This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
State capitalism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
"Modern capitalist production and bank speculation inexorably demand enormous centralization of the State, which alone can subject millions of workers to capitalist exploitation. (...) And just as capitalist production must, to avoid bankruptcy, continually expand by absorbing its weaker competitors and drive to monopolize all the other capitalist enterprises all over the world, so must the modern State inevitably drive to become the only universal State (...) They will concentrate all administrative power in their own strong hands (...); and they will create a central state bank, which will also control all the commerce, industry, agriculture, and even science. The mass of the people will be divided into two armies, the agricultural and the industrial, under the direct command of the state engineers, who will constitute the new privileged political-scientific class." Bakunin in " statism and anarchy" - about marxists views. (1873) (but it is a bad translation in english of the original work of bakunin ; the original is more clear).
Ready to copy-paste:
== Further reading ==
{{Refbegin}}
*{{Cite book
|last1= Musacchio |first1= Aldo |last2= Lazzarini |first2= Sergio G. |year= 2014
|title= Reinventing State Capitalism: Leviathan in Business, Brazil and Beyond
|location= Cambridge, MA |publisher= [[Harvard University Press]]
|isbn= 978-0-674-72968-1 }}
{{Refend}}
The whole article is literraly far-left agenda about "not real socialism". I really don't want to get into a pointless discussion with neomarxist fanatics, so I'll just quote the article itself:
"Some scholars argue that the economy of the Soviet Union and of the Eastern Bloc countries modeled after it, including Maoist China, were state capitalist systems"
"Some western commentators believe that the current economies of China and Singapore also constitute a mixture of state-capitalism"
"It has also been used to describe the controlled economies of the Great Powers during World War I"
"This was the case of Western European countries during the post-war consensus and of France during the period of dirigisme after World War II"
"Other examples include Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew and Turkey, as well as military dictatorships during the Cold War and fascist regimes such as Nazi Germany"
" Noam Chomsky, a libertarian socialist, applies the term 'state capitalism' to the economy of the United States"
So, Soviet Union and modern Russia, maoist and modern China, pre- and after- WW1 Germany and France, Singapore and Nazi, even United States - in other words all countries and regimes that neomarxists don't like are "state capitalism"?
Communist countries without private property and market prices, with non profit oriented enterprises were "capitalists"? Kaiser Germany economy was indistinguishable from the Nazi's? Nazis guaranteed the inviolability of private property? Maoist and modern China has no differences? And all of these countries economics are equal to modern US economy (like freak Chomsky says)?
The whole article is contradictory absurdity. "State capitalism" was never exist. Laissez-faire market = capitalism, state contolled economy = socialism, this is an elementary truth that any economist will confirm to you. 1 2 3 4 5 5.228.202.229 ( talk) 19:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I do feel like this article currently has a left wing bent. If i overcorrected in my edit, please let me know :)
I do think, however, it should be stated in the first sentence that the term is primarily used in marxists circles as of today. TheBsati ( talk) 22:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)