Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[Brian Peacock]

Chinese economy isn't anywhere near fully capitalist. The state owns the vast majority of production, and local industries operate under heavy state protectionism. In addition to this they manipulate their currency to further benefit local industries.

You heard of the expression "state capitalism", yes?

... or state monopoly capitalism maybe?

[pErvinalia]

Chinese economy isn't anywhere near fully capitalist. The state owns the vast majority of production, and local industries operate under heavy state protectionism. In addition to this they manipulate their currency to further benefit local industries.

You heard of the expression "state capitalism", yes?

Indeed I have. But that doesn't equal "fully capitalist". China is a command economy.

[pErvinalia]

China, like Japan and Korea before it, is a great example of the benefit of rational protectionism.

[Brian Peacock]

You'll come round. If a command economy cannot be fully capitalist then what features do command economies display that are lacking in a fully capitalist system, and what features of a capitalist system are absent in command economies = and how does that relate to China?

BTW: There's no quick answer there (you may have to do some research).

[pErvinalia]

I've already answered that. State owned means of production, and massive protectionism.

[Brian Peacock]

OK, so you went for the quick answer. I accept you said the magic words 'command economy' and 'rational protectionism' and assumed they spoke for themselves, but you haven't examined the nature of private ownership, market structure, where value is extracted in the system and where the profit goes (capital), etc etc, highlighted how none of that applies to China (because 'command economy' cannot be 'fully capitalist'), nor explained how the magic words refute the implication that China runs a system of state capitalism, state monopoly capitalism, or authoritarian capitalism - even in circumstance where the features and operations of that system might be 'commanded' by a centralised political-economic elite in a one party state.

All I'm saying is that you haven't really challenged the Chinese account of their own economic reforms. Like all good capitalist that account is always going to be heavily skewed towards how great it is for everyone, eh(?), up to and including the idea that it isn't even capitalist when 'capitalist' is a bad word.

[pErvinalia]

State capitalism =/= "fully capitalist".

[rainbow]

Is there a difference in emphasis between the terms "capitalism" and "free enterprise", or are they virtually interchangeable?

No. Free enterprise implies that all players in the market are able to sell their goods and services without restrictions. Prices are set by elastic supply and demand drivers.
Capitalism perverts this by controlling markets, restricting entry and competition, and creating a labour pool that is unable to take their skills to earn the best salaries. Effectively Capital is allowed to move freely, but Labour not so much. The end point of this is oligopolistic practices that are in direct contradiction of the free market idea.

[Brian Peacock]

State capitalism =/= "fully capitalist".

OK, so that seems to take care of that. However, does this mean you accept that China fits the state Capitalist model, and what about state monopoly Capitalism or authoritarian Capitalism, and aren't you just 'doing a 42' here and relying on an equivocation on the word 'fully'?

[pErvinalia]

Well fully implies fully. It can't be fully capitalist for the reasons I've outlined.

Currently on my back on the couch watching Wimbledon and the cricket world cup. Not good for in depth replies.

[Rum]

Is there a difference in emphasis between the terms "capitalism" and "free enterprise", or are they virtually interchangeable?

No. Free enterprise implies that all players in the market are able to sell their goods and services without restrictions. Prices are set by elastic supply and demand drivers.
Capitalism perverts this by controlling markets, restricting entry and competition, and creating a labour pool that is unable to take their skills to earn the best salaries. Effectively Capital is allowed to move freely, but Labour not so much. The end point of this is oligopolistic practices that are in direct contradiction of the free market idea.

For Marx, in his day and age, the ace up the sleeve of Labour was exactly that. All the working class truly owned was their labour and the power to withhold it should the need arise. This could strangle capital ultimately. Of course he couldn’t see the future, hard though he tried to and capitalism has even managed to more or less neutralise that ‘power’ too.

Harpo remained strangely silent on the subject...

[Scot Dutchy]

And divide and rule. People became greedy and forgot the common cause. "Every man has his price". Capitalism was quick to discover that.

[Rum]

And divide and rule. People became greedy and forgot the common cause. "Every man has his price". Capitalism was quick to discover that.

Thus the slogan ‘solidarity’ (pre Poland) and the fear of capital that workers would actually unite. But as you say, they had their price.

There were also head on collisions of course, such as the miners’ strike here. Doomed to failure because of the raw power of the state - supported by capital.

[Brian Peacock]

Is there a difference in emphasis between the terms "capitalism" and "free enterprise", or are they virtually interchangeable?

No. Free enterprise implies that all players in the market are able to sell their goods and services without restrictions. Prices are set by elastic supply and demand drivers.
Capitalism perverts this by controlling markets, restricting entry and competition, and creating a labour pool that is unable to take their skills to earn the best salaries. Effectively Capital is allowed to move freely, but Labour not so much. The end point of this is oligopolistic practices that are in direct contradiction of the free market idea.

For Marx, in his day and age, the ace up the sleeve of Labour was exactly that. All the working class truly owned was their labour and the power to withhold it should the need arise. This could strangle capital ultimately. Of course he couldn’t see the future, hard though he tried to and capitalism has even managed to more or less neutralise that ‘power’ too.

Automation presents a real issue here. Soon Capitalist won't need workers to build and/or distribute their stuff, but without workers with jobs who's going to be around to buy it?

Harpo remained strangely silent on the subject...

[Sean Hayden]

One thing that has always bothered me is the waste produced by making so many products people don't need. While standing around the dumpsters of any retail job I've ever had we always joked about how we could start another small business with just what we were throwing out.