I think the argument there of "productive forces" building wouldn't be building socialism in a vacuum though, just improving material conditions, which is not unique to socialism. It's not western neoliberal hegemony, but it's still capitalism (useful for the case of improving past agrarian obstacles and industrializing) and should not be called socialism, best used to note post DOTP social structuring.
A vast majority of poverty improvements neolibs claim certainly are due to China's development. It's still useful to realize then that this is due to technocratic improvements in China still within capitalism-better than the alternative of poverty and exploitation by foreign capitalists, but there will come a point where international proletariat organizing and direct confrontation with capitalists can address the problem. Class collaboration and obfuscation of socialism now may hamper such efforts down the line.
I think the argument there of "productive forces" building wouldn't be building socialism in a vacuum though, just improving material conditions, which is not unique to socialism. It's not western neoliberal hegemony, but it's still capitalism (useful for the case of improving past agrarian obstacles and industrializing) and should not be called socialism, best used to note post DOTP social structuring.
A vast majority of poverty improvements neolibs claim certainly are due to China's development. It's still useful to realize then that this is due to technocratic improvements in China still within capitalism-better than the alternative of poverty and exploitation by foreign capitalists, but there will come a point where international proletariat organizing and direct confrontation with capitalists can address the problem. Class collaboration and obfuscation of socialism now may hamper such efforts down the line.