You can easily justify condemning China based on a shallow analysis.
Afterall, China is making compromises with capital. As a result of that compromise, which manifests as the market reforms of the "reform and opening up" period, you do introduce the contradictions of private enterprise. Namely, the contradictions of exploitation, inequality, and uneven development.
However, ending the analysis there and saying, "I have identified these contradictions, therefore China is capitalist/revisionist/rightist," without also analyzing the material conditions that motivated these compromises, as well as the contradictions resolved as a result of those compromises, is a mistake.
Or even just recognizing that they are compromises, as opposed to a complete surrender to capital. Of course it would be better if China didn't have to accept certain conditions of investment in order to participate in global trade, but unfortunately all of the means of developing advanced productive forces are locked away from them behind the doors of global trade because their development had been robbed from them at gunpoint under a century of colonial looting. And refusing to participate in global trade and instead trying to build advanced productive forces on your own out of sticks and stones simply isn't a viable path forward for building socialism.
"whether China is socialist" ... "their billionaires"
Copying a comment I made elsewhere:
You can easily justify condemning China based on a shallow analysis.
Afterall, China is making compromises with capital. As a result of that compromise, which manifests as the market reforms of the "reform and opening up" period, you do introduce the contradictions of private enterprise. Namely, the contradictions of exploitation, inequality, and uneven development.
However, ending the analysis there and saying, "I have identified these contradictions, therefore China is capitalist/revisionist/rightist," without also analyzing the material conditions that motivated these compromises, as well as the contradictions resolved as a result of those compromises, is a mistake.
Or even just recognizing that they are compromises, as opposed to a complete surrender to capital. Of course it would be better if China didn't have to accept certain conditions of investment in order to participate in global trade, but unfortunately all of the means of developing advanced productive forces are locked away from them behind the doors of global trade because their development had been robbed from them at gunpoint under a century of colonial looting. And refusing to participate in global trade and instead trying to build advanced productive forces on your own out of sticks and stones simply isn't a viable path forward for building socialism.
China can have a little billionaires as a treat