South China Morning Post

Chao Kong

Data analysis spanning more than 20 years across 197 countries and regions challenges ‘debt trap diplomacy’ narrative.

A study analysing data from hundreds of countries and regions suggests China’s Belt and Road Initiative is linked to better governance and economic development, according to researchers from Nanjing University.

They found the trade and investment scheme – which spans Africa, Asia, Europe and beyond – was also associated with improved corruption control and that it reduced debt risks.

The team – from the university’s Centre for Asia-Pacific Development Studies and led by Mao Weizhun – said their findings challenged characterisations of the trade and infrastructure initiative as a “failure”, “vulnerability trap”, “road of corruption” or a “debt trap”.

They published their research in the peer-reviewed Chinese journal Quarterly Journal of International Politics in late July.

The study involved analysis of data from 197 countries and regions between 2000 and 2023. That included 146 countries that signed belt and road cooperation agreements with China and 135 countries where belt and road infrastructure projects had been launched or completed.

The researchers found that belt and road infrastructure projects were associated with better political stability and governance.

They argued that weak infrastructure could contribute to poverty, unemployment and inequality. But better connectivity, more public services and economic opportunities could help reduce these pressures, particularly in developing countries.

The study found nations that received belt and road infrastructure investment showed improvement in corruption control, government effectiveness and quality of governance.

The researchers noted that infrastructure projects were not just about building roads, ports, power plants and communication networks, but also about strengthening the government’s ability to allocate resources and provide public services.

They said infrastructure-related improvements went beyond economic growth by helping governments to maintain order, integrate remote regions and improve institutional effectiveness.

The team also looked at whether Chinese-funded infrastructure projects increased debt risks, using indicators including government debt and fiscal capacity. They found no evidence that taking part in the initiative increased financial vulnerability.

According to the paper, the projects improved logistics, expanded production capacity and led to more revenue, improving debt repayment capacity – and reducing the country’s debt burden.

The analysis used statistical modelling to look at countries across three stages: when they joined the belt and road; when work began on infrastructure projects; and when the projects were completed and put into operation.

It found a debt scale coefficient in the first stage of -1.2 – not a significant level. It did become significant in the second stage, at -10.1, and in the third stage, at -11.2.

“This parallel trend test on debt levels shows the fallacy of the ‘debt trap’ argument,” Mao wrote in the paper.

“The ‘debt trap’ itself lacks empirical support – the limited cases of debt risks were not caused by the Belt and Road Initiative or infrastructure construction, but by long-term structural economic problems accumulated by participating countries.”

Mao did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The researchers argued that while substantial funds were borrowed for the infrastructure projects, they were also productive assets that could generate economic returns.

They said when the projects were completed they had improved transport, energy, communications and logistics networks, and that could boost production efficiency and industrial activity as well as expand the government’s tax revenues.

“Large-scale infrastructure construction not only brings direct economic benefits to the countries taking part but also optimises their economic structures and strengthens their independent development capacity,” Mao wrote.

“As development capacity improves, participating countries can make better use of domestic resources rather than relying on external borrowing to repay debts.”

The study also found that belt and road infrastructure projects were associated with stronger economic performance through improved connectivity, lower trade costs and more industrial capacity.

To determine this, the researchers assessed indicators including the net output of the industrial sector, GDP growth, productivity, and employment in manufacturing and services.

They said railways, ports and energy networks could attract investment, improve logistics and support manufacturing growth.

They cited the China-Laos Railway, the Jakarta-Bandung High-Speed Railway and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor as examples of infrastructure projects improving regional connectivity.

Taking part in the belt and road scheme was found to boost economic growth, with infrastructure improvements, employment and consumption playing important roles.

The researchers cited previous estimates showing that participating countries’ combined GDP increased by 39.6 per cent five years after joining the initiative.

Another estimate suggested that about 55.3 per cent of the economic growth linked to belt and road participation could be attributed to infrastructure improvements.

The World Bank has estimated that infrastructure built under the belt and road scheme could generate annual benefits equivalent to 1.3 per cent of global GDP, or about US$1.6 trillion, by 2030, with about 90 per cent of those gains going to participating countries.

The study also looked at the social effects of infrastructure investment, including job creation, poverty reduction and inclusive development.

The researchers argued that improved infrastructure could connect poorer regions with markets, expand economic opportunities and improve access to public services.

