, government officials don’t work that way.
What do you think Capitalism is? Roughly when did it first appear? What’s Socialism?
deleted by creator
You’re getting farther and farther away from your original point.
I’m well aware of the answers to these questions, I want to know your perspective because I want to identify where your view is getting mixed up, specifically.