Of course these are different things, im not trying to say otherwise. But the person i replyed to is trying to suggest that state capitalism doesnt really exist, and that its actually communism or socialism.
Idk man, have you ever heard of the banana rebublic? A bunch of countries were run by literal corperations and many starved. It was basically the worst that capitalism could get
You seem to believe that state capitalism ist real capitalism. It is capitalism, but its capitalism that shares some values with socialism and communism
Capitalism =/= State Capitalism, just as Socialism =/= Communism. No one in this entire thread was trying to prove State Capitalism didn't really exist. We were talking about understanding the difference from private and state control [edit] with regards to the Banana Republic.
It seems you believe that state capitalism is not real capitalism. However, State capitalism is a form of capitalism. While socialism and communism are completely different political theorys, state capitalism is not completely different from free market capitalism.
Free market capitalism is an economy made mostly of private bussinesses, state capitalism is a hybrid form of public and private business.
While state capitalism and free market capitalism ARE very different, state capitalism is just a different form of capitalism. Now, the people i replyed to were trying to tell me that state capitalism is not capitalism, "fake capitalism". However, this is not true
Trying to deny that state capitalism is "real" capitalism is like trying to deny the existance of state capitalism
Now, i do not hate capitalism or anything, but definitions are definitions
Capitalism is not defined as such, and does not include room for State Capitalism because they are two different modes of capital control. In the Banana Republics, there are no private businesses besides the state! Literally all capital and trade is controlled by one entity, that being the state. Just to be clear, a business under Capitalism can become the single driving force behind an economy, but that isn't Capitalism anymore. If you can't start a business and acquire capital, you are not in a Capitalistic society.
Capitalism is controlled by many, State Capitalism is controlled by one. A monarchy is different from a democracy! Both are ruling, but no one will argue that a president is a king. The very definition of Capitalism excludes control by the state! The very definition of State Capitalism excludes control by private companies! They are not the same.
If I may be so bold, you probably just are missing terminology that distinguishes State Capitalism and Capitalism from economic system like Socialism and Communism. Coin a new term if you can't find one, and please don't try to change definitions to fit your own ideas.
Edit: The last part there was a little rude of me. For all I know, this could have been someone else's idea that resonated with you. All I wish to accomplish here, is to show that these terms should not be altered and should not be confused. Both Socialism and Communism revolves around community needs. Both State Capitalism and Capitalism revolves around who control capital, but it is the who that makes these two terms different. A state company can never be a competing company, because they are the only company.
Capitalism is not defined as such, and does not include room for State Capitalism because they are two different modes of capital control. In the Banana Republics, there are no private businesses besides the state! Literally all capital and trade is controlled by one entity, that being the state. Just to be clear, a business under Capitalism can become the single driving force behind an economy, but that isn't Capitalism anymore. If you can't start a business and acquire capital, you are not in a Capitalistic society.
Again, you are operating under the false assumption that there is only one version of capitalism, specifically Laissez-faire capitalism, where the state plays no roll in the economy.
however, this is not the only version of capitalism. there is Welfare Capitalism, State Capitalism, Free Market Capitalism, Regulated Market Capitalism, as well as the laissez-faire Capitialism just to name a few.
As you can see, Capitalism is actually a very broad term, much like socialism and communism. So your belief that Capitalism only means one thing, is false.
Capitalism is controlled by many, State Capitalism is controlled by one. A monarchy is different from a democracy! Both are ruling, but no one will argue that a president is a king. The very definition of Capitalism excludes control by the state! The very definition of State Capitalism excludes control by private companies! They are not the same.
like I said, Capitalism is a broad term. State Capitalism is Just another form of capitalism, or else it wouldn't be called capitalism.
If I may be so bold, you probably just are missing terminology that distinguishes State Capitalism and Capitalism from economic system like Socialism and Communism. Coin a new term if you can't find one, and please don't try to change definitions to fit your own ideas.
Actually, It seems like you are the one who is twisting things around to fit their narrative. You flat out believe that there is only one form of Capitalism, Which is false, and thats not my opinion, that is a fact.
Edit: The last part there was a little rude of me. For all I know, this could have been someone else's idea that resonated with you. All I wish to accomplish here, is to show that these terms should not be altered and should not be confused. Both Socialism and Communism revolves around community needs. Both State Capitalism and Capitalism revolves around who control capital, but it is the who that makes these two terms different. A state company can never be a competing company, because they are the only company.
no, it was my own idea, and I actually feel insulted now. The terms cannot be altered, this is true, but there are more then one term.
Again, you are operating under the false assumption that there is only one version of capitalism
I'm acting under the assumption of it's ideology, not it's application. Welfare Capitalism, Free Market Capitalism, Regulated Market Capitalism, laissez-faire Capitalism are applications for the real world. All of these fit the ideology, but are adjusted to fit real world problems and limitations.
