Part 7: Conclusion; China is socialist.
Part 7: Conclusion; China is socialist.
The most common arguments made by the ultra-left and market dogmatists to deny the Communist character of the CPC boil down to misunderstandings or ignorance regarding the elaborated Primary Stage of Socialism (PSS).
Democratic centralism, criticism and self-criticism, democratic administration of production (within the framework of the PSS)—all of these elements are present in the CPC, and thus in the PRC.
To claim that China has degenerated into a capitalist state shows a lack of understanding of socialism itself.
Socialism is not a fixed thing:
The core of socialism is dialectical materialism, which concretely means that socialism must, of course, take a different path in a semi-feudal country—such as China was in 1949—than what Marx envisioned in 1848 for industrially advanced Germany.
If one subscribes to Trotskyist critiques of state capitalism or the left-liberal critique of totalitarianism, then yes—China is a state-capitalist dictatorship.
But:
“Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is, an act whereby part of the population imposes its will on the other by means of rifles, bayonets and cannons, all authoritarian means; and the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror that its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Had the Paris Commune not used the authority of an armed people against the bourgeoisie, would it have lasted even a day?” [1]
To the ultra-left and left-liberals, every revolution and every socialism is acceptable—except the ones that actually happen.
Isn’t that the most idealist notion imaginable?
How can someone call themselves a Marxist and yet fail to grasp that the relations of production cannot develop independently of the means of production?
I have yet to hear a single argument against the CPC that doesn’t originate in Eurocentrism, ignorance, or idealism.
And I’m not talking about criticism—of course the CPC must be criticized, and in many ways!
But that’s also explicitly encouraged: All 98.04 million members of the CPC are expected to engage in criticism and self-criticism—of themselves, of the Party, and of their comrades. Criticism and self-criticism are codified in the Party statutes and are carried out at all levels.
But supposedly, private enterprises dominate? Absolutely not!
The entirety (!) of China’s land is state-owned, along with all key sectors of the economy: energy, construction, infrastructure and telecommunications, raw materials, mining, and large portions of industry [2].
In 2015, 97 Chinese companies were among the world’s 500 largest corporations—82 of them were state-owned.
On the one hand, the Chinese state retains majority ownership in every state holding company, giving it not only formal ownership rights but also the power to define long-term strategic directions.
Initially, the leadership of these SOEs was fragmented due to competing state interests—from central to local governments.
This changed in 2003 with the creation of the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC), directly subordinate to the State Council, which centralizes control over all state shares.
All strategic decisions of SOEs—closures, mergers, economic orientation, executive appointments—must be approved by SASAC.
While the state plays a key role in decision-making, operational leadership lies with Party functionaries.
In all SOEs, there are Party groups responsible for appointing management. Every major decision must first be approved by the Party group, which coordinates with the next higher Party level.
70% of foreign companies and 52% of domestic private companies also tolerate Party cells in their operations. Why?
Because the CPC, through its state enterprises, holds the most economic power in the PRC, and access to state contracts often requires Party certification.
The Party Secretary of an SOE is always also the CEO.
It’s important to note that these enterprises were not, as falsely claimed in the past, “sold” or even “gifted” to managers at below-market prices in a kind of trust privatization.
Rather, they are subject to dual control: by the state (as the majority shareholder through SASAC) and by Party cadres in management.
These positions are not held for life but are rotated regularly to counter corruption risks [3].
Since 2017, the end of the first phase of socialist construction, SOEs must also transfer 30% of their profits directly to the state to fund the expansion of the social system in the second phase of socialist construction.
This expansion is already leading to massive improvements in social inequality.
In the 1990s, during the chaotic market reforms under Jiang Zemin and the associated contradictions, inequality reached its peak since the founding of the PRC.
However, since around 2008, the CPC has not only stopped the trend of a rising Gini coefficient but has also significantly reversed it.
Conclusion: More Red Than Ever!
The question of whether China is socialist can only be answered by studying and analyzing the development of Chinese socialism. That is what we’ve now (roughly) done—and the answer is clear: the Chinese system is socialism!
If you do not recognize China as a socialist country, you are either unfamiliar with the works of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, a market dogmatist, or unable to understand why socialism must develop differently under the material conditions of an underdeveloped, semi-feudal state than Marx imagined for industrial Germany.
The contradiction between the development of the productive forces and the relations of production is the core contradiction during socialist construction—and this has been systematically addressed in China since the PSS.
Marxists from Marx and Lenin to Stalin and Rosa Luxemburg agreed (though of course, Marxists never fully agree): the law of value remains necessary under socialism, alongside planning, because objective value determination is only possible when the socialist principle “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs!” has become reality.
So, if you recognize Lenin’s USSR under the NEP as socialist, or Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Program as socialist, and you are truly interested in humanity’s liberation, then you stand in solidarity with the Chinese path and its achievements.