Cosmonaut's recent article Toward a Marxist State Theory of the Socialist Market Economy is a welcome addition to the debates on China. While my perspective roughly coincides with the author’s, i.e. I think China is quite a unique country not only due to its size but because it has a previously-unseen political-economical organization, which is much more decentralized than what the outside eye can see, I also think the author has missed the chance to decisively intervene in the “campist” vs. “state-capitalist” debate. By stating that the Chinese state is contradictory, it still allows both sides to keep on cherry picking and fails to outline why the debate is a dead end which we need to move beyond as soon as possible.

To overcome the flawed debate, I would start by reframing it. In essence, the campist vs state-capitalist debate is not really about the mode of production, it is essentially a proxy debate for “Is China good?” where the only two positions are black or white. When campists argue about China’s MoP they are actually stating a position that wants to say “we should uncritically support the Chinese government as it exists because this will mean the left is ready to oppose any aggressions by the US and the West”. This position has its merit, because working within an American exceptionalist logic, if a country is evil then it is the duty of America’s Army to do something about it. And by refusing to accept China is in any way bad, this logic is broken at its core.

On the other hand, when state-capitalists argue about China’s MoP they are actually stating that they would welcome a working class-led change to the Chinese government that would alleviate the existing exploitation of Chinese workers. In this aspect, I do believe that there are some aspects of capitalism and exploitation in China, as Arnold writes, and most of it is due to the way the market structures social relationships. Furthermore, Chinese workers in many enterprises do fight for better wages and better conditions, so class struggle is definitely present.

However, the “state capitalist” logic on “internal revolution” is flawed, because whenever regime change and economic restructuring happens in an enemy of the West, it usually goes to the West’s advantage because it can call on many more resources. The case of Solidarność being a great example. So even if Chinese workers would organize themselves to topple the state (and that’s a big if), I would think that they would soon be organizationally overpowered by forces organized and financed by the West.

Thus, to me, the “campist” vs “state capitalist” debate usually isn’t a debate on the actual mode of production, but on how much we can ignore the uncomfortable aspects of a state as long as it fights imperialism. This question is posed over and over again: and it is easier to justify in some cases (Cuba) than others (Iran). Even more, in China, there is even a second dimension to it: due to China’s increasing dominance, the question may extend to “can we hope for the current Chinese state to help us ‘save’ the world”?

I am agnostic on this second question, having severe doubts with the Chinese commitment to opposing Israel for example, but acknowledging that Chinese solar power is helping the world immensely, but this is besides the point. Returning to the article, I thank the author for making a thoughtful contribution to the debate, but as long as we do not move past the real questions that bother us: i.e. “is China good?” or “can we hope that China will save us?” the debate will resemble a sports field where you pick a team and then make a theory to justify it. You either pick the S or the ME out of the SME, depending on whether you are more emotionally moved by photos of Jasic workers or US bomber jets. And unfortunately, I do not foresee that we will move beyond it soon, as the Chinese question will only become increasingly relevant.

Kieran Morgan