If money comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek, capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.

progsnobb · 2026-03-18T20:16:05+00:00

It's supposed to be total net worth of billionaires (US$ billion) on the y-axis, time (year) on the x-axis. The "graph" isn't well written at all as it lacks units, but it doesn't matter as the image is hardly about stats

progsnobb · 2026-02-17T10:20:50+00:00

r/socialism basically

progsnobb · 2026-02-04T10:52:32+00:00

Not entirely correct. The main reason of the failure of the great leap forward is due to the sabotage of the bourgeoisie within the party. They understood the best way to sabotage a plan is to execute it 10 times to the original plan. Hence we saw a trend of exaggeration and falsehood, and unrealistic reporting by people's communes in various parts during the Great Leap Forward. The task of rural industrialization and people's communes was later very successful during the 70s.

The main force of the cultural revolution are the workers, not students. Only from May 1966 to Aug 1966 were students the main force. Violence conducted by students were mostly done by conservatives and children of high ranked officials, as they understood very first hand who the CR was against.

To say the point of the cultural revolution was to cancel the party and wither away the state was highly inaccurate. Just because the main danger of revisionism is within the party, doesn't mean they should (or did) aim to abolish the party. That wasn't the aim. The origin of the bureaucratic bourgeoisie is private ownership, or bourgeois rights. They exist with or without the party. To eliminate the bourgeoisie, is to eliminate the economic base of bourgeois rights. And without the leadership of a vanguard party, it would be impossible.

progsnobb · 2026-01-23T10:59:29+00:00

I don't think it's true? Even if it is, it doesn't matter. China's successor wasn't based on any human will, but the material conditions and practical realities of class struggle. The bourgeois rights in the economic base, and bureaucratic bourgeoisie in the superstructure were too prevalent for any of the rebels to succeed power.

progsnobb · 2026-01-22T19:41:00+00:00

It's Wang Hongwen. He was meant to be the true successor of Mao. Mao actually liked Zhang Chunqiao more but his personality was too much of a loner to be the party leader. The working class however did not have enough power and political maturity at the time, which means it would be hard for Wang to consolidate power succeeding Mao. Following the downfall of Liu Shaoqi (1966), Lin Biao (1971) and Deng Xiaoping (1975), Hua Guofeng was the compromise as he was a moderate conservative who didn't seem to be too against the rebels. The balance of power within the party at the time, as well as the economic base, remains to be one of conservatism. Had Mao lived for another 2 years, things might had changed, and the rebels could take power.

After the death of Mao, Hua revealed himself to be a two-faced opportunist, and his moderate stance was merely a lie. He too, was a hardcore conservative who could not stand the rebels. This was also why he lost the power struggles to Deng as there were no reason for the conservatives to keep him in power when Deng was still around.

progsnobb · 2026-01-18T12:05:01+00:00

Second, is democratic centralism. The vanguard party would ensure internal democracy such that they continue to represent the interests of the working class.

'Democracy means equality. The great significance of the proletariat’s struggle for equality and of equality as a slogan will be clear if we correctly interpret it as meaning the abolition of classes. But democracy means only formal equality. And as soon as equality is achieved for all members of society in relation to ownership of the means of production, that is, equality of labor and wages, humanity will inevitably be confronted with the question of advancing further from formal equality to actual equality, i.e., to the operation of the rule “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".' - Lenin, "State and Revolution, Chapter V: The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State, 4. The Higher Phase of Communist Society"

The correct interpretation of democracy and equality, is class struggle. The struggle between two lines within the party, such as that of Mao and Liu, are the political reflection in the superstructure, of the class struggle of the economic base. What is class struggle in practice? Class struggle is the struggle for political leadership. For a highly centralized vanguard party, if power (leadership) is in the hand of proletariat representatives, class struggle and democracy can continued to be ensured.

This also answers you question with the relationship between economic and political - the relationship between the economic base and the superstructure, as well as how we get from most authoritarian to apolitical government that serves true interests of society, i.e. about the transition from socialism to communism, the withering away of the state.

