#statecapitalism — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #statecapitalism, aggregated by home.social.
-
How should the economy be organized?
#socialdemocracy #socialism #communism #politics #capitalism #statecapitalism #plannedeconomy #cooperative #foundations
-
How should the economy be organized?
#socialdemocracy #socialism #communism #politics #capitalism #statecapitalism #plannedeconomy #cooperative #foundations
-
How should the economy be organized?
#socialdemocracy #socialism #communism #politics #capitalism #statecapitalism #plannedeconomy #cooperative #foundations
-
How should the economy be organized?
#socialdemocracy #socialism #communism #politics #capitalism #statecapitalism #plannedeconomy #cooperative #foundations
-
How should the economy be organized?
#socialdemocracy #socialism #communism #politics #capitalism #statecapitalism #plannedeconomy #cooperative #foundations
-
https://www.europesays.com/people/201919/ Successful Ukrainian drone strikes force Putin to bring back state capitalism principles in Russia #AbbasGallyamov #AfipskyOilRefinery #CommercialCentres #Communications #CriticalInfrastructure #DenisManturov #disruptions #Energy #FuelShortages #GovernmentControl #Industry #Logistics #OilFacilities #Russia #SecurityConcerns #StateCapitalism #UkrainianDroneStrikes #VeniaminKondratyev #VladimirPutin #Wildberries
-
The Lee Jae-myung Government’s ‘New Theory of the State’
The Book of Job in the Old Testament features a terrifying sea monster. Breaking iron like tree branches…
#EuropeSays #Korea #KR #SouthKorea #KimYong-beom #Koreaeconomy #LeeJaeMyung #LeeJae-myunggovernment #marketandgovernment #newtheoryofthestate #realestateregulation #statecapitalism #stateintervention
https://www.europesays.com/korea/110446/ -
Trotsky, Lénine, Staline : la révolution permanente ou le détour par le capitalisme d’État ?
Vouloir “sauter” le capitalisme au nom d’une révolution permanente peut conduire non au communisme, mais à un capitalisme d’État. Marx pensait plutôt une dialectique du développement historique, où le communisme émerge des contradictions du capitalisme lui-même. #Marx #Trotsky #Lenin #Stalin #StateCapitalism La thèse de la “révolution permanente” chez Trotsky pose une question…
-
Trotsky, Lénine, Staline : la révolution permanente ou le détour par le capitalisme d’État ?
Vouloir “sauter” le capitalisme au nom d’une révolution permanente peut conduire non au communisme, mais à un capitalisme d’État. Marx pensait plutôt une dialectique du développement historique, où le communisme émerge des contradictions du capitalisme lui-même. #Marx #Trotsky #Lenin #Stalin #StateCapitalism La thèse de la “révolution permanente” chez Trotsky pose une question…
-
OnlineFirst - "Central bank digital currencies and state capitalism in China: The decentralisation and recentralisation dynamics of the E-CNY" by Lianchao Chen:
#centralbankdigitalcurrencies #China #statecapitalism #localgovernment #decentralisation
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0308518X261466851
-
OnlineFirst - "Central bank digital currencies and state capitalism in China: The decentralisation and recentralisation dynamics of the E-CNY" by Lianchao Chen:
#centralbankdigitalcurrencies #China #statecapitalism #localgovernment #decentralisation
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0308518X261466851
-
https://www.europesays.com/people/153655/ After Blasting Trump’s Intel Deal, Gavin Newsom Jokes California Should Collect Tesla Shares for ‘Corporate Welfare’ Given to Elon Musk #california #CaliforniaGovernor #CorporateWelfare #DonaldTrump #ElonMusk #GavinNewsom #IntelCorp #PresidentJoeBiden #StateCapitalism #TeslaShares #TimCook #WallStreetJournal
-
L’exploitation au-delà des formes de domination
La forme du dominateur importe moins que la permanence de l’exploitation. Tant que les producteurs restent séparés de la décision sur la production, ils demeurent dominés — par le capital privé ou par la bureaucratie d’État. #Marxism #Exploitation #Workers #StateCapitalism #Class Du point de vue marxiste, la question décisive n’est pas seulement de savoir qui possède juridiquement les moyens de production.
https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/07/01/lexploitation-au-dela-des-formes-de-domination/
-
L’exploitation au-delà des formes de domination
La forme du dominateur importe moins que la permanence de l’exploitation. Tant que les producteurs restent séparés de la décision sur la production, ils demeurent dominés — par le capital privé ou par la bureaucratie d’État. #Marxism #Exploitation #Workers #StateCapitalism #Class Du point de vue marxiste, la question décisive n’est pas seulement de savoir qui possède juridiquement les moyens de production.
https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/07/01/lexploitation-au-dela-des-formes-de-domination/
-
L’exploitation au-delà des formes de domination
La forme du dominateur importe moins que la permanence de l’exploitation. Tant que les producteurs restent séparés de la décision sur la production, ils demeurent dominés — par le capital privé ou par la bureaucratie d’État. #Marxism #Exploitation #Workers #StateCapitalism #Class Du point de vue marxiste, la question décisive n’est pas seulement de savoir qui possède juridiquement les moyens de production.
