what i fucking want is there to not be anymore poverty and widespread inequality in a country that is supposedly led by a communist party. do you have any rebuttals to the first part of my previous comment? if you send me an actual study or something disproving these points i’ll retract what i said, i have no idea where to start with reading xi’s speeches or whatever
what i fucking want is there to not be anymore poverty
Poverty reduction is absolutely not something we have made strides in. Over 940 million lifted out of poverty?Who? Being the country almost solely keeping global anti poverty trend positive through domestic poverty alleviation and investment in the global south? So? (Massive /S)
This was overly mean but the point stands that poverty alleviation has been one of the forefront policies of the CPC. Poverty can’t be removed at the wave of a wand.
Doesn’t China have a Gini coefficient almost as high as the US’s?
I’m aware of how well China has performed regarding poverty alleviation, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that there are still people in poverty at the same time as billionaires. That level of inequality allowed by a communist party is pretty suspicious, along with the special economic zones and other things that reek of class collaboration. I used the world bank numbers, which says China’s gini is 0.36, but that is from 2022. Did it really change that much in the last four years? I am really impressed by China’s growth in the past few decades, don’t get me wrong, but it seems like they’re headed towards a mixed economy direction rather than really caring about communism. I’ll check out your recommendation at some point but I’m too busy with classwork to do any heavy reading
Your observation of the coexistence of poverty and billionaires is a reasonable observation at first glance, however the theoretical conclusions drawn from it need to be examined within the proper framework of materialist analysis.
Historical materialism points out that the evolution of social formations is fundamentally constrained by the level of development of productive forces. China is currently, and will likely remain for a time, in the primary stage of socialism. At this stage, the core task of society is to liberate and develop the productive forces, accumulating the necessary material foundation for the transition to a higher stage of socialism and eventually communism (once capitalism on a global scale has been overcome). We cannot disregard the objective limitations of material conditions and attempt to leapfrog historical stages solely based on moral will or egalitarian distribution methods; such approaches have historically (such as under the gang of four) only led to common poverty rather than common prosperity.
Regarding the market economy and the continuation of private property. China implements a socialist market economy, allowing the existence of non-public ownership and private capital. This is not a departure from communist principles, nor is it so-called class collaboration, but rather a return to the standard application of Marxist theory (compared to the USSR and it’s war economy). Utilizing market mechanisms and private capital as a means of developing productive forces, under the premise that the proletariat holds state power, is the most efficient strategy at the current stage while also protecting revolutionary gains by avoiding the creation of large black markets of small and medium producers. The emergence of billionaires is an unfortunate byproduct of this secondary form of private property (like all forms of private property) and market distribution mechanism at a specific stage of development.
The key difference lies in the nature of the state power and its control over the economy. Unlike capitalist countries where capital captures the state apparatus, China upholds the dominant position of public ownership, with the state firmly controlling economic lifelines such as finance, energy, land, and communications. The development of private capital is strictly confined within the framework of serving the overall national development strategy. The poverty alleviation, rural revitalization, and regional coordinated development strategies that continue to this day, as well as the regulation of disorderly capital expansion, are precisely to ensure that wealth created by the market can be used for the goal of common prosperity through the institutional arrangements of primary distribution, redistribution, and tertiary distribution.
Regarding the mixed economy direction you mentioned, Marx already clarified in Critique of the Gotha Programme that a society newly emerging from capitalism still bears the traces of the old society from which it emerged. Socialism itself is a transitional period full of contradictions. A certain degree of inequality and private wealth accumulation is unavoidable to create the material prerequisites for the ultimate elimination of inequality. China has not stopped its efforts to eliminate poverty. The current policy focus is on addressing the principal contradiction between the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life and unbalanced and inadequate development through rural renewal and continued poverty alleviation campaigns.
Judging China’s current situation as a static historical snapshot falls into a metaphysical trap. Whether a country adheres to socialism does not depend on whether it meets certain subjective assumptions or dogmatic criteria. One must employ the correct dialectical materialist analysis, viewing history as the dynamic process of continuous movement, development, and evolution that it is. The key to examining the nature of a society lies in grasping the essence of its relations of production, the class nature of its state power, and its long-term development trajectory. China’s development path is precisely about harnessing capital rather than being harnessed by it, steadily moving towards the ultimate historical direction of eliminating class differences and realizing the comprehensive and free development of human beings through continuous dialectical negation.
