• boonhet@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    If you want a better example of mixing capitalism with socialism, you can take a look at something like the Nordic countries, where there are tons of social services and safety nets, but there’s still a very strong (just regulated) free market.

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

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

                    Is the Taliban communistic?

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          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.

    • Steeve@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seems a bit silly to decide that “capitalism” is the majority contributor to climate change when the country that produces the most greenhouse gases is only “pretty capitalist” doesn’t it? If capitalism is the major contributor, why don’t more capitalist country produce more greenhouse gases?

      I never set out to argue that capitalism doesn’t exist in countries that aren’t primarily capitalist.

      • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Seems a bit silly to decide that “capitalism” is the majority contributor to climate change when the country that produces the most greenhouse gases is only “pretty capitalist” doesn’t it? If capitalism is the major contributor, why don’t more capitalist country produce more greenhouse gases?

        That’s not necessarily the case. The pollution comes from where manufacturing is, not necessarily where consumption is. The demand is coming from capitalist countries.

        Edit: To account for this, we can look at per-capita consumption-based emissions (thanks to @[email protected] for the data link).

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The country that produces the most greenhouse gases is doing so to satisfy the demands of private industry that’s producing goods for private profit. What part of that is not capitalism?

        Also the country that produces the most per capita, is arguably the most capitalist country, the USA.

        • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          While I agree that per capita emissions is a useful metric, perhaps even more useful than raw emissions numbers, where are you getting that the USA has the highest production per capita?

          This table shows data from 2018 so things change, but the per capita emissions would have had to double in five years to put the USA on top.

          If you look at the non-per capita numbers, the USA is the second largest emitter behind China (using data from 2018).

          • boonhet@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Good point, I was a bit inaccurate with my last comment.

            If you look at the non-per capita consumption based emissions and divide that by the amount of people, you’ll find that Americans consume way more per capita.

            China has the bigger (even per capita) number in terms of production, but they export a lot of what they produce, whereas Americans get all their shit from China and can then claim China has the worse emissions.

            Here’s a map showing consumption-based emissions per capita, you can see that the US has a number twice as big as China’s.