• PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Their 5 year growth plans.

    Mainly high tech chips manufacturing, space technology, weapons technology (hypersonic weapons, nuclear weapons, stealth fighters, aircraft carriers, ballistic missiles), high speed rail, and automotive and electric vehicle technology. To name the major ones.

    • HardNut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      But these goals aren’t inherently or exclusively capitalistic in nature, are they? Capitalism and Communism are both described as a means to an end - that is to say they both make prescriptions on how the means of production should be owned and controlled, but they don’t make much suggestion as to what production that refers to. So, in theory, there’s no reason to believe any of these goals are capitalist or communist in nature, because people have reason to want these things regardless of their preference of economic structure.

      It can be shown in practice that these are not capitalist inherently either. The “5 year plan” is actually a trope amongst Socialist/Communist leaders. Stalin had a 5 year plan that sounded very similar to Xi’s, and Xi adopted this type of state planning from Mao himself.

      China’s weapons are manufactured by China North Industries Group Corporation, which is a state owned corporation, not a private company. China’s tech chips are manufactured by SMIC, also a state controlled corporation. The high speed railway is being built by the China Railway Corporation, also state run.

      I think people get confused by the idea of “exchanging capital” when referring to trade, because it leads them to believe that capitalism means something that profits from capital, but a state can profit from capital just like how a private unit can. Capitalism is NOT the exchange of capital, it’s the private ownership of the means of production. If a state (ie: China) participates in trade, that is not an example of capitalism, because the means of trade are not owned by a private unit.

        • HardNut@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          State capitalism is an oxymoron, if the state controls the means of trade, then it’s not private.

          • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s an interesting point, however it is widely accepted that states can leverage capitalism by allowing quasi-private corporations to operate semi-independently from the government.

            And in fact, many of the largest industrial amd infrastructure projects are only possible by state-funded corporations to undertake them.

            For example, NASA, the Works Progress Administration, the Bonneville or Hoover Dam projects, and the development of most advanced American weapons platforms. None of these were possible without direct government funding and management.

            There is a surprising amount of gray area between straight up socialism and pure capitalism, and in our world pure capitalism is less common than you think.


            Perfect Wikipedia:

            “Economists, historians, political economists, and sociologists have adopted different perspectives in their analyses of capitalism and have recognized various forms of it in practice. These include laissez-faire or free-market capitalism, anarcho-capitalism, state capitalism, and welfare capitalism. Different forms of capitalism feature varying degrees of free markets, public ownership,[8] obstacles to free competition, and state-sanctioned social policies.”

          • Prunebutt@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This interpretation is not about following the definitions of a word to the teet, but rather to understand how systems of control work.

            If you have the same property relations of the means of production like in capitalism, but you switch out the boss with a state bureaucrat, you functionally have the same system. But not with the private ownership, but rather with the state ownership: state capitalism.

            If you would adjust your definitions of capitalism here, your political understanding would actually grow.

            • HardNut@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The boss being a state bureaucrat as opposed to a business owner is a massive distinction. Government employee’s primary obligation is to their employer: the government, not the business. This dynamic changes things, it’s not the same system.

              Suggesting that we adjust the definitions of words in order to believe your ideology is… an interesting tactic.

              • Prunebutt@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The boss being a state bureaucrat as opposed to a business owner is a massive distinction. Government employee’s primary obligation is to their employer: the government, not the business. This dynamic changes things, it’s not the same system.

                What’s the functional difference between the CEO of a Corporation and some surpreme ruler of a state?

                Suggesting that we adjust the definitions of words in order to believe your ideology is… an interesting tactic.

                You have it the wrong way around. I simply think definitions should have the purpose of understanding the world better. If a definition doesn’t correlate with the world that we perceive, they’re no use and should be adjusted. That is literally how language works.

                I came to the conclusions of my ideology by thinking about the political definitions I have in my model of the world. If the model/the definitions don’t fit, I change it/them.

                • HardNut@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What’s the functional difference between the CEO of a Corporation and some surpreme ruler of a state?

                  I was referring to private business owners, not the CEO of a corporation. Considering I think of corporations as an opt in state, I guess I would say not much difference at all. The CEO is beholden to the shareholders (like a state is to it’s people), as well as the rules and regulations of the state that legitimizes it.

                  If the model/the definitions don’t fit, I change it/them.

                  This actually isn’t how definitions work, wilful changing of a word to fit a specific narrative is simply dishonest and has no precedence in legitimate etymology at all. I can’t stress this enough, you are outright wrong on this is a really bad way. If you are operating on real definitions and things still don’t make sense, it tends to mean you’re missing something. You can’t perfect an ideology just from isolated thinking. What you’ve done is effectively tried to piece together an incomplete puzzle, then started trimming the pieces and adding extra shit to make them fit.

                  • Prunebutt@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I was referring to private business owners, not the CEO of a corporation. Considering I think of corporations as an opt in state, I guess I would say not much difference at all. The CEO is beholden to the shareholders (like a state is to it’s people), as well as the rules and regulations of the state that legitimizes it.

                    What you’re describing as a “state”, is more commonly referred to as a “goverment”. (they aren’t synonyms)

                    wilful changing of a word to fit a specific narrative

                    Yeah. That wasn’t what I said, though. I said that if there’s a disconnect between the definition and reality, you’d better change it. How are “real definitions” even formed? They aren’t god-given! They are a maliable tool for communication.

                    You’re claiming that there are strict definitions of terminologies, like “state”, “socialism”, “capitalism”. And if another (coherent) definition that someone else uses, you claim that they’re wrong and insult them ("adding extra shit to make them fit). At the same time, you simply ignore any valid definitions of “state” and use it, when you mean “government”. Or you hide your own lack of creativity behind of what you see as rock solid definitions.

                    But people come into arguments with different perspectives. And there simply is no objective arbiter of definitions. That is why they have to be adjusted for reality. Or at least: be established beforehand.

                    So, tell me: What are your definitions of: state, capitalism, politics, ideology, socialism, communism, democracy? We clearly have different understandings of these terms and frankly: It’s really hard to follow you if understanding of those terms clearly diverge in an argument.

          • SeaJ@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There are many state owned enterprises that have private investors as well.

            • mycorrhiza they/them
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              those are arguably partially privately owned, especially if those investors have influence on decision-making.

      • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re actually wrong, has China does have official 5-year plans that it develops every 5 years, and they have done so since world War II. So, it is not a trope at all:

        “The Five-Year Plans (simplified Chinese: 五年计划; traditional Chinese: 五年計劃; pinyin: Wǔnián Jìhuà) are a series of social and economic development initiatives issued by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) since 1953 in the People’s Republic of China. Since 1949, the CCP has shaped the Chinese economy through the plenums of its Central Committee and national party congresses.”

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_of_China

        China is currently undergoing their 14th 5-year plan:

        https://www.fujian.gov.cn/english/news/202108/t20210809_5665713.htm#:~:text=China will focus on the,innovation and application of core

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_five-year_plan_(China)

        • HardNut@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I didn’t say they had no 5 year plan, I said the 5 year plan isn’t inherently capitalist