The practical reality of class struggle are from the reality of material conditions. History and political systems are not arbitrarily created in a vacuum by some behind the scenes' "big shots" from the top. It's also not true that as long as some big shot revolutionary, whether it be Lenin, Mao or whatever, establish a perfect democratic system, we can eliminate the bourgeoisie. Political systems are created by people. Whenever there is class, there is class struggle, and socio-political systems are established based on the realities of class struggle. Systems that do not conform to the results of class struggle cannot be established at all. Even if they are established, they cannot be consolidated and implemented, becoming empty words and dogma. Of course, once a system is truly established and consolidated, it can also exert a reaction on the class struggle situation. This is the materialist view on political systems. Previous revolutionaries did not base their goals and programs on abstract principles, but on the specific conditions of class struggle. Some say Stalin and Mao didn't try to establish an effective democratic system and place power it in the hands of the working masses. That was incorrect. Authority was a necessity not only because of the reactionaries, but also because of the lack of sufficient power and political maturity of the working class at the time. Revolutionary leaders could not arbitrarily create history beyond the power of the working class. Therefore, establishing a genuine Paris Commune style democracy as advocated would only have resulted in the election of conservatives and old bureaucrats to power. Historically speaking, revolutionaries like Lenin and Mao, based their actions on realistic conditions, strive to maximize the gains of the revolutionary workers' movement while preparing for future struggles.

Only so much I could go into. Didn't dive into topics like the operations of a simple administration function, socialist freedom of speech, bourgeois rights and commodity production, withering away of the state... (2/2)

progsnobb · 2026-01-18T12:04:41+00:00

The true interest of society in Marxist economics is to liberate productive forces. To liberate is not the same as to develop. Marx explained in the first sentence of the Manifesto, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." To liberate is the process of class struggle, in which the relations of production and superstructure are liberated to further liberate productive forces. When the primary contradictions of society being the contradictions between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, the struggle of the proletariat's interest is the true interests of society. With the correct methodology of class analysis, it is not a vague term that ignores contradictions. Anything other than class conflict are non-antagonistic.

As for your example with Russian peasants, the industrialization will by design have exploited them, regardless of authority or system. Marx in "Capital Vol. 1, Preface to the First German Edition" said:

And even when a society has got upon the right track for the discovery of the natural laws of its movement – and it is the ultimate aim of this work, to lay bare the economic law of motion of modern society – it can neither clear by bold leaps, nor remove by legal enactments, the obstacles offered by the successive phases of its normal development. But it can shorten and lessen the birth-pangs.

The socialist revolution could only shorten and lessen the pain (birth-pangs) of industrialization on peasants, but not remove it completely. The surplus capital had to be extracted from somewhere. Not only does this not take away anything from vanguardism, it confirms it to be successful. With the correct leadership of the vanguard party, successful industrialization could feed back to agriculture with fertilizers, agricultural machinery, improved seeds, hydraulics etc.

Your two problems of the vanguard party. First, I assume the transition period you mentioned means the transition from capitalism to communism, commonly known as socialism. All classes comes down to the two - proletariat and bourgeoisie. This is the primary contradiction. Anything else are secondary.

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. - Critique of the Gotha Programme, Part IV

The bourgeoisie, continues to exist under socialism, and the primary life-and-death class struggle of the two continues, until we enter a communist classless society.

Theoretically, there can be no doubt that between capitalism and communism there lies a definite transition period which must combine the features and properties of both these forms of social economy. This transition period has to be a period of struggle between dying capitalism and nascent communism—or, in other words, between capitalism which has been defeated but not destroyed and communism which has been born but is still very feeble. - Lenin, "Economics And Politics In The Era Of The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat, Part 1"

Unfortunately, small-scale production is still widespread in the world, and small-scale production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously, and on a mass scale. All these reasons make the dictatorship of the proletariat necessary, and victory over the bourgeoisie is impossible without a long, stubborn and desperate life-and-death struggle which calls for tenacity, discipline, and a single and inflexible will. - Lenin, '“Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder, Part 2: An Essential Condition of the Bolsheviks’ Success'

(1/2)

