91
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2026
91 points (100.0% liked)
Anarchism
3040 readers
44 users here now
Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.
Other anarchist comms
- !anarchism@slrpnk.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- !anarchism@hexbear.net
- !anarchism@lemmy.ml
- !anarchism101@lemmy.ca
- !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
Aside from this being pure chauvinist racism. Let's take it you bought into the propoganda that Tiananmen Square is completely censored and Chinese people get punished for seeing or saying it by being sent to a camp or disappeared or whatever (even though that's patently and obviously not true).
You were in your mind just condemning random innocent Chinese people to punishment for fun while you gamed? You are fucking disgusting. I hope you realise that you are a terrible person on the level of a German snitching on Jews in ww2. Even if thankfully the propaganda isn't true doesn't take away from how vile and evil it is that you would try.
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.
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).
More on 996: it only became a "major" phenomenon around 2016–2019. It was ruled illegal in 2021. That's a 3–5 year window, most of which the government spent doing the groundwork to draft enforceable legislation. Comparing that timeline to Europe's decades of labor law development isn't a fair metric, it should be about trajectory, not starting point.
On worker rights: yes, China still has gaps. However it's important to note it's rapidly moving in the right direction. While China is tightening overtime enforcement, expanding social insurance coverage, and piloting portable benefits for flexible workers, many US and EU jurisdictions are eroding protections through austerity, gig-classification loopholes, and weakened collective bargaining. Improvement vs. decline isn't a tie.
To add to that is the hukou system. It's extremely flawed in it's own way, no question. But for rural hukou holders, it does guarantee land use rights and homestead eligibility, a subsistence buffer that doesn't exist in the same form in the US or Europe. It is a structural fallback against total destitution, which changes the risk calculus for work.
On China's gig economy: platforms like Meituan and Didi are now included in pilot programs requiring occupational injury insurance contributions, and several provinces have issued guidelines mandating minimum earnings floors (tied to local minimum wages) and rest periods. Enforcement is uneven and rollout is gradual, but regulatory pressure is moving toward protection, not extraction. The "worst exploited kind" framing ignores that China's gig workers generally retain rural land-use rights, face lower cost-of-living baselines in hometowns, and operate under a system actively testing mechanisms to curb platform abuse, not one that universally treats them as independent contractors to dodge all liability.
Totally agree. Although it's like the old saying 瘦死的骆驼比马大, right? Do you remember EU's Forced Labour Ban that affected Apples companies in China, and that the exploited Chinese workers complained to EU instead of CPC? Or Brazils BYD scandal that for Brazilians Chinese workers treatment by BYD was tantamount to slavery, while for the workers it was an improvement?
Lets leave USA on the side. I'm not from there, from what I've seen I wouldn't like to live there as a worker.
Let's call spade a spade. Hukou is system made to stop urbanization. It's effects are that there's a lot of rural workers lacking social safety nets in cities that still migrated to the cities looking for better work opportunities, and because of missing social safety net they had no choice but to agree to be exploited by the capitalist class (no matter if privately owned or if state owned, if a company exploits the workforce it's a capitalistic leech, agreed?).
Sources: uh... Literally definition and exceptions under which migration was allowed, and the hukou wages are, what, 40% (?) lower for the same job today, see this or one of the sources (too many links opened on the phone, sorry) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecot.12412#ecot12412-bib-0029
Look, I'm rural minority. I've filled the forms. I've seen the wage gap. I know the barriers. Saying it has flaws isn't news. I said that already. But pretending the land-use rights, the homestead eligibility, the hometown fallback don't materially change a worker's risk calculation? That's idealism. That's ignoring the concrete for the sake of a slogan. You can critique the system and acknowledge its positive material effects.
I've just realised I've replied to you on another comment. I don't have time for people who brag about targeting random Chinese players in games, buying into propaganda to dehumanize us, then show up pretending to champion Chinese workers' dignity. So I'm just going to stop here and leave it at this.
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.
Sorry to hear that.
Something I always find interesting about people bringing up 996 and that era is that at its peak it was about as bad as Japanese work culture while being far less prevalent as a percentage of the population affected.
Now China is putting multi year plans in place to fix it and support workers and yet is still demonised for it while Japan under the cart titan is continuing to push workers harder and doesn't get half the blowback especially among westerners.
I understand propaganda and racism play a big part in it it's still an interesting sight to behold.
I don't know about USA. In the Europe it was met with the same disgust (for the companies and the failing country) and pity (for the affected).
Thanks!
And from a western perspective, a huge amount of why Japan gets a pass even though we are aware of the abysmal working conditions is because anime is so popular here. It has a cultural strangehold among younger generations. The ROK has similar cultural exports. Media from the PRC is gradually becoming more popular, but it takes time for that to actually develop to a higher stage, development isn't something smooth as we both know, it works in leaps once the new overpowers the old.
The 13th NPC (2018–2023) included 468 representatives categorized as farmers and workers, representing roughly 15.7% Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20230224112256/http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c30834/202302/be334508d78a41c4bf3b2d2b47a22fd0.shtml
Dude. How the fuck working class controls the state if 15.7% of NPC are workers according to the NPC
Like... Literally, how? Like stop for a second. You're saying you're from USA. Do you think if 15.7% of USA congress members were from working class, the USA congress would pivot to being pro worker class socialist country?
They were categorized as front-line workers and farmers' representatives, not as though the remainder were capitalists. Administration is not a class in and of itself, the state is the extension of the ruling class in society, its political force. In China, they have direct elections for local representatives, which elect further "rungs," laddering to the top. The top then has mass polling and opinion gathering. This combination of top-down and bottom-up democracy ensures effective results. For more on this, see Professor Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance.
I believe I asked a very direct question, not asked for an excuse.
For someone claiming I'm not engaging with what you write you seem to be doing that a lot of?
I didn't give you an excuse, I refuted your point.
I mean if you believe that a government not made from workers representatives is - or can be - good for the workers right, socialistic and shit, you should change your instance, because Marx would kick your ass. I don't know about Lenin.
Actually I think I can now call you a class traitor.
The NPC is made up of representatives of the working classes. Administration is not a distinct class, but a subsection of classes. Just like there are bourgeois administrators there are proletarian administrators, the same applies to intellectuals. Marx wouldn't kick my ass, he'd see that I'm correct here, same as Lenin.
:D are tou sure about it?
Have you perchance ever read anything by Marx, my sweet Marxists? Or talked about bureaucracy with communists not from China?
Since you didn't, in marxist theory state bureaucracy is distinctly never a part of working class. Iirc the quote, it's always "appalling parasitic body".
And honestly, thinking that administrations are worker class... Like damn.
Unless you claim tautology?
NPC not made from working class representatives is socialist, because China is socialist. China is socialist because it's ruled by socialist government, although not made from working class representatives?
(Before talking to you I honestly thought this duck looks less like capitalistic duck).
I've read Marx, quite a lot, actually.
He was talking about the French state. You're actually taking a metaphysical approach to Marx, not a dialectical one, by trying to abstract points away from the necessary context they exist in.
Classes are social relations to production and distribution. When production is collectivized and owned by all, it still needs managers, what Engels refers to as the "administration of things." Further still, between capitalism and communism there is the transition from one to the other, that is still heavily made up of elements of the old as elements of the new grow and overtake it.
This is basic dialectics.