https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/07/01/lexploitation-au-dela-des-formes-de-domination/
-
L’exploitation au-delà des formes de domination
La forme du dominateur importe moins que la permanence de l’exploitation. Tant que les producteurs restent séparés de la décision sur la production, ils demeurent dominés — par le capital privé ou par la bureaucratie d’État. #Marxism #Exploitation #Workers #StateCapitalism #Class Du point de vue marxiste, la question décisive n’est pas seulement de savoir qui possède juridiquement les moyens de production.
https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/07/01/lexploitation-au-dela-des-formes-de-domination/
-
L’exploitation au-delà des formes de domination
La forme du dominateur importe moins que la permanence de l’exploitation. Tant que les producteurs restent séparés de la décision sur la production, ils demeurent dominés — par le capital privé ou par la bureaucratie d’État. #Marxism #Exploitation #Workers #StateCapitalism #Class Du point de vue marxiste, la question décisive n’est pas seulement de savoir qui possède juridiquement les moyens de production.
https://homohortus31.wordpress.com/2026/07/01/lexploitation-au-dela-des-formes-de-domination/
-
(2) on Trump/Xi 2026
I remember the “kerfuffle” in 1972 when during War on Vietnam ‘Nixon the Crook’ met with ‘Mao the Cult’ and the fallout amongst authoritarian Left and Right alike.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_visit_by_Richard_Nixon_to_ChinaAustralian Labour Govt Opposition leader in 1971; as Prime Minister 1973 Whitlam began trade deals with China’s State Capitalists too
-
(2) on Trump/Xi 2026
I remember the “kerfuffle” in 1972 when during War on Vietnam ‘Nixon the Crook’ met with ‘Mao the Cult’ and the fallout amongst authoritarian Left and Right alike.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_visit_by_Richard_Nixon_to_ChinaAustralian Labour Govt Opposition leader in 1971; as Prime Minister 1973 Whitlam began trade deals with China’s State Capitalists too
-
(2) on Trump/Xi 2026
I remember the “kerfuffle” in 1972 when during War on Vietnam ‘Nixon the Crook’ met with ‘Mao the Cult’ and the fallout amongst authoritarian Left and Right alike.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_visit_by_Richard_Nixon_to_ChinaAustralian Labour Govt Opposition leader in 1971; as Prime Minister 1973 Whitlam began trade deals with China’s State Capitalists too
-
(2) on Trump/Xi 2026
I remember the “kerfuffle” in 1972 when during War on Vietnam ‘Nixon the Crook’ met with ‘Mao the Cult’ and the fallout amongst authoritarian Left and Right alike.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_visit_by_Richard_Nixon_to_ChinaAustralian Labour Govt Opposition leader in 1971; as Prime Minister 1973 Whitlam began trade deals with China’s State Capitalists too
-
(2) on Trump/Xi 2026
I remember the “kerfuffle” in 1972 when during War on Vietnam ‘Nixon the Crook’ met with ‘Mao the Cult’ and the fallout amongst authoritarian Left and Right alike.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_visit_by_Richard_Nixon_to_ChinaAustralian Labour Govt Opposition leader in 1971; as Prime Minister 1973 Whitlam began trade deals with China’s State Capitalists too
-
#Ai trip 2026:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-12/tim-cook-musk-among-top-executives-accompanying-trump-to-china/1066685842017 Boeing, General Electric, Goldman Sachs Trip
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-12/trump-xi-beijing-summit-must-confront-ai-cold-war/106666482An earlier business trip:
54 years ago #Nixon / #Mao aka USA/China ie. Capitalism/State-Capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_visit_by_Richard_Nixon_to_China -
#Ai trip 2026:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-12/tim-cook-musk-among-top-executives-accompanying-trump-to-china/1066685842017 Boeing, General Electric, Goldman Sachs Trip
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-12/trump-xi-beijing-summit-must-confront-ai-cold-war/106666482An earlier business trip:
54 years ago #Nixon / #Mao aka USA/China ie. Capitalism/State-Capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_visit_by_Richard_Nixon_to_China -
#Ai trip 2026:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-12/tim-cook-musk-among-top-executives-accompanying-trump-to-china/1066685842017 Boeing, General Electric, Goldman Sachs Trip
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-12/trump-xi-beijing-summit-must-confront-ai-cold-war/106666482An earlier business trip:
54 years ago #Nixon / #Mao aka USA/China ie. Capitalism/State-Capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_visit_by_Richard_Nixon_to_China -
#Ai trip 2026:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-12/tim-cook-musk-among-top-executives-accompanying-trump-to-china/1066685842017 Boeing, General Electric, Goldman Sachs Trip
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-12/trump-xi-beijing-summit-must-confront-ai-cold-war/106666482An earlier business trip:
54 years ago #Nixon / #Mao aka USA/China ie. Capitalism/State-Capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_visit_by_Richard_Nixon_to_China -
#Ai trip 2026:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-12/tim-cook-musk-among-top-executives-accompanying-trump-to-china/1066685842017 Boeing, General Electric, Goldman Sachs Trip
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-12/trump-xi-beijing-summit-must-confront-ai-cold-war/106666482An earlier business trip:
54 years ago #Nixon / #Mao aka USA/China ie. Capitalism/State-Capitalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_visit_by_Richard_Nixon_to_China -
US ECONOMY SHIFTS, STATE TAKES A BIGGER HAND IN BUSINESS
The US government is now more involved in business, acting like an investor. This changes how companies make decisions, especially with foreign trade.
