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.
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.