Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However, having this selective breed of capitalism has allowed its leadership to sidestep aspects of American capitalism e.g. influence of corporations on leaders This is not a surprise if you understand China's political culture and its long, long history. For literally thousands of years, political elites in China have understood that political power follows economic power, which is why the richest in China are g…
> which is why the richest in China are generally Party members and high officials. Wouldn't that be the case with pretty much any totalitarian regime? > American politicians and citizens allowing corporate interests to slowly take over the political process is due to not understanding how history works. I'll take the flawed lobbying system over the Chinese system any day.
No. There are plenty of totalitarian regimes where any actual wealth held outside of a tiny ruling clique is considered unacceptable.
China's trick is that they 1) embraced de facto capitalism and 2) managed to spread the wealth amongst a relatively large Party base (as a % of the population) while still maintaining insider control. That's a very, very fine balancing act, and most authoritarian regimes can't manage to do it, leading to either failure to sustain economic growth (e.g. Russia, or North Korea) or complete loss of control to new economic elites.
In fact, Xi's anti-corruption campaign may potentially destabilize the Party because it breaks the implicit contract that has kept the Party together for the last 3 decades (namely, support the Party, and we'll look at the other way on corruption).