I’m not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels.
As for Cheng Enfu’s diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy.
As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People’s War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn’t universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam.
As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It’s a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China’s socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker.
I’m not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels.
In case you hadn’t noticed, I am basing my arguments exclusively on historical facts—the vast majority of which have been verified against sources from both the West and the East.
If you have any specific questions regarding this, please point them out to me.
As for me, watching documentary footage of the events that took place in China during those years sometimes makes my hair stand on end…
We are not discussing modern Chinese history right now; we are talking about the post-war era in China.
Oh, I also forgot to add something. The USSR handed over complete technical documentation for 1,500 major industrial enterprises to Mao. The USSR provided all of this free of charge. Can you imagine what Mao would have managed to build there without it? He probably would have forced peasants to engage in mechanical engineering and metal rolling right in their vegetable gardens.
I recall you claiming that Mao built things—or something to that effect—without any involvement from the USSR… yeah, right.
To me, Mao is akin to Castro or Che Guevara—certainly not to Stalin in the 1930s. Mao was a professional, iron-willed revolutionary; Mao was a warrior. He succeeded in uniting the Chinese people and leading them. Mao established a robust state system—one that subsequently withstood the onslaught of capitalism.
As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People’s War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn’t universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam.
This is the first I’ve heard of the Line of Masses—very interesting.
This is the first I’ve heard of the “Line of the Masses”—very interesting.
Is this connected to those leaflets that were pasted on the wall? I’ve forgotten what those walls are called.
Excessive luxury is being cracked down on
I would like to understand the mechanisms of this process.
I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree.
Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China’s experience.
As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually.
Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China’s experience.
Yes, I’ve familiarized myself a bit with the mass line; yes, I agree, it’s a very good idea.
While looking into it, I came across this:
“But the socialist system in our country has been established only recently; its formation is not yet complete, and it has not yet fully consolidated itself. In joint state-private industrial and commercial enterprises, capitalists still receive a fixed percentage—that is, exploitation still exists; in terms of ownership, enterprises of this type are not yet fully socialist in character. Some agricultural and handicraft production cooperatives still retain a semi-socialist character; even in fully socialist cooperatives, certain specific issues regarding ownership still need to be resolved.”
No, Comrade, it wasn’t Xi who said that; it was Mao in 1957… ))) I hope you catch the hint, Comrade.
I decided to explore Mao’s writings a bit and chose this book:
“On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People”
the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media
This is likely not an attempt to combat ostentatious displays of wealth, but rather a move to temper public resentment—to keep it out of the public eye.
and punishing those found guilty of corruption
By the way, a fierce crackdown on corruption is currently underway in Russia. This began after the war started, when it turned out that everyone had been pulling the wool over Putin’s eyes with inflated reports. A great many generals are currently in prison, and the same applies to local officials; Putin has given them a bit of a shake-up.
Corruption is dangerous and harmful under any political system.
China, the number of billionaires is decreasing
Yes, I heard that the number of billionaires has decreased slightly.
I’m aware that Mao believed that. That’s why the narrative that Deng Xiaoping “backstabbed” socialism is false, Reform & Opening Up was a continuation of the economic basis laid out by Mao.
As for cracking down on flaunting wealth, if your impression is already highly skeptical of China, it can seem that it’s only to hide it from the public. A more comprehensive view of China, however, reveals it to not be mere rhetoric but the outcome of having both a socialist state and the contradictions rising from marketization.
Yes, exactly! That is the main argument—held by the Chinese themselves, by Western socialists (Trotskyists), and by the “new breed” of Western socialists (like you): that China fell out with the USSR because Khrushchev pursued a policy of “openness.” But I keep telling you all that this isn’t true, and it wasn’t about Stalin! The reason was something else entirely.
Relations between Khrushchev and Mao deteriorated completely after Mao asked the USSR to build a nuclear submarine fleet for China. Khrushchev agreed, but with the stipulation that the fleet would be a joint venture and based in Soviet Far Eastern ports. For some reason, Mao took great offense at this and refused. Now you can see just how brazen Mao was. These are all matters of public record; you can read about it yourself.
