As capitalists, their basic argument is the same tired argument that capitalism is good, but needs a strong state to regulate its excesses. With regards to China, they use China's dynastic past and how the various dynasties had complete control over their economies (not actually true as some dynasties like Ming had a fairly laissez faire policy) to demonstrate that China as a polity always had a hands-on approach towards the economy, and the reason why capitalists control Western governments but not China is because Western polities lack the political tradition of having a strong centralized state. They also shoehorn Confucianism here by stating that part of the strong centralized state is Confucianism as a political philosophy (not really true either but it's just their way of trying to understand why all the "good" capitalist countries like Japan and the four Asian tigers have strong Confucian influences). Japan and the four Asian tigers being economic powerhouses and investing in China's economic development is supposed to be a harbinger for things to come.
Their arguments have flaws. For one, a lot of their arguments boils down to "Chinese capitalist smart Western capitalist dumb." Chinese capitalists are smart enough to enact zero-Covid so their workers do not suffer productivity from long Covid while Western capitalists are too stupid to realize the dangers of long Covid. Asking why Chinese capitalists have fractal brains while Western capitalists have frictionless spherical brains leads to uneasy answers. Many of their answers are essentially chauvinist. In other words, capitalism with Chinese characteristics is superior to capitalism with Western characteristics because Chinese culture and people are superior to Western culture and people. For obvious reasons, I see this reasoning often in Chinese capitalists even if it's implied. Their understanding of China's past is also not the greatest, perhaps purposefully misleading, and is somewhat Orientalist, although recasting many Orientalist tropes as a good thing so reverse Orientalism(?) I guess.
I still give them credit for at least trying to understand China's past and China's neighbors in order to understand present China. I can't say the same for these Western bozos though.
As capitalists, their basic argument is the same tired argument that capitalism is good, but needs a strong state to regulate its excesses. With regards to China, they use China's dynastic past and how the various dynasties had complete control over their economies (not actually true as some dynasties like Ming had a fairly laissez faire policy) to demonstrate that China as a polity always had a hands-on approach towards the economy, and the reason why capitalists control Western governments but not China is because Western polities lack the political tradition of having a strong centralized state. They also shoehorn Confucianism here by stating that part of the strong centralized state is Confucianism as a political philosophy (not really true either but it's just their way of trying to understand why all the "good" capitalist countries like Japan and the four Asian tigers have strong Confucian influences). Japan and the four Asian tigers being economic powerhouses and investing in China's economic development is supposed to be a harbinger for things to come.
Their arguments have flaws. For one, a lot of their arguments boils down to "Chinese capitalist smart Western capitalist dumb." Chinese capitalists are smart enough to enact zero-Covid so their workers do not suffer productivity from long Covid while Western capitalists are too stupid to realize the dangers of long Covid. Asking why Chinese capitalists have fractal brains while Western capitalists have frictionless spherical brains leads to uneasy answers. Many of their answers are essentially chauvinist. In other words, capitalism with Chinese characteristics is superior to capitalism with Western characteristics because Chinese culture and people are superior to Western culture and people. For obvious reasons, I see this reasoning often in Chinese capitalists even if it's implied. Their understanding of China's past is also not the greatest, perhaps purposefully misleading, and is somewhat Orientalist, although recasting many Orientalist tropes as a good thing so reverse Orientalism(?) I guess.
I still give them credit for at least trying to understand China's past and China's neighbors in order to understand present China. I can't say the same for these Western bozos though.
Sounds interesting, thanks for the summary