Mixed economy = Socialism?

[spartan]

Could a state with a mixed economy (Both private and state owned sectors of the economy) be described as Socialist if the organs of power in this state are set up in the intrests of the Proletariat (A Dictatorship of the Proletariat) after being forced to do so by the workers themselves?

The thought entered my mind when i was watching a program about the whole banking shit that is going on in the world right now and the interviewer said to a head of a bank "This is supposed to be raw Capitalism in action and yet it isnt as there are government/state regulations which you must abide by and whenever things go bad the government/state can just come in and nationalise a bank like they did with Northern Rock."

I was also discussing with someone who is against Socialism as a transitionary stage to Communism and who justified this stance by saying "Marx was writting in a time when Capitalism wasnt yet fully developed, so Marx came up with the whole "Socialism as a transitionary stage" thing so that Capitalism could be fully developed in a world under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, that still has Capitalist economics and state ownership (Mixed economy), so that we can then go on to the next stage of Communism."

The latter persons vision of Socialism appears to be a Reformist Social Democratic one where there is a mixed economy and regulatory Capitalism.

So what do you think?

For me this doesnt explain how the Bourgeois class is suddenly made powerless (A workers revolution?) and is happy to do the workers bidding (How do the workers keep them in check, by the ballot box?)

As such i think it is unfeasible that a state with a mixed economy could ever truely become a Socialist state (Especially when the private sector of the economy is bigger than the state owned sector of the economy.)

Though this does bring up the question "what is a Socialist state?"

Is it a state who's entire economy is state owned and run? (Command/centrally planned economy like the old USSR) Or is it a state that has both private and state owned sectors of their economy (Mixed economy) but who's organs of power are under the control of the Proletariat or someone who claims to be doing things in the name of the Proletariat? (e.g. Venezuela and Hugo Chavez)

[GPDP]

This is a good question. I've had many people tell me that countries with mixed economies (i.e. not laissez-fair) are Socialist. But of course, these are the same people who then go on to say that countries with fully state-run economies such as the USSR are Communist, which is, of course, utterly false.

Nevertheless, I would say a Socialist economy would be one where the workers and the people in general are in charge, and hold either direct or indirect access to the means of production in some manner. But perhaps someone more enlightened on this matter could clarify this further.

[Kropotesta]

Sounds like you're talking of corporatism, developed by Mussolini and advocated by such fascists as Oswald Mosely.

[hekmatista]

Under Capitalist mixed economies, the worker stands in the same relationship to his employer whether s/he is in the private or the state sector; still selling labor power under the whip of deprivation. Welfare statism can make the whip less sharp (it will probably not be the threat of hunger, per se, in the advanced economies, though you even see that in USA) but a whip nonetheless. If you nationalise ALL the industries this doesn't really change anything either, as we saw in the old Eastern Bloc.
The more interesting part of your question, though, was the probable nature of an economy when workers have really achieved their class dictatorship, in their own name, not just through some vanguard surrogate. The presence of a private sector, a state sector, and a socialized worker-run sector, at a given moment in time does not make such a society unsocialist or unproletarian OF ITSELF. The direction of movement and its pace have a large bearing, however. More and more of the necessaries of life must be guaranteed as a right, independent of the individual labor-contribution, as time goes on. The administration of distribution and of production must increasingly come under the direct control of the producers. The private and state sectors must shrink in proportion as the socialized sector grows, with the eventual abolition of money (even in the form of labor coupons, which will exist for some time into the future). The eventual goal is a "gift economy" in which goods are produced because they are needed and consumed because they are wanted and workers work because that is the expression of our creative essence as humans.

[Dros]

No. Socialism is an economic mode of production defined by ownership of the means of production by the Proletariat through the state.

[apathy maybe]

No. Socialism is an economic mode of production defined by ownership of the means of production by the Proletariat through the state.

That is definitely one definition. However, there are many more then just that definition.

In this thread, http://www.revleft.com/vb/whats-socialism-t48676/index.html one person asks "what is socialism", and receives a number of different answers. Since at least 2006 I've differentiated between "broad" and "narrow" socialism. With your answer being one example of a "narrow" definition.

Myself, I consider myself a socialist. But not by your narrow definition, but by the broad definition.

Here's another thread http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-someone-outline-t32503/index.html


Socialism is variously: the broad set of ideologies that are egalitarian and anti-capitalist (including anarchism); a socialist state; a term used to describe the intermediate period between capitalism and communism in Marxism.

But, using a Marxian definition, http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-class-society-t23480/index.html (yeah, and you can probably ignore my comments from that period and earlier).


Classic redstar2000, what is communism and socialism
http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-brief-definition-t6357/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-attempt-definition-t6360/index.html


To answer the the thread starter's question, meh. I suggest having a look through some of those threads and make up your own mind. As demonstrated, there are far too many definitions of socialism to expect to get a consensus on the issue.

[mikelepore]

There would be no proletariat in a classless system. That's the name of one of the classes in a class-divided system.

"When the proletariat wins victory, it by no means becomes the absolute side of society, for it wins victory only by abolishing itself and its opposite." -- Marx, _The Holy Family_, 1845

"The condition for the emancipation of the working class is the abolition of every class." -- Marx, _The Poverty of Philosophy_, 1847

[Dros]

That is definitely one definition.

That is the Marxist definition.

[apathy maybe]

That is the Marxist definition.

That is one Marxist definition. And just because it is the Marxist definition, doesn't mean it is useful.

One reason why I'm not a Marxist (not even a autonomist) is that I don't find such definitions useful. The definition of the state, for example, isn't useful at all for me.

I was going to respond more to this, but I find it boring. I'm sure you can find, if you are interested, other discussions on Marxist definitions, or at the very least on socialism. Some of the links I posted earlier would be a good start.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I've never understood people who make this claim. If you're using the word MIXED economy, doesn't that imply it isn't socialism? :rolleyes:

[Zurdito]

all economies are mixed economies. the state itself is a tool of the bourgeoisie and therefore even huge amount of nationalisation doesn't make it "socialism", otherwise Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Qadaffi's Libya would have been "socialist". Liek you say spartan in all states ultimately the state has final say over any one corporation or member of the bourgeosie. why? because the state is the collective expression of the bourgeoisie as a whole. So nationalising one company or whatever doesn't introduce socialism or "public ownership", it just places that company under the ownership of the bourgeoisie of that state as a whole. This is because the state in a bougeois society is not "publically" or "collectively" owned.

it becomes socialism only after a revoluton, and by definition the revolution isn't complete if there is still a bourgeoisie...we could call thast situation dual power or bonapartism, bt it will develop one way or another, and until the final victory is pushed through which sets in motion the liquidation of the bourgeoisie under a workers controlled state with no bonapart dictator (like chavez) acting "between the classes", then it's not socialism, rather it is a bonapartist dictatorship being put forward as the last gasp attempt of the bourgeoisie to save itself (by sacrificing some of its own) and hold out for long enough untilt he workers movement can be crushed, eithe by the bonpart or by an outright bourgeois coup/counter-revolution.

[Dros]

That is one Marxist definition. And just because it is the Marxist definition, doesn't mean it is useful.

That is the Marxist conception of what Socialism is. I understand that you are not a Marxist. But since I am I will be using this conception of socialism. "Socialism" is just a word. It is a collection of sounds that we assign a certain meaning. If you intend for it to mean "cow" then socialism can be a cow. The question, as I understood it, is can mixed economic systems be considered socialism (presumably under a Marxist conception of socialism and not some "left wing of capital" conception). The answer is no. That is an objective fact.