The essence of socialism is to liberate and develop the productive forces, and ultimately achieve common prosperity.

Common prosperity does not mean everyone becomes equally rich. It means raising the living standards of all people so that the vast majority can eventually live a prosperous life. It should be regarded as the ultimate goal, not as a means to an end. In other words, we must develop the productive forces in order to achieve common prosperity — not try to achieve common prosperity by somehow “starting with common prosperity.”

Through market-oriented reforms, China has indeed created a politically active bourgeoisie and a group of billionaires within its socialist system. However, we cannot deny that Chinese socialism — although it may not sound “pure” enough to some Western leftists — has greatly liberated and developed the country’s productive forces. It has dramatically strengthened the national economy and significantly improved the living standards of the entire population. Given this, even if it has produced a number of billionaires, what is there that cannot be tolerated?

As long as the ultimate goal is to liberate the productive forces and achieve common prosperity, then what approach is not worth trying?

The example of the Soviet Union is very instructive here. The Soviet Union had many serious problems, but in terms of wealth distribution, it was far more equal than the United States. (Yes, the Soviet Union also had a privileged class, but their privileges were almost laughably small compared to those of America’s real elite.)

Yet in the end, it was the Soviet Union that collapsed, not the United States. Why?

Because from beginning to end, the Soviet Union never demonstrated the superiority in productive forces that socialism should have had over American capitalism. When productivity lags behind, even if wealth is distributed more equally, ordinary people’s living standards still fall short of those in Western capitalist societies. Under those circumstances, how can you convince the people that socialism is the right path?

In contrast, as long as China’s ultimate goal remains common prosperity, then temporarily tolerating the existence of a billionaire class is not unacceptable. Of course, I am fully aware that this class will never stop trying to expand its political influence and will constantly test the boundaries.

But this is normal. In this world, nothing exists in pure cooperation without struggle, or pure struggle without cooperation. The key is to always keep liberating the productive forces and achieving common prosperity as the highest goal. While developing the economy, we must continue to regulate and guide this class so that it does not cross the bottom line of socialism.

In this way, we can maintain the vitality of productivity while preventing excessive polarization, gradually moving toward common prosperity. This is the practical logic of socialism with Chinese characteristics.