They cited estimates that belt and road cooperation had supported investment, created hundreds of thousands of jobs and helped millions of people escape poverty.

The World Bank has predicted that development projects under the belt and road could lift about 7.6 million people out of extreme poverty and 32 million people out of moderate poverty by 2030.

The Soviet Communist Party led by Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin consciously betrayed Marxism-Leninism, resulting in the Soviet Union and the Eastern European socialist countries, with the exception of Belarus, regressing to capitalism. This demonstrates the twists, turns, and general difficulties experienced by the development of socialism and its economic system. But it cannot change the nature and general trend of the historical process.

- Chinese Marxist scholars Cheng Enfu and Lu Baolin

Chinese astronauts aboard the Tiangong space station have harvested the first batch of rice grown in orbit, marking another step toward producing food for future space missions.

The rice was grown during the Shenzhou-23 mission, and astronauts collected the samples after more than 2 months for further scientific research.

Scientists are testing whether rice can be grown over multiple generations in microgravity to reduce dependence on food supplies from Earth.

The experiment compares ordinary rice seeds with seeds descended from rice previously grown aboard Tiangong in 2022.

The research could help future astronauts grow food on the Moon, Mars, and other deep-space missions.

Humanoid robots are stepping into hospitals, and they’re not replacing healthcare workers; they’re helping them.

Around the world, hospitals are beginning to test advanced humanoid robots for tasks like transporting supplies, assisting with logistics, supporting patient mobility, and handling routine duties that consume valuable staff time.

With healthcare systems facing growing staff shortages, robotic assistants could help reduce workloads and allow doctors and nurses to focus on what matters most: patient care, critical decisions, and human connection.

This marks a major shift for robotics. Instead of working only in factories and warehouses, intelligent machines are now entering environments where safety, trust, and collaboration are essential.

The goal isn't fewer healthcare professionals; it's giving them more time to do the work only humans can do.

Amy Yang

Aug 07, 2026

 

Recently Western mainstream media, especially those targeting Chinese diasporas, are very creative in manufacturing lies about the “poverty and homelessness” in China. From “China has 50 million homeless people but the ‘evil CCP (this is how the anti-China Westerners call the Communist Party of China)’ has hidden them in a secret place“ to “China claims that it has alleviated poverty by moving the poverty benchmark lower, but poverty still exists in China (this erroneous claim is based on the poverty line for upper-middle-income countries, i.e, Western countries)”, these anti-China narratives can vary in language styles and contents, but all have the same goal: to hide China’s achievements in improving people’s well-being from people in the capitalist West.

Why does the Western bourgeois ruling class, owners of Western mainstream media, feel so threatened by China’s achievement in poverty alleviation that it has to hide the truth from its working-class people? The answer is simple if one has travelled to Europe or the U.S.

In contrast to China, homelessness has become an increasingly serious problem in the imperialist West. For instance, in Germany, the number of people without housing has jumped to more than 1 million in 2024 and the number of homeless young people and children has almost tripled to over 137,000 between 2022 and 2025. Besides these emotionless numbers, if one travels to major European cities like Hamburg and Barcelona, one will easily become emotional after seeing many homeless people, mostly white (unlike what Western media claim that most homeless people are immigrants), begging and sleeping on the street, no matter whether it’s -10 or 35 degrees Celsius. Even in the “most socialist” Scandinavian country Finland, with unemployment reaching a record level, homelessness has started to increase, and 958,000 people in Finland were at risk of poverty in 2024, out of a population of around 5.6 million.

With imperial rents diminishing, the blood-sucking vampire of the global capitalist system is boomeranging back to its home, the imperialist cores, and the “promises” of the Western bourgeois ruling class to its white workers are proven to be nothing but hot air. While capitalism is struggling in its deathbed, China, a third-world socialist country, shows the world with solid proof that there is a viable alternative to capitalism, Chinese socialism, and it works. And this is indeed “life-threatening” to the Western bourgeois ruling class.

Regardless of how hard these paedophiles on Epstein Island try to hide the truth from their working-class people, they are destined to fail, as “one cannot wrap fire in paper (纸包不住火)”. With more and more Westerners travelling to China after China extends its unilateral Visa-free policy to most Western countries, Western mainstream media is losing its credibility among its people. The claim by the Western bourgeois ruling class that “no matter how bad your situation is, those Chinese ‘peasants’ have it worse” doesn’t work anymore. Many Westerners who have been to China, especially those from the U.S, are asking, “There are no homeless people on the street in China; the Chinese government has lifted all its people out of poverty within less than 80 years. Why cannot our government do it for our people?”

