Public vs private ownership of companies is a case by case basis. Many “capitalist” countries have many publicly owned companies. We used to have even more before Thatcher and Reagan. Now we have moved into a more public private partnership idea, which is a compromise.
Monopolies are able to extract monopoly rents through market power. This is one of the problems of rentier capitalism. That is why we have antitrust laws. We also need a system that prevents political rents from lobbyism for example by making it illegal for politicians to have stocks or to take campaign money from donors. We also have land rents from private land ownership. Singapore has a public land lease model, but a land value tax would achieve the exact same outcome.
In economics you talk about natural monopolies which is when initial investment costs are too high for competitors to exist or when physics or other constraints prevent competition (think of a railway line between two cities). There are many ways to argue that these types of companies should be publicly owned within a capitalist framework.
So yes, there is an in-between. And it depends exactly how much business is left to the government and how much is left to companies. This balance is defined by politics.
The discrepancy between the stance of Marxists and yourself is in your analysis of “Capitalism” as the private sector and “Socialism” as the public sector. This form of compartmentalization does indeed imply that everything is a balance, but that isn’t the analysis of Marxists. When I describe public ownership above as the principle aspect of the PRC’s economy, I mean that the large firms and key industries are firmly and overwhelmingly in the public sector. The reason this is relevant is because this means the public has dominion over the entire economy, not private Capital. It isn’t a blend of Socialism and Capitalism, or a halfway point, it’s a Socialist economy.
When you outline your ideal society, having antitrust laws, strong regulations, etc, you leave out analysis of political power. Which class has control of the state? Which class controls media, and the large firms and key industries? Without such analysis, these antitrust laws and corporate lobbying laws will only be passed in a manner that serves Private Capital, including the public sector.
So, circling back around, there isn’t an in-between of Capitalism or Socialism/Communism. A country is either on the Capitalist road, or the Socialist road, ie it is either under the dominion of private Capital, or public ownership. The ratio of socialization of the economy will vary depending on economic development, but the direction it is moving and the power dynamics of the classes within society are relatively binary.
That’s why I say you haven’t actually engaged with Communists and their ideas, legitimately, and likely would agree with us.
When you outline your ideal society, having antitrust laws, strong regulations, etc, you leave out analysis of political power.
They seem to have some inkling of that based on their last paragraph (emphasis mine):
So yes, there is an in-between. And it depends exactly how much business is left to the government and how much is left to companies. This balance is defined by politics.
[Y]ou haven’t actually engaged with Communists and their ideas, legitimately, and likely would agree with us.
Good point. I do want to highlight, however, that “politics” for them seems to be divorced from the base, sovereign as an almost “outsider.” The class struggle appears to be missing, along with the class character of the state. They very nearly grasp the essence of the Marxist position, if we remove the terminological differences, you’re correct.
Public vs private ownership of companies is a case by case basis. Many “capitalist” countries have many publicly owned companies. We used to have even more before Thatcher and Reagan. Now we have moved into a more public private partnership idea, which is a compromise.
Monopolies are able to extract monopoly rents through market power. This is one of the problems of rentier capitalism. That is why we have antitrust laws. We also need a system that prevents political rents from lobbyism for example by making it illegal for politicians to have stocks or to take campaign money from donors. We also have land rents from private land ownership. Singapore has a public land lease model, but a land value tax would achieve the exact same outcome.
In economics you talk about natural monopolies which is when initial investment costs are too high for competitors to exist or when physics or other constraints prevent competition (think of a railway line between two cities). There are many ways to argue that these types of companies should be publicly owned within a capitalist framework.
So yes, there is an in-between. And it depends exactly how much business is left to the government and how much is left to companies. This balance is defined by politics.
The discrepancy between the stance of Marxists and yourself is in your analysis of “Capitalism” as the private sector and “Socialism” as the public sector. This form of compartmentalization does indeed imply that everything is a balance, but that isn’t the analysis of Marxists. When I describe public ownership above as the principle aspect of the PRC’s economy, I mean that the large firms and key industries are firmly and overwhelmingly in the public sector. The reason this is relevant is because this means the public has dominion over the entire economy, not private Capital. It isn’t a blend of Socialism and Capitalism, or a halfway point, it’s a Socialist economy.
When you outline your ideal society, having antitrust laws, strong regulations, etc, you leave out analysis of political power. Which class has control of the state? Which class controls media, and the large firms and key industries? Without such analysis, these antitrust laws and corporate lobbying laws will only be passed in a manner that serves Private Capital, including the public sector.
So, circling back around, there isn’t an in-between of Capitalism or Socialism/Communism. A country is either on the Capitalist road, or the Socialist road, ie it is either under the dominion of private Capital, or public ownership. The ratio of socialization of the economy will vary depending on economic development, but the direction it is moving and the power dynamics of the classes within society are relatively binary.
That’s why I say you haven’t actually engaged with Communists and their ideas, legitimately, and likely would agree with us.
They seem to have some inkling of that based on their last paragraph (emphasis mine):
Hopefully true based on what I just highlighted.
Good point. I do want to highlight, however, that “politics” for them seems to be divorced from the base, sovereign as an almost “outsider.” The class struggle appears to be missing, along with the class character of the state. They very nearly grasp the essence of the Marxist position, if we remove the terminological differences, you’re correct.