I think it’s important to separate the notion that sectors of an economy can be “communist/socialist” and others “capitalist,” as these are not static elements in a vacuum, but interrelated and moving parts of a whole. This is why Marx put so much of an emphasis on Dialectical Materialism, it is critical for understanding Political Economy in the Marxist sense.
But what does that mean? Are you saying a single instance of private property is Capitalist? I think we are not really speaking with the same understanding of basic terms, which is driving confusion.
All Socialist countries have had different forms of property ownership than public, though always in a manner that does not hold power over the economy. The PRC has its private sector dominated by small firms and cooperatives, as well as sole proprietorships, while the large firms and key industries are squarely in the public sector.
that sounds very much like the UK in the 70s, which you could describe as a bit capitalisty?
It isn’t the UK in the 70s. Having a public sector does not make a country Socialist. The PRC has very different property relations than the UK does and did, here’s an example of what I am talking about:
In the UK, both in the 70s and today, the large firms and key industries are still under the big bourgeoisie, and the public sector is there to support the private. The UK is Capitalist, while the PRC is Socialist.
I think if you want to talk about Communism and Capitalism, you should probably do some more research on the subjects directly. For Communism, I do have an introductory Marxist-Leninist Reading List you can check out, though the first section alone should be enough to get you started.
As with all things, we can delve deeper or keep things straightforward. In the comparison to Capitalism, they function with much the same underlying basis, and in Nazi Germany there was a string of pro-Communist organization, such as the KPD, that the Nazis rose to power by millitantly opposing and murdering. The Bourgeoisie of Germany pre-Nazi had a fruitful partnership with the rising Nazis who were very helpful in killing off unions and other forms of labor organization.
The Nazis also had great ties to the US, UK, Italy, and other Capitalist countries. They even cooperated with Zionists in settling Palestine, which is why modern Israel has roots in fascism, continued to this day. The Nazis supported the formation of Israel because the Zionists were anti-yiddish and anti-communist, and because Israel would help serve as a bulwark against the Middle East. Theodore Herzl, one of the founding Zionists, once wrote "It would be an excellent idea to call in respectable, accredited anti-Semites as liquidators of [Jewish] property. To the people they would vouch for the fact that we do not want to bring about the impoverishment of the countries we leave. The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.”
I think it’s important to separate the notion that sectors of an economy can be “communist/socialist” and others “capitalist,” as these are not static elements in a vacuum, but interrelated and moving parts of a whole. This is why Marx put so much of an emphasis on Dialectical Materialism, it is critical for understanding Political Economy in the Marxist sense.
yeah i was talking about the whole connected economy being capitalist to a certain degree
But what does that mean? Are you saying a single instance of private property is Capitalist? I think we are not really speaking with the same understanding of basic terms, which is driving confusion.
that sounds very much like the UK in the 70s, which you could describe as a bit capitalisty?
It isn’t the UK in the 70s. Having a public sector does not make a country Socialist. The PRC has very different property relations than the UK does and did, here’s an example of what I am talking about:
In the UK, both in the 70s and today, the large firms and key industries are still under the big bourgeoisie, and the public sector is there to support the private. The UK is Capitalist, while the PRC is Socialist.
I think if you want to talk about Communism and Capitalism, you should probably do some more research on the subjects directly. For Communism, I do have an introductory Marxist-Leninist Reading List you can check out, though the first section alone should be enough to get you started.
yeah i said similar, not identical
it’s just a meme anyway, eh
“Similar” seems to have quite a large range by your definition, one that I would say does not apply to the PRC and UK’s economies.
fair enough
i would say this is a bit oversimplificationy
As with all things, we can delve deeper or keep things straightforward. In the comparison to Capitalism, they function with much the same underlying basis, and in Nazi Germany there was a string of pro-Communist organization, such as the KPD, that the Nazis rose to power by millitantly opposing and murdering. The Bourgeoisie of Germany pre-Nazi had a fruitful partnership with the rising Nazis who were very helpful in killing off unions and other forms of labor organization.
The Nazis also had great ties to the US, UK, Italy, and other Capitalist countries. They even cooperated with Zionists in settling Palestine, which is why modern Israel has roots in fascism, continued to this day. The Nazis supported the formation of Israel because the Zionists were anti-yiddish and anti-communist, and because Israel would help serve as a bulwark against the Middle East. Theodore Herzl, one of the founding Zionists, once wrote "It would be an excellent idea to call in respectable, accredited anti-Semites as liquidators of [Jewish] property. To the people they would vouch for the fact that we do not want to bring about the impoverishment of the countries we leave. The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.”