Do not state own companies practice neo-liberalism?

[RadioRaheem84]

After reading a chapter in Cambridge Economist Ha Joon Chang's book Bad Samaritans, it seems like there is a lot of foreign direct investment coming from state owned companies in the West and Asia. For one, Singapore has several state owned enterprises that also invest in several private ones and vice versa.

Does this change the dynamics of our critique of neo-liberalism and privatization?

For instance a London eletricity company which is private can be a subsidary of a state owned company in France and therefore the private light company is subsidizing French social benefits? :confused:

[Die Neue Zeit]

The less dogmatic neoliberals can accommodate nationalization, especially in the form of sovereign wealth funds (like the ones in Singapore and even France). "Free markets" pour vous, dirigisme pour moi.

[Sir Comradical]

The core of the Chilean economy under Pinochet was the Codelco copper company, a highly efficient state owned enterprise. However that was at a time when Chile was held up as the model of neo-liberal capitalism. State capitalist firms exist because in many cases, it's better for capitalists that the state runs certain industries on cost and not for profit. For example, a state owned steel company can provide cheaper steel for capitalist firms.

[RadioRaheem84]

So in essence it doesn't matter if the firm is state owned or not, neo liberalism is still the goal and sometimes this can work for the best of the ruling class if they're the ones in control of the SOEs? Like for instance China which has relatively ignored free market laws and instead uses state owned enterprises to direct investment abroad or vice versa?

[Sir Comradical]

So in essence it doesn't matter if the firm is state owned or not, neo liberalism is still the goal and sometimes this can work for the best of the ruling class if they're the ones in control of the SOEs? Like for instance China which has relatively ignored free market laws and instead uses state owned enterprises to direct investment abroad or vice versa?

Basically, neo-liberalism is hypocritical. It's preached to third world dictators for the purpose of exploiting cheap labour and extracting cheap resources.

Find me a principled neo-liberal, at I'll find you an intelligent GOP member!

Here's David Harvey on the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkWWMOzNNrQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwboT2DhJC8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZg4esZFhOU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhzkBRyhjlc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN3Iz7XzUWM&feature=related

[RadioRaheem84]

Is this to say though that there is no real big difference between state capitalism and capitalism? No real barrier between the government and economics like right wingers like to incessantly point out?

[MarxSchmarx]

Is this to say though that there is no real big difference between state capitalism and capitalism? No real barrier between the government and economics like right wingers like to incessantly point out?

That's why some fly the black flag along side the red flag.

The state is at best a relic of the capitalist mode of production. It was developed to serve the need of the capitalist class. As such, even in the best of circumstances, its institutional outlook and very existence remains deeply committed to capitalist ideology. The historical evidence for this has been overwhelming, and I see no reason why this pattern would be over-turned anytime soon.

[RadioRaheem84]

http://seekingalpha.com/article/130812-ten-ways-to-invest-in-cuba

Investors of private firms trading on the stock market finance Cuban Socialism.

There doesn't seem to be an example of socialism on earth.