1. If you control the strategic industries, you control the entire enconomy. No need to directly control everything. All strategic industries are state owned in China.
2. As Blackrock (the infamous investment company) shows, you can meaningfully influence the actions of companies with much less than 10% of ownership. Blackrock makes companies their removed with 2% ownership.
3. By their logic, China directly controls half of all firms, has controlling partial ownership in another 13,5% and influental ownership in 38%. Looks like that is well beyond “muh state capitalism”.
4. But let us assume it was state capitalism, asccording to Lenin state capitalism in service of the proletariat literally is the beginning of socialism. A low stage of socialism, one might say. And what does the CPC outright tell anyone who asks? “We’re on a low state of socialism and building our way upwards.”

Cowbee posted this recently on a thread I was in that explains it succinctly imo

The idea that Socialism means only and exclusively full ownership in public hands is wrong, and anti-Marxist. To take such a stance means either Capitalism and Feudalism have never existed either, the sort of “one-drop” rule, or that Socialism itself is a unique Mode of Production that needs to be judged based on “purity” while the rest do not, a conception that has roots in idealism rather than Materialism.

Modes of Production should be defined in a manner that is consistent. If we hold this definition for Socialism, then either it means a portion of the economy can be Socialist, ie USPS, or a worker cooperative, or it means an economy is only Socialist if all property has been collectivized.

For the former, this definition fails to take into account the context to which portions of the economy play in the broader scope, and therefore which class holds the power in society. A worker cooperative in the US, ultimately, must deal with Capitalist elements of the economy. Whether it be from the raw materials they use being from non-cooperatives, to the distributors they deal with, to the banks where they gain the seed Capital, they exist as a cog in a broader system dominated by Capitalists in the US. Same with USPS, which exists in a country where heavy industry and resources are privatized, it serves as a way to subsidize transport for Capitalists. The overall power in a system must be judged.

For the latter, this “one drop” rule, if equally applied, means Feudalism and Capitalism have never existed either. There is no reason Socialism should be judged any differently from Capitalism or Feudalism.

What Socialism ultimately is is a system where the Working Class is in control, and public ownership is the principle aspect of society. If a rubber ball factory is privately owned but the rubber factory is public, the public sector holds more power over the economy. In the Nordics, heavy industry is privatized for the most part, and social safety nets are funded through loans and ownership of industry in the Global South, similar to being a landlord in country form. In the PRC, heavy industry and large industry is squarely in the hands of the public, which is why Capitalists are subservient to the State, rather than the other way around.

As for the purpose of Socialism, it is improving the lives of the working class in material and measurable ways. Public ownership is a tool, one especially effective at higher degrees of development. Markets and private ownership are a tool, one that can be utilized more effectively at lower stages in development. Like fire, private ownership presents real danger in giving Capitalists more power, but also like fire this does not mean we cannot harness it and should avoid it entirely, provided the proper precautions are taken.

Moreover, markets are destined to centralize. Markets erase their own foundations. The reason public ownership is a goal for Marxists is because of this centralizing factor, as industry gets more complex public ownership increasingly becomes more efficient and effective. Just because you can publicly own something doesn’t mean the act of ownership improves metrics like life expectancy and literacy, public ownership isn’t some holy experience that gives workers magic powers. Public ownership and Private ownership are tools that play a role in society, and we believe Public Ownership is undeniably the way to go at higher phases in development because it becomes necessary, not because it has mystical properties.

Ultimately, it boils down to mindsets of dogmatism or pragmatism. Concepts like “true Socialism” treat Marx as a religious prophet, while going against Marx’s analysis! This is why studying Historical and Dialectical Materialism is important, as it explains the why of Marxism and Socialism in a manner that can be used for real development of the Working Class and real liberation. When taken consistently, AES states do in fact fit into the categorization of “Socialist,” even your original definition would categorize them as such.

Under the revised company law, all firms in china are required to have an assembly of workers which represents them. For small firms, this assembly is made up of all employees. For larger firms, the assembly is elected.

So even private firms in China are not as private as you might think (especially since the government owns “golden shares”, that is, shares either veto powers in many of them). Many firms also have CPC members on their boards.

That’s also not accounting for the fact that the Chinese state owns all banks, land and resources in the country. It has an iron grip on the means of production and plans the growth and fall of industries.