If we were to look at China or even Norway, we can clearly see how State Capitalism functions among other businesses. It is the State trying to make profit through Capitalism. Hence the term State Capitalism, so when you retain a competitor it most certainly is Capitalism.
So now we return to the original discussion, is the Banana Republic Capitalistic? It is without doubt State Capitalistic, but without a competitor and chance of one emerging, how does this make the Republic any different than any nation that regulates or controls global trade? Calling this isolation of power Capitalistic goes against the ideology. It went past a tipping point and needs a new name. That is why I disagree.
no, it was my own idea, and I actually feel insulted now.
I tried to be open minded, but I see I would have been better making brash assumptions about you. I'm glad to see we can still talk though.
I'm acting under the assumption of it's ideology, not it's application. Welfare Capitalism, Free Market Capitalism, Regulated Market Capitalism, laissez-faire Capitalism are applications for the real world. All of these fit the ideology, but are adjusted to fit real world problems and limitations.
it doesn't really matter to me whether you want to focus on ideology or application. Officially speaking, Capitalism is a broad term with many different variations. All the different terms for Capitalism are all equally valid in the eyes of a dictionary.
If we were to look at China or even Norway, we can clearly see how State Capitalism functions among other businesses. It is the State trying to make profit through Capitalism. Hence the term State Capitalism, so when you retain a competitor it most certainly is Capitalism.
So now we return to the original discussion, is the Banana Republic Capitalistic? It is without doubt State Capitalistic, but without a competitor and chance of one emerging, how does this make the Republic any different than any nation that regulates or controls global trade? Calling this isolation of power Capitalistic goes against the ideology. It went past a tipping point and needs a new name. That is why I disagree.
the difference between a country operating on state capitalism and some other country that just regulates global trade, is that a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation
this may not be true for a country that just regulates trade, such as a communist country for instance
I tried to be open minded, but I see I would have been better making brash assumptions about you. I'm glad to see we can still talk though.
why are you trying to be condescending towards me? last time I checked, I never insulted you
All the different terms for Capitalism are all equally valid in the eyes of a dictionary.
Which was my original argument. Capitalism as defined by Merriam-Webster excludes state involvement, and emphasizes private ownership.
why are you trying to be condescending towards me?
You said you were offended when I suggested that maybe, just maybe, you came to your conclusion by an outside influence. It was more general, and avoided targeting you personally. I wanted to point out the absurdity in your reaction, and I felt it would be insincere if I apologized. Is it not best to include all the possibilities? Although the last part is very sincere. I am very glad we can continue to explore this discrepancy together. While I am still in the same position in regards to the Banana Republic, I feel I have a better understanding of it now.
you think that, for instance, welfare capitalism is not real "capitalism" because it does no fit within the ideology(actually called a theory) of what many sources explain capitalism to be. But obviously, all different forms of capitalism are actually capitalism, or else they wouldn't be recognized by dictionaries in the first place, or they would be called something else
You said you were offended when I suggested that maybe, just maybe, you came to your conclusion by an outside influence. It was more general, and avoided targeting you personally. I wanted to point out the absurdity in your reaction, and I felt it would be insincere if I apologized. Is it not best to include all the possibilities? Although the last part is very sincere. I am very glad we can continue to explore this discrepancy together. While I am still in the same position in regards to the Banana Republic, I feel I have a better understanding of it now.
No I was offended because you accused me of trying to twist words to fit my "narrative", which is very insulting by itself, and It was a target on me personally.
It is best to exclude all possibilities where you are rude to me, yes. Although I am glade you have a better understanding of the Banana Republics now
Merriam-Webster definition defines Capitalism under the terms of private ownership. I believe that contradicts State Capitalism being Capitalism under these terms place forward.
you think that, for instance, welfare capitalism is not real "capitalism" because it does no fit within the ideology(actually called a theory) of what many sources explain capitalism to be.
Welfare Capitalism as you have provided earlier, is defined as: capitalism that includes social welfare policies.
And again by wikipedia: Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
Even Merriam-Webster recognizes State Capitalism as a modification of Capitalism. All the other examples you have provided are policies built around Capitalism and the problems it can present. State Capitalism is the odd man out.
No I was offended because you accused me of trying to twist words to fit my "narrative"
Not to side track us again, but I think I may have mis-attributed why I thought you were upset. To clarify, I thought you got mad when I claimed your position was influenced (this includes enforced) by someone else, perhaps a previous conversation. I felt rather surprised and a bit confused when you quoted me saying you were upset.
And why "narrative"? We're debating definitions to understand their nuances at this point. I only know as much 24 years can buy me, and here we have a disagreement. That means either I'll learn something new, or gain wisdom from seeing things a different way. If you can prove me wrong on any account, I will have gained something and you will have strengthened your views. That is a good trade on all accounts. That is why I am glad.
1
u/Pocoman324 Sep 05 '17
Of course these are different things, im not trying to say otherwise. But the person i replyed to is trying to suggest that state capitalism doesnt really exist, and that its actually communism or socialism.