I came across this thoughtful response a while back, on Facebook of all places, and to this day it’s still one of the best intros to the “is China socialist?” question I’ve seen.— professional hog groomer (@bidetmarxman) January 25, 2022
I thought this was really well thought out actually
Even if we ignore the question of whether or not the nature of the dominant ideology and character of the rulling organs in Chinese society and politics are capitalist and just focus on what the economic model/Mode of production is at a given point in time we have to ask. Cant historical materialism account for divergences from the simplistic scheme of primitive communism -> slavery -> fedualism -> capitalism -> socialism->communism as far as development and character of the mode of production within a given society ?( Especially if the answer to the first question is that capital doesnt dominate and control the political/governing sphere of China). Agricultural societies are described as having revealed themselves in at least three distinct modes according to marx, no reason industrial societies and especially ones that have an argument as projects towards socialism should be limited to just "they either are capitalist or socialists and if they arent socialist economicaly rn in the definitional sense they are capitalist"
In the course of history certain social and economic formations will arise that are transitory arrangements that don’t strictly fit in those definitions and you may as well judge what the goal and stage of any transition is based on what is happening in the political sphere of X country. China is an example. USSR in certain periods another. You can have what is in character a non-capitalist project that was forced or chose to contain many or even most of the forms associated with capitalism economicaly due to the geopolitical ( US unipolarity and imperialist global dominance) and material necessities (starting point and economic situation in China in the 70s and 80s) thatarose. In that sense that they couldnt have survived and arived in their current position ,as a project of 1.4 billion people with a non capital controled political sphere, without opening up to large scale capitalist and market forms. And that is true even if you almost lost it and gave way too much power and influence to capital and liberalism. So when they ,slowly but increasingly, demonstrate that their economy can work and is working in imprtant scales and decisions with different laws of motion than their capitalist contemporaries combined with an analysis of their political sphere, it shows that there is the capability,trend and will to arive at something foundementaly different than capitalism.
If the character of the chinese economic formation fits only within the definition of capitalism we should also be certain that the Chinese economy is running with the same laws of motion as some capitalist economies elsewhere on earth, be it neoliberal, social democratic etc and we do have similar cultural and historical parallels around it to compare. We have to look for the falling rate of profit, for the chronic overproduction and financial meltdowns, for the anarchy of capitalistic production exasterbating ,for private wealth accumulation and profit being the absolutely dominant motive and engine of macro decisions and regulations ,financial capitalism at such a scale manifesting distinctly as imperialism, progressive social and economic polarization etc
Even if we ignore the question of whether or not the nature of the dominant ideology and character of the rulling organs in Chinese society and politics are capitalist and just focus on what the economic model/Mode of production is at a given point in time we have to ask. Cant historical materialism account for divergences from the simplistic scheme of primitive communism -> slavery -> fedualism -> capitalism -> socialism->communism as far as development and character of the mode of production within a given society ?( Especially if the answer to the first question is that capital doesnt dominate and control the political/governing sphere of China). Agricultural societies are described as having revealed themselves in at least three distinct modes according to marx, no reason industrial societies and especially ones that have an argument as projects towards socialism should be limited to just "they either are capitalist or socialists and if they arent socialist economicaly rn in the definitional sense they are capitalist"
In the course of history certain social and economic formations will arise that are transitory arrangements that don’t strictly fit in those definitions and you may as well judge what the goal and stage of any transition is based on what is happening in the political sphere of X country. China is an example. USSR in certain periods another. You can have what is in character a non-capitalist project that was forced or chose to contain many or even most of the forms associated with capitalism economicaly due to the geopolitical ( US unipolarity and imperialist global dominance) and material necessities (starting point and economic situation in China in the 70s and 80s) thatarose. In that sense that they couldnt have survived and arived in their current position ,as a project of 1.4 billion people with a non capital controled political sphere, without opening up to large scale capitalist and market forms. And that is true even if you almost lost it and gave way too much power and influence to capital and liberalism. So when they ,slowly but increasingly, demonstrate that their economy can work and is working in imprtant scales and decisions with different laws of motion than their capitalist contemporaries combined with an analysis of their political sphere, it shows that there is the capability,trend and will to arive at something foundementaly different than capitalism.
If the character of the chinese economic formation fits only within the definition of capitalism we should also be certain that the Chinese economy is running with the same laws of motion as some capitalist economies elsewhere on earth, be it neoliberal, social democratic etc and we do have similar cultural and historical parallels around it to compare. We have to look for the falling rate of profit, for the chronic overproduction and financial meltdowns, for the anarchy of capitalistic production exasterbating ,for private wealth accumulation and profit being the absolutely dominant motive and engine of macro decisions and regulations ,financial capitalism at such a scale manifesting distinctly as imperialism, progressive social and economic polarization etc