So, why can China, despite being a third world country in the semi-periphery, alleviate poverty and homelessness within a few decades, while the wealthy Western countries cannot? Due to decades long anti-communist propaganda and a lack of knowledge about Marxism, most Westerners attribute China’s achievement to Chinese collectivist culture or “authoritarian one-party system” (although China is a democratic country with 9 parties in total, see my article “About the question ‘is People’s Republic of China democratic?’”).

In reality, the real reason is that China is a socialist country led by a Marxist-Leninist party, the CPC, while Western countries are capitalist countries led by bourgeois liberal parties under the rule of capital. Similar to “only socialism can save China (只有社会主义才能救中国)”, only socialism can save the masses around the globe from poverty and homelessness.

But why is socialism the only antidote to poverty and homelessness? To answer this question, we need to understand how China alleviated poverty from the following three aspects:

• People-centered definition of poverty in socialist China

• Socialism is the key to poverty alleviation in China

• “Poverty alleviation is the starting point for a new life and new endeavors”

People-centered definition of poverty in socialist China

In our world dominated by the capitalist West, everything is commodified and follows the logic of capital, including the definition of poverty. Poverty is defined by the imperial financial institution, the World Bank, with two monetary values in U.S dollars without considering people’s real needs, $3.00 per person per day for low-income countries, $8.30 for upper-middle-income countries. However, can one really escape poverty once one’s income exceeds the poverty line? Not really.

What poverty really means for the masses is much more than low income; it means having no healthy and nutritious food and warm clothes, no roof over one’s head, no electricity and running water, and, furthermore, no access to education and healthcare.

Thus, instead of the capitalist definition, China adopts a people-centred definition of poverty alleviation, “two no worries and three guarantees (两不愁三保障)”, namely poverty alleviation means to free the masses from worry about food and clothing, and to provide people with access to safe housing, public education, and public healthcare. Only when all basic needs of people are fulfilled, when all fundamental conditions of a dignified life are established, a country has truly alleviated poverty for its people.

This people-centred definition is not, as Western mainstream media claim, “a lower poverty benchmark”, but rather the opposite. Based on this definition, many people in the West, especially in the U.S, are still experiencing poverty despite their income being higher than the poverty line since they have no access to public healthcare and safe housing and have to pay back insane amounts of college debts.

Only in socialist countries whose governments representing the interests of people rather than capital, poverty is defined with people’s real needs in mind, and poverty alleviation campaign is carried out not for the sake of good-looking figures, but for the well-being of its people.

Socialism is the key to poverty alleviation in China

Just like the song title “without the CPC, there would be no new China (没有共产党, 就没有新中国)”, without socialism, there would be no successful poverty alleviation in China. Socialism, or more specifically, the socialist economic and distribution system and the leadership of the CPC, are the keys to the success of China’s poverty alleviation campaign.

• Socialist economic and distribution system

Socialist state ownership of land

Most people in the West, even among self-proclaimed communists (Trotskyites), pay very little attention to the question regarding the ownership of land. However, since the very beginning of human civilisation land is the most important resource in human society, as we rely on land to grow our food, build our houses and sustain our lives (it is off the topic here but I want to emphasise that this is also why giving land back to indigenous people is imperative to real anti-imperialist movements in zionist states like the U.S, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). Who owns the land determines who has the economic and political power.

In China, thanks to the land reform (土地革命) carried out by the CPC, the land is taken over from the capitalist class and owned completely by the socialist state representing the popular class.

What this means concretely is that, firstly, all Chinese people with rural Hukou (农村户口), i.e, peasants, own a piece of land, and no capitalists have the right to buy the ownership of land from Chinese peasants like in other third-world countries where capitalists can easily “steal” land from the masses. So, every Chinese peasant, no matter how poor they are, has a roof over his/her head and enough self-grown food to eat. This makes poverty alleviation in rural areas in China much easier than in, for example, India, where many peasants are forced to leave their land.

Secondly, with the ownership of land in urban areas being in the hands of the socialist state, the construction of public housing in a large scale becomes much easier. China has built the world’s largest housing security system, providing over 63 million units of various types of subsidized housing and resettlement housing for more than 150 million people by 2023. Furthermore, by the end of 2024, China has built around 7,2 million new affordable rental housing units for new urban citizens and rural workers.

