How so, and in what sense- the contemporary sense or the "original" one?
China has a mixed economy where most of the activity occurs in the private sector while the public sector consists mostly of key industries. Some firms have split ownership. State actors seem influential enough to steer the general course of the economy towards what they perceive to be the national interest, which is more clearly apparent in how their government indulges in manipulative monetary and trade policies... and presumably has a role in carrying out cyber-attacks and industrial espionage. The goals of national development, security, and acquisition of power relative to other countries ends up trumping any lofty ideals about freedom or equality.
I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that most lesser-developed countries have a hybridized system somewhat like this. The authoritarian regime starts out in a protectionist default position after generations of colonialism - initially seeking to reap the rewards of dominating the country's economy but gradually accepting that a more open economy allows for faster growth. Yet calling what ensues "capitalism" is really as much of a stretch as it is to describe it as "socialist" simply for involving a lot of public ownership. Perhaps different words would be better for describing them though?
Maybe China is communist but wretchedly corrupt, and much of the Third World is capitalist but corrupt?
Poll
