There is nothing liberal about the CCP's ideology. Karl Marx wasn't a liberal (in the philosophical sense) at all, argued that dictatorship was necessary and against the free market, among other things.
Confucianism nowadays doesn't really play a part in the CCP politics, it may be pushed at the individual level as a way to promote social "harmony", but certainly not as a general policy. For instance, the party recently judged that increasing the ultralow pensions (30$/m) of agricultural workers was not necessary.
In general, modern china is mercantilist economically, but not really liberal: the State heavily intervenes, property rights aren't guaranteed and the legal system isn't predictable at all (no jurisprudence). Socially, it's even less the case, with omniscient surveillance and repression of the information flow and expression.
Chinese workers still need internal temporary residence permits to work in cities like Beijing, and have no access to public services if they don't. The framing of "CCP policies as liberalism" is plainly wrong, and you ought to do some wikipedia reading about liberalism first.
By the way, Taiwan doesn't have a one-party rule, so its political system is not tied to the DPP. KMT also won elections and it didn't become a dictatorship either.
>Karl Marx... only criticizing the freedom in the great inequality of wealth and power.[3]
Confucianism is mostly CPC marketing; its gerontocratic heart really beats for Legalism, though some still hope for the "tail wagging the dog, peacefully", just like we'd want "civic individualism" (now represented by Mamdani?) to wag the genroto-corporatist dog in the US.
Regarding the pensions, it's not like national-level legislators are getting censured for supporting their raise.
I'm glad Taiwan's not tied to the DPP, because I'd rather support this:
Sorry, it's just immoral to me to sow discord against CPC in an US-based geronto-corporatist forum. If you want we can continue this on a PRC youth-forum (where I'd think it would be immoral to cast aspersions on US :)
Regarding Taiwanese fix for liberalism, Audrey Tang (with Glen Weyl) is not wasting time:
>As Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson famously argued, free democratic societies exist in a “narrow corridor” between social collapse and authoritarianism. From both sides, information technologies seem to be narrowing the corridor, squeezing the possibility of a free society.
Confucianism nowadays doesn't really play a part in the CCP politics, it may be pushed at the individual level as a way to promote social "harmony", but certainly not as a general policy. For instance, the party recently judged that increasing the ultralow pensions (30$/m) of agricultural workers was not necessary.
In general, modern china is mercantilist economically, but not really liberal: the State heavily intervenes, property rights aren't guaranteed and the legal system isn't predictable at all (no jurisprudence). Socially, it's even less the case, with omniscient surveillance and repression of the information flow and expression.
Chinese workers still need internal temporary residence permits to work in cities like Beijing, and have no access to public services if they don't. The framing of "CCP policies as liberalism" is plainly wrong, and you ought to do some wikipedia reading about liberalism first.
By the way, Taiwan doesn't have a one-party rule, so its political system is not tied to the DPP. KMT also won elections and it didn't become a dictatorship either.