These public housing units are very affordable even for people with the lowest income. For example, in Shanghai, the most expensive city in China, the rent of a 50 square meter public housing unit for two people is around 2500 RMB. With the minimum wage in Shanghai being 2740 RMB per month, a couple both earning minimum wages can easily afford the public housing unit without compromising other needs like dining out every day (they can even save money for long-term projects if they eat in public community canteen where each meal costs around 10 RMB and is very healthy and delicious). In the case of unemployment or serious illness, one can also delay the rent, apply for a reduction or exemption of rents based on the extent of financial difficulties.

With the government continuously expanding and improving the housing security system in China, almost all low-income people in urban areas have access to high-quality affordable housing nowadays, thus escaping the fate of being homeless and marginalised as their peers in capitalist countries.

Only in socialist countries where the land is owned by the popular class can all the masses have a safe roof over their heads, and homelessness can truly be eradicated.

Key infrastructures in remote areas built by state-owned companies

For many in remote villages in China, poverty is caused by a lack of key infrastructure like electricity, roads and railways. Without electricity, children in villages cannot study in the evening; without roads, people in mountainous areas cannot get to schools and hospitals easily, without railways, people in remote places have fewer opportunities to interact with the outside world and improve the local economy. Thus, one of the key focuses in China’s poverty alleviation campaign is to extend key infrastructures to the most remote corners in China it is as long as there is one Chinese person living there.

Such infrastructure projects are technologically challenging, require huge initial investment, and is significantly less profitable (if not at all profitable), hence, no capitalist countries following the logic of the invisible hand of the market will carry them out. In contrast, in socialist China, these infrastructure projects have been successfully implemented by state-owned companies under the leadership of the CPC.

For instance, to build power grids in the Xizang Autonomous Region with ultra-high altitude and harsh climate conditions is neither technologically easy nor lucrative. However, for the well-being of people in the Xizang Autonomous Region, the socialist state of China is determined to completely solve the electricity shortage problem in Xizang. By the end of 2020, four power transmission and transformation projects, the Qinghai-Tibet, Sichuan-Tibet, Central Tibet, and Ngari power grid interconnection projects, were completed by the State Grid Corporation of China, marking the end of the old era with regular blackouts.

For instance, it may sound insane for many in the capitalist West to drill through a mountain at an average elevation exceeding 3,000 meters with an average temperature level of minus 5,4 degree Celsius to build a tunnel for less than 2% of the country’s population. But since such a tunnel will significantly benefit people living on the other side of the Tianshan mountain and boost the local economy in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, socialist China decided to build it. By the end of last year, the world’s longest highway tunnel, the Tianshan Shengli Tunnel, was successfully built by the state-owned company China Communications Construction Group (中国交通建设集团), shortening the travel time across Tianshan mountain to 20 minutes.

Only in socialist countries where public ownership is the mainstay and the state-owned economy plays a leading role in the nation’s economy, the masses, no matter how remote they are living in, can have access to key infrastructures like electricity and roads, which make a dignified and prosperous life possible.

Village collective economy in rural area

As primitive accumulation in China was mainly done by sacrifices of peasants under the “price scissors” policy (i.e, artificially inflating the prices of industrial goods while suppressing the prices of agricultural products), the inequality between rural and urban areas still persists today, and poverty mainly concentrates in rural areas. One way to alleviate poverty in rural areas is to diversify income sources by developing local businesses.

It is certainly impossible for one single family to start a business given the economic conditions in rural areas. However, as all villages have a collective economy, it is possible for villagers to start a certain business as a cooperative, thus enabling them to jump out of the poverty trap by themselves. This is one key sector of the poverty alleviation campaign. Through the “one village, one product (一村一品)” initiative, over 90% of impoverished rural villages have established their own cooperatives based on local cultural and agricultural conditions.

Joining the cooperatives has not only increased their annual income but also improved their life satisfaction level, as being part of a cooperative allows people in impoverished villages to have more social interactions and higher sense of achievements.

Only in socialist countries where the collective economy is the mainstay in rural areas can the peasants collectively develop the local economy and lift themselves out of poverty.

