Is it simply over-correcting in response to western anti-communist propaganda? I’d like to think it’s simply memeing for memes sake, but it feels too genuine.
Is it simply over-correcting in response to western anti-communist propaganda? I’d like to think it’s simply memeing for memes sake, but it feels too genuine.
The protests and riots in Beijing in 1989 were multi-faceted. Among the protestors were hard-line Maoists that supported the older Gang of Four, while being accompanied by students that sought liberalization of the economy and an end to the rural subsidies equalizing rural and urban development. This was further agitated by western elements pushing for regime change.
It’s Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, and it’s still dominated by the proletariat. Public ownership is the principle aspect of China’s economy, and capitalists are held on a tight leash to focus on developing the productive forces. The large firms and key industries in China are publicly owned, it’s only the small and medium firms that are private.
The form of democracy and the mode of production in China ensures that there is a connection between the people and the state. Policies like the mass line are in place to ensure this direct connection remains. This is why over 90% of the Chinese population supports the government, and why they have such strong perceptions around democracy:
China does have billionaires, as you might then protest. China is in the developing stages of socialism. Between capitalism, which is characterized by private ownership being the principle aspect of the economy and the capitalists in control of the state, and communism, characterized by full collectivization of production and distribution devoid of classes, is socialism, where public ownership is principle and the working classes in control. China in particular is working its way out of the initial stages of socialism:
The reason China has billionaires is because China has private property, and the reason it has private property is because of 2 major factors: the world economy is still dominated by the US empire, and because you cannot simply abolish private property at the stroke of a pen. China tried that already. The Gang of Four tried to dogmatically force a publicly owned and planned economy when the infrastructure best suited to that hadn’t been laid out by markets, and as a consequence growth was positive but highly unstable.
Why does it matter that the US Empire controls the world economy? Because as capitalism monopolizes, it is compelled to expand outward in order to fight falling rates of profit by raising absolute profits. The merging of bank and industrial capital into finance capital leads to export of capital, ie outsourcing. This process allows super-exploitation for super-profits, and is known as imperialism.
In the People’s Republic of China, under Mao and later the Gang of Four, growth was overall positive but was unstable. The centrally planned economy had brought great benefits in many areas, but because the productive forces themselves were underdeveloped, economic growth wasn’t steady. There began to be discussion and division in the party, until Deng Xiapoing’s faction pushing for Reform and Opening Up won out, and growth was stabilized:
Deng’s plan was to introduce market reforms, localized around Special Economic Zones, while maintaining full control over the principle aspects of the economy. Limited private capital would be introduced, especially by luring in foreign investors, such as the US, pivoting from more isolationist positions into one fully immersed in the global marketplace. As the small and medium firms grow into large firms, the state exerts more control and subsumes them more into the public sector. This was a gamble, but unlike what happened to the USSR, this was done in a controlled manner that ended up not undermining the socialist system overall.
China’s rapidly improving productive forces and cheap labor ended up being an irresistable match for US financial capital, even though the CPC maintained full sovereignty. This is in stark contrast to how the global north traditionally acts imperialistically, because it relies on financial and millitant dominance of the global south. This is why there is a “love/hate” relationship between the US Empire and PRC, the US wants more freedom for capital movement while the CPC is maintaining dominance.
Fast-forward to today, and the benefits of the CPC’s gamble are paying off. The US Empire is de-industrializing, while China is a productive super-power. The CPC has managed to maintain full control, and while there are neoliberals in China pushing for more liberalization now, the path to exerting more socialization is also open, and the economy is still socialist. It is the job of the CPC to continue building up the productive forces, while gradually winning back more of the benefits the working class enjoyed under the previous era, developing to higher and higher stages of socialism.
In doing this, China has presented itself to the global south as an alternative to the unequal exchange the global north does with the global south, which is accelerating the development of the global south. China is taking a more indirect method of undermining global imperialism than, say, the USSR, but its been remarkably effective at uplifting the global working classes, especially in China but also in the global south.
It’s not about “ducks quacking” or any of that vibes-based analysis, but consistent materialist analysis.
