China

I still don't like the term "state capitalism" and its connotations in modern English, especially out of context of what he is going into detail about (perhaps the connotations are different in 1950s Chinese). For those of us who have only ever known a capitalist government, I think it is confusing to hear "state capitalism" as a distinct form of something; ours is already a state that is run by capitalists. The state part seems redundant and unwieldy. It is a dictatorship of capital.

As opposed to communist-run China, which is a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Both are dictatorships in the sense that they don't allow the other to have dominant political power, using violence to achieve this, if necessary. Capitalism does this for the purposes of maintaining a parasitic, exploitative relationship. AES states do this for the purpose of transitioning away from capitalism (away from exploitation) and developing toward socialism and then communism. The capitalist keeps the oppressed from gaining power. The communist keeps the oppressor from gaining power. Very important difference.

So looping back to state capitalism and its connotations, in modern English it might be more clarifying to refer to China's model as socialism with capitalist characteristics (I am open to other ideas). Or if we're talking about it in the context of their culture too, not just as a general model, to just use what they do (if I understand right what it is) and say "socialism with Chinese characteristics".

When Mao says this, for example:

10. Not only must the implementation of state capitalism be based on what is necessary and feasible (see the Common Programme), but it must also be voluntary on the part of the capitalists, because it is a co-operative undertaking and co-operation admits of no coercion. This is different from the way we dealt with the landlords.

He appears to be talking about capital as investment and growth of enterprise when referring to cooperation, rather than capital as currently-existing parasitic relationship (e.g. landlords). That's not to say the first kind is all good and wholesome, and can't develop into a parasitic relationship, but just that it seems to be about developing the productive forces within the confines of a communist vanguard party. Which is a very different implication than, say, thinking that he's saying "cede some power to capitalists" or something.