OK then:
The 12 fold increase in armament production is not completely artificially driven by the Chinese state, it's market driven.
The USSR did not produce what Stalin wanted from 1930 to 1941 (ridiculous amounts of tanks, artillery, obsolete planes, etc,), but what the USSR deperately needed (grain, dairy, meat, vegetable fats, modern planes, trucks to supply the tanks, etc,).
Mussolini and Hitler did not waste a fortune building useless battleships and Hitler did not ignore Schacht when he suggested increasing massively vegetable fat production and petroleum reserves, since vegetable fat is the most efficient and concentrated form of energy for humans and can be burnt in Diesel engines, choosing instead to produce ridiculously expensive synthetic fuel.
Whenever a dictator's whim determines demand, there is no capitalism. Capital does not flow toward demand, but toward that whim, preventing supply and demand from interacting freely and driving a healthy economy, the principle of capitalism.
Your idea that an aristocrat exploiting his fiefdom by the sword is capitalism is quite outdated.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

OK then:
The 12 fold increase in armament production is not completely artificially driven by the Chinese state, it's market driven.
The USSR did not produce what Stalin wanted from 1930 to 1941 (ridiculous amounts of tanks, artillery, obsolete planes, etc,), but what the USSR deperately needed (grain, dairy, meat, vegetable fats, modern planes, trucks to supply the tanks, etc,).
Mussolini and Hitler did not waste a fortune building useless battleships and Hitler did not ignore Schacht when he suggested increasing massively vegetable fat production and petroleum reserves, since vegetable fat is the most efficient and concentrated form of energy for humans and can be burnt in Diesel engines, choosing instead to produce ridiculously expensive synthetic fuel.
Whenever a dictator's whim determines demand, there is no capitalism. Capital does not flow toward demand, but toward that whim, preventing supply and demand from interacting freely and driving a healthy economy, the principle of capitalism.
Your idea that an aristocrat exploiting his fiefdom by the sword is capitalism is quite outdated.

First of all, any comparsion with the second world war is not valid, it was a unique situation. Capitalism does not dictate who is the owner of the means of production is; you do not understand the meaning of capitalism. However, the term has been wrongly used (with any form of education you had known that) an aristocrat? Who are you talking about? China is a socialistic republic (federal state) but they are using capitalism to increase their economy. An Aristocrat in the absolute power is feudalistic, not capitalistic.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

OK then:
The 12 fold increase in armament production is not completely artificially driven by the Chinese state, it's market driven.
The USSR did not produce what Stalin wanted from 1930 to 1941 (ridiculous amounts of tanks, artillery, obsolete planes, etc,), but what the USSR deperately needed (grain, dairy, meat, vegetable fats, modern planes, trucks to supply the tanks, etc,).
Mussolini and Hitler did not waste a fortune building useless battleships and Hitler did not ignore Schacht when he suggested increasing massively vegetable fat production and petroleum reserves, since vegetable fat is the most efficient and concentrated form of energy for humans and can be burnt in Diesel engines, choosing instead to produce ridiculously expensive synthetic fuel.
Whenever a dictator's whim determines demand, there is no capitalism. Capital does not flow toward demand, but toward that whim, preventing supply and demand from interacting freely and driving a healthy economy, the principle of capitalism.
Your idea that an aristocrat exploiting his fiefdom by the sword is capitalism is quite outdated.

You seem confused as usual. In Capitalism individuals own business & controls what it does, in Socialism the business are privatly owned but controlled by the Govt, in Communism the Govt owns everything. Regardless of economic system the Govt decides what it wants to buy & buys it, the sywstem has an effect on if it it from a private of state owned firm.

Originally Posted by George

You seem confused as usual. In Capitalism individuals own business & controls what it does, in Socialism the business are privatly owned but controlled by the Govt, in Communism the Govt owns everything. Regardless of economic system the Govt decides what it wants to buy & buys it, the sywstem has an effect on if it it from a private of state owned firm.

Thank goodness you said that, I thought it was me who was confused.

Originally Posted by George

You seem confused as usual. In Capitalism individuals own business & controls what it does, in Socialism the business are privatly owned but controlled by the Govt, in Communism the Govt owns everything. Regardless of economic system the Govt decides what it wants to buy & buys it, the sywstem has an effect on if it it from a private of state owned firm.

So where is China in this context? China is a really good example; capitalism is an economical system, not a political. China has private owned corporations and state owned corporations.