#StateCapitalism, #USBusiness, #EconomicShift, #GovernmentIntervention, #CorporateAmerica
https://newsletter.tf/us-government-gets-more-involved-in-business/
-
US ECONOMY SHIFTS, STATE TAKES A BIGGER HAND IN BUSINESS
The US government is now more involved in business, acting like an investor. This changes how companies make decisions, especially with foreign trade.
#StateCapitalism, #USBusiness, #EconomicShift, #GovernmentIntervention, #CorporateAmerica
https://newsletter.tf/us-government-gets-more-involved-in-business/
-
The US government is now acting more like a business owner, not just a rule maker. This is a big change from before.
#StateCapitalism, #USBusiness, #EconomicShift, #GovernmentIntervention, #CorporateAmerica
https://newsletter.tf/us-government-gets-more-involved-in-business/ -
The US government is now acting more like a business owner, not just a rule maker. This is a big change from before.
#StateCapitalism, #USBusiness, #EconomicShift, #GovernmentIntervention, #CorporateAmerica
https://newsletter.tf/us-government-gets-more-involved-in-business/ -
"Direct, transactional government intervention in companies to secure critical industries and serve other policy ends will inevitably lead to favoritism, inefficiency, higher costs, and lower growth. Frontier companies are already pulling away from their competitors; discretionary intervention may further increase market concentration and widen the gap between the large incumbents and industry champions that benefit from government deals and access and the companies that do not.
Even for the businesses that benefit, the new discretionary state capitalism is a mixed blessing. They will face rising uncertainty and risk falling into governments’ cross hairs as everything from antitrust approvals to international mergers and acquisitions becomes less subject to predictable rules and more subject to the whim of political processes. Governments, meanwhile, may be eager to use the full range of tools available to them, but a heavy-handed, volatile state can quickly dampen economic activity and competition. Discretionary policymaking can distort corporate behavior, pushing companies to focus less on productivity and more on lobbying for political favor. And perhaps most important, a government will not succeed in securing its country’s economic future through investment in critical technology and manufacturing unless it also addresses underlying constraints, such as labor availability, skills gaps, or a burdensome regulatory environment. Economic history is littered with experiments in state capitalism that ended in failure, including U.S. price controls in the 1970s, which contributed to energy shortages and did little to tame inflation, and the 1975 nationalization of British Leyland Motor Corporation, which struggled mightily despite billions in government investment and was eventually dissolved. Policymakers keen on muscular intervention today must tread carefully or risk meeting the same fate."
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/trouble-state-capitalism#
#USA #Trump #StateCapitalism #Kleptocracy -
"Direct, transactional government intervention in companies to secure critical industries and serve other policy ends will inevitably lead to favoritism, inefficiency, higher costs, and lower growth. Frontier companies are already pulling away from their competitors; discretionary intervention may further increase market concentration and widen the gap between the large incumbents and industry champions that benefit from government deals and access and the companies that do not.
Even for the businesses that benefit, the new discretionary state capitalism is a mixed blessing. They will face rising uncertainty and risk falling into governments’ cross hairs as everything from antitrust approvals to international mergers and acquisitions becomes less subject to predictable rules and more subject to the whim of political processes. Governments, meanwhile, may be eager to use the full range of tools available to them, but a heavy-handed, volatile state can quickly dampen economic activity and competition. Discretionary policymaking can distort corporate behavior, pushing companies to focus less on productivity and more on lobbying for political favor. And perhaps most important, a government will not succeed in securing its country’s economic future through investment in critical technology and manufacturing unless it also addresses underlying constraints, such as labor availability, skills gaps, or a burdensome regulatory environment. Economic history is littered with experiments in state capitalism that ended in failure, including U.S. price controls in the 1970s, which contributed to energy shortages and did little to tame inflation, and the 1975 nationalization of British Leyland Motor Corporation, which struggled mightily despite billions in government investment and was eventually dissolved. Policymakers keen on muscular intervention today must tread carefully or risk meeting the same fate."
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/trouble-state-capitalism#
#USA #Trump #StateCapitalism #Kleptocracy -
"Direct, transactional government intervention in companies to secure critical industries and serve other policy ends will inevitably lead to favoritism, inefficiency, higher costs, and lower growth. Frontier companies are already pulling away from their competitors; discretionary intervention may further increase market concentration and widen the gap between the large incumbents and industry champions that benefit from government deals and access and the companies that do not.
