State capitalist is kind of a meaningless term, what matters is which class holds control over the political and economic system.

So some of the nordic states might have a comparatively high degree of state ownership and employment (compared to other capitalist states

), while still having a capital stand above the politics and economy.

Whereas in China, Cuba, Vietnam, the communist party stands above the economy and directs it via X-year plans.

Lenin’s quote on the distinction is good, and probably the main reason we should ditch the term altogether.

The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.

Hm? I thought they qualified exactly as that, state capitalist in the Leninist sense (compare to NEP)