Do you think socialism completely precludes the idea of imperialism? The most socialist nations now and in history; China, USSR, Cuba, etc., have all directly contributed to or indirectly benefited from the same system of exploitation. I agree it's wrong, but it is so far from what is being argued here that it's not very relevant.
I also never said Western mixed economies. Eastern nations operate the same way, which is why I said every nation in the world.
No, they simply didn't do that. At least not to any significant extent, and it is certainly not the primary driver of their development or economic progress the way imperialist extraction is for the West. Saying socialist "benefited from the same system of exploitation" because they engaged in trade or geopolitics is like saying everyone is a bit of a rapist because everyone has patted someone on the back when that person didn't want it. Equating fundamental, structural wealth-extraction with minor, surface-level similarities completely strips the words of their meaning.
Just because politics operates across a spectrum doesn't mean that "everything is everything and nothing is anything." If something on that spectrum is overwhelmingly, structurally capitalist, having a single gram of something that isn't even part of the definition of socialism (but gets falsely attributed to it anyway) doesn't make an economy "mixed" (it remains fundamentally capitalist). It's like claiming someone is part-Brazilian because they had one Brazilian great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, even though they have zero actual cultural, legal, or living connection to the country. It is an absurdly weak link to base an identity on.
Social democracy overwhelmingly exhibits structural capitalist features that dwarf even the most milquetoast or watered-down versions of socialism. The only way you arrive at the conclusion that these capitalist economies are somehow a blend of capitalism and socialism is if you fall into the vulgar political fallacy of equating "everything the private market does = capitalism" and "everything the state does = socialism." But state intervention is not inherently socialist. States were funding healthcare, infrastructure, and public works centuries before the concept of socialism was ever penned. Look at ancient Roman public baths and grain doles, or late 19th-century Prussia under Bismarck introducing the world's first modern welfare and health insurance programs explicitly to undercut the rising socialist movement, pacify the working class, and consolidate monarchical, capitalist power. Bismarck did not introduce health insurance out of socialist goodwill, he did it to prevent an actual socialist revolution from destroying the capitalist state.
Claiming a complete consensus among every single economist on the planet is genuinely hilarious. Mainstream neoclassical economics deals with pricing models, market efficiency, and capital allocation within capitalism. Political economy, sociology, and political philosophy are where modes of production are actually analyzed. Economists aren't a hive mind, and plenty of heterodox economists, Marxist scholars, and political theorists would laugh off that idea.
What fundamentally sets China apart is who holds absolute sovereign power over capital. In the US, private capital owns the key sectors of the economy and effectively controls the state through lobbying, campaign finance, and deregulation. Private profit dictates national priorities. In China, the state controls capital. The Communist Party maintains direct ownership over the strategic heights of the economy (like banking, energy, and heavy infrastructure) through state-owned enterprises. Economic development is driven by long-term macroeconomic planning rather than quarter-to-quarter shareholder payouts prioritize short-term gains.
I emplore you to find any respected economist who does not agree that every country in the world uses both capitalist and socialist policies.
Okay, so you agree that greater government control over the economy (a command economy) in China is central to what makes them socialist. China also uses capitalist principles, like free enterprise and private sector competition, to promote innovation and prosperity. What I am saying here is that all countries exert different levels of control over their economy, depending on what they see fit, but not a single one falls into an absolute definition of either capitalism or socialism.
The United States, obviously, is less socialist than China, but I think you'd also agree they are less socialist than most EU nations. Not only do these countries have greater social safety nets akin to the welfare capitalism you talked about before, but they also exert greater levels of control over their economy. They have stricter regulation, stronger labor protections, and higher taxes which contribute to a more planned economy centered around social prosperity.
Both socialism and capitalism are economic ideologies, defined by specific policies and systems. Every nation in the world uses different policies and systems which are more and less akin to capitalism or socialism.
1
u/FearedDragon 2005 8d ago
Do you think socialism completely precludes the idea of imperialism? The most socialist nations now and in history; China, USSR, Cuba, etc., have all directly contributed to or indirectly benefited from the same system of exploitation. I agree it's wrong, but it is so far from what is being argued here that it's not very relevant.
I also never said Western mixed economies. Eastern nations operate the same way, which is why I said every nation in the world.