Even for the businesses that benefit, the new discretionary state capitalism is a mixed blessing. They will face rising uncertainty and risk falling into governments’ cross hairs as everything from antitrust approvals to international mergers and acquisitions becomes less subject to predictable rules and more subject to the whim of political processes. Governments, meanwhile, may be eager to use the full range of tools available to them, but a heavy-handed, volatile state can quickly dampen economic activity and competition. Discretionary policymaking can distort corporate behavior, pushing companies to focus less on productivity and more on lobbying for political favor. And perhaps most important, a government will not succeed in securing its country’s economic future through investment in critical technology and manufacturing unless it also addresses underlying constraints, such as labor availability, skills gaps, or a burdensome regulatory environment. Economic history is littered with experiments in state capitalism that ended in failure, including U.S. price controls in the 1970s, which contributed to energy shortages and did little to tame inflation, and the 1975 nationalization of British Leyland Motor Corporation, which struggled mightily despite billions in government investment and was eventually dissolved. Policymakers keen on muscular intervention today must tread carefully or risk meeting the same fate."
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/trouble-state-capitalism#
#USA #Trump #StateCapitalism #Kleptocracy -
"Direct, transactional government intervention in companies to secure critical industries and serve other policy ends will inevitably lead to favoritism, inefficiency, higher costs, and lower growth. Frontier companies are already pulling away from their competitors; discretionary intervention may further increase market concentration and widen the gap between the large incumbents and industry champions that benefit from government deals and access and the companies that do not.
Even for the businesses that benefit, the new discretionary state capitalism is a mixed blessing. They will face rising uncertainty and risk falling into governments’ cross hairs as everything from antitrust approvals to international mergers and acquisitions becomes less subject to predictable rules and more subject to the whim of political processes. Governments, meanwhile, may be eager to use the full range of tools available to them, but a heavy-handed, volatile state can quickly dampen economic activity and competition. Discretionary policymaking can distort corporate behavior, pushing companies to focus less on productivity and more on lobbying for political favor. And perhaps most important, a government will not succeed in securing its country’s economic future through investment in critical technology and manufacturing unless it also addresses underlying constraints, such as labor availability, skills gaps, or a burdensome regulatory environment. Economic history is littered with experiments in state capitalism that ended in failure, including U.S. price controls in the 1970s, which contributed to energy shortages and did little to tame inflation, and the 1975 nationalization of British Leyland Motor Corporation, which struggled mightily despite billions in government investment and was eventually dissolved. Policymakers keen on muscular intervention today must tread carefully or risk meeting the same fate."
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/trouble-state-capitalism#
#USA #Trump #StateCapitalism #Kleptocracy -
"Direct, transactional government intervention in companies to secure critical industries and serve other policy ends will inevitably lead to favoritism, inefficiency, higher costs, and lower growth. Frontier companies are already pulling away from their competitors; discretionary intervention may further increase market concentration and widen the gap between the large incumbents and industry champions that benefit from government deals and access and the companies that do not.
Even for the businesses that benefit, the new discretionary state capitalism is a mixed blessing. They will face rising uncertainty and risk falling into governments’ cross hairs as everything from antitrust approvals to international mergers and acquisitions becomes less subject to predictable rules and more subject to the whim of political processes. Governments, meanwhile, may be eager to use the full range of tools available to them, but a heavy-handed, volatile state can quickly dampen economic activity and competition. Discretionary policymaking can distort corporate behavior, pushing companies to focus less on productivity and more on lobbying for political favor. And perhaps most important, a government will not succeed in securing its country’s economic future through investment in critical technology and manufacturing unless it also addresses underlying constraints, such as labor availability, skills gaps, or a burdensome regulatory environment. Economic history is littered with experiments in state capitalism that ended in failure, including U.S. price controls in the 1970s, which contributed to energy shortages and did little to tame inflation, and the 1975 nationalization of British Leyland Motor Corporation, which struggled mightily despite billions in government investment and was eventually dissolved. Policymakers keen on muscular intervention today must tread carefully or risk meeting the same fate."
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/trouble-state-capitalism#
#USA #Trump #StateCapitalism #Kleptocracy -
State Capitalism – Be careful what you ask for!
Good Read!By anointing winners and losers, State Capitalism may well create an enduring snake pit of favoritism, inefficiency, higher costs, lower growth, and stunted innovation. And it’s not just losers that lose, the “winners” will also face rising uncertainty and risk of falling out of favor with business operations subject to unpredictable rules and to the flights of fancy of political actors.
Access to foreign markets will become more uncertain/possibly curtailed as more and more countries seek to promote domestic champions and reduce dependence on foreign goods. Ultimately, state capitalism is self-defeating. The U.S. has maintained its lead over China due to the dynamism of open markets and the predictability of the rule of law. Replacing a system of economic rules with a system powered by political whims will be geopolitical economic malpractice. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/trouble-state-capitalism #Capitalism #StateCapitalism #Politics #Markets #Risk #Business #Innovation
-
State Capitalism – Be careful what you ask for!
