State capitalism and market socialism

What is or are the differences between state capitalism and market socialism, if there are any? Also, would the last "socialist" countries on Earth be better classified as state capitalist or market socialist (unless you believe they're still socialist).

Attached: N7lPeF2_d.jpg (640x320, 76.55K)

Other urls found in this thread:

anarchyinaction.org/index.php?title=Zapatista-run_Chiapas
youtube.com/watch?v=BQrEEdy_uwM
truthout.org/articles/socialism-means-abolishing-the-distinction-between-bosses-and-employees/
amazon.es/Class-Theory-History-Capitalism-Communism/dp/0415933188
goodreads.com/quotes/84779-to-read-too-many-books-is-harmful
greatyearinchina.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/this-is-how-we-do-it-in-china/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

State capitalism doesn't exist, it's a ⛏️rotskyist word to attack to Soviet Union without any actual arguments so they use the bad word (capitalism) to scare off non communists or people radicalizing turning them against the vanguard of socialism in the world at the time.
I still don't know a lot about market socialism, so sorry about that one.

State capitalism is a buzzword.
Market socialism is a free market socialist society.

But what about China or Vietnam nowadays? Aren't they considered state capitalist by most socialists?

Attached: saddam.jpg (275x183, 8.92K)

I mean yes the free market is objectively a bad thing, it's for this reason that I openly insult all mutualists but socialism technically doesn't need to be anti free market.

Depends on who you ask to define state capitalism. For example; a Marxist may define state capitalism as a system of governance that combines capitalism with ownership or control by a state i.e where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting the surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production.

Anarchism has a slightly similar definition. To an anarchist, having a state control the workplace as opposed to the workers having DIRECT control of the MOP would be considered state capitalist.

I see, but for example, in a country where the state de facto owns the MoP, but the workers pretty much control them in every way possible, that would still be socialism right? Also, can this system be considered what the USSR was before the Kruschevite liberalizations?

No, free market capitalism does not exist, it is pure ideology. State has always been playing a central role in capitalism game. i.e. the African Country Mali, producing the best cotton in the world, cannot compete with US and EU product because of subsidies.

And there in lies the rub, especially when you get theoretical debates regarding as what counts as socialism.

If we're talking about the workers "controlling the state" evidence still shows that the state can over-ride decisions made by workers in order fill out their own agenda, as was the case in the USSR (i.e the petrograd strikes, which would lead to the Kronstadt rebellion). Is Australia therefore socialist because the people as a whole VOTED on wether or not gay marriage should be legalised in Australia, and is thus using the state to carry out its will? No. However, just because workers control the MOP doesn't mean that it's exempt from global capitalism either.

For example, one could state that Tito's yugoslavia was socialist as there were more workers co-ops, but there was still the accumulation of capital, and it still competed on international markets as well as opening itself up to liberalisation.

I could make the same cases for the Zapatistas, who, although having communal ownership of shops, farms etc, aren't necessarily out of the loop when it comes to global capitalism.

"We describe the economic activities of the Zapatistas as contradictory substantive practices. They are not in direct antagonism to the capitalist law of value, but they are undoubtably transformative. They are capital and state resistant, as they prevent complete incorporation into world-capitalist institutions and processes. They are anti-capital in certain respects or at certain times, but sometimes supportive of capitalism, even simultaneously."
anarchyinaction.org/index.php?title=Zapatista-run_Chiapas