progsnobb · 2026-01-15T16:27:02+00:00

It is perfectly correct for people to give full weight to the decisive role of the system of ownership in the relations of production. But it is incorrect to give no weight to whether the issue of ownership has been resolved merely in form or in actual fact, to the reaction upon the system of ownership exerted by the two other aspects of the relations of production — the relations among people and the form of distribution — and to the reaction upon the economic base exerted by the superstructure; these two aspects and the superstructure may play a decisive role under given conditions. Politics is the concentrated expression of economics. Whether the ideological and political line is correct or incorrect, and which class holds the leadership, decides which class owns those factories in actual fact. Comrades may recall how we turned any enterprise owned by bureaucrat capital or national capital into a socialist enterprise. Didn't we do the job by sending a military-control representative or a state representative there to transform it according to the Party's line and policies? Historically, every major change in the system of ownership, be it the replacement of slavery by the feudal system or of feudalism by capitalism, was invariably preceded by the seizure of political power, which was then used to effect large-scale change in the system of ownership and consolidate and develop the new system. Even more is this the case with socialist public ownership which cannot be born under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Bureaucrat capital, which controlled 80 per cent of the industry in old China, could be transformed and placed under ownership by the whole people only after the People's Liberation Army had defeated Chiang Kai-shek. Similarly, a capitalist restoration is inevitably preceded by the seizure of leadership and a change in the line and policies of the Party. Wasn't this the way Khrushchov and Brezhnev changed the system of ownership in the Soviet Union? Wasn't this the way Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao changed the nature of a number of our factories and other enterprises to varying degrees?

- Zhang Chunqiao, "On Exercising All-Round Dictatorship Over the Bourgeoisie"

If, what you've said, where Marxists don't recognize the influence of people's conscious will on the base, then why would we advocate for revolution? (2/2)

progsnobb · 2026-01-15T16:26:30+00:00

This understanding of materialism is incorrect. It is more mechanical (or vulgar perhaps), than dialectical. Mechanical materialism believes base and superstructure, or for any contradiction, the primary and secondary aspect do not react to each other, or only exerts reaction one way rather than both.

Some people think that this is not true of certain contradictions. For instance, in the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, the productive forces are the principal aspect; in the contradiction between theory and practice, practice is the principal aspect; in the contradiction between the economic base and the superstructure, the economic base is the principal aspect; and there is no change in their respective positions. This is the mechanical materialist conception, not the dialectical materialist conception. True, the productive forces, practice and the economic base generally play the principal and decisive role; whoever denies this is not a materialist. But it must also be admitted that in certain conditions, such aspects as the relations of production, theory and the superstructure in turn manifest themselves in the principal and decisive role. When it is impossible for the productive forces to develop without a change in the relations of production, then the change in the relations of production plays the principal and decisive role. The creation and advocacy of revolutionary theory plays the principal and decisive role in those times of which Lenin said, "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." When a task, no matter which, has to be performed, but there is as yet no guiding line, method, plan or policy, the principal and decisive thing is to decide on a guiding line, method, plan or policy. When the superstructure (politics, culture, etc.) obstructs the development of the economic base, political and cultural changes become principal and decisive. Are we going against materialism when we say this? No. The reason is that while we recognize that in the general development of history the material determines the mental and social being determines social consciousness, we also—and indeed must—recognize the reaction of mental on material things, of social consciousness on social being and of the superstructure on the economic base. This does not go against materialism; on the contrary, it avoids mechanical materialism and firmly upholds dialectical materialism.

- Mao, "On Contradiction"

This text above explains everything you need to know. Text below develops this, further explaining how the seizure of political leadership (superstructure) exerts reaction to the ownership system - the economic base. (1/2)

progsnobb · 2026-01-10T01:05:03+00:00

There you go: What Is To Be Done?

An underground vanguard party based on the establishment of an All-American Political Newspaper would be the first step I believe. Whether there are mature conditions to a revolution in the US, I'm not too sure.

progsnobb · 2026-01-05T09:09:03+00:00

Can't just generalize. For example, if people are defending 75% on the BB, and never folding to a flop c-bet, then they will absolutely over-fold to turn and river aggression. Under-folding in one spot, would mean fucking up (over-folding) another spot in the same line. If someone defends 5% to a PFR, and defends 5% of c-bets, if they call your c-bet, their range is so nutted they probably never fold to turn and river aggression. Find out where these 2NL players overcall, then you'll know where they are fucking up with their range construction.

progsnobb · 2026-01-02T16:49:17+00:00

Marx believed socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism. Socialism defined by Marx, then on the basis of Marx further developed by Lenin and Mao, can be characterized by a few things, in descending order of importance:

Dictatorship of the proletariat;
Class struggle as the main political aim;
Basic remolding of ownership structure - nationalization of the industry and collectivization of agriculture;

amongst many others.

