The argument is that capital is completely subservient to the party, rather than the other way around. I think it's partially true, and enough to keep China in the socialism family, but they're on watch. If they can make good on their promise to turn back toward a socialist mode of production in a decade or two, then great, if no, then they are what they are, and socialist countries/movements will need to carry on without them (or in direct opposition to them, which they should be doing anyway tbh)
If capital were completely subservient to the party and the party were actually trying to do communism, they wouldn't have billionaires and they wouldn't be doing imperialism. I get what you're saying and I think it might be true, but it's feels a bit like jumping through hoops to justify capitalist exploitation instead of just admitting that that's what they're doing
They are absolutely doing capitalist exploitaition. It's more a question of "is it worth it?" and "will they stop?". They have billionaires as a result of their liberalism, yes, but at least their billionaires can get prison sentences or death sentences for their crimes. Compare that to the US where billionaires have near-impunity.
I wouldn't call Chinese foreign policy "imperialistic" myself, you can see what a western liberal who directly worked with Chinese diplomats has to say about the issue, if you'd like. I would consider them to go to far in a non-interventionist direction, personally. They don't seem to have very much concern for international socialist movements, which makes them bad comrades (though we are also discussing whether they are comrades at all). I am posting in parallel, but to add to my other post in this thread, the CCP is not homogeneous either. It's very opaque, so it's difficult to get a fix on how things work, but there are both neo-Maoists and liberals inside the party (among others).
What I disagree with is Chins isn't ML because it's capitalist, which is a complete non sequitur.
What reason is there to believe they're ML other than aesthetics
The argument is that capital is completely subservient to the party, rather than the other way around. I think it's partially true, and enough to keep China in the socialism family, but they're on watch. If they can make good on their promise to turn back toward a socialist mode of production in a decade or two, then great, if no, then they are what they are, and socialist countries/movements will need to carry on without them (or in direct opposition to them, which they should be doing anyway tbh)
If capital were completely subservient to the party and the party were actually trying to do communism, they wouldn't have billionaires and they wouldn't be doing imperialism. I get what you're saying and I think it might be true, but it's feels a bit like jumping through hoops to justify capitalist exploitation instead of just admitting that that's what they're doing
They are absolutely doing capitalist exploitaition. It's more a question of "is it worth it?" and "will they stop?". They have billionaires as a result of their liberalism, yes, but at least their billionaires can get prison sentences or death sentences for their crimes. Compare that to the US where billionaires have near-impunity.
I wouldn't call Chinese foreign policy "imperialistic" myself, you can see what a western liberal who directly worked with Chinese diplomats has to say about the issue, if you'd like. I would consider them to go to far in a non-interventionist direction, personally. They don't seem to have very much concern for international socialist movements, which makes them bad comrades (though we are also discussing whether they are comrades at all). I am posting in parallel, but to add to my other post in this thread, the CCP is not homogeneous either. It's very opaque, so it's difficult to get a fix on how things work, but there are both neo-Maoists and liberals inside the party (among others).