State-owned welfare jobs (公益性岗位)

Besides a lack of infrastructure and local business opportunities, unemployment is another cause for poverty. To solve unemployment, the Chinese government provides a large number of state-owned welfare jobs for people in impoverished groups, especially those in rural areas. In Gansu province, for example, state-owned welfare jobs have been created for more than 140,000 people in rural areas, helping increase their annual income by 6000 RMB.

(The annual income may sound very little for people in the West, but as all people in rural areas own their own houses and grow their own food, an extra income of 500 RMB per month gives them freedom to travel, buy new clothes or save for long-term projects.)

Only in socialist countries where the state has economic sources to create state-owned jobs can people in impoverished communities secure stable employment.

Socialist distribution system

Another important mechanism to alleviate poverty is the social welfare system, as it enables people without financial means to get access to healthcare, education, public transport, public community canteen, etc. With more and more surplus value being transferred by the capitalists in China to the socialist state in the form of taxes and fees, China has built a relatively complete social welfare system.

For example, to lift people out of the serious illnesses poverty trap, the government has implemented preferential policies for people in impoverished families in the framework of the Basic Medical Insurance for Urban and Rural Residents (城乡居民基本医疗保险) and Critical Illness Insurance for Urban and Rural Residents (城乡居民大病保险) including increasing reimbursement rates, subsidizing insurance fees, and eliminating coverage caps.

In addition, to support elderly people in impoverished families, the government has completed age-friendly home modifications for over 2.24 million families with elderly people, and provides all kinds of allowances such as monthly allowances for the elderly over 80 years old, service subsidies for financially disadvantaged elderly, and nursing subsidies for the incapacitated, which benefit around 49.45 million elderly people in China.

Only in socialist countries where the political power is in the hands of the popular class, the state can demand capitalists to transfer as much surplus value as needed and use values created by the people to improve the well-being of the people.

• The leadership of the CPC

Great contributions of party cadres to poverty alleviation

Without the great sacrifices and contributions of party cadres, the success of the poverty alleviation campaign in China could have been impossible. Over 3 million civil servants have participated in the targeted poverty alleviation initiative. Each of them is responsible for several local communities, helping them identify the root causes of poverty, design and implement customized solutions, and provide all support needed. Over 1800 civil servants, mostly party cadres, have sacrificed their lives during the campaign for the well-being of people and the cause of socialism. Their stories can be found in my previous article “Stories of martyrs in the battle against poverty in China”.

Contributions of capitalists under the leadership of the CPC

Apart from party cadres, another group of people who have contributed to poverty alleviation might be surprising for most people in the capitalist West: capitalists, i.e, owners of private companies, in China.

In response to the call of the CPC, many capitalists in China have taken an active part in the poverty alleviation campaign. By the end of 2020, 127,000 private companies had joined the “Ten Thousand Enterprises Helping Ten Thousand Villages (万企帮万村)” project, providing targeted assistance to 139,100 villages, investing more than 110 billion RMB in industrial development and more than 16 billion RMB in public welfare, and benefiting more than 1.8 million registered impoverished people.

This is not because Chinese capitalists have a Buddha heart, but because capitalists in China have no political power and cannot form a class. They have no choice but to listen to the socialist state, follow the leadership of the CPC, and answer the demand of the government to carry out projects benefiting the masses. Without the leadership of the CPC, capitalists in China would have acted exactly as their peers in capitalist countries, sucking the blood of the working-class people without any guilt.

“Poverty alleviation is the starting point for a new life and new endeavors”

Poverty alleviation project is not something unique in socialist countries; many Western capitalist countries also have it. But what distinguishes poverty alleviation projects in socialist countries from those in capitalist countries is not only the definition of poverty and the mechanisms of poverty alleviation, but also the end goal.

In the capitalist West, poverty alleviation is the finish line. The motivation for Western governments to alleviate poverty is to get good-looking numbers for politicians to brag about in the next election campaign. In socialist China, poverty alleviation is the beginning of a long journey. The motivation for Chinese governments to alleviate poverty is to continuously improve people’s well-being and to leave no one behind in the long march towards communism. As Xi Jinping said, “Shedding the label of poverty is not the finish line, but the starting point for a new life and new endeavors”.