Utilizing market mechanisms and private capital as a means of developing productive forces, under the premise that the proletariat holds state power, is the most efficient strategy at the current stage while also protecting revolutionary gains by avoiding the creation of large black markets of small and medium producers. The emergence of billionaires is an unfortunate byproduct of this secondary form of private property (like all forms of private property) and market distribution mechanism at a specific stage of development.
To an extent, I can see the case for this. But why doesn’t China implement some sort of tax system that prevents that level of private wealth accumulation? Surely this could still work while forcing people to stay multimillionaires rather than billionaires, and redirect that money into more welfare and better worker’s rights (why are unions and independent organizing banned in a “communist” country anyways?)
China upholds the dominant position of public ownership, with the state firmly controlling economic lifelines such as finance, energy, land, and communications.
My point here is, who is in control of the state and these state-owned industries? Is it really the proletariat or just some powerful CPC members?
Regarding the mixed economy direction you mentioned, Marx already clarified in Critique of the Gotha Programme that a society newly emerging from capitalism still bears the traces of the old society from which it emerged. Socialism itself is a transitional period full of contradictions.
See first paragraph
There seems to be a concerning rise in ethno-nationalistic and right-leaning sentiments in China from what I’ve heard (policy called “Glorious Revival of the Chinese Race” or something like that?) along with:
communist students who were trying to organize factory workers getting arrested by the CPC (“Jasic incident” iirc)
ACFTU not really doing much to improve worker’s rights
Setting an arbitrary cap on wealth is entirely unnecessary, such a measure fails to address the core issue of private ownership. There is no qualitative difference between a multi-millionaire and a billionaire. A more rational approach is to focus on the truly critical issue: firmly controlling the commanding heights of the economy. In this way, secondary forms of private ownership can primarily serve the people as a whole, with capital accumulation acting merely as a byproduct of this process, unlike in the capitalist world, where it serves solely the limitless accumulation of private wealth.
Regarding labor rights, trade unions are not banned; they are simply required by law to register within the framework of the ACFTU. It is entirely logical for a nation that has faced agitation and interference from external forces (acting through so-called “independent” organizations) to withhold support for such groups. Furthermore, allowing independent political organizations to act unilaterally in defiance of the collective decisions made by the people and their elected representatives fundamentally violates the principle of democratic centralism.
Your understanding of ownership appears to be flawed. The essence of ownership lies in the capacity for the private appropriation of surplus value. Members of the CPC and state officials have absolutely no ability to privately appropriate the surplus value generated by state-owned enterprises. These assets belong to the entire population, and their returns are systematically reinvested in national development and public welfare.
As for the state’s proletarian character, this is self-evident to anyone with direct experience and deep engagement within China. I understand that distinguishing between appearances and the underlying reality is difficult from the outside, but the fact remains that the vast majority of deputies to the People’s Congresses are chosen through direct elections. Cadre promotion is directly linked to tangible service to the people; the system explicitly precludes parachuting individuals with no grassroots experience into positions of power. One need only look at the 12345 government service hotline or the daily functions of grassroots Party offices (which receive and address public complaints and requests) to understand how the state apparatus remains accountable to the people.
The slogan you mentioned I assume in reality actually refers to the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.” This has nothing to do with race; it is a core objective and slogan established as far back as the era of Dr. Sun Yat-sen. It carries no undertones of narrow nationalism but instead emphasizes the overall development of the country and the unity of all ethnic groups. Regarding those so-called “communist students”, they were violating the principle of democratic centralism; they were merely engaging in a performative revolutionary game, completely disregarding the negative impact such behavior has on the overall interests of the people and on social stability.
At the same time, the rights and interests of Chinese workers are steadily improving. This improvement is evident both in direct policy measures, such as the strict regulation and prohibition of the 996 work schedule and enhanced protections for workers in new forms of employment as well as in indirect macroeconomic adjustments, such as the proactive deflation of the real estate bubble, which has alleviated pressure that private capital exerts on workers. In this context, unemployment is no longer a devastating existential blow, but merely a manageable life inconvenience.
