So, your position (correct me if I am wrong) is that China has made compromises with capital and that this capital has indeed introduced inequalities and exploitation, but that China had no better choice due to lack of leverage, and that the party is still dedicated to reducing the private sector.
That still seems like its fair to call it liberal to me tho. Like I said, the fact that there was no better choice doesn't make it not neoliberal. And I know that it's more of a compromise and not a complete surrender because most of the economy is still state-owned and that they place certain restrictions on foreign investments.
But, ya'know, I look at what the reforms did, and it seems to match the definition of "liberal". And if it quacks like a duck...
I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you on that point, I just wanted to provide relevant context using discussions I've previously had on the topic. But market liberalization reforms as a part of a broader economic and development plan under the guidance of a dictatorship of the proletariat is a far cry from being neoliberal. Neoliberal reforms would seek to dismantle state enterprises and transfer ownership to private owners to the greatest extent possible, and reduce the state's role in regulating the market to the greatest extent possible. Neither could description could be used to describe the policies of the reform and opening up period in good faith when considering the full context.
Also, "look at what the reforms did" is a great way of showing that they were not neoliberal, or guided by a neoliberal governing philosophy.
Neoliberalism isn't exactly famous for creating economies that grow at a consistent pace, are recession proof, constantly improve the living conditions and wages of the working class, and lift over a billion people out of poverty. Those things only happen because regulations and policy are written with the interests of the people in mind, and are not primary concerned with the interests of private owners the way a neoliberal government would be.
So if the Chinese economy has had a drastically different outcome compared to every other country that underwent neoliberal reforms, then logic would dictate that China must be doing something different.
Alright, thank you for the reply.
So, your position (correct me if I am wrong) is that China has made compromises with capital and that this capital has indeed introduced inequalities and exploitation, but that China had no better choice due to lack of leverage, and that the party is still dedicated to reducing the private sector.
That still seems like its fair to call it liberal to me tho. Like I said, the fact that there was no better choice doesn't make it not neoliberal. And I know that it's more of a compromise and not a complete surrender because most of the economy is still state-owned and that they place certain restrictions on foreign investments.
But, ya'know, I look at what the reforms did, and it seems to match the definition of "liberal". And if it quacks like a duck...
Yes, the reforms were market liberalizations.
I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you on that point, I just wanted to provide relevant context using discussions I've previously had on the topic. But market liberalization reforms as a part of a broader economic and development plan under the guidance of a dictatorship of the proletariat is a far cry from being neoliberal. Neoliberal reforms would seek to dismantle state enterprises and transfer ownership to private owners to the greatest extent possible, and reduce the state's role in regulating the market to the greatest extent possible. Neither could description could be used to describe the policies of the reform and opening up period in good faith when considering the full context.
Also, "look at what the reforms did" is a great way of showing that they were not neoliberal, or guided by a neoliberal governing philosophy.
Neoliberalism isn't exactly famous for creating economies that grow at a consistent pace, are recession proof, constantly improve the living conditions and wages of the working class, and lift over a billion people out of poverty. Those things only happen because regulations and policy are written with the interests of the people in mind, and are not primary concerned with the interests of private owners the way a neoliberal government would be.
So if the Chinese economy has had a drastically different outcome compared to every other country that underwent neoliberal reforms, then logic would dictate that China must be doing something different.