Good Read!By anointing winners and losers, State Capitalism may well create an enduring snake pit of favoritism, inefficiency, higher costs, lower growth, and stunted innovation. And it’s not just losers that lose, the “winners” will also face rising uncertainty and risk of falling out of favor with business operations subject to unpredictable rules and to the flights of fancy of political actors.
Access to foreign markets will become more uncertain/possibly curtailed as more and more countries seek to promote domestic champions and reduce dependence on foreign goods. Ultimately, state capitalism is self-defeating. The U.S. has maintained its lead over China due to the dynamism of open markets and the predictability of the rule of law. Replacing a system of economic rules with a system powered by political whims will be geopolitical economic malpractice. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/trouble-state-capitalism #Capitalism #StateCapitalism #Politics #Markets #Risk #Business #Innovation
-
State Capitalism – Be careful what you ask for!
Good Read!By anointing winners and losers, State Capitalism may well create an enduring snake pit of favoritism, inefficiency, higher costs, lower growth, and stunted innovation. And it’s not just losers that lose, the “winners” will also face rising uncertainty and risk of falling out of favor with business operations subject to unpredictable rules and to the flights of fancy of political actors.
Access to foreign markets will become more uncertain/possibly curtailed as more and more countries seek to promote domestic champions and reduce dependence on foreign goods. Ultimately, state capitalism is self-defeating. The U.S. has maintained its lead over China due to the dynamism of open markets and the predictability of the rule of law. Replacing a system of economic rules with a system powered by political whims will be geopolitical economic malpractice. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/trouble-state-capitalism #Capitalism #StateCapitalism #Politics #Markets #Risk #Business #Innovation
-
State Capitalism – Be careful what you ask for!
Good Read!By anointing winners and losers, State Capitalism may well create an enduring snake pit of favoritism, inefficiency, higher costs, lower growth, and stunted innovation. And it’s not just losers that lose, the “winners” will also face rising uncertainty and risk of falling out of favor with business operations subject to unpredictable rules and to the flights of fancy of political actors.
Access to foreign markets will become more uncertain/possibly curtailed as more and more countries seek to promote domestic champions and reduce dependence on foreign goods. Ultimately, state capitalism is self-defeating. The U.S. has maintained its lead over China due to the dynamism of open markets and the predictability of the rule of law. Replacing a system of economic rules with a system powered by political whims will be geopolitical economic malpractice. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/trouble-state-capitalism #Capitalism #StateCapitalism #Politics #Markets #Risk #Business #Innovation
-
State Capitalism – Be careful what you ask for!
Good Read!By anointing winners and losers, State Capitalism may well create an enduring snake pit of favoritism, inefficiency, higher costs, lower growth, and stunted innovation. And it’s not just losers that lose, the “winners” will also face rising uncertainty and risk of falling out of favor with business operations subject to unpredictable rules and to the flights of fancy of political actors.
Access to foreign markets will become more uncertain/possibly curtailed as more and more countries seek to promote domestic champions and reduce dependence on foreign goods. Ultimately, state capitalism is self-defeating. The U.S. has maintained its lead over China due to the dynamism of open markets and the predictability of the rule of law. Replacing a system of economic rules with a system powered by political whims will be geopolitical economic malpractice. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/trouble-state-capitalism #Capitalism #StateCapitalism #Politics #Markets #Risk #Business #Innovation
-
Trump’s State Capitalism
The U.S. government has increasingly become a brokerage[1] platform for elite business capital accumulation goals camouflaged under a national security agenda. Anyone who has read my latest book, U.S.-Russian Commercial Relations 1763-1933: Origins of ... -
Trump’s State Capitalism
The U.S. government has increasingly become a brokerage[1] platform for elite business capital accumulation goals camouflaged under a national security agenda. Anyone who has read my latest book, U.S.-Russian Commercial Relations 1763-1933: Origins of ... -
“A model of crony #statecapitalism that tries to resuscitate a long-dead industrial #economy is hardly an antidote to #neoliberalism.”
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:5zca2ola2zxpkw37w4f3wxtu/post/3mbwpglcxl22t -
“A model of crony #statecapitalism that tries to resuscitate a long-dead industrial #economy is hardly an antidote to #neoliberalism.”
RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:5zca2ola2zxpkw37w4f3wxtu/post/3mbwpglcxl22t -
"The Trump administration has continued to snap up stakes in other private firms, most notably mining companies involved in the production of rare earth minerals and other raw materials used in technology"
Approaching the Chinese model, just from the opposite direction? #nationalisation #statecapitalism
https://aje.io/jimbw7 -
"The Trump administration has continued to snap up stakes in other private firms, most notably mining companies involved in the production of rare earth minerals and other raw materials used in technology"
Approaching the Chinese model, just from the opposite direction? #nationalisation #statecapitalism
https://aje.io/jimbw7 -
"The Trump administration has continued to snap up stakes in other private firms, most notably mining companies involved in the production of rare earth minerals and other raw materials used in technology"
Approaching the Chinese model, just from the opposite direction? #nationalisation #statecapitalism
https://aje.io/jimbw7 -
"The Trump administration has continued to snap up stakes in other private firms, most notably mining companies involved in the production of rare earth minerals and other raw materials used in technology"
Approaching the Chinese model, just from the opposite direction? #nationalisation #statecapitalism
https://aje.io/jimbw7 -
"The Trump administration has continued to snap up stakes in other private firms, most notably mining companies involved in the production of rare earth minerals and other raw materials used in technology"
Approaching the Chinese model, just from the opposite direction? #nationalisation #statecapitalism
https://aje.io/jimbw7 -
"Given what we know about the limited net surplus actually squeezed from agriculture and the scale of human loss, a softer, more balanced socialist strategy looks economically plausible and morally preferable. A reformed NEP with hard investment targets could have delivered comparable industrial capacity by the early 1940s, with fewer long-term distortions and a very different distribution of gains.
But plausibility on paper isn’t the same as political feasibility in 1928–32. Information was thin; the leadership’s worldview was siege-minded, which was hardly irrational given the collapse of collective-security efforts after 1933 and, ultimately, the 1941 German invasion; and incentives inside the party-state pushed toward command solutions. From that vantage point, the crash path felt “inevitable,” even if it wasn’t in a strict economic sense. The late-1980s debates in the Soviet Union revived the counterfactuals, including the idea that Lenin might have kept a mixed economy longer. As Alec Nove cautioned in the last edition of An Economic History of the USSR, it’s far from obvious he would have chosen differently had he lived into the 1930s.
So, I land here: a more humane path was possible, but not likely under the beliefs, threats, and institutions of the time. The lesson isn’t that speed always justifies the means. It’s that the means shape the society you end up with, long after the steel is rolled and the machines are built."
https://deveconhub.com/was-stalin-necessary-three-ways-to-read-soviet-industrialization/
#Russia #USSR #Stalin #Industrialization #NEP #Lenin #StateCapitalism
-
"Given what we know about the limited net surplus actually squeezed from agriculture and the scale of human loss, a softer, more balanced socialist strategy looks economically plausible and morally preferable. A reformed NEP with hard investment targets could have delivered comparable industrial capacity by the early 1940s, with fewer long-term distortions and a very different distribution of gains.
But plausibility on paper isn’t the same as political feasibility in 1928–32. Information was thin; the leadership’s worldview was siege-minded, which was hardly irrational given the collapse of collective-security efforts after 1933 and, ultimately, the 1941 German invasion; and incentives inside the party-state pushed toward command solutions. From that vantage point, the crash path felt “inevitable,” even if it wasn’t in a strict economic sense. The late-1980s debates in the Soviet Union revived the counterfactuals, including the idea that Lenin might have kept a mixed economy longer. As Alec Nove cautioned in the last edition of An Economic History of the USSR, it’s far from obvious he would have chosen differently had he lived into the 1930s.
So, I land here: a more humane path was possible, but not likely under the beliefs, threats, and institutions of the time. The lesson isn’t that speed always justifies the means. It’s that the means shape the society you end up with, long after the steel is rolled and the machines are built."
https://deveconhub.com/was-stalin-necessary-three-ways-to-read-soviet-industrialization/
#Russia #USSR #Stalin #Industrialization #NEP #Lenin #StateCapitalism
-
"Given what we know about the limited net surplus actually squeezed from agriculture and the scale of human loss, a softer, more balanced socialist strategy looks economically plausible and morally preferable. A reformed NEP with hard investment targets could have delivered comparable industrial capacity by the early 1940s, with fewer long-term distortions and a very different distribution of gains.
But plausibility on paper isn’t the same as political feasibility in 1928–32. Information was thin; the leadership’s worldview was siege-minded, which was hardly irrational given the collapse of collective-security efforts after 1933 and, ultimately, the 1941 German invasion; and incentives inside the party-state pushed toward command solutions. From that vantage point, the crash path felt “inevitable,” even if it wasn’t in a strict economic sense. The late-1980s debates in the Soviet Union revived the counterfactuals, including the idea that Lenin might have kept a mixed economy longer. As Alec Nove cautioned in the last edition of An Economic History of the USSR, it’s far from obvious he would have chosen differently had he lived into the 1930s.
So, I land here: a more humane path was possible, but not likely under the beliefs, threats, and institutions of the time. The lesson isn’t that speed always justifies the means. It’s that the means shape the society you end up with, long after the steel is rolled and the machines are built."
https://deveconhub.com/was-stalin-necessary-three-ways-to-read-soviet-industrialization/
#Russia #USSR #Stalin #Industrialization #NEP #Lenin #StateCapitalism
-
"Given what we know about the limited net surplus actually squeezed from agriculture and the scale of human loss, a softer, more balanced socialist strategy looks economically plausible and morally preferable. A reformed NEP with hard investment targets could have delivered comparable industrial capacity by the early 1940s, with fewer long-term distortions and a very different distribution of gains.
