But these goals aren’t inherently or exclusively capitalistic in nature, are they? Capitalism and Communism are both described as a means to an end - that is to say they both make prescriptions on how the means of production should be owned and controlled, but they don’t make much suggestion as to what production that refers to. So, in theory, there’s no reason to believe any of these goals are capitalist or communist in nature, because people have reason to want these things regardless of their preference of economic structure.
It can be shown in practice that these are not capitalist inherently either. The “5 year plan” is actually a trope amongst Socialist/Communist leaders. Stalin had a 5 year plan that sounded very similar to Xi’s, and Xi adopted this type of state planning from Mao himself.
China’s weapons are manufactured by China North Industries Group Corporation, which is a state owned corporation, not a private company. China’s tech chips are manufactured by SMIC, also a state controlled corporation. The high speed railway is being built by the China Railway Corporation, also state run.
I think people get confused by the idea of “exchanging capital” when referring to trade, because it leads them to believe that capitalism means something that profits from capital, but a state can profit from capital just like how a private unit can. Capitalism is NOT the exchange of capital, it’s the private ownership of the means of production. If a state (ie: China) participates in trade, that is not an example of capitalism, because the means of trade are not owned by a private unit.
You’re actually wrong, has China does have official 5-year plans that it develops every 5 years, and they have done so since world War II. So, it is not a trope at all:
“The Five-Year Plans (simplified Chinese: 五年计划; traditional Chinese: 五年計劃; pinyin: Wǔnián Jìhuà) are a series of social and economic development initiatives issued by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) since 1953 in the People’s Republic of China. Since 1949, the CCP has shaped the Chinese economy through the plenums of its Central Committee and national party congresses.”
That’s an interesting point, however it is widely accepted that states can leverage capitalism by allowing quasi-private corporations to operate semi-independently from the government.
And in fact, many of the largest industrial amd infrastructure projects are only possible by state-funded corporations to undertake them.
For example, NASA, the Works Progress Administration, the Bonneville or Hoover Dam projects, and the development of most advanced American weapons platforms. None of these were possible without direct government funding and management.
There is a surprising amount of gray area between straight up socialism and pure capitalism, and in our world pure capitalism is less common than you think.
Perfect Wikipedia:
“Economists, historians, political economists, and sociologists have adopted different perspectives in their analyses of capitalism and have recognized various forms of it in practice. These include laissez-faire or free-market capitalism, anarcho-capitalism, state capitalism, and welfare capitalism. Different forms of capitalism feature varying degrees of free markets, public ownership,[8] obstacles to free competition, and state-sanctioned social policies.”
This interpretation is not about following the definitions of a word to the teet, but rather to understand how systems of control work.
If you have the same property relations of the means of production like in capitalism, but you switch out the boss with a state bureaucrat, you functionally have the same system. But not with the private ownership, but rather with the state ownership: state capitalism.
If you would adjust your definitions of capitalism here, your political understanding would actually grow.
The boss being a state bureaucrat as opposed to a business owner is a massive distinction. Government employee’s primary obligation is to their employer: the government, not the business. This dynamic changes things, it’s not the same system.
Suggesting that we adjust the definitions of words in order to believe your ideology is… an interesting tactic.
The boss being a state bureaucrat as opposed to a business owner is a massive distinction. Government employee’s primary obligation is to their employer: the government, not the business. This dynamic changes things, it’s not the same system.
What’s the functional difference between the CEO of a Corporation and some surpreme ruler of a state?
Suggesting that we adjust the definitions of words in order to believe your ideology is… an interesting tactic.
You have it the wrong way around. I simply think definitions should have the purpose of understanding the world better. If a definition doesn’t correlate with the world that we perceive, they’re no use and should be adjusted. That is literally how language works.
I came to the conclusions of my ideology by thinking about the political definitions I have in my model of the world. If the model/the definitions don’t fit, I change it/them.