Following the mission of communism, after having solved the absolute housing poverty (住房绝对贫困) and largely eradicated homelessness, the Chinese government is now dedicated to improving the living conditions of Chinese people and solving the relative housing poverty (住房相对贫困). After having reached the goal of poverty alleviation, the Chinese government set up a five-year transition period to continue the support for communities and individuals who jumped out of the poverty trap very recently. Moreover, the next task of the Chinese government in rural areas is, as Xi Jinping pointed out, “to revitalise rural areas and to accelerate modernization of agriculture (乡村振兴，加快农业农村现代化)”.

Conclusion

Capitalist states can never solve poverty and homelessness, and capitalism can never be reformed. Rather than asking “why cannot our government do it for our people?”, people in the West should probably ask “how can we overthrow our bourgeois ruling class and have a socialist government?”. The “social welfare states” in Europe were just pink balloons filled with the blood of the third world, blown up by the global capitalist class under the threat of “communism”. These balloons are flying away one by one and will never come back.

In its time, the phenomenon of the communist Stalin astonished and horrified the capitalist West. Indeed, a country that had endured two wars and a revolution—left utterly devastated and drained of its strength—suddenly outpaced leading Western nations in its rate of development within the span of just twenty years. No one had expected such a miracle; it defied all existing theories of economic development. For instance, under Stalin’s leadership, more than 1,500 major industrial facilities were built, including the Dnieper Hydroelectric Station (DneproGES), Uralmash, KhTZ, GAZ, and ZIS, as well as plants in Magnitogorsk, Chelyabinsk, Norilsk, and elsewhere.

But how was this achieved?

To those who think this is the result of mass repressions, let me say right away: the number of prisoners in the Russian Federation today does not differ significantly from the figures of the Stalin era. Although, of course, the current repressive law-enforcement system is structured somewhat differently.

Moreover, while prisoners did work at various sites, they primarily performed low-skilled labor, such as digging trenches and felling trees.

However, the relatively few individuals who possessed vital specialized skills did work in their respective fields. Yet—take Tupolev or Korolev, for instance—they never uttered a bad word about Stalin, not even during the Khrushchev era, when such words were demanded of them...

Indeed, history demonstrates that punitive, repressive, and coercive measures are largely ineffective: the greater the pressure, the stronger the resistance. How, then, did the communist Stalin manage to revive the country from the ashes in such a short time—and why is the current president of the bourgeois Russian Federation unable to achieve this at all?

I believe there are perfectly objective reasons for this

1. Attitude toward the people. Under socialism, the people were not merely acknowledged as the state’s greatest asset; they were genuinely valued. Any USSR citizen could count on access to education, healthcare, and—most importantly—employment. The people always sense how the authorities view them. Today, for the rule of the oligarchs, the people are an annoying hindrance on whom precious dollars must occasionally be spent.

2. A powerful scientific ideology backed by tangible achievements—under Stalin, a formidable ideological machine was at work. Such a machine operates today as well, yet the ideology is now diffuse and lacks any real foundation. Capitalism has no need for a historical truth to serve as a bedrock, nor for individuals ready to give of themselves unreservedly for the sake of others' happiness. In fact, capitalists have no interest in people being anything other than egoists, or in them finding true happiness.

Stalin understood perfectly well that the people cannot be fooled: if you shout about patriotism while running off to the West at the slightest provocation, no one will believe you. If you claim to be a patriot, then you must truly be one. You should seek medical care, get your education, and live in your homeland, not somewhere far away. As we can see, the hypocrisy of the capitalists is evident today.

3. Strict accountability. Under socialism, anyone who transgressed against the people and the Party faced the full severity of accountability, regardless of their position or past achievements. Moreover, their close relatives shared in this accountability. It was inconceivable back then to steal from the state and get off with a suspended sentence or merely being removed from office, as happens today. Punishment was inevitable and far outweighed any potential gains.

4. The inability to flee abroad is perhaps the most important incentive. No matter how wealthy or respected you are, if you lack the option to move to other countries or send your children there, you are compelled to improve life right here at home. This explains the concern for future generations and the efforts to upgrade healthcare and education. Stalin’s contemporaries had only one homeland: the USSR. Many modern "patriots," by contrast, hold dual citizenship and maintain offshore accounts.

If these measures are adopted, lifting Russia off its knees is not all that difficult. It is enough to turn toward the people and remove from government and business those holding dual citizenship, as well as anyone enamored with the comforts of life abroad.

Alas, the Russian leadership today consists of a wealthy bourgeoisie—a class that, in Stalin’s words, is the implacable enemy of the working people, and whose joