Does state capitalism = public capitalism?

[Lynx]

State capitalism, in its classic meaning, is a private capitalist economy under state control. This term was often used to describe the controlled economies of the great powers in the First World War.[1] In more modern sense, state capitalism is a term that is used interchangeable with state monopoly capitalism to describe a system where state is intervening in the markets to protect and advance interests of big business. This practice is in sharp contrast with the ideals of free market capitalism.[2]

This term is also used by some heterodox economists to describe a society wherein the productive forces are owned and run by a state in a capitalist way, even if such a state chooses to call itself socialist.[3] Within Marxist literature, state capitalism is usually defined in the latter sense: as a social system combining capitalism — the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value — with ownership by a state apparatus. By that definition, a state capitalist country is a country where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation.
Would the latter structure be equivalent to public capitalism?
If the state owns all business then all profits belong to the state. After deducting the overhead needed to run the government, the profits could then be distributed to each person equally.
What is wrong with this scenario? Is it not a transitional step - to bring private surplus extraction (and a functioning capitalist economy) into the public sphere?

[spartan]

Would the latter structure be equivalent to public capitalism?
If the state owns all business then all profits belong to the state. After deducting the overhead needed to run the government, the profits could then be distributed to each person equally.
What is wrong with this scenario? Is it not a transitional step - to bring private surplus extraction (and a functioning capitalist economy) into the public sphere?
The trouble with this system is who runs it; the bureaucracy!

This sytem is unreliable and open to abuse like it was in the USSR where the state bureaucracy - appointed to run the economy - became corrupt and allowed itself to have a bigger share of the profits then the workers (which is why bureaucrats lived in nice country dacha's whilst workers lived in small apartments, had to queue for their bread and experienced periodic power shortages).

If this is the transitional period then we would need another revolution to overthrow the bureaucracy as they naturally won't want society to advance to communism as they can no longer abuse the system for their, and not our, benefit.

[Lynx]

Then the problem is in maintaining worker control of the transitional bureaucrats(?). Can participatory democracy keep a tight enough reign on them?

[spartan]

Then the problem is in maintaining worker control of the transitional bureaucrats(?). Can participatory democracy keep a tight enough reign on them?
I must admit that I thought that electing them would keep them under control (i.e. "if you start messing about then your out in the next elections") but I am not sure?

Democratizing a "state capitalist" system would certainly make the bureaucracy who run it much more accountable to the people, but I am sure that they would find away around it all somehow (it would be in their intrests to do so after all).

Indeed one way of overcoming this would be to withhold things (easy enough when you're the ones running the economy) from sections of the public who oppose them? Mugabe does this in Zimbabwe.

[Lynx]

I must admit that I thought that electing them would keep them under control (i.e. "if you start messing about then your out in the next elections") but I am not sure?

Democratizing a "state capitalist" system would certainly make the bureaucracy who run it much more accountable to the people, but I am sure that they would find away around it all somehow (it would be in their intrests to do so after all).
Term limits, rotation of personnel, sortition for watchdog committees?


Indeed one way of overcoming this would be to withhold things (easy enough when you're the ones running the economy) from sections of the public who oppose them? Mugabe does this in Zimbabwe.
This would depend on the extent of their involvement in managing the economy. In the beginning capitalists would still be running things, but as the economy was transformed the role of the state would increase. But my limited understanding is that part of this transformation would proceed from the bottom up, with worker's councils being established so that they can participate in management decisions. I'm still confused about this, because worker involment sounds like participatory economics while state control is akin to central planning. A mix of both, I guess.

Materially, what is different from jumping right into a state capitalist system versus what Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela?

Edit: I omitted to describe the minimalist, hypothetical process by which state capitalism is enacted. In considering the definition given by Wikipedia I concerned myself solely with the basic structure of state capitalism. Therefore:
1. A state-capitalist government takes power.
2. They pass a decree nationalizing all private business. ("one fell swoop")
3. Apart from installing the mechanisms necessary to collect and distribute the national profit, they allow capitalism to continue functioning as before. Thus, the decree is minimalist: nationalization = change in ownership only.
4. Profits are distributed to each citizen equally (the quarterly net result of your average capitalist economy)
...
5. Begin rest of transition to socialism.