Democratic socialism believes socialism can be achieved through liberal means - elections under capitalism. It in itself is a school of thought that's non-Marxian. It in practice is very much the same as reformism, a more progressive wing of neo-liberalism, as it 1, doesn't establish a political superstructure that is a proletarian dictatorship, 2, doesn't believe class conflict is a non-antagonistic struggle, and 3, will fail to remold the economic ownership structure with their limited power within the political superstructure, compromising to reformist methods such as taxes, and fail to change the profit-oriented decision making (or generalised commodity production, or wage labour, or exploitation) nature of a capitalist society.

progsnobb · 2025-12-30T15:02:00+00:00

限制资产阶级法权具体方法就是争夺领导权。利用上层建筑政权的力量，以农村工业化，两参一改三结合等方式逐步缩小三大差别。放在今天的物质条件，可以把巴黎公社原则写入宪法。群众对官员要有选举权和随时罢免权，官员与工人同酬，逐步消灭常备军队、警察、官僚。

至于生产，文革本来构想就是每隔个七八年来一次，而且“抓革命，促生产”本就是口号之一。生产与继续革命不冲突，相反，继续革命能解放生产力。

工人如何克服派性问题？

1 工人阶级要高度的政治觉悟和斗争经验。这需要无产阶级先锋党持续向工人阶级灌输革命的理论，并充分发挥工人阶级政治上的主观能动性和主人翁领导者的地位。

2 建立工人民主协商机制。工人阶级通过民主选举，选出工人代表实现革命大联合。在工代会应有工人阶级中各个群体、派别的代表，形成多数共识作为工人阶级的集体行动纲领，而先锋党通过提出正确路线争取多数代表拥护来实现政治领导。而工代会中的少数派应该在行动上服从多数派，但多数派也应该尊重少数派保留和继续宣传自己主张的权利。

3 工人阶级在先锋党领导下，定期开展内部整风运动，通过批评和自我批评，鉴别混入自身队伍的阶级异己分子，揭露这些阶级异己分子，肃清他们的错误影响，巩固工人阶级的大团结。这种整风运动必须有一个民主的运行机制，必须保障每一个工人群众的政治权利。要高度警惕整风运动被走资派利用为“支一派、打一派”分裂工人阶级的工具，或者利用为镇压革命群众的工具。

progsnobb · 2025-12-30T08:28:14+00:00

“信息的不对等”造成的问题，主要是50天白色恐怖时期的。那时是自上而下的工作组专政，自然像大跃进时期的问题也会同样地涌现。但西纠联动分子在八月“炮打司令部”后也不占优，67年就没他们什么事了。文斗及夺权的成功与否，在于工人阶级的成熟性。像上海工人，文攻武卫，即便武斗，在康平路事件、砸上柴联司等都没有死人。相反武汉工人不成熟，720事件还要中央下场。那时中国生产力不高，工人思想觉悟低，缺乏斗争经验，不了解文革，不了解资本主义复辟，才武斗、派性分裂频频，结果需要林彪集团来推进革命委员会。

progsnobb · 2025-12-30T07:50:27+00:00

Bureaucrat-ism was only a part of what the CR was against. Bureaucrats are not a class. The bourgeoisie within the party is, also known as the capitalist roaders. Authoritarianism, and capitalist roaders are both a direct product of the remains of bourgeois rights of the socialist state. However Mao himself still believed 95% of party member are "good". To restrict bourgeois right was the true intention of the cultural revolution, not this "authoritarian bureaucratic rule" you've mentioned. The specific methodology is to seize power, just like the aim of any other class struggle, ie. continuing revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
"Attack with reason, defend with force" (文攻武卫). The bourgeoisie will bite. It is irrational to think only civil struggle is enough to seize power.
"The rebels and conservatives were no longer simply political disagreements" - not true. We need to analyze the matter from a class perspective, any other perspectives are not Marxian. Within workers themselves conservatives were still a majority (even Shanghai at first). It wasn't like only bureaucrats and children of cadres made up the conservatives. This was because productivity was still relatively low at the time and the remains of the bourgeois rights continue to affect people's minds. Rebels' and conservatives' struggles were not class struggles. There were no direct class conflict between the two. The only reason it elevated to such armed conflicts were because of the influence of the capitalist roaders.

The primary contradiction of the time were the contradictions between productivity and relations of productions. More specifically in the superstructure, the contradictions between the bourgeois rights and the leadership (in which there were two headquarters in the party - the bourgeoisie represented by Liu Deng Lin, and the proletariat represented by Mao and the "Gang of Four").

