Since the libs keep telling me that I am a state capitalist, I asked AI about that term out of curiosity and I got this answer.

“The term you are looking for is “state socialism” or “state capitalism.” State socialism is an economic system in which the state owns and controls the means of production, and the state plays a significant role in the economy. In this system, the state may own all the businesses and capital, and private property may be abolished.

State socialism is often seen as a transitional phase between capitalism and socialism, where the state takes control of the means of production in order to redistribute wealth and resources more equally. The ultimate goal of state socialism is to eventually transition to a socialist society where the means of production are owned and controlled by the workers or community, rather than the state.

It’s worth noting that state socialism has been implemented in various forms in different countries throughout history, and the specific characteristics of this system can vary depending on the country and the political ideology of the ruling party. Some examples of state socialist systems include the former Soviet Union, China, and Cuba.

In contrast, socialism, in its pure form, is an economic system where the means of production are owned and controlled by the workers or community, rather than the state. In socialism, private property is abolished, and the focus is on meeting the needs of all members of society, rather than maximizing profits for a select few. Socialism can take various forms, such as cooperative socialism, market socialism, or democratic socialism.

It’s worth noting that the terms “state socialism” and “state capitalism” are often used interchangeably, but they have slightly different meanings. State capitalism refers specifically to an economic system where the state plays a significant role in the economy, but private property still exists. In contrast, state socialism refers to an economic system where the state owns and controls the means of production, and private property has been abolished.”

  • cfgaussian
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Instead of asking a dumb AI that just amalgamates a bunch of random sources of questionable competency why not go to what Lenin himself wrote about this? In “The Tax In Kind” (1921) he states the following:

    “State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in this country.”

    […]

    “No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Soviet Socialist Republic implies the determination of the Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the existing economic system is recognised as a socialist order.”

    […]

    "Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organisation which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries).

    At the same time socialism is inconceivable unless the proletariat is the ruler of the state. This also is ABC."

    […]

    "At present petty-bourgeois capitalism prevails in Russia, and it is one and the same road that leads from it to both large-scale state capitalism and to socialism, through one and the same intermediary station called “national accounting and control of production and distribution”. Those who fail to understand this are committing an un-pardonable mistake in economics. Either they do not know the facts of life, do not see what actually exists and are unable to look the truth in the face, or they confine themselves to abstractly comparing “socialism” with “capitalism” and fail to study the concrete forms and stages of the transition that is taking place in our country.

    Let it be said in parenthesis that this is the very theoretical mistake which misled the best people in the Novaya Zhizn and Vperyod camp. The worst and the mediocre of these, owing to their stupidity and spinelessness, tag along behind the bourgeoisie, of whom they stand in awe; the best of them have failed to understand that it was not without reason that the teachers of socialism spoke of a whole period of transition from capitalism to socialism and emphasised the “prolonged birth pangs” of the new society. And this new society is again an abstraction which can come into being only by passing through a series of varied, imperfect and concrete attempts to create this or that socialist state.

    It is because Russia cannot advance from the economic situation now existing-here without traversing the ground which is common to state capitalism and to socialism (national accounting and control) that the attempt to frighten others as well as themselves with “evolution towards state capitalism” is utter theoretical nonsense. This is letting one’s thoughts wander away from the true road of “evolution”, and failing to understand what this road is. In practice, it is equivalent to pulling us back to small proprietary capitalism."

    And then later he quotes from an earlier work:

    "“For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. . . .

    “State-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs”

    Please note that this was written when Kerensky was in power, that we are discussing not the dictatorship of the proletariat, not the socialist state, but the “revolutionary democratic” state. Is it not clear that the higher we stand on this political ladder, the more completely we incorporate the socialist state and the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviets, the less ought we to fear “state capitalism”? Is it not clear that from the material, economic and productive point of view, we are not yet on the “threshold” of socialism? Is it not clear that we cannot pass through the door of socialism without crossing the “threshold” we have not yet reached? . . ."

    Another couple of instructive passages:

    […]

    “On the one hand, we must ruthlessly suppress the uncultured capitalists who refuse to have anything to do with “state capitalism” or to consider any form of compromise, and who continue by means of profiteering, by bribing the poor peasants, etc., to hinder the realisation of the measures taken by the Soviets. On the other hand, we must use the method of compromise, or of buying out the cultured capitalists who agree to “state capitalism”, who are capable of putting it into practice and who are useful to the proletariat as intelligent and experienced organisers of the largest types of enterprises, which actually supply products to tens of millions of people.”

    […]

    "Now power has been seized, retained and consolidated in the hands of a single party, the party of the proletariat, even without the “unreliable fellow-travellers”. To speak of compromise at the present time when there is no question, and can be none, of sharing power, of renouncing the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, is merely to repeat, parrot-fashion, words which have been learned by heart but not understood. To describe as “compromise” the fact that, having arrived at a situation when we can and must rule the country, we try to win over to our side, not grudging the cost, the most efficient people capitalism has trained and to take them into our service against small proprietary disintegration, reveals a total incapacity to think about the economic tasks of socialist construction."

    I advise you to read this work in its entirety paying special attention to what he says about the function of state capitalism in the transition period of socialism.

    The main takeaways are that firstly the distinction between “state capitalism” and “state socialism” is immaterial, secondly that to contrast “state socialism” with “socialism, in its pure form” is meaningless because socialism itself is a transition phase. In a sense socialism is merely state capitalism harnessed under the dictatorship of the proletariat. The degree to which private property and private enterprise still exist is not important as they are either way subjugated to the proletarian state; how much or how little of it is allowed will depend on the specific circumstances of every socialist society, determined by the historic and geopolitical context which it finds itself in.