BEIJING: China issued its first national action plan to build a "strong education nation" by 2035, which it said would help coordinate its education development, improve efficiencies in innovation and build a "strong country". The plan, issued by the Communist Party's central committee and the State C
Your initial comment questioned how the PRC’s focus on education will look based on “entrenching compliance” as opposed to “liberating the working class.” This fundamentally presupposes that the PRC isn’t Socialist, yet without doing any legwork to bolster that claim. When pressed, you were even more vague, just saying we need to discuss it.
The PRC is Socialist, ergo educating the Working Class isn’t out of “compliance,” but because it is useful for the Working Class in steering the revolution that already gave the Working Class supremacy over Capital.
Tell me how that wasn’t frustrating & exhausting work 🎖️
The PRC being socialist would require that it aligns with the Marxist principles of worker control, class abolition, and revolutionary progress. Evidence suggests that the PRC’s actions often prioritize state control and compliance instead of working-class emancipation. We shouldn’t fall to beliefs, religion is the opiate of the masses after all
Why are you drawing a line between government ownership and central planning, and Proletarian Control? Government ownership and planning is the form of proletarian control, along with massively expanded worker protections and influence.
This is not analysis that you’re doing. You’re again being more vague, not explaining how government control is bad for Marxism or what “evidence” you have suggesting anything. As a consequence, your comments don’t genuinely offer any clarity, but ask more questions than they answer. Same with your vague assertion that “falling to beliefs” is “religion” when the only one making unbacked assertions here has been you.
What of Marx have you read? What do you think a Socialist economy looks like?
In Marxist theory, socialism isn’t just about government ownership or central planning, it’s about proletarian control. For a state to be socialist, the working class must actively manage production and society, rather than being ruled by a separate elite or bureaucracy acting “on their behalf.” State ownership can be a tool for socialism, but only if the state is democratically controlled by workers at all levels. Otherwise, it risks becoming state capitalism, managing production from above without true worker empowerment.
As for beliefs, Marx’s critique of religion as “the opiate of the masses” doesn’t dismiss ideas but warns against illusions that obscure material reality and class struggle. Critical analysis means questioning whether a state truly represents the working class or functions as a new ruling class. A socialist economy would feature collective ownership of the means of production and democratic planning to meet human needs. The key question is whether the PRC fulfills this vision of socialism or prioritizes state power over worker control.
As for the spammy demands for credentials or a reading list, Marxism doesn’t hinge on gatekeeping or appeals to authority. Marx emphasized praxis, to analyze material conditions and power structures. The “true Marxist” argument doesn’t address the substance: does the PRC align with Marxist principles of worker control, class abolition, and emancipation, or does it serve a centralized state elite? The answers requires evidence, not dismissive rhetoric or an insistence on orthodoxy.
See, this isn’t Marxist analysis, though. AES states have proletarian control at all levels, you simply change to calling them “elites” with no backing or class analysis.
As for the rest of your comment, you don’t provide any of what you say is necessary, like evidence. This isn’t a “true Marxist” argument, rather, it’s you that’s taking an ultraleft dogmatic interpretation claiming every application of Marxism is “false.” I ask you to clarify what kind of Marxist you are because your analysis is divorced from the overwhelming majority of Marxists worldwide, and haven’t provided any analysis.
One of the key aspects of Marxism isn’t just about state control or central planning, it’s about the active involvement of the working class in managing production and society. If a state is controlled by a small elite, even if it calls itself socialist, it risks becoming a form of state capitalism rather than true worker control.
This isn’t about rigid, dogmatic labels which I can’t help but notice in your assumptions of me. What is interesting is understanding material conditions and power structures. Discussing any state, does it give the workers control or whether it serves a centralized elite.
I’m not claiming that any state is “false” without evidence. It’s an examination of how power operates in those states and whether it matches the idea of socialism where workers are in control. Doesn’t Marxist analysis require questioning these things, not simply accepting a label?
I think you’re stuck on this idea of AES being controlled by an “elite,” without doing actual class analysis. It isn’t about being “called Socialist,” it’s about the proletariat being in power. State level planners are not distinct classes. We can see that, in the USSR, for example, the economy was democratized and the Working Class gained massive improvements in material conditions. This shows quite clearly that the Proletariat was indeed in power.
Marxism does require questioning. The problem you’re running into is dismissing the opinions of a supermajority of Marxists worldwide with very little in the way of evidence, and you’re making an error in class analysis. It isn’t about accepting a label, it’s the knowledge that social practice increases knowledge, and that therefore requires an understanding that practicing Marxists, whom overwhelmingly hold to lines such as Marxism-Leninism, likely know more about Marxism than non-practicing individuals on the internet.
Marx differentiates between workers directly managing production and a state acting as their proxy. Material improvements alone don’t prove proletarian control, as state capitalism can achieve similar outcomes while concentrating power in a minority.
Marxism prioritizes dialectical analysis over majority opinion. Experience matters, and it must be tested against material conditions and theory. The opinions of the majority cannot substitute for class analysis. Even Lenin argued that revolutionary theory develops.
Also what the fuck even is this, this is illegible. Who fucking cares, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about; are you saying that your imagined form of analysis you’ve named dialectical materialism is more meaningful than statistical facts showing widespread approval? That’s nakedly really stupid, even if you’re clearly an anticommunist it’s feeble to try and hide it behind an absurdly thin veneer of Marxism. Just be honest and say you’re a liberal, or start engaging with Michael Parenti’s work.
Socialism is not the electrification of Russia
Yeah, clearly, but you haven’t proven it at all. The revolutionary conditions of the PRC have made it so that regular working people can engage with their government in ways impossible in the liberal world, I know from my own experience of being there and from studies like this one from famously CCP Elite backed Harvard which shows that the great masses of people are satisfied in their governance and feel engaged.
You can imply and say all day without evidence that the world’s largest socialist country is purely in the hands of a ruling elite which comprises it’s own economic class separate from the working class people it represents, but it doesn’t make it true.
What do you believe Socialism and Communism looks like? Where is the line between the “administration of things” as Engels describes it, and a state acting as proxy? You keep saying workers didn’t have control, but by all accounts they did, and the material benefits prove this. You may want to read Soviet Democracy and Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the Soviet Union. The Material improvements are a symptom of the system at work, not proof of it but support the thesis. You have nothing supporting your thesis.
Dialectical analysis is important, yes, but just calling your analysis dialectical even if it stands in contrast with reality and the social knowledge of hundreds of millions of Marxists requires serious burden of proof. Marxism-Leninism is a science because it evolves, but simply going against the grain without materialist analysis doesn’t mean you have a point.