"I’m not sure how you go from that to assuming that Gowans believed that Maoist China was capitalist" What other conclusion could I draw? The comments below you talk about conflating the bourgeoisie and the people, but Mao says, "In our country, the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie comes under the category of contradictions among the people. By and large, the class struggle between the two is a class struggle within the ranks of the people, because the Chinese national bourgeoisie has a dual character... The national bourgeoisie differs from the imperialists, the landlords and the bureaucrat-capitalists. The contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the working class is one between exploiter and exploited, and is by nature antagonistic. But in the concrete conditions of China, this antagonistic contradiction between the two classes, if properly handled, can be transformed into a non-antagonistic one and be resolved by peaceful methods. However, the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie will change into a contradiction between ourselves and the enemy if we do not handle it properly and do not follow the policy of uniting with, criticizing and educating the national bourgeoisie, or if the national bourgeoisie does not accept this policy of ours" (from the same text I quoted in the comment). So you see why I said I didn't want to debate SWCC, because this specific conception of the people is particular to SWCC. I only showed that Mao held this same belief and conception. Gowans says, "Capitalists and billionaires, if they’re Chinese, are thus part of the Chinese people, the basic unit of analysis for the Chinese Communist Party, and therefore have a role to play—indeed, the principal one—in China’s economic development under the capitalist path the party has chosen. The party does not set as its goal the elimination of the wage system, the emancipation of the proletariat from the capitalist yoke, or an end to the exploitation of humans by humans—historical goals of socialism. It sets instead as its aim the economic development of China". He wants this to be a critique of modern China, but it ends up being a critique of China under the leadership of Mao as well (just to clarify, I am not slandering Gowans here, he praises Mao's contributions here ). But how do I know for sure that Gowans does not understand China or SWCC and that he is not making a general critique of China? Because he replied to my comment with this, "Am I suggesting that China under Mao was a capitalist state? No, not at all. My references to China are to China of today." This settles it. This concretely shows that he regards the PRC's sentiment towards the national bourgeoisie as distinct to the post-reform era. You say that he was merely showing how China has ALWAYS emphasized development and collaboration over struggle with the remaining domestic bourgeoisie, but he himself admits that is not the case.

This is how he proved me correct and how his critique relates to China as a capitalist state, which would implicate Mao's China as well. What do you not understand? I had originally typed out a much shorter response but here.