of course, the definition of capitalism is the system of economics where a managerial class exists by siphoning away the surplus value of workers. so, stealing labour from workers is the very way that the capitalist class exists. if it weren't for the ubiquity and normalization of this theft, capitalism would cease to exist and what would be left is some form of worker self-determination. when you realize the definition of capitalism in these very base terms, corporate welfare becomes that much more crude, as the money used to pay the corporate welfare is in theory collected again from the workers, themselves; it's just another way to collect surplus value.

listen, i don't want you to think i'm upholding this idea that creativity is defined by the market and societies that reject markets are unable to compete - i don't believe that at all. but, the marketization of china's economy happened a long time ago, now. i remember chomsky making this argument in the 70s, and there was something to it back then, but since the 90s, at the latest, china has been a neo-confucianist market economy, and not some kind of closed, communist state. the repression in the country is on a social level; economically, china is arguably even more laissez-faire than the united states, given that it doesn't enforce patent laws.

so, how did china get where it got?

1) it embraced market capitalism.

2) it co-opted the free trade concept for it's benefit, to develop massive trade surpluses. so, it turned ricardan theory against the west.

3) it abolished patent law, and stole ideas from the rest of the world

4) it accepted massive levels of capital investment from western companies.

these tactics were successful, but it's hardly maoism.

there's an old book by a long dead libertarian named antony sutton called "the best enemy money can buy" that explains how this worked in quite a bit of detail. it's a kind of front end to a dry, wonkish series of texts he wrote on soviet technological development.

so, while the rise of china is a real thing, it hasn't been due to rejecting capitalism, but due to embracing it. mr. wolff is simply out of touch on that point.

where this idea came from is classical liberal economic theory, but it probably hit it's peak in the nixon-khruschev kitchen debates, which are available on youtube. there is certainly some logic in the idea that innovation is best achieved when people are left free to innovate, rather than controlled and dominated and ordered around. it's really the story of archimedes in the bath, converted to a political theory. that eureka moment can only happen when people are free enough to contemplate it. but, it's a sort of a canard to presume that socialism eliminates that kind of freedom, when the entire point of most articulations of socialism is to maximize the freedom of the worker. this is really less a debate about socialism and capitalism and more a debate about libertarianism and authoritarianism, and in that sense nixon was right - not because the soviets were communist, but because they were fascistic.

the chinese have, in fact, largely realized that, and it's why they allow for so much economic freedom, even as they entirely reject any concept of social freedom or individual autonomy. but, you can nonetheless see the limitations, as well. you won't see great artists or experimental science come out of the chinese system, even as it holds it's own in the business sector. and, they won't truly achieve a communist state until they realize that - if they ever do.