What’s the functional difference between the CEO of a Corporation and some surpreme ruler of a state?
I was referring to private business owners, not the CEO of a corporation. Considering I think of corporations as an opt in state, I guess I would say not much difference at all. The CEO is beholden to the shareholders (like a state is to it’s people), as well as the rules and regulations of the state that legitimizes it.
If the model/the definitions don’t fit, I change it/them.
This actually isn’t how definitions work, wilful changing of a word to fit a specific narrative is simply dishonest and has no precedence in legitimate etymology at all. I can’t stress this enough, you are outright wrong on this is a really bad way. If you are operating on real definitions and things still don’t make sense, it tends to mean you’re missing something. You can’t perfect an ideology just from isolated thinking. What you’ve done is effectively tried to piece together an incomplete puzzle, then started trimming the pieces and adding extra shit to make them fit.
I was referring to private business owners, not the CEO of a corporation. Considering I think of corporations as an opt in state, I guess I would say not much difference at all. The CEO is beholden to the shareholders (like a state is to it’s people), as well as the rules and regulations of the state that legitimizes it.
What you’re describing as a “state”, is more commonly referred to as a “goverment”. (they aren’t synonyms)
wilful changing of a word to fit a specific narrative
Yeah. That wasn’t what I said, though. I said that if there’s a disconnect between the definition and reality, you’d better change it. How are “real definitions” even formed? They aren’t god-given! They are a maliable tool for communication.
You’re claiming that there are strict definitions of terminologies, like “state”, “socialism”, “capitalism”. And if another (coherent) definition that someone else uses, you claim that they’re wrong and insult them ("adding extra shit to make them fit). At the same time, you simply ignore any valid definitions of “state” and use it, when you mean “government”. Or you hide your own lack of creativity behind of what you see as rock solid definitions.
But people come into arguments with different perspectives. And there simply is no objective arbiter of definitions. That is why they have to be adjusted for reality. Or at least: be established beforehand.
So, tell me: What are your definitions of: state, capitalism, politics, ideology, socialism, communism, democracy?
We clearly have different understandings of these terms and frankly: It’s really hard to follow you if understanding of those terms clearly diverge in an argument.
What you’re describing as a “state”, is more commonly referred to as a “goverment”. (they aren’t synonyms)
The state is the organization while the government is the particular group of people. When I said state, I was referring to the organization.
I said that if there’s a disconnect between the definition and reality, you’d better change it
Please think this through. This hypothetical literally explicitly assumes a word already has an acting definition. According to you, if the definition causes problems with your worldview, it should be changed. But if it has a definition, that means the generally population uses the word in that way. They didn’t uniformly make the same change to the definition that you did, and some may not see the same issue as you do, and you can’t expect every agree that what you see is an issue, because people have different perspective and opinions. Suggesting that you opinion has the authority to change the definitions of words is actually an extremely authoritarian mindset, and it’s the type of political thinking the books like 1984 warned us about.
Words have meaning, and the meaning of words is important. To take a word to mean something the it already doesn’t, you only serve to destroy means of communication.
you claim that they’re wrong and insult them
I’ve been pretty honest about my thought’s on the ideology you clearly align with, but I never insulted you directly or personally.
Or you hide your own lack of creativity
I will, however, point out hypocrisy when I see it. Please be more civil.
I’ve already given a few definitions very explicitly, and they have plenty of academic and historical precedence to back them up.
I don’t think demanding 7 operating definitions will lead to good faith discussion from you, you have already explicitly stated that you operating definitions are malleable and subject to change when it suits you best. You are also highly disagreeable and have actively ignored several attempts to find agreement in our opinions (you haven’t mentioned state monopolies on violence since I clarified that we agree). Maybe we can focus on a more specific area of disagreement in our definitions?
We know where we disagree on the definition of a state, yes? I don’t think it should include the piece about their monopoly on violence even though I agree with that assessment. Beyond that, my operating definition doesn’t seem much different than yours. I don’t there’s much that can come from going over this one over and over.
