Whether it’s traditional capitalists or self-interested bureaucrats owning the state, the end result is the same. Doesn’t China have a Gini coefficient almost as high as the US’s? Why would any truly socialist state be allowing this level of inequality? I’m not so sure the top CPC members are really all that interested in working towards communism over preserving their careers and benefits. 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?
Because the entire party is centered around Marxist Leninist Mao Zedong thought, every generation will be more dedicated to communism.
You don’t have to trust me. Go read the official policy papers published by the Columnist Party of China. Go read Xi’s published speeches. Go read any of the number of books on history and political theory officially endorsed by the CPC.
They talk the talk and as evidenced by corrupt business owners and corrupt party officials being prosecuted they walk the walk. What the fuck more do you want?
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.
Whether it’s traditional capitalists or self-interested bureaucrats owning the state, the end result is the same. Doesn’t China have a Gini coefficient almost as high as the US’s? Why would any truly socialist state be allowing this level of inequality? I’m not so sure the top CPC members are really all that interested in working towards communism over preserving their careers and benefits. 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?
This is a huge trust-me-bro.
You don’t have to trust me. Go read the official policy papers published by the Columnist Party of China. Go read Xi’s published speeches. Go read any of the number of books on history and political theory officially endorsed by the CPC.
They talk the talk and as evidenced by corrupt business owners and corrupt party officials being prosecuted they walk the walk. What the fuck more do you want?
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.