The general thrust of my take here is that most economies are a hybrid of pro- and anti-property systems, so it’s hard to disentangle a lot of it. But I’ll have a crack:
the post above outlines the USSR’s space program or China’s economic growth as examples of socialist successes, so it must be to do with the ‘socialism’ in those economies
Oh, I read these as counter-examples to the theory that capitalism is a superior economic principle; that whatever causes these things could be independent of either. But equally, China’s economic growth might be more attributable to their capitalist tendencies than their socialist ones.
Your definition sounds like capitalism to me: you can pay rent to a landlord, have your surplus labour taken, the only condition is that ‘private capital’ is being ‘reduced’
It’s all a spectrum, right? No system is entirely ‘capitalist’ either, in the sense that not all forms of capital are subject to private ownership for profit. So I was looking more at decreasing private capital relative to the status quo, rather than abolishing it entirely. It wouldn’t be beyond the pale to refer to such acts as ‘socialist’.
being intergovernmental organisations, I don’t believe IMF and World Bank are ‘private capital’
Given that almost every capitalist government raises some of its own capital by borrowing money from private citizens, yes, these organisations partially serve private capital. I can’t speak to the extent, untangling global debt flows seems hard.
In other words the attributes pro-imperialism and pro-capitalism are independent.
I think that’s fair. I was speaking toward the tendency of capitalist systems to exhaust themselves of growth in their places of origin, and then start looking outward. The usual example leftists like to trot out here is the Dutch East India Company (not without reason!). I think you might be able to be capitalist and anti-imperialist, but it’s harder work and you might find yourself out-competed by those willing to extract the extra value by doing so.
The general thrust of my take here is that most economies are a hybrid of pro- and anti-property systems, so it’s hard to disentangle a lot of it. But I’ll have a crack:
Oh, I read these as counter-examples to the theory that capitalism is a superior economic principle; that whatever causes these things could be independent of either. But equally, China’s economic growth might be more attributable to their capitalist tendencies than their socialist ones.
It’s all a spectrum, right? No system is entirely ‘capitalist’ either, in the sense that not all forms of capital are subject to private ownership for profit. So I was looking more at decreasing private capital relative to the status quo, rather than abolishing it entirely. It wouldn’t be beyond the pale to refer to such acts as ‘socialist’.
Given that almost every capitalist government raises some of its own capital by borrowing money from private citizens, yes, these organisations partially serve private capital. I can’t speak to the extent, untangling global debt flows seems hard.
I think that’s fair. I was speaking toward the tendency of capitalist systems to exhaust themselves of growth in their places of origin, and then start looking outward. The usual example leftists like to trot out here is the Dutch East India Company (not without reason!). I think you might be able to be capitalist and anti-imperialist, but it’s harder work and you might find yourself out-competed by those willing to extract the extra value by doing so.