It makes no sense to demand my definition of Socialism, you already know it! It’s literally what we’re discussing. If I provide a definition I already know you disagree with, you’ll just say “see, that’s the wrong definition!” As if we haven’t been actively discussing that.
Would you like to focus on my definition of capitalism maybe? I’ve both implied and said outright that it refers to the private ownership of the means of production. It seems like you disagree with that too? Would you like to share why you think this isn’t true?
But these goals aren’t inherently or exclusively capitalistic in nature, are they? Capitalism and Communism are both described as a means to an end - that is to say they both make prescriptions on how the means of production should be owned and controlled, but they don’t make much suggestion as to what production that refers to. So, in theory, there’s no reason to believe any of these goals are capitalist or communist in nature, because people have reason to want these things regardless of their preference of economic structure.
It can be shown in practice that these are not capitalist inherently either. The “5 year plan” is actually a trope amongst Socialist/Communist leaders. Stalin had a 5 year plan that sounded very similar to Xi’s, and Xi adopted this type of state planning from Mao himself.
China’s weapons are manufactured by China North Industries Group Corporation, which is a state owned corporation, not a private company. China’s tech chips are manufactured by SMIC, also a state controlled corporation. The high speed railway is being built by the China Railway Corporation, also state run.
I think people get confused by the idea of “exchanging capital” when referring to trade, because it leads them to believe that capitalism means something that profits from capital, but a state can profit from capital just like how a private unit can. Capitalism is NOT the exchange of capital, it’s the private ownership of the means of production. If a state (ie: China) participates in trade, that is not an example of capitalism, because the means of trade are not owned by a private unit.
You’re actually wrong, has China does have official 5-year plans that it develops every 5 years, and they have done so since world War II. So, it is not a trope at all:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_of_China
China is currently undergoing their 14th 5-year plan:
https://www.fujian.gov.cn/english/news/202108/t20210809_5665713.htm#:~:text=China will focus on the,innovation and application of core
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_five-year_plan_(China)
I didn’t say they had no 5 year plan, I said the 5 year plan isn’t inherently capitalist
China is a state capitalist country. So was Lenin’s and Stalin’s USSR.
State capitalism is an oxymoron, if the state controls the means of trade, then it’s not private.
That’s an interesting point, however it is widely accepted that states can leverage capitalism by allowing quasi-private corporations to operate semi-independently from the government.
And in fact, many of the largest industrial amd infrastructure projects are only possible by state-funded corporations to undertake them.
For example, NASA, the Works Progress Administration, the Bonneville or Hoover Dam projects, and the development of most advanced American weapons platforms. None of these were possible without direct government funding and management.
There is a surprising amount of gray area between straight up socialism and pure capitalism, and in our world pure capitalism is less common than you think.
Perfect Wikipedia:
This interpretation is not about following the definitions of a word to the teet, but rather to understand how systems of control work.
If you have the same property relations of the means of production like in capitalism, but you switch out the boss with a state bureaucrat, you functionally have the same system. But not with the private ownership, but rather with the state ownership: state capitalism.
If you would adjust your definitions of capitalism here, your political understanding would actually grow.
The boss being a state bureaucrat as opposed to a business owner is a massive distinction. Government employee’s primary obligation is to their employer: the government, not the business. This dynamic changes things, it’s not the same system.
Suggesting that we adjust the definitions of words in order to believe your ideology is… an interesting tactic.
What’s the functional difference between the CEO of a Corporation and some surpreme ruler of a state?
You have it the wrong way around. I simply think definitions should have the purpose of understanding the world better. If a definition doesn’t correlate with the world that we perceive, they’re no use and should be adjusted. That is literally how language works.
I came to the conclusions of my ideology by thinking about the political definitions I have in my model of the world. If the model/the definitions don’t fit, I change it/them.