But plausibility on paper isn’t the same as political feasibility in 1928–32. Information was thin; the leadership’s worldview was siege-minded, which was hardly irrational given the collapse of collective-security efforts after 1933 and, ultimately, the 1941 German invasion; and incentives inside the party-state pushed toward command solutions. From that vantage point, the crash path felt “inevitable,” even if it wasn’t in a strict economic sense. The late-1980s debates in the Soviet Union revived the counterfactuals, including the idea that Lenin might have kept a mixed economy longer. As Alec Nove cautioned in the last edition of An Economic History of the USSR, it’s far from obvious he would have chosen differently had he lived into the 1930s.
So, I land here: a more humane path was possible, but not likely under the beliefs, threats, and institutions of the time. The lesson isn’t that speed always justifies the means. It’s that the means shape the society you end up with, long after the steel is rolled and the machines are built."
https://deveconhub.com/was-stalin-necessary-three-ways-to-read-soviet-industrialization/
#Russia #USSR #Stalin #Industrialization #NEP #Lenin #StateCapitalism
-
"Given what we know about the limited net surplus actually squeezed from agriculture and the scale of human loss, a softer, more balanced socialist strategy looks economically plausible and morally preferable. A reformed NEP with hard investment targets could have delivered comparable industrial capacity by the early 1940s, with fewer long-term distortions and a very different distribution of gains.
But plausibility on paper isn’t the same as political feasibility in 1928–32. Information was thin; the leadership’s worldview was siege-minded, which was hardly irrational given the collapse of collective-security efforts after 1933 and, ultimately, the 1941 German invasion; and incentives inside the party-state pushed toward command solutions. From that vantage point, the crash path felt “inevitable,” even if it wasn’t in a strict economic sense. The late-1980s debates in the Soviet Union revived the counterfactuals, including the idea that Lenin might have kept a mixed economy longer. As Alec Nove cautioned in the last edition of An Economic History of the USSR, it’s far from obvious he would have chosen differently had he lived into the 1930s.
So, I land here: a more humane path was possible, but not likely under the beliefs, threats, and institutions of the time. The lesson isn’t that speed always justifies the means. It’s that the means shape the society you end up with, long after the steel is rolled and the machines are built."
https://deveconhub.com/was-stalin-necessary-three-ways-to-read-soviet-industrialization/
#Russia #USSR #Stalin #Industrialization #NEP #Lenin #StateCapitalism
-
💯 👉"Critics of socialism argue that it is a cop-out to say that the USSR was not socialist. But it seems clear that in practical terms, those running the system were trying to beat capitalism at its own game. They were not only imprisoned in a competitive logic but also bound by its limited horizons.
Of course, this does not tell us what the Soviet economic system was. To pose that question, as some did in the USSR, was to step outside the ruling order and to invite retribution. The job of the economists that Feygin discusses was to help the system work better.
Yet even some of those who were at the center of these “insider” debates could not help wondering exactly what the USSR was. Feygin in particular instances Yakov Kronrod, who spent four decades or more trying to think not only about reform but also about value relations and the question of alienation and exploitation in the Soviet system (David Mandel’s book on Konrod, Democracy, Plan, and Market, is not cited, however).
In the event, the USSR and the wider Soviet-led bloc collapsed, becoming the “ruin” of Feygin’s title. It failed to catch up with (let alone overtake) the West, and it failed to satisfy the aspirations of its own population. The idea of socialism from above, directed by a plan, has not really recovered. When we think, therefore, of going beyond capitalism, we must think about different ends as well as different means.
A bottom-up, participative system might well be messy in different ways, but it would have to engage people. In the USSR, Soviet workers were never the knowing agents of their own fate. They figured only as a constraint..." 👈💯
https://jacobin.com/2025/11/soviet-economic-reform-workers-feygin/
#SovietUnion #USSR #Socialism #Capitalism #StateCapitalism #EconomicDemocracy #Gorbatchev #Perestroika
-
💯 👉"Critics of socialism argue that it is a cop-out to say that the USSR was not socialist. But it seems clear that in practical terms, those running the system were trying to beat capitalism at its own game. They were not only imprisoned in a competitive logic but also bound by its limited horizons.
Of course, this does not tell us what the Soviet economic system was. To pose that question, as some did in the USSR, was to step outside the ruling order and to invite retribution. The job of the economists that Feygin discusses was to help the system work better.
Yet even some of those who were at the center of these “insider” debates could not help wondering exactly what the USSR was. Feygin in particular instances Yakov Kronrod, who spent four decades or more trying to think not only about reform but also about value relations and the question of alienation and exploitation in the Soviet system (David Mandel’s book on Konrod, Democracy, Plan, and Market, is not cited, however).
In the event, the USSR and the wider Soviet-led bloc collapsed, becoming the “ruin” of Feygin’s title. It failed to catch up with (let alone overtake) the West, and it failed to satisfy the aspirations of its own population. The idea of socialism from above, directed by a plan, has not really recovered. When we think, therefore, of going beyond capitalism, we must think about different ends as well as different means.