Most importantly, you are still mechanically imposing a subjectively predetermined checklist of personal standards onto a static “snapshot” of Chinese history in your mind. Rigorous theoretical analysis requires abandoning this metaphysical approach in favor of the correct methods of dialectical and historical materialism; one must view China as a dynamic system in constant motion and development, analyzing how it resolves internal contradictions and steadily advances during the process of building socialism.
what i fucking want is there to not be anymore poverty
That doesn’t happen over night. China is eliminating poverty and has made massive strides on that front. To ignore the fact that life expectancy has over well over doubled since the formation of the CPC is quite disingenuous.
and widespread inequality
You can’t get rid of inequality. Some people will always want to work harder than others and they deserve to be compensated for that. The goal is to make sure that everyone has the same opertunities to make the most of their natural aptitudes.
That is what China’s recent ban on for profit education has been about. By eliminating people’s ability to buy superior education for their kids they even the playing field for all children regardless of their parents wealth.
Abolition of inequality is an affront to all of human history. You cant just do that you have to build up to it on a historical scale. The trend of history is towards equality but it cannot be rushed. Dialectical materialism shows us that qualitative changes must come from quantitative changes. You can’t just make things be what you want them to be. You have to make the conditions that cause things to become what you want.
the end result is the same.
no it isn’t.
Doesn’t China have a Gini coefficient almost as high as the US’s?
no it doesn’t and gini is a flawed system of measuring inequality anyway. It measures the size of the spread instead of measuring how many people are close to the middle. You could have a nation where a million people had the exact same income but there was 10 people in absolute poverty and 10 that were a million times as wealthy as the middle class and gini would say it was a deeply unequal society.
Why would any truly socialist state be allowing this level of inequality?
because inequality is the natural state of society in all of recorded history and eliminating it with the stroke of a pen would be disruptive and unsustainable. In the USSR there was a massive black market because they tried to force equality and it only made the problem worse.
I’m not so sure the top CPC members are really all that interested in working towards communism over preserving their careers and benefits.
This is just vibes. “No investigation no right to speak.” Go do some digging into how China is governed.
Even if they were, if everyone below them was corrupt or non-dedicated how would the CPC be able to properly work towards its goal while its members cant work together?
Not everyone would be corrupt or non-dedicated. All people are flawed but if everyone is reading the same books and pretending that they are dedicated they have to recognize the ones who pretend the best. If the system selects only those who look and act the most dedicated to the cause of communism the true believers must float to the top. The CPC’s system is built specifically to do exactly that.
There are lots of sources for learning about China’s governance if you are willing to read them. Here is a good place to start
what i fucking want is there to not be anymore poverty and widespread inequality in a country that is supposedly led by a communist party. do you have any rebuttals to the first part of my previous comment? if you send me an actual study or something disproving these points i’ll retract what i said, i have no idea where to start with reading xi’s speeches or whatever
Poverty reduction is absolutely not something we have made strides in. Over 940 million lifted out of poverty?Who? Being the country almost solely keeping global anti poverty trend positive through domestic poverty alleviation and investment in the global south? So? (Massive /S)This was overly mean but the point stands that poverty alleviation has been one of the forefront policies of the CPC. Poverty can’t be removed at the wave of a wand.
No. Actually China’s Gini coefficient is one of the lowest in the world
China: 0.26 US: 0.418
The Governance of China is probably a good start
I’m aware of how well China has performed regarding poverty alleviation, but that doesn’t excuse the fact that there are still people in poverty at the same time as billionaires. That level of inequality allowed by a communist party is pretty suspicious, along with the special economic zones and other things that reek of class collaboration. I used the world bank numbers, which says China’s gini is 0.36, but that is from 2022. Did it really change that much in the last four years? I am really impressed by China’s growth in the past few decades, don’t get me wrong, but it seems like they’re headed towards a mixed economy direction rather than really caring about communism. I’ll check out your recommendation at some point but I’m too busy with classwork to do any heavy reading
Your observation of the coexistence of poverty and billionaires is a reasonable observation at first glance, however the theoretical conclusions drawn from it need to be examined within the proper framework of materialist analysis.
