I don't know if you're getting the best representation of China from a rich international student.
Also, it's pretty clear from the actions of the Chinese government (e.g., nationalizations, seizing assets, arresting and executing billionaires, placing restrictions on spending, etc.) that while the rich hoard wealth, the party wields political power, often to the detriment of the bourgeoisie. Hence why they're going out of their way to hide assets.
If they actually were ruled by the bourgeoisie and didn't care about socialism, they wouldn't be acting in the interests of the workers at the expense of bourgeoisie, and wouldn't bother putting up such an elaborate pretense of socialism.
Oh, and here's a coupleposts that make me more confident of this.
China has been ruled by neoliberal bourgeoisie since Deng opened the floodgates in the 1980s.
If China were truly ruled by the bourgeoisie, it would no longer be the PRC; the bourgeoisie would not tolerate party rule of any form, and it would have done to China what the capitalists did to the USSR.
The reforms under Deng Xiaoping were broadly necessary for building the productive forces that are necessary to construct a more advanced socialist society. In the process they reintroduced many of the same side effects of capitalist society (inequality, unemployment, corruption, etc.), and while this probably could have been done in a way that better mitigated these things, the bourgeoisie never fully seized control of the country. Xi agrees with Deng about the necessity of Reform and Opening Up; he's now trying to manage the contradictions it's introduced, but supports the broader course.
younger generation neoliberals have already occupied much of the leadership posts and are poised to take over the country soon
the bourgeoisie would not tolerate party rule of any form, and it would have done to China what the capitalists did to the USSR.
What are you talking about?
This is literally the key defining feature of neoliberalism - the perfect unity between state and free market capitalism, born out of the necessity during the 1970s in order to allow bourgeoisie to assert capital control.
By party rule I was referring to Communist Party rule specifically. As long as they exist, they are a threat to the bourgeoisie; no party that encourages people to read Marx and Mao will be a reliable ally of the capitalist class. The party, which still exists, still uses its political power to support the proletariat, often at the expsense of the bourgeoisie (I listed examples). The various communist parties of the former Eastern Bloc countries were crushed by the forces of imperialism for a reason.
If the party were truly neoliberal, we would have seen more and more privatization, but we didn't. Privatization never took over the energy sector, public transport, finance, etc.
All this talk about the technical definition of neoliberalism isn't addressing anything else I said.
In particular: what evidence do you have of an impending neoliberal takeover of the party?
It makes sense to rely on liberal economists for advice when liberalizing an economy, since that's their expertise, but it's innacurate to call Chinese policy neoliberal given how enormous the state-owned sector of their economy is. You very notably don't see the policies of neoliberal Chile being implemented in China. Where are the privatized roads?
Again, what evidence do you see of an impending takeover of the CPC by neoliberals? Liberal economic advisors in the government? These people aren't even in the party.
At their best they're not doing anything that wasn't rather normal in Europe before the 80s. At their worst they're not doing anything that wasn't rather normal in Russia under Boris Yeltsin. It's perfectly normal for capitalists to hide assets from their governments, it happens everywhere.
Extrajudicial or kangaroo court, same difference, speak in dissent of the ruling order, you're putting your neck on the line. Reminds me of Liu Han, should have kept his mouth shut about the CCP.
There's a difference between one oligarch being assassinated by the other oligarchs for threatening their interests and a state executing numerous billionaires for corruption.
Combine this with other measures the PRC's taken against corruption, with nationalizations, with the expansion of agricultural cooperatives, with the state siding with workers who beat their new factory owner to death for trying to fire them, with Xi making like $20,000 a year, with the state forbidding layoffs during COVID, with the greatest reduction in absolute poverty in human history (as we know, poverty is extremely profitable to capitalists), and I'm inclined to believe there's no secret capitalist oligarchy ruling the PRC.
Also, it's the CPC, not the "CCP"; right wingers like to say "Chinese communist" because it makes them sound more threatening to racist reactionaries.
What you are describing as the state "siding" with the workers is what is called a "concession" because there was literally tens of thousands of them. There is still some legacy of the communist era left somewhat intact. The party is a bourgeois party through and through, it is a bad interpretation of what that means to assume that this would mean that capitalists should necessarily be above the (bourgeois) law. It wasn't just "corruption" they were guilty of, they were running mafias and murdering people. Even bourgeois nations prosecute mobsters.
I don't know if you're getting the best representation of China from a rich international student.
