940
submitted 1 year ago by schizoidman@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 1 year ago

There’s plenty of systems that mix both, but Russia and China aren’t actually good examples. They’re pretty capitalist.

State companies and state-connected companies own more than half of each one's economy. More than in Nordic countries.

[-] agarorn@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

Do you belive that in a communist country everything is owned by the state? If so, I urge you to look up communism again.

[-] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org -3 points 1 year ago

In really existent ones - yes.

[-] agarorn@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

And what are those existent communist countries? The ones that come the closest are China, Vietnam, cubs, Laos, North Korea. But none if them is there yet. https://www.britannica.com/question/Which-countries-are-communist

[-] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

Communist means ideologically communist. Because "countries which have built communism according to Marx with stateless society with common ownership of means of production" etc are like Zeno's Achilles and turtle metaphor. Only I don't get why would anybody use such an unreachable by design criterion to judge on the effect of communist ideology on societies.

[-] agarorn@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Well in the examples I gave only in north Korea everything is controlled by the state. So your point is irrelevant.

[-] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

There are gradations between "everything" and "critical mass" as well, and part of it is "private" property which can be easily confiscated or in some other way transferred to a more loyal person, just the system has mechanisms to prevent killing the golden goose (for now, it seems comrade Xi has some ideas with potential to affect this).

I mean, if you consider Nazi Germany capitalist, then China is too.

Anyway, it all depends on terminology. Some people think that "war communism" is the closest to real communism the world has seen. For others it's not communism at all, because they don't forget that "stateless" part. While Makhno's republic is that. For others the Nordic countries are almost like communism.

Just like with Christianity, with Communism we should trace all branches of the tree, not just discard everything we don't like as schismatic.

[-] agarorn@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Confiscation of private property as a criterion for communism is also new to me.

Is the Taliban communistic?

[-] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

I meant that the state has control over all those big Chinese businesses.

[-] agarorn@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

And what are those existent communist countries? The ones that come the closest are China, Vietnam, cubs, Laos, North Korea. But none if them is there yet. https://www.britannica.com/question/Which-countries-are-communist

[-] boonhet@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago

Because capitalism with state protection is not capitalism I guess.

In each, we're talking about capitalism with the caveat that the owners of the country want a kickback too, and in return local capitalists are protected from foreign capitalists. Vladimir Putin owns Russia, the CCP owns China. In neither case does capital belong to "the people" as a whole.

[-] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 1 year ago

Yes, it's not. I mean, for Marxists it is, because Marx describes something similar specifically to XIX century Germany with state-supported enormous trusts, influential aristocracy, and so on. Which is for obvious reason of living there, just not very relevant, because real economists use the term differently.

In neither case does capital belong to “the people” as a whole.

Well, CCP is not different from CPSU in this case.

this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
940 points (98.8% liked)

World News

32389 readers
790 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS