I don’t think it makes sense to classify the private sector as the “capitalist” sector, and the public sector as the “socialist” sector. The same would be true in the US Empire, with the military and whatnot as the “socialist” sector of the economy. The actual identity of an overall economy is in the principal aspect, and this is crucial because the rest of the economy, even if it isn’t within said principal aspect, is constantly either reinforcing or working its way towards said principal aspect.
This, I think, is the most useful way to explain to newcomers why China is socialist. It isn’t about ratios of public to private, nor about being mixed, as nearly all economies are de facto mixed, even if de jure they are not. We can instead identify and explain this principal aspect as a use of dialectical and historical materialism.
I agree that the “principle aspect” as you say, or which class is holding power and ultimately controls both the economy and the political system, is most important. I’d argue though that the primary difference in these sectors is who is in control of the surplus, and whose benefit it goes to. In the PRC and even in Cuba, there are still private capitalists who effectively control the surplus generated within those companies, and use it as they see fit. They’re severely limited of course, but they still function differently from the socialist sector whose surplus is worker-controlled via 5 year plans.
The only “socialist industry” I can think of in western countries, outside of tiny examples like coops, are things like state-run natural resource and energy companies. The US military is just the enforcement arm of capital, planned and controlled by capital. Even state-run social services shouldn’t really be thought of as socialist, since they produce no surplus value, and are funded via other ways, and are overall capitalist-planned.
I agree that social surplus is appropriated by capitalists, be they capitalists within capitalism or socialism. Regardless of the overall system, capitalists definitionally appropriate surplus. My bigger point is that in capitalism, both the public and the private sector reinforce and support capitalists, while in socialism both the private and public sector support and reinforce the proletariat. As you said of capitalism, even state-run social services shouldn’t really be thought of as socialist. My point is that the reverse is true of marketization in socialist economies, as they ultimately are under the control and dominance of the proletariat through the socialist state, and are employed for their progressive utility in socializing the productive forces, preparing the base for more developed socialism.
Ultimately, though, this is largely semantics. Capitalists exist in China, and they profit immensely. They differ from their western counterparts, however, in the fact that they have no political power, do not form an organized class, and are constantly working towards their own erosion as a class as they centralize and socialize the productive forces. This is the mirror of how state-services in the US, including the military and welfare stage, both ultimately prop up imperialism and protect the rule of capitalism.
Still, I suppose it might be helpful for those entirely unaware of dialectics to simply see them as “socialist” and “capitalist” sectors, but I do think that this deeper nuance is required to establish why reformism and simply expanding the public sector in capitalism is not socialism, and why marketization was not a move towards capitalism but towards higher developed socialism in China.
Wrong. The PRC is a mixed economy, where the socialist, publicly planned sector predominates, and a smaller capitalist sector.
The DPRK is similar but has effectively no capitalist sector.
Is China State Capitalist?
I don’t think it makes sense to classify the private sector as the “capitalist” sector, and the public sector as the “socialist” sector. The same would be true in the US Empire, with the military and whatnot as the “socialist” sector of the economy. The actual identity of an overall economy is in the principal aspect, and this is crucial because the rest of the economy, even if it isn’t within said principal aspect, is constantly either reinforcing or working its way towards said principal aspect.
This, I think, is the most useful way to explain to newcomers why China is socialist. It isn’t about ratios of public to private, nor about being mixed, as nearly all economies are de facto mixed, even if de jure they are not. We can instead identify and explain this principal aspect as a use of dialectical and historical materialism.
Awesome sources though!
I agree that the “principle aspect” as you say, or which class is holding power and ultimately controls both the economy and the political system, is most important. I’d argue though that the primary difference in these sectors is who is in control of the surplus, and whose benefit it goes to. In the PRC and even in Cuba, there are still private capitalists who effectively control the surplus generated within those companies, and use it as they see fit. They’re severely limited of course, but they still function differently from the socialist sector whose surplus is worker-controlled via 5 year plans.
The only “socialist industry” I can think of in western countries, outside of tiny examples like coops, are things like state-run natural resource and energy companies. The US military is just the enforcement arm of capital, planned and controlled by capital. Even state-run social services shouldn’t really be thought of as socialist, since they produce no surplus value, and are funded via other ways, and are overall capitalist-planned.
I agree that social surplus is appropriated by capitalists, be they capitalists within capitalism or socialism. Regardless of the overall system, capitalists definitionally appropriate surplus. My bigger point is that in capitalism, both the public and the private sector reinforce and support capitalists, while in socialism both the private and public sector support and reinforce the proletariat. As you said of capitalism, even state-run social services shouldn’t really be thought of as socialist. My point is that the reverse is true of marketization in socialist economies, as they ultimately are under the control and dominance of the proletariat through the socialist state, and are employed for their progressive utility in socializing the productive forces, preparing the base for more developed socialism.
Ultimately, though, this is largely semantics. Capitalists exist in China, and they profit immensely. They differ from their western counterparts, however, in the fact that they have no political power, do not form an organized class, and are constantly working towards their own erosion as a class as they centralize and socialize the productive forces. This is the mirror of how state-services in the US, including the military and welfare stage, both ultimately prop up imperialism and protect the rule of capitalism.
Still, I suppose it might be helpful for those entirely unaware of dialectics to simply see them as “socialist” and “capitalist” sectors, but I do think that this deeper nuance is required to establish why reformism and simply expanding the public sector in capitalism is not socialism, and why marketization was not a move towards capitalism but towards higher developed socialism in China.