Also, it's pretty clear from the actions of the Chinese government (e.g., nationalizations, seizing assets, arresting and executing billionaires, placing restrictions on spending, etc.) that while the rich hoard wealth, the party wields political power, often to the detriment of the bourgeoisie. Hence why they're going out of their way to hide assets.
If they actually were ruled by the bourgeoisie and didn't care about socialism, they wouldn't be acting in the interests of the workers at the expense of bourgeoisie, and wouldn't bother putting up such an elaborate pretense of socialism.
Oh, and here's a couple posts that make me more confident of this.
deleted by creator
If China were truly ruled by the bourgeoisie, it would no longer be the PRC; the bourgeoisie would not tolerate party rule of any form, and it would have done to China what the capitalists did to the USSR.
The reforms under Deng Xiaoping were broadly necessary for building the productive forces that are necessary to construct a more advanced socialist society. In the process they reintroduced many of the same side effects of capitalist society (inequality, unemployment, corruption, etc.), and while this probably could have been done in a way that better mitigated these things, the bourgeoisie never fully seized control of the country. Xi agrees with Deng about the necessity of Reform and Opening Up; he's now trying to manage the contradictions it's introduced, but supports the broader course.
What are you talking about?
deleted by creator
By party rule I was referring to Communist Party rule specifically. As long as they exist, they are a threat to the bourgeoisie; no party that encourages people to read Marx and Mao will be a reliable ally of the capitalist class. The party, which still exists, still uses its political power to support the proletariat, often at the expsense of the bourgeoisie (I listed examples). The various communist parties of the former Eastern Bloc countries were crushed by the forces of imperialism for a reason.
If the party were truly neoliberal, we would have seen more and more privatization, but we didn't. Privatization never took over the energy sector, public transport, finance, etc.
All this talk about the technical definition of neoliberalism isn't addressing anything else I said.
In particular: what evidence do you have of an impending neoliberal takeover of the party?
deleted by creator
They invited him because they were introducing a private economy and figured that a capitalist economist would be able to help them do that, but they didn't take his advice and remain hostile to actual neoliberal economics.
It makes sense to rely on liberal economists for advice when liberalizing an economy, since that's their expertise, but it's innacurate to call Chinese policy neoliberal given how enormous the state-owned sector of their economy is. You very notably don't see the policies of neoliberal Chile being implemented in China. Where are the privatized roads?
Again, what evidence do you see of an impending takeover of the CPC by neoliberals? Liberal economic advisors in the government? These people aren't even in the party.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
At their best they're not doing anything that wasn't rather normal in Europe before the 80s. At their worst they're not doing anything that wasn't rather normal in Russia under Boris Yeltsin. It's perfectly normal for capitalists to hide assets from their governments, it happens everywhere.
The point is that the Chinese state is at odds with them, but that's just one example.
Another example is how the parliament is full of them I guess.
This is the argument I hear for why people refer to China as an oligarchy like Russia.
Oligarchies generally don't execute their oligarchs.
Boris Berezovsky? I think it still makes Russia an oligarchy.
He either killed himself or was assassinated.
Extrajudicial or kangaroo court, same difference, speak in dissent of the ruling order, you're putting your neck on the line. Reminds me of Liu Han, should have kept his mouth shut about the CCP.
There's a difference between one oligarch being assassinated by the other oligarchs for threatening their interests and a state executing numerous billionaires for corruption.
Combine this with other measures the PRC's taken against corruption, with nationalizations, with the expansion of agricultural cooperatives, with the state siding with workers who beat their new factory owner to death for trying to fire them, with Xi making like $20,000 a year, with the state forbidding layoffs during COVID, with the greatest reduction in absolute poverty in human history (as we know, poverty is extremely profitable to capitalists), and I'm inclined to believe there's no secret capitalist oligarchy ruling the PRC.
Also, it's the CPC, not the "CCP"; right wingers like to say "Chinese communist" because it makes them sound more threatening to racist reactionaries.
What you are describing as the state "siding" with the workers is what is called a "concession" because there was literally tens of thousands of them. There is still some legacy of the communist era left somewhat intact. The party is a bourgeois party through and through, it is a bad interpretation of what that means to assume that this would mean that capitalists should necessarily be above the (bourgeois) law. It wasn't just "corruption" they were guilty of, they were running mafias and murdering people. Even bourgeois nations prosecute mobsters.
They do tho. Even monarchies sometimes.