Historical materialism points out that the evolution of social formations is fundamentally constrained by the level of development of productive forces. China is currently, and will likely remain for a time, in the primary stage of socialism. At this stage, the core task of society is to liberate and develop the productive forces, accumulating the necessary material foundation for the transition to a higher stage of socialism and eventually communism (once capitalism on a global scale has been overcome). We cannot disregard the objective limitations of material conditions and attempt to leapfrog historical stages solely based on moral will or egalitarian distribution methods; such approaches have historically (such as under the gang of four) only led to common poverty rather than common prosperity.
Regarding the market economy and the continuation of private property. China implements a socialist market economy, allowing the existence of non-public ownership and private capital. This is not a departure from communist principles, nor is it so-called class collaboration, but rather a return to the standard application of Marxist theory (compared to the USSR and it’s war economy). Utilizing market mechanisms and private capital as a means of developing productive forces, under the premise that the proletariat holds state power, is the most efficient strategy at the current stage while also protecting revolutionary gains by avoiding the creation of large black markets of small and medium producers. The emergence of billionaires is an unfortunate byproduct of this secondary form of private property (like all forms of private property) and market distribution mechanism at a specific stage of development.
The key difference lies in the nature of the state power and its control over the economy. Unlike capitalist countries where capital captures the state apparatus, China upholds the dominant position of public ownership, with the state firmly controlling economic lifelines such as finance, energy, land, and communications. The development of private capital is strictly confined within the framework of serving the overall national development strategy. The poverty alleviation, rural revitalization, and regional coordinated development strategies that continue to this day, as well as the regulation of disorderly capital expansion, are precisely to ensure that wealth created by the market can be used for the goal of common prosperity through the institutional arrangements of primary distribution, redistribution, and tertiary distribution.
Regarding the mixed economy direction you mentioned, Marx already clarified in Critique of the Gotha Programme that a society newly emerging from capitalism still bears the traces of the old society from which it emerged. Socialism itself is a transitional period full of contradictions. A certain degree of inequality and private wealth accumulation is unavoidable to create the material prerequisites for the ultimate elimination of inequality. China has not stopped its efforts to eliminate poverty. The current policy focus is on addressing the principal contradiction between the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life and unbalanced and inadequate development through rural renewal and continued poverty alleviation campaigns.
Judging China’s current situation as a static historical snapshot falls into a metaphysical trap. Whether a country adheres to socialism does not depend on whether it meets certain subjective assumptions or dogmatic criteria. One must employ the correct dialectical materialist analysis, viewing history as the dynamic process of continuous movement, development, and evolution that it is. The key to examining the nature of a society lies in grasping the essence of its relations of production, the class nature of its state power, and its long-term development trajectory. China’s development path is precisely about harnessing capital rather than being harnessed by it, steadily moving towards the ultimate historical direction of eliminating class differences and realizing the comprehensive and free development of human beings through continuous dialectical negation.
To an extent, I can see the case for this. But why doesn’t China implement some sort of tax system that prevents that level of private wealth accumulation? Surely this could still work while forcing people to stay multimillionaires rather than billionaires, and redirect that money into more welfare and better worker’s rights (why are unions and independent organizing banned in a “communist” country anyways?)
My point here is, who is in control of the state and these state-owned industries? Is it really the proletariat or just some powerful CPC members?
See first paragraph
There seems to be a concerning rise in ethno-nationalistic and right-leaning sentiments in China from what I’ve heard (policy called “Glorious Revival of the Chinese Race” or something like that?) along with:
Setting an arbitrary cap on wealth is entirely unnecessary, such a measure fails to address the core issue of private ownership. There is no qualitative difference between a multi-millionaire and a billionaire. A more rational approach is to focus on the truly critical issue: firmly controlling the commanding heights of the economy. In this way, secondary forms of private ownership can primarily serve the people as a whole, with capital accumulation acting merely as a byproduct of this process, unlike in the capitalist world, where it serves solely the limitless accumulation of private wealth.