I purposefully ignored how state capitalism came about historically, or even it's actual structure as shaped by many years of bureaucratic 'creep'. My intent was to examine what was wrong with this process as a minimal transitional step towards socialism. Now I am also considering what socialists in Venezuela are trying to do in real life and how this compares with the above hypothetical model.

[Niccolò Rossi]

What is wrong with this scenario?

The problem is it's still capitalism. Workers management of their exploitation is still exploitation.


Is it not a transitional step - to bring private surplus extraction (and a functioning capitalist economy) into the public sphere?

Of course the nationalisation of the means of production may be a necessary transitional step, however it is misleading to call state ownership, "public" ownership or for that matter a step in the right direction.

[Lynx]

The problem is it's still capitalism. Workers management of their exploitation is still exploitation.
That would seem inevitable until a non-exploitative system is put in place.
What is the alternative?

"Their time is up and they move into the hands of the state," Chavez said at a political rally late on Monday. "These are all steps towards socialism."
What advantage does this approach have when compared to state capitalism in one fell swoop?
The parts of the Venezuelan economy that are not nationalized remain in private hands. Their capital and profit surplus are not under workers' management (or should we say 'the socialist government on behalf of the working class of Venezuela's management).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Would the latter structure be equivalent to public capitalism?
If the state owns all business then all profits belong to the state. After deducting the overhead needed to run the government, the profits could then be distributed to each person equally.
What is wrong with this scenario? Is it not a transitional step - to bring private surplus extraction (and a functioning capitalist economy) into the public sphere?

The second definition of state capitalism is a reference to public services that operate top-down like a corporation.

[spice756]

The trouble with this system is who runs it; the bureaucracy!

This sytem is unreliable and open to abuse like it was in the USSR where the state bureaucracy - appointed to run the economy - became corrupt and allowed itself to have a bigger share of the profits then the workers (which is why bureaucrats lived in nice country dacha's whilst workers lived in small apartments, had to queue for their bread and experienced periodic power shortages).


It was more than just communist party members getting more pay,nice house and car .But state capitalism in the USSR.The communist party members extract surplus value of the workers.Non of the money was gon to the state but the party ministers.The ministers became CEO and capitalists.

If you where high up communist party member you could privatize your secter .Mot to even say they put profit in command.

Same thing after Mao Zedong allowing the private sector and allowing the US to go and exploit China.Now what do you got capitalism China with red flag.



If this is the transitional period then we would need another revolution to overthrow the bureaucracy as they naturally won't want society to advance to communism as they can no longer abuse the system for their, and not our, benefit.

The KGB where arresting corrupt communist party members and there was election.There was no law in place to stop state capitalism and the money going to the state.

[spice756]

Wikipedia I concerned myself solely with the basic structure of state capitalism. Therefore:
1. A state-capitalist government takes power.
2. They pass a decree nationalizing all private business. ("one fell swoop")
3. Apart from installing the mechanisms necessary to collect and distribute the national profit, they allow capitalism to continue functioning as before. Thus, the decree is minimalist: nationalization = change in ownership only.
4. Profits are distributed to each citizen equally (the quarterly net result of your average capitalist economy)
...
5. Begin rest of transition to socialism.

There 4 ways economics is run .
1.business control the goverment ( fascism like the US )
2.free market (libertarian)
3.restricted free market( liberals and conservatives )
4.Goverment control business ( communism )

In Communism the government owns the stores ,factories and farms every thing .And you work for the government so want you sale on the farm the government tells you how much you have like money so the money is devided far.

Higher stage communism there is no state and no money.


Well liberals and conservatives is some thing new :eek:to counter awful libertarian.They came in to stop revolution going on in the late 1800's and early 1900's.I belive the rockefeller almost monopolies with his oil.

The late 1800's and early 1900's. was time of slave labor worse than walmart .