Xi is a boomer who doesn't know how to export PDF.

Even if Xi doesn't want to advance an ideological position abroad, he may very well have no choice in the matter. As China's Belt and Road Initiative proceeds, capital will muster reactionary forces (locally and in "the international community") to impede, sabotage, and destroy these efforts. The CPC seems quite aware that stricter political and ideological enforcement is necessary at home to keep things running on track. I see no reason why that would be different in those countries they've decided to invest in.

As a matter of fact, I expect at least a part of the US strategy in this cold war will be to try and bait China to invest in countries which will then experience "political instability", hoping to sap their economic strength. The CPC will only get so far if they insist on dealing with opportunist libs, this conflict will require some level of ideological commitment to the long term project if they are to succeed. Internationalism does not work with half-measures, I don't think. The material conditions and expected reaction of capital will force their hand, and I'm honestly not convinced that this second Cold War will remain strictly on the economic battlefield.

Even if China does not actively export its ideology globally, it will still act as a beacon to all developing countries on an alternative path to follow to economic prosperity.

That is what the international capitalist class is becoming increasingly worried about - the possibility that other countries will learn from the Chinese example.

the book advocates for “stakeholder capitalism” instead of “stockholder capitalism”

I think the distinction is made to distinguish between different aspects of capitalism, as shareholder capitalism reflects some of the most extreme aspects of capitalism. As for the context of advocacy: “stakeholder capitalism” is the idea that you can make capitalism less bad by tying involvement with ownership: no stock market, no absentee landlordism, no monopoly acquisitions, etc. As something one would advocate, it can range from slightly-left-of-whatever-you-would-describe-Elizabeth-Warren-to-be to Socialism-in-Disguise.

This system, in which state bureaucrats managed large chunks of the economy, ranging from transportation to energy, stayed in place well into the 1970s.

This book refrains from naming it, but Varoufakis calls the system from WWII to 1973 the "Global Plan", and the era that followed the Global Minotaur. In the framing of above, this is when Nixon ended the Bretton Woods system and "shareholder capitalism" completely devoured anything left of managerial regulated Keynesian-influenced Capitalism. Xi's China definite draws from the pre-1973 American capitalist model that worked so well, though while Keynes was perfectly satisfied preserving a functioning version of capitalism for the time being, Xi Jinping describes it as a stepping stone towards socialism: the "initial stage of socialism" according to Xi Jinping Thought (a stage that doesn't seem to have much room for labor rights).

not exporting ideology

libs be mad, but this is literally my only criticism of China.

I always took "China doesn't export revolution" to mean "China doesn't export revolution... Yet"

Like, if they did tried shit now they'd immediately get invaded by NATO. Once the US is no longer a threat I don't see why they wouldn't