Post #4381552

2026-08-04 19:02 UTC

I don’t think it makes sense to classify the private sector as the “capitalist” sector, and the public sector as the “socialist” sector. The same would be true in the US Empire, with the military and whatnot as the “socialist” sector of the economy. The actual identity of an overall economy is in the principal aspect, and this is crucial because the rest of the economy, even if it isn’t within said principal aspect, is constantly either reinforcing or working its way towards said principal aspect. This, I think, is the most useful way to explain to newcomers why China is socialist. It isn’t about ratios of public to private, nor about being mixed, as nearly all economies are de facto mixed, even if de jure they are not. We can instead identify and explain this principal aspect as a use of dialectical and historical materialism. Awesome sources though!

Replies (1)

@dessalines@lemmy.ml 2026-08-04 19:29

I agree that the “principle aspect” as you say, or which class is holding power and ultimately controls both the economy and the political system, is most important. I’d argue though that the primary difference in these sectors is who is in control of the surplus, and whose benefit it goes to. In the PRC and even in Cuba, there are still private capitalists who effectively control the surplus generated within those companies, and use it as they see fit. They’re severely limited of course, but they still function differently from the socialist sector whose surplus is worker-controlled via 5 year plans. The only “socialist industry” I can think of in western countries, outside of tiny examples like coops, are things like state-run natural resource and energy companies. The US military is just the enforcement arm of capital, planned and controlled by capital. Even state-run social services shouldn’t really be thought of as socialist, since they produce no surplus value, and are funded via other ways, and are overall capitalist-planned.

Open ##4381551