ABSTRACT
By all accounts China is now awake, having risen from the ranks of the ancient Middle Kingdom to be considered a potential hegemon to succeed the USA. Some accounts of ‘China’s rise’ focus on Chinese exceptionalism—mainly suggesting that China has a unique form of ‘state capitalism’ (Halper 2010). Other accounts suggest a large and diverse space with many systems that continue to evolve. 1 Yet others suggest that China’s arrangements can be seen as providing a developmental model for other states with paths that differ from the Western histories underlying the Washington Consensus. However, a broader historical view provides important insights. Attention to List’s (1928 [1841]) interest in protectionism and championing of strategic industries and nationalism following Alexander Hamilton informed industrialization elsewhere, including in Germany and Japan, and this vantage point suggest China’s rise is consistent with other major powers in the modern era. China’s form of nationalist capitalism in the current era of globalization is consistent with Marx’s insight into the importance of the modern nation over provincialism which heralds bourgeois victory (Marx and Engels 1975: vol. VI, 486, 519; vol. VIII, 161). The broader historical view taken in this chapter, attentive to both List’s prescription and Marxist critique, suggests the need for caution in assessing China. The chapter questions both China’s differences from and similarities to the capitalist powers to which it has so often been contrasted by those concerned with hegemony. In the current political economic climate, debate over China’s role is often dominated by those who are fearful, given the importance of hegemony historically and concern for the future. Yet, when it comes to assessing China’s trajectory and hegemonic potential, simple answers cannot do justice to the complex—and sometimes contradictory—forces evident in the historical circumstances that surround capitalism.