A bottom-up, participative system might well be messy in different ways, but it would have to engage people. In the USSR, Soviet workers were never the knowing agents of their own fate. They figured only as a constraint..." 👈💯
https://jacobin.com/2025/11/soviet-economic-reform-workers-feygin/
#SovietUnion #USSR #Socialism #Capitalism #StateCapitalism #EconomicDemocracy #Gorbatchev #Perestroika
-
💯 👉"Critics of socialism argue that it is a cop-out to say that the USSR was not socialist. But it seems clear that in practical terms, those running the system were trying to beat capitalism at its own game. They were not only imprisoned in a competitive logic but also bound by its limited horizons.
Of course, this does not tell us what the Soviet economic system was. To pose that question, as some did in the USSR, was to step outside the ruling order and to invite retribution. The job of the economists that Feygin discusses was to help the system work better.
Yet even some of those who were at the center of these “insider” debates could not help wondering exactly what the USSR was. Feygin in particular instances Yakov Kronrod, who spent four decades or more trying to think not only about reform but also about value relations and the question of alienation and exploitation in the Soviet system (David Mandel’s book on Konrod, Democracy, Plan, and Market, is not cited, however).
In the event, the USSR and the wider Soviet-led bloc collapsed, becoming the “ruin” of Feygin’s title. It failed to catch up with (let alone overtake) the West, and it failed to satisfy the aspirations of its own population. The idea of socialism from above, directed by a plan, has not really recovered. When we think, therefore, of going beyond capitalism, we must think about different ends as well as different means.
A bottom-up, participative system might well be messy in different ways, but it would have to engage people. In the USSR, Soviet workers were never the knowing agents of their own fate. They figured only as a constraint..." 👈💯
https://jacobin.com/2025/11/soviet-economic-reform-workers-feygin/
#SovietUnion #USSR #Socialism #Capitalism #StateCapitalism #EconomicDemocracy #Gorbatchev #Perestroika
-
💯 👉"Critics of socialism argue that it is a cop-out to say that the USSR was not socialist. But it seems clear that in practical terms, those running the system were trying to beat capitalism at its own game. They were not only imprisoned in a competitive logic but also bound by its limited horizons.
Of course, this does not tell us what the Soviet economic system was. To pose that question, as some did in the USSR, was to step outside the ruling order and to invite retribution. The job of the economists that Feygin discusses was to help the system work better.
Yet even some of those who were at the center of these “insider” debates could not help wondering exactly what the USSR was. Feygin in particular instances Yakov Kronrod, who spent four decades or more trying to think not only about reform but also about value relations and the question of alienation and exploitation in the Soviet system (David Mandel’s book on Konrod, Democracy, Plan, and Market, is not cited, however).
In the event, the USSR and the wider Soviet-led bloc collapsed, becoming the “ruin” of Feygin’s title. It failed to catch up with (let alone overtake) the West, and it failed to satisfy the aspirations of its own population. The idea of socialism from above, directed by a plan, has not really recovered. When we think, therefore, of going beyond capitalism, we must think about different ends as well as different means.
A bottom-up, participative system might well be messy in different ways, but it would have to engage people. In the USSR, Soviet workers were never the knowing agents of their own fate. They figured only as a constraint..." 👈💯
https://jacobin.com/2025/11/soviet-economic-reform-workers-feygin/
#SovietUnion #USSR #Socialism #Capitalism #StateCapitalism #EconomicDemocracy #Gorbatchev #Perestroika
-
💯 👉"Critics of socialism argue that it is a cop-out to say that the USSR was not socialist. But it seems clear that in practical terms, those running the system were trying to beat capitalism at its own game. They were not only imprisoned in a competitive logic but also bound by its limited horizons.
Of course, this does not tell us what the Soviet economic system was. To pose that question, as some did in the USSR, was to step outside the ruling order and to invite retribution. The job of the economists that Feygin discusses was to help the system work better.
Yet even some of those who were at the center of these “insider” debates could not help wondering exactly what the USSR was. Feygin in particular instances Yakov Kronrod, who spent four decades or more trying to think not only about reform but also about value relations and the question of alienation and exploitation in the Soviet system (David Mandel’s book on Konrod, Democracy, Plan, and Market, is not cited, however).
In the event, the USSR and the wider Soviet-led bloc collapsed, becoming the “ruin” of Feygin’s title. It failed to catch up with (let alone overtake) the West, and it failed to satisfy the aspirations of its own population. The idea of socialism from above, directed by a plan, has not really recovered. When we think, therefore, of going beyond capitalism, we must think about different ends as well as different means.
A bottom-up, participative system might well be messy in different ways, but it would have to engage people. In the USSR, Soviet workers were never the knowing agents of their own fate. They figured only as a constraint..." 👈💯
https://jacobin.com/2025/11/soviet-economic-reform-workers-feygin/
#SovietUnion #USSR #Socialism #Capitalism #StateCapitalism #EconomicDemocracy #Gorbatchev #Perestroika