Regarding labor rights, trade unions are not banned; they are simply required by law to register within the framework of the ACFTU. It is entirely logical for a nation that has faced agitation and interference from external forces (acting through so-called “independent” organizations) to withhold support for such groups. Furthermore, allowing independent political organizations to act unilaterally in defiance of the collective decisions made by the people and their elected representatives fundamentally violates the principle of democratic centralism.
Your understanding of ownership appears to be flawed. The essence of ownership lies in the capacity for the private appropriation of surplus value. Members of the CPC and state officials have absolutely no ability to privately appropriate the surplus value generated by state-owned enterprises. These assets belong to the entire population, and their returns are systematically reinvested in national development and public welfare.
As for the state’s proletarian character, this is self-evident to anyone with direct experience and deep engagement within China. I understand that distinguishing between appearances and the underlying reality is difficult from the outside, but the fact remains that the vast majority of deputies to the People’s Congresses are chosen through direct elections. Cadre promotion is directly linked to tangible service to the people; the system explicitly precludes parachuting individuals with no grassroots experience into positions of power. One need only look at the 12345 government service hotline or the daily functions of grassroots Party offices (which receive and address public complaints and requests) to understand how the state apparatus remains accountable to the people.
The slogan you mentioned I assume in reality actually refers to the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.” This has nothing to do with race; it is a core objective and slogan established as far back as the era of Dr. Sun Yat-sen. It carries no undertones of narrow nationalism but instead emphasizes the overall development of the country and the unity of all ethnic groups. Regarding those so-called “communist students”, they were violating the principle of democratic centralism; they were merely engaging in a performative revolutionary game, completely disregarding the negative impact such behavior has on the overall interests of the people and on social stability.
At the same time, the rights and interests of Chinese workers are steadily improving. This improvement is evident both in direct policy measures, such as the strict regulation and prohibition of the 996 work schedule and enhanced protections for workers in new forms of employment as well as in indirect macroeconomic adjustments, such as the proactive deflation of the real estate bubble, which has alleviated pressure that private capital exerts on workers. In this context, unemployment is no longer a devastating existential blow, but merely a manageable life inconvenience.
Most importantly, you are still mechanically imposing a subjectively predetermined checklist of personal standards onto a static “snapshot” of Chinese history in your mind. Rigorous theoretical analysis requires abandoning this metaphysical approach in favor of the correct methods of dialectical and historical materialism; one must view China as a dynamic system in constant motion and development, analyzing how it resolves internal contradictions and steadily advances during the process of building socialism.
That doesn’t happen over night. China is eliminating poverty and has made massive strides on that front. To ignore the fact that life expectancy has over well over doubled since the formation of the CPC is quite disingenuous.
You can’t get rid of inequality. Some people will always want to work harder than others and they deserve to be compensated for that. The goal is to make sure that everyone has the same opertunities to make the most of their natural aptitudes.
That is what China’s recent ban on for profit education has been about. By eliminating people’s ability to buy superior education for their kids they even the playing field for all children regardless of their parents wealth.
Abolition of inequality is an affront to all of human history. You cant just do that you have to build up to it on a historical scale. The trend of history is towards equality but it cannot be rushed. Dialectical materialism shows us that qualitative changes must come from quantitative changes. You can’t just make things be what you want them to be. You have to make the conditions that cause things to become what you want.
no it isn’t.
no it doesn’t and gini is a flawed system of measuring inequality anyway. It measures the size of the spread instead of measuring how many people are close to the middle. You could have a nation where a million people had the exact same income but there was 10 people in absolute poverty and 10 that were a million times as wealthy as the middle class and gini would say it was a deeply unequal society.
because inequality is the natural state of society in all of recorded history and eliminating it with the stroke of a pen would be disruptive and unsustainable. In the USSR there was a massive black market because they tried to force equality and it only made the problem worse.
This is just vibes. “No investigation no right to speak.” Go do some digging into how China is governed.
Not everyone would be corrupt or non-dedicated. All people are flawed but if everyone is reading the same books and pretending that they are dedicated they have to recognize the ones who pretend the best. If the system selects only those who look and act the most dedicated to the cause of communism the true believers must float to the top. The CPC’s system is built specifically to do exactly that.
There are lots of sources for learning about China’s governance if you are willing to read them. Here is a good place to start