I believe the reason for the rift was that, after Stalin’s death, Mao considered himself the world’s leading socialist—superior to the others and capable of handling everything on his own. He did not view Khrushchev as his equal.
We saw how that turned out.
As for cracking down on flaunting wealth, if your impression is already highly skeptical of China, it can seem that it’s only to hide it from the public.
Yes, I know the statistics: wage growth in China is 4–6% annually. But I’m not convinced that wages are rising only for the poor—or that the 4–6% gains belonging to the middle and upper classes are being taken away and redistributed to China’s lower-income population.
Show me the data on that trend, and then I’ll agree with you.
I’d like to see statistics for these companies:
JD.com: The revenue leader among China’s private enterprises, generating around 1.16 trillion yuan annually.
Alibaba Group: JD.com’s main rival in the e-commerce market, showing steady growth driven by logistics and international expansion.
ByteDance (owner of TikTok): The fastest-growing brand and largest private tech corporation. According to analyst reports, its brand value grew by 45% in a single year, reaching $153.5 billion.
In cases where profits surged by 45% (an increase of 70 billion per year), exactly how much of that actually went to the poorer segments of the population?
I think you’re reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That’s why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough.
I think you’re reading more into my position than I have stated myself.
Yes, Comrade, you’re right. It’s a very painful subject for me.
To me, this is just like Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, a work that slandered and humiliated the entire Soviet ideology. Both have fostered a distorted view of the Soviet era. They have given rise to all sorts of false theories that are published and circulated worldwide on a massive scale.
Yet the Soviet soul is all I have left in life now. I am being bombed every night, but I live in the past—I live on memories…
As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in “scary language.” The trend is gradual, but it isn’t nonexistent either.
Ma crossed a red line; Xi decided that the oligarchs were becoming a threat to him… though he seems to have realized this rather late.
We can certainly see Ma’s attempt to meddle in state affairs. People used to tell me that China has no oligarchs because Chinese billionaires don’t interfere in government business. Yet, I highly doubt that was the first time Ma had meddled in state affairs—after all, he is a long-standing Communist Party member.
To be honest, Comrade, what is actually happening in China is a closely guarded secret.
I’m not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels.
As for Cheng Enfu’s diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy.
As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People’s War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn’t universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam.
As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It’s a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China’s socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker.
In case you hadn’t noticed, I am basing my arguments exclusively on historical facts—the vast majority of which have been verified against sources from both the West and the East.
If you have any specific questions regarding this, please point them out to me.
As for me, watching documentary footage of the events that took place in China during those years sometimes makes my hair stand on end…
We are not discussing modern Chinese history right now; we are talking about the post-war era in China.
Oh, I also forgot to add something. The USSR handed over complete technical documentation for 1,500 major industrial enterprises to Mao. The USSR provided all of this free of charge. Can you imagine what Mao would have managed to build there without it? He probably would have forced peasants to engage in mechanical engineering and metal rolling right in their vegetable gardens.
I recall you claiming that Mao built things—or something to that effect—without any involvement from the USSR… yeah, right.
To me, Mao is akin to Castro or Che Guevara—certainly not to Stalin in the 1930s. Mao was a professional, iron-willed revolutionary; Mao was a warrior. He succeeded in uniting the Chinese people and leading them. Mao established a robust state system—one that subsequently withstood the onslaught of capitalism.
This is the first I’ve heard of the Line of Masses—very interesting.
This is the first I’ve heard of the “Line of the Masses”—very interesting.
Is this connected to those leaflets that were pasted on the wall? I’ve forgotten what those walls are called.
I would like to understand the mechanisms of this process.
I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree.
Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China’s experience.
As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually.
Yes, I’ve familiarized myself a bit with the mass line; yes, I agree, it’s a very good idea.
While looking into it, I came across this:
“But the socialist system in our country has been established only recently; its formation is not yet complete, and it has not yet fully consolidated itself. In joint state-private industrial and commercial enterprises, capitalists still receive a fixed percentage—that is, exploitation still exists; in terms of ownership, enterprises of this type are not yet fully socialist in character. Some agricultural and handicraft production cooperatives still retain a semi-socialist character; even in fully socialist cooperatives, certain specific issues regarding ownership still need to be resolved.”
