Definitionally, China’s economy fits fully into the neoliberal framework and adheres closely to the IMF prescription (balancing the budget, export-led growth, privatization etc.).

The IMF neoliberal framework is one of balancing budgets through austerity (etc). Neoliberalism is definitionally destructive to state-owned capital - as you mention, privatization. Generally speaking, it refocuses the profit drivers to finance through cannibalization of productive capital. While one could’ve argued for a worrying trajectory towards this in China in 1999, today the trend and actuality is opposite to this, with a growing state, growing SOEs, deprivatization, growing infrastructure, direct confrontations with an already-suppressed financial capital sector, and a steadily increasing domestic production for domestic consumption.

It is certainly true that China ticks some boxes (e.g. allowing its own exploitation, export-driven economy), but these are not sufficient to be neoliberal.

From an academic standpoint, economics departments across Chinese academia are already dominated by Western neoclassical and Austrian school economists who studied in Western universities. You want to find Marxist economists? They’ve all been banished to the humanities and social sciences departments decades ago.

Oh yes there is certainly a strong element of this political economic miseducation. It is not quite that dire, as even the Shanghai School integrates Marxist thought, and not just for show. Similarly, nerds like Liu Yuanchun and Hu Angang have substantial influence and intersect with the Tsinghua crowd. China’s governance has finance sector veterans following the plans of Marxist SOE advocates. These things get mixed together. Much of the strength of the anti-finance (or at least finance-critical) crowd focuses on the anarchy of production when finance capital becomes too strong, for example. Attempts to reign in real estate highlighted these struggles and with, appropriately, mixed bag outcomes.

From a historical standpoint, China’s reform and opening up model was designed by the Chicago school and Milton Friedman was even invited twice to China to educate Chinese policymakers. Shanghai’s financial sector was designed by the Chicago school lol.

Reform and Opening Up absolutely drew from neoliberal schools of thought, openly and intentionally, but also balanced by ML critique and retaining a very different political economic system than the Chicago Boys implemented on, say, Chile via Pinochet.

I do also want to note, however, that much of this is not in real service of whether China’s economy is fundamentally neoliberal. It could basically all be true in fact and intent while China’s actual economic function is not neoliberal.

Perhaps the most prominent economist and policy advisor in China today, Justin Lin Yifu […]

He headed the World Bank, too! Very enmeshed in the explicitly political structures of global capital. But again this just reads as an attempt at association but without strong thesis. And NSE, while easy to criticize, is a departure from neoliberal economics in quite a few ways, particularly when it comes to the role of the state and private capital.

Again, you are confusing a country having industrial policy and some level of capital control, which I remind you, that exist in many countries in the world today, as being not neoliberal.

I don’t believe I’ve said or implied either of those things. In fact, the comment you replied to was very very short and just doubted China being neoliberal. Are you thinking of a different person or comment?

Many people don’t even understand how the Chinese economy works and its history think they know China better than myself lol, and I don’t even claim to be an expert.

I’m not sure I’d make a blanket statement that I simply understand a given country’s economy. I can often identify salient aspects.