I was referring to private business owners, not the CEO of a corporation. Considering I think of corporations as an opt in state, I guess I would say not much difference at all. The CEO is beholden to the shareholders (like a state is to it’s people), as well as the rules and regulations of the state that legitimizes it.
This actually isn’t how definitions work, wilful changing of a word to fit a specific narrative is simply dishonest and has no precedence in legitimate etymology at all. I can’t stress this enough, you are outright wrong on this is a really bad way. If you are operating on real definitions and things still don’t make sense, it tends to mean you’re missing something. You can’t perfect an ideology just from isolated thinking. What you’ve done is effectively tried to piece together an incomplete puzzle, then started trimming the pieces and adding extra shit to make them fit.
What you’re describing as a “state”, is more commonly referred to as a “goverment”. (they aren’t synonyms)
Yeah. That wasn’t what I said, though. I said that if there’s a disconnect between the definition and reality, you’d better change it. How are “real definitions” even formed? They aren’t god-given! They are a maliable tool for communication.
You’re claiming that there are strict definitions of terminologies, like “state”, “socialism”, “capitalism”. And if another (coherent) definition that someone else uses, you claim that they’re wrong and insult them ("adding extra shit to make them fit). At the same time, you simply ignore any valid definitions of “state” and use it, when you mean “government”. Or you hide your own lack of creativity behind of what you see as rock solid definitions.
But people come into arguments with different perspectives. And there simply is no objective arbiter of definitions. That is why they have to be adjusted for reality. Or at least: be established beforehand.
So, tell me: What are your definitions of: state, capitalism, politics, ideology, socialism, communism, democracy? We clearly have different understandings of these terms and frankly: It’s really hard to follow you if understanding of those terms clearly diverge in an argument.
The state is the organization while the government is the particular group of people. When I said state, I was referring to the organization.
Please think this through. This hypothetical literally explicitly assumes a word already has an acting definition. According to you, if the definition causes problems with your worldview, it should be changed. But if it has a definition, that means the generally population uses the word in that way. They didn’t uniformly make the same change to the definition that you did, and some may not see the same issue as you do, and you can’t expect every agree that what you see is an issue, because people have different perspective and opinions. Suggesting that you opinion has the authority to change the definitions of words is actually an extremely authoritarian mindset, and it’s the type of political thinking the books like 1984 warned us about.
Words have meaning, and the meaning of words is important. To take a word to mean something the it already doesn’t, you only serve to destroy means of communication.
I’ve been pretty honest about my thought’s on the ideology you clearly align with, but I never insulted you directly or personally.
I will, however, point out hypocrisy when I see it. Please be more civil.
I’ve already given a few definitions very explicitly, and they have plenty of academic and historical precedence to back them up.
I don’t think demanding 7 operating definitions will lead to good faith discussion from you, you have already explicitly stated that you operating definitions are malleable and subject to change when it suits you best. You are also highly disagreeable and have actively ignored several attempts to find agreement in our opinions (you haven’t mentioned state monopolies on violence since I clarified that we agree). Maybe we can focus on a more specific area of disagreement in our definitions?
We know where we disagree on the definition of a state, yes? I don’t think it should include the piece about their monopoly on violence even though I agree with that assessment. Beyond that, my operating definition doesn’t seem much different than yours. I don’t there’s much that can come from going over this one over and over.
It makes no sense to demand my definition of Socialism, you already know it! It’s literally what we’re discussing. If I provide a definition I already know you disagree with, you’ll just say “see, that’s the wrong definition!” As if we haven’t been actively discussing that.
Would you like to focus on my definition of capitalism maybe? I’ve both implied and said outright that it refers to the private ownership of the means of production. It seems like you disagree with that too? Would you like to share why you think this isn’t true?
There are many state owned enterprises that have private investors as well.
those are arguably partially privately owned, especially if those investors have influence on decision-making.