I can counterpoint all that you wrote simply by asking you… What is China gig economy size? What are the labour protections for the gig workers? If there are none, then it’s pure exploitation of worker class for the wealthy and I’d argue that invalidates all your lofty claims about being socialist at heart (or in the future. “Someday”, also trademarked). Why is the population nationalistic? What happened to anti-imperialism - was it just redefined to mean anti-west lol? What is the current percentage representation of farmers and workers in the Congress and why is it nosediving?
Stupid but effective test I have leftover from my gaming days. Write Tiananmen Square (Massacre) before I interact with you any further.
No, you can’t counterpoint anything that I wrote. China is already socialist, it isn’t going to become socialist because it already is. China has worker protections, and the lives of the working classes have been improving year over year. This is extreme cope on your part, and your refusal to engage with my points because they cleanly and clearly refute yours is just dishonesty.
Why? The 1989 Beijing riots didn’t take place on the square itself, which was evacuated bloodlessly.
Per wikipedia. There were hundreds of killings around Beijing, none of which happened on the square itself.
Can you actually engage with my points, rather than dodge them?
Sure. Per our earlier discussion and exchange of sources, the same criteria are met by Poland. Is Poland socialist to you?
Modern poland has private ownership as its principle aspect, and capitalists in control of the state. Did you read my prior comment at all? Socialism is a mode of production where public ownership is principle and the working classes in charge of the state, as I already said. You then pivoted to questions of quality of life, which is improving in China. Poland dropped in quality of life for most people after the dissolution of socialism in the immediate, and in the long run the poor in Poland are worse off than they were in socialism.
Why do you bother replying if you aren’t going to engage with the points I make?
And I responded to that with the list of arguments that the duck might call itself whatever it wants but it’s still the same capitalistic duck (gig economy, 996, almost no proletariat in NPC - like 10% now? 15%?). No socialist country can be ruled by beurocracy or bourgeoisie. You ignored that and instead wrote this shit:
As if this is requirement to being a socialist country. If it is, then half of EU fits, including Poland.
Edit:
Covered in another reply about Poland taking foreign debts in the 1970 and 80 and not finding new creditors in the 1990.
To which you gave no indicators. Poverty rates are lower than in the 80s (from your sources). Life expectancy is higher. Median wealth is vastly higher.
This is bullshit based on vibes. I’ll state it again: The PRC is socialist because public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state. The PRC is not a gig economy, 996 is a problem but doesn’t mean it isn’t socialist, and the NPC is controlled by the proletariat.
Yep, the PRC is governed by the proletariat.
Repeating again how I categorized socialism: The PRC is socialist because public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state. When I said China has worker protections, that was a response to your cope about “996” and other nonsense, not a way to say China is socialist.
It isn’t a requirement to be socialist, and I never said it was. It took several comments for you to understand that my source was an economist’s review of a work of fiction and not the work of fiction itself, and now you keep pretending I’m defining socialism by saying it has safety nets despite my insistence on the mode of production. Why are you so consistent with butchering my points? Respond to the actual points I make.
On 996: it is way less common than people seems to think. It was a fringe practice in ~40 companies during the tech boom. It has since been made illegal and is declining from it’s already fringe position.
While overtime pressure which was more common and 996 still does unfortunately exist, the trend is clearly negative. As in, it’s being actively cracked down on. The Supreme Court ruled 996 illegal in 2021, and recent policy pushes like the 2025 Consumption Boost Plan are specifically targeting illegal overtime and pushing for better enforcement of rest/vacation rights among other benefits. It’s not perfect, obviously, but it’s hugely improved from where things were in the 2000s or even 2010s, and honestly it’s just not the omnipresent norm that English-language coverage sometimes makes it sound like.
Awesome, thanks for letting me know! I knew it was on the decline, but solid evidence on material movements like declaring it illegal are great to see. I myself once worked a similar schedule for a while, here in the States.
Good for them. It’s 2026 and they finally made illegal a year ago something that Europe made illegal (and enforced) decades ago.
Now China is almost at the level of USA when it comes to workers rights forced to work vastly too long hours without repayment.
But since I have you here, what is the gig economy rate and workers protection in China? We’re seeing a boom of gig economy of the worst exploited kind (Uber, Glovo, etc) among immigrants from muslim and asian countries in Poland (first it was gig economy and then migrants were imported en masse).