No, Comrade, it wasn’t Xi who said that; it was Mao in 1957… ))) I hope you catch the hint, Comrade.
I decided to explore Mao’s writings a bit and chose this book:
“On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People”
This is likely not an attempt to combat ostentatious displays of wealth, but rather a move to temper public resentment—to keep it out of the public eye.
By the way, a fierce crackdown on corruption is currently underway in Russia. This began after the war started, when it turned out that everyone had been pulling the wool over Putin’s eyes with inflated reports. A great many generals are currently in prison, and the same applies to local officials; Putin has given them a bit of a shake-up.
Corruption is dangerous and harmful under any political system.
Yes, I heard that the number of billionaires has decreased slightly.
I’m aware that Mao believed that. That’s why the narrative that Deng Xiaoping “backstabbed” socialism is false, Reform & Opening Up was a continuation of the economic basis laid out by Mao.
As for cracking down on flaunting wealth, if your impression is already highly skeptical of China, it can seem that it’s only to hide it from the public. A more comprehensive view of China, however, reveals it to not be mere rhetoric but the outcome of having both a socialist state and the contradictions rising from marketization.
Yes, exactly! That is the main argument—held by the Chinese themselves, by Western socialists (Trotskyists), and by the “new breed” of Western socialists (like you): that China fell out with the USSR because Khrushchev pursued a policy of “openness.” But I keep telling you all that this isn’t true, and it wasn’t about Stalin! The reason was something else entirely.
Relations between Khrushchev and Mao deteriorated completely after Mao asked the USSR to build a nuclear submarine fleet for China. Khrushchev agreed, but with the stipulation that the fleet would be a joint venture and based in Soviet Far Eastern ports. For some reason, Mao took great offense at this and refused. Now you can see just how brazen Mao was. These are all matters of public record; you can read about it yourself.
I believe the reason for the rift was that, after Stalin’s death, Mao considered himself the world’s leading socialist—superior to the others and capable of handling everything on his own. He did not view Khrushchev as his equal.
We saw how that turned out.
Yes, I know the statistics: wage growth in China is 4–6% annually. But I’m not convinced that wages are rising only for the poor—or that the 4–6% gains belonging to the middle and upper classes are being taken away and redistributed to China’s lower-income population.
Show me the data on that trend, and then I’ll agree with you.
I’d like to see statistics for these companies:
JD.com: The revenue leader among China’s private enterprises, generating around 1.16 trillion yuan annually.
Alibaba Group: JD.com’s main rival in the e-commerce market, showing steady growth driven by logistics and international expansion.
ByteDance (owner of TikTok): The fastest-growing brand and largest private tech corporation. According to analyst reports, its brand value grew by 45% in a single year, reaching $153.5 billion.
In cases where profits surged by 45% (an increase of 70 billion per year), exactly how much of that actually went to the poorer segments of the population?
I think you’re reading more into my position than I have stated myself. I understand that Mao was not innocent within the split, neither were the soviets. That’s why I have stated that the split was a tragedy and should have been avoided had both sides statesmen been competent enough.
As for statistics on wealth over time, you can even see western articles framing this crackdown in “scary language.” The trend is gradual, but it isn’t nonexistent either.
Yes, Comrade, you’re right. It’s a very painful subject for me.
To me, this is just like Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, a work that slandered and humiliated the entire Soviet ideology. Both have fostered a distorted view of the Soviet era. They have given rise to all sorts of false theories that are published and circulated worldwide on a massive scale.
Yet the Soviet soul is all I have left in life now. I am being bombed every night, but I live in the past—I live on memories…
Ma crossed a red line; Xi decided that the oligarchs were becoming a threat to him… though he seems to have realized this rather late.
We can certainly see Ma’s attempt to meddle in state affairs. People used to tell me that China has no oligarchs because Chinese billionaires don’t interfere in government business. Yet, I highly doubt that was the first time Ma had meddled in state affairs—after all, he is a long-standing Communist Party member.
To be honest, Comrade, what is actually happening in China is a closely guarded secret.
Again, I think you’re reading the situation through pessimistic hermeneutics, seeing what isn’t actually there as present based on pessimism.