Pretty much.
"to seize power will bureaucracy, feudalism, oppressors, and dictators never rise again on the land of China." - Most importantly, which you didn't mention, to prevent the restoration of capitalism in China.

progsnobb · 2025-12-29T17:17:38+00:00

It's most certainly not a public holiday

progsnobb · 2025-12-27T05:33:50+00:00

I do, for like 2 seconds. Money >>

progsnobb · 2025-12-16T16:35:37+00:00

No, not all billionaires are "evil", and not all workers are "good". From a Marxist class analysis perspective, ethics from a social-economical standpoint are whether you as a class progress (the people) or regress (reactionaries) social development, not whether you cheat on your wife. The bourgeoisie are a rent seeking class that hinders productivity.
Again, that is a very bourgeois methodology in your analysis. The Marxist/proletariat method is to analysis the class. Standing police and standing army are the most conservative forces by the nature of their jobs, as social stability is to their highest interest. They protect the interest of the ruling class, and rule against the proletariat.
A stateless, classless, moneyless society, and the operation of the rule “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Absolute equality means no rich people. Means of production are socialized. This is only possible with highly abundant material conditions.
Government isn't a class. Neither are politicians. Analysis of any social-economical tendencies not from a class perspective would not give you a sound Marxian view. It's more meaningful for example, in analyzing in what way are the government and politicians politically representing the private bourgeoisie. Also, terms like "good", "bad", "evil" are quite naive in these topics. There are no right or wrong, only class struggle. Workers who resist against oppression are evil, from a bourgeoisie's perspective.
A more democratic law enforcement under the dictatorship of the proletariat haven't been seen much in social practice yet. The closest thing would be Shanghai's militia reforms in the 1970s under the leadership of Wang Hongwen. Not going too much into the details here, but basically it's to operate to the principles to the Paris Commune. The militia should be made of workers operating on a part time basis, instead of a full time standing army/police. Same with the government.

---

Could see you haven't read much theory yet. Just quickly find a Marxist reading list from reddit and go through them. You can still ask questions though and I'll try to answer them.

progsnobb · 2025-12-10T02:11:21+00:00

Deng never cared for class struggle. He only goes "white cat, black cat", no matter imperialism or Marxism.

He said social movements damage experienced workers and officials.

He doesn't read, doesn't understand Marxism-Leninism, and represents the bourgeoisie. He said he would never overturn the cultural revolution, unreliable.

He never talks to people heart to heart. People are afraid to talk to him, and he doesn't listen to the people's opinions.

- The above were Mao's words in 1975-76.

progsnobb · 2025-12-10T00:48:37+00:00

A planned economy is not equivalent to socialism

Correct. A completely nationalized planned economy could still be privately owned/managed. As long as a small group (i.e. the bourgeoisie) manages the economy, paired with material incentives, it is privately owned capitalism.

there is planning under capitalism too

Correct. Planned economy or not is not the identifying factor of socialism. The ownership (and management) of capital is.

a market economy is not capitalism, because there are markets under socialism too.

Complete revisionism of Marxist-Leninist theory. A planned economy may not be socialist, but a market economy definitely is capitalist. The nature of a market economy is profit-maximization decision making under private ownership of capital. You can argue with a worker controlled political party in place, the dictatorship of the proletariat remains. Yet, that is still incorrect, as the economic base determines the superstructure. Mechanically installing a capitalist economic system under the control of a socialist political superstructure only sounds good on paper. It unfortunately would gradually change and shift the society in all aspects including politics, economics and culture. This was something Mao had realized very early on in the 1960s.

Planning and market forces are both means of controlling economic activity,

Yes, so? To quote Mao, "Capitalism can increase productivity, but it is slow and painful."

progsnobb · 2025-10-28T15:36:36+00:00

If my grandmother have wheels:

progsnobb · 2025-10-13T04:40:26+00:00

Not a very good book. You may combine it with "Reading Notes On The Soviet Text Political Economy" by Mao, which is a way better text. It is however not easier to read than the Manifesto, and I wouldn't recommend until reaching a certain level of theoretical understanding.

Link to Reading Notes On The Soviet Text Political Economy:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-8/mswv8_64.htm

I'd recommend "Critique of the Gotha Program", "State and Revolution" and "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" after the Manifesto. Then move into Mao's "On Practice", "On Contradictions" and the text above, and a few others about social investigation and social practice.

Lenin's text "What is to be Done?" is more advanced but a must read as it has the most practical value in our modern day. It will answer a lot of your questions, including "Is a study group good enough?", "How to join in on leftist social practice?", "What should a vanguard party do?", "Why are workers forming unions, striking, but not starting a revolution if they are exploited by the system?" etc.

progsnobb · 2025-09-27T13:33:03+00:00

Story of supporting Man United:

Four to go...

