If you’re an ML, you should understand that state capitalism abhors having a genuine, independent capitalist class running private industries. If we need to put a precious label on it that isn’t one China uses, “market socialism” makes more sense.

As Lenin explains in that text, state socialism in the proper sense (as a dominant mode of production and not just a nascent or vestigial element) is oriented around the monopolization of the means of production by the state and the use of careful, deliberate planning of production, which independent profiteering interferes with.

I disagree with this model as anything but a wartime measure, and Lenin himself turned on it somewhat. It is apparent from Soviet history that it produced bureaucratization in the state, however much it kept down inequality prior to the market reforms, and I think China’s system of having a private capitalist class is in that way better for avoiding bureaucratization because it separates industrialists from the levers of state power in the case of private industries.

Now, is China compromised anyway? It’s honestly more likely than not, but the question of why is seemingly much more complicated than what has been said here so far and I frankly don’t really understand it.

For what it’s worth, I agree with you. I think Hexbear could stand to take two stances at the same time: one that appreciates what China has done as a pragmatic and forward-planning nation, as well as one that recognizes that in a lot of ways China diverges from what the Marxist ideal is. Most of us do understand this, of course, and recognize that many of these points of divergence were necessary for modern China to survive, but I still think a critical lens could generate some good discussion.

Who’s in first place?