It depends on which aspect is principle, private ownership or public. All economies are "mixed," even the DPRK has instances of private ownership in their special economic zones like Rason, but we can tell if a country is capitalist or socialist by which controls the commanding heights of industry in that country.

The Nordic countries, for example, have private ownership as principle. As a consequence, their safety nets are eroding, and they depend on imperialism to continue. Capitalism itself is unsustainable.

The PRC is socialist, on the other hand. Though it relies heavily on market mechanics, the difference is stark when it comes to long-term planning and development, and the gradual collectivization of production and distribution in an increasingly planned fashion has produced incredible results. Where the Nordics are declining, the PRC is rising rapidly.

We can't perpetuate private ownership forever. It trends towards monopoly and enshittification. Even if it's handy at low levels of development for rapid industrialization, it quickly loses steam and then monopolist mechanics come into play, at which point public ownership is far more effective. Socialism allows us to control this development, prevent its worst excesses, and harness that growth while smoothly transitioning it into a part of the planned economy.

[–] rockettaco37@feddit.nu 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This is an incredibly well written response and I apologize in advance if my response comes across as overly cynical or perhaps dismissive.

My main concern with the complete abolition of private property is that unfortunately I don't have enough trust in most governments to fairly distribute resources. Therefore I think a mixed market economy with a strong social welfare system is the most feasible method. Through this, we can gradually work towards socialist principles without completely alienating a large section of the populace. I don't think a direct transition would be sustainable in the long term unfortunately.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 days ago

Private ownership, directed for the purposes of profit, is inherently "unfair." Markets have utility in finding demand at low levels of development, but in terms of accountability and fairness, directing production for the purposes of profit rather than the satisfaction of needs will always inherently trend towards conflict between workers and owners. Even the most benign "owner" is still going to be producing for profit, trying to maximize production and consumption, all in an incredibly inefficient manner in order to line their pockets.

Collectivized production can be more transparent and directly accountable. Full abolition of private property into collectivized production and distribution is a gradual process, but it's one that marches on as development continues. Since all markets are "mixed" right now, it remains important that we identify where the power lies in the system and ensure that's in the hands of the working classes.

load more comments (6 replies)