To go even further, the Chinese state has no issue whipping capitalists who get out of line.

this essay gets posted like every week https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/

What does “state capitalism” even mean? The Chinese state owns both the money printer and the banks which make the loans, which is another form of money printing. The Chinese state isn’t functioning in the M-C-M’ capitalist mode of production. It doesn’t need to make a profit, or even break even.

The capitalists in China have virtually no political power. Just look at the number of rich people who’ve received the death sentence with reprieve, or the property developers who were left to flail and go bankrupt, or the sorry state of billionaire Jack Ma.

Ultras are always on about “state capitalism” this and “state capitalism” that, but can they even define what that term means? If “state capitalism” is a form of capitalism then why do they only use that term to describe states where a communist party is in charge? Why are there no bourgeois democracies that qualify as “state capitalist”? Why are “state capitalist” countries so fundamentally different in their political system, their relationship to the working class, and their approach to economic development than other capitalist states?

Socialism and capitalism are not ends of a spectrum with “state capitalism” somewhere in between at 50-50. They are fundamentally different modes of production and socio-political forms of organizing a society. For the same reason that social democracies are not “a mix of socialism and capitalism” but rather simply a form of capitalism, so this “state capitalism” that they always talk of is really just a form socialism. To understand this you have to actually engage in a real analysis of the class character of the state in question.

What’s missing here is the requirement for state officials to have a governing role in private enterprises. So even the 50% private enterprises, large ones anyway, still have at least one state agent that is privy to the inner workings of the company and have some level of influence and decision making power.

What they’re showing is a binary differentiation made by a capitalist think tank that applies its standards to the Chinese system which does not work by these standards. It’s like judging a fish on its ability to climb a tree. It means nothing and shows nothing.

We can look at the question from the following perspective. If we accept the premise that China operates under state capitalism, what implications does that hold? At its core, capitalism is defined by private ownership of capital, where individuals or entities control labor’s objectives and structure. Enterprises under this system exist primarily to expand their owners’ wealth, with any societal benefits emerging only as incidental byproducts.

State-owned industries, however, serve a fundamentally different purpose, even if their organizational structure superficially mirrors private enterprises. Their primary aim is to mobilize labor toward socially beneficial objectives such as constructing infrastructure, expanding housing, ensuring food security, and similar public goods. Crucially, capital accumulation by private individuals is absent in this model. Profits generated by state industries are reinvested directly into public services, infrastructure, and long-term national development.

While valid critiques can be made about organization of SOEs or potential worker alienation within their hierarchies, the system’s focus on collective welfare, rather than private profit, makes it fundamentally different from actual capitalism. When evaluated by its capacity to prioritize societal needs over individual wealth extraction, this framework is clearly superior.

As for, roughly half the enterprise being owned privately. First thing to point out is that it’s not true. The percentage of private ownership continued to drop in 2024, accounting for just over 30% now. And of course, the other question is what type of industry is privately owned. The party sits at the commanding heights of the economy, and controls all the essential industries. Capitalist enterprise is strictly supplemental to that, and it very clearly exists in the service of the state as well. The difference in the way AI is applied in China compared to the west is a great concrete example of that.

https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/2024/chinas-private-sector-has-lost-ground-state-sector-has-gained-share-among

This is over ten years old but I think it’s still relevant.

https://chinareporting.blogspot.com/2009/11/class-nature-of-chinese-state-critique_26.html

This analysis based on the raw numbers of means of production controlled by state vs private sector neglect the relative importance and influence of different types of means of production.

The wheat fields can operate without bakeries but bakeries cannot operate without wheat fields.

The aluminum refinery can operate without the car factory but the car factory can’t operate without the aluminum refinery.

The rare earth mine can operate without the computer chip manufacturer but the computer chip manufacturer can’t operate without the rare earth mine.

Etc…

Different means of productions have different level of influence over the supply chain and therefore over the economy.

The Chinese state control the most influential means of production, “aka the commending heights”.

Here is a video by geopolitical economy report explaining the Chinese economy

something something Lenin quote something something

hey little ultra hows it goin?

https://lemmy.ml/post/26411542/16907874

☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ has completely turned off her mind for the time being. Some of it may sink in in time, thought.