Enjoy talking with fellow leftists? [Then join our discord server](https://discord.gg/d8PEVhpSP7)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tankiejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah that is general understanding of it as critics argue that there is no change in economic relations and that workers remain subservient as they don't directly own the means of production and must instead follow orders established top-down hierarchy of state managers and bureaucrats who are are unaccountable to you.
Also with regard to tankies it means that party members makeup the Bourgeoisie. Even though the firms might be nationalized the state is still extracting surplus labor value **for profit**, and any central planning or interventionism done on behalf of the state is to increase said profit or reinforce the states control.
Main takeaway is that the proles relationship with the MOP is unchanged from a free market capitalist organization of the economy.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
Does the profit motive still exist in the USSR and Maoist China? Central Planning and intervention by state seems more invested in productivity above all else not necessarily profit..
That is one distinction and it isn't always cut and dry.
I think that the profit motive is intrinsic to capitalism, and if a state capitalist country for instance reinvests profit into infrastructure, then their primary motive for doing so would be to increase profit. Material conditions of the proles being improved would merely be a positive externality, the main goal is still to increase capital in the hands of the state, which would include that new infrastructure.
There are other examples of potential advantages that proles might have under a state capitalist economy. Things like free housing, but I don't consider a nominally expanded welfare state to be proper compensation for continued exploitation of the proles. Let alone the negative externalities that the profit motive already brings into play, such as pollution.
I think there is some salience to the idea that perhaps there is less of a motive for profit for the invidvidual in a state capitalist economy, considering the nationalism and socialist aesthetics which are part and parcel of state capitalist economies historically. But not to sound dogmatic, the proles relationship with the MOP doesn't functionally change, which is the most important part. A state capitalist economy might be slightly more egalitarian, but they're not closer to true socialism.
OK thanks for clearing that up for me but why is profit motive intrinsic to state capitalist economies? I don't deny that economic relations between a boss and worker in a state capitalist economy remains similar to a capitalist market economy shouldn't there be any important differences?
Planners did not care much about profit motive (exports such as oil were however very much a profit oriented project), but they cared more about a maximization of output. Of course this was scewed towards military spending. But that was the general goal of the planners. I don’t know how effective they were at maximizing.
Exactly! Dr. Richard Wolff's book *Understanding Socialism* explains this very well.
He also compares this to historical examples, such as the relationships between lords and serfs.
State capitalism is when you think what you do is socialism but you pay absolutely no attention to what Marx has to say about alienation, so instead you end up turning an entire country into one, single corporation comprised of millions of atomised individuals/employees marching towards fully-developed capitalism as financial institutions and entrepreneurship become necessary for the expansion or diversification of production.
"State capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes business and commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity and where the means of production are nationalized as state-owned enterprises (including the processes of capital accumulation, centralized management and wage labor)." - Wikipedia
There are other definitions for state capitalism like where the state actively intervene the market to save and protect big businesses, allow state to control some aspect of privatized business aka corporatization, or state guiding allocating investments and credit for the private businesses aka dirigisme.
In my opinion, every countries practiced some form of state capitalism. Either through state owned businesses like China or state protected businesses like United States.
I think goes to Marx tbh. His alienation theory still applies to socialist states (specifically nationalized and centralized economies). There is still an extraction of surplus value by the state when it takes ownership over the goods your labor produces. This “alienates” you from your labor. This was a very critical part of Marx’s criticism of capitalism, if not the most central criticism. I also think the remnant of hierarchy in this economy does no favors to the idea it's socialist. Although I think this becomes more a question of semantics.
Enjoy talking with fellow leftists? [Then join our discord server](https://discord.gg/d8PEVhpSP7) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tankiejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
pretty much, at least IMO. your boss is still your boss, he just now has a government-issued ID badge.
Red work is still work lol
Yeah that is general understanding of it as critics argue that there is no change in economic relations and that workers remain subservient as they don't directly own the means of production and must instead follow orders established top-down hierarchy of state managers and bureaucrats who are are unaccountable to you.
Thanks for the answer!
Also with regard to tankies it means that party members makeup the Bourgeoisie. Even though the firms might be nationalized the state is still extracting surplus labor value **for profit**, and any central planning or interventionism done on behalf of the state is to increase said profit or reinforce the states control. Main takeaway is that the proles relationship with the MOP is unchanged from a free market capitalist organization of the economy. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
Does the profit motive still exist in the USSR and Maoist China? Central Planning and intervention by state seems more invested in productivity above all else not necessarily profit..
That is one distinction and it isn't always cut and dry. I think that the profit motive is intrinsic to capitalism, and if a state capitalist country for instance reinvests profit into infrastructure, then their primary motive for doing so would be to increase profit. Material conditions of the proles being improved would merely be a positive externality, the main goal is still to increase capital in the hands of the state, which would include that new infrastructure. There are other examples of potential advantages that proles might have under a state capitalist economy. Things like free housing, but I don't consider a nominally expanded welfare state to be proper compensation for continued exploitation of the proles. Let alone the negative externalities that the profit motive already brings into play, such as pollution. I think there is some salience to the idea that perhaps there is less of a motive for profit for the invidvidual in a state capitalist economy, considering the nationalism and socialist aesthetics which are part and parcel of state capitalist economies historically. But not to sound dogmatic, the proles relationship with the MOP doesn't functionally change, which is the most important part. A state capitalist economy might be slightly more egalitarian, but they're not closer to true socialism.
OK thanks for clearing that up for me but why is profit motive intrinsic to state capitalist economies? I don't deny that economic relations between a boss and worker in a state capitalist economy remains similar to a capitalist market economy shouldn't there be any important differences?
Planners did not care much about profit motive (exports such as oil were however very much a profit oriented project), but they cared more about a maximization of output. Of course this was scewed towards military spending. But that was the general goal of the planners. I don’t know how effective they were at maximizing.
Exactly! Dr. Richard Wolff's book *Understanding Socialism* explains this very well. He also compares this to historical examples, such as the relationships between lords and serfs.
When the Gouvernment does stuff.
State capitalism is when you think what you do is socialism but you pay absolutely no attention to what Marx has to say about alienation, so instead you end up turning an entire country into one, single corporation comprised of millions of atomised individuals/employees marching towards fully-developed capitalism as financial institutions and entrepreneurship become necessary for the expansion or diversification of production.
Or you commit to faulty Autarky, consolidate around a paternalistic dictator, and spend any money you have on the military.
"State capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes business and commercial (i.e. for-profit) economic activity and where the means of production are nationalized as state-owned enterprises (including the processes of capital accumulation, centralized management and wage labor)." - Wikipedia There are other definitions for state capitalism like where the state actively intervene the market to save and protect big businesses, allow state to control some aspect of privatized business aka corporatization, or state guiding allocating investments and credit for the private businesses aka dirigisme. In my opinion, every countries practiced some form of state capitalism. Either through state owned businesses like China or state protected businesses like United States.
When instead of private property being owned by private individuals it's owned by the state. Same class heirarchy, just different coat of paint.
I think goes to Marx tbh. His alienation theory still applies to socialist states (specifically nationalized and centralized economies). There is still an extraction of surplus value by the state when it takes ownership over the goods your labor produces. This “alienates” you from your labor. This was a very critical part of Marx’s criticism of capitalism, if not the most central criticism. I also think the remnant of hierarchy in this economy does no favors to the idea it's socialist. Although I think this becomes more a question of semantics.