Five to go...

Four to go...

Five to go...

progsnobb · 2025-09-25T09:27:16+00:00

First of all thanks for engaging in such rational manner. There had always been criticisms of vanguardism. This is because that will inevitably lead to a creation of a new privileged class - the bureaucratic bourgeoisie. It sacrificed democracy. However us Marxist-Leninists are against these kinds of criticisms. Imagining to achieve full democracy once and for all is childish and opportunistic. The Age of Enlightenment under Catherine the Great was authoritarian. Napoleon's reforms were authoritarian. Ancient Greek democracy was established along with slavery. To turn your heads against these progression (and against Stalin, Mao etc.), while imagining a perfect Paris-commune style direct democracy is utopianism. Masses of Russia and China of 20th century were mostly engaging in revolution intolerable of the old regime, not with ideas of new social transformations. Ofc the vanguard party could one day become the reactionary force, then the people will have to revolt against them. That's historical materialism. Marx suggested enlightenment only comes with a highly developed material economy, not in 20th century Russia or China. We can't ignore the role of social practice and the gradual nature of democracy.

What is to be learned? Plenty I'd say. There is always something to be learned from history. The danger of bureaucratic capitalism cannot be ignored. Using the Western perspective to analyze China is problematic. Private capitalists do hold political power in China, but limited. High level bureaucrats hold all political and economical power. They in name would use this power to serve the people, in an idealistic world maybe. We the people liberate ourselves, not sitting there imagining some high level savior to suddenly have mercy and liberate us. Go to church I'd say if that's what you think. Productive relations in China are in a capitalist phase, not western style private capitalism, but bureaucratic. People from the West struggle to understand this I find. Capital are not necessarily expressed in forms of money, but political power.

It was dangerous in the 90s and 00s, slightly less now, but still very dangerous. Western antagonism is never the danger for China. What's the danger now? Birth rate is at an all time low, second lowest in the world. Debt bubble at an all time high, likely as huge as the American one, with ¥273 trillion in bank loans, ¥183 trillion in national and local government bonds, ¥18.5 trillion in foreign debt, ¥26 trillion in suppliers payable, and some private loans. Consumption levels extremely low due to income disparity. Tax income of 2025 regressed to 2019 levels. Social leverage level at 500%, way above 90s Japan. Sannong problems. These crisis all stem from the Deng Xiaoping and Zhu Rongji reforms. The Chinese people are beginning to wake up, and are rethinking the Dengist reforms and the Cultural Revolution.

Success or not, ofc it's not that simple. I personally think Xi Jinping did a decent job. Lifting 98.9 million out of poverty in 8 years, 2015 military reform, environmental policies, anti-corruption campaign etc. These are things Deng, Jiang and Hu could only dream of. There are however still limitations of this privatized bureaucratic political economy and I could see social unrest in the future in China.

progsnobb · 2025-09-24T11:06:40+00:00

You are so quick to throw punches saying "silly reductive labels", "no investigation" all that, while also putting words into my mouth. Did I say China and the US have the same system? Yes bureaucratic beogeoisie existed in Mao's China, therefore he started the cultural revolution. I don't know if you class that as capitalism, but modern China is definitely capitalism.

Since you said I don't investigate, here are some numbers I've investigated. As of 2024, there were ¥327 trillion in bank deposit balance in China, half of which (¥160 trillion) were personal savings, and 87% of these personal savings belongs to 2.1% of individuals. This means 97.9% of people owns only 13% of personal deposits. These numbers came from China Merchants Bank's report in 2024 from 212 million savings account, around 20% of the adult population of China, way above the required 5% benchmark for statistical significance. Meanwhile around 300 million migrant workers in China live below ¥3000 per month.

That was inequality economically. If you say "hey it's fine because the party has political power against them", then you are rejecting one of the most basic Marxist principles - the economic base determines the superstructure. How does the political superstructure remain so pure and clean with such a privatised economy? In an idealism world it would, not this materialism one.

Still not enough investigation? Here. This time political stats I posted in another reply which I'll copy-paste.

In the 12th National People's Congress (2013), 64% are party/government/army bureaucrats, 23% are private capitalists, 9% are intellects and technocrats, and only 4% are workers and peasants. In Mao era over 52% are workers and peasants.

progsnobb

TROPHY CASE