In the west, they increase the retirement age to funnel more money to capitalists. With no capitalists to finance in China, this money is going into pension funds for a 1.6 billion population.
What do you mean "with no capitalists to finance in China"?! There is objectively and obviously a Chinese bourgoisie, and this is therefore funneling money to them just like it would be doing anywhere else in the world.
What is quoted after is of course true of the USSR between the end of the NEP and the revisionists restoring capitalism, but we already have overwhelmingly widespread capitalism (privately owned MoP producing commodities, extracting surplus value through wage labor) in China, the two systems are extremely different.
Explain the mechanism by which the pension funds get funneled to the Chinese bourgeoisie in the PRC. Capitalists never touch public money in China, hence they are not financed by the PRC.
Ah, I see what you're saying now I think, so it would still be benefiting the capitalists (expanding the labor pool does that) but, in terms of direct finances, it doesn't really intersect with them.
What do you mean "with no capitalists to finance in China"?! There is objectively and obviously a Chinese bourgoisie, and this is therefore funneling money to them just like it would be doing anywhere else in the world.
What is quoted after is of course true of the USSR between the end of the NEP and the revisionists restoring capitalism, but we already have overwhelmingly widespread capitalism (privately owned MoP producing commodities, extracting surplus value through wage labor) in China, the two systems are extremely different.
Explain the mechanism by which the pension funds get funneled to the Chinese bourgeoisie in the PRC. Capitalists never touch public money in China, hence they are not financed by the PRC.
Ah, I see what you're saying now I think, so it would still be benefiting the capitalists (expanding the labor pool does that) but, in terms of direct finances, it doesn't really intersect with them.
Yeah, I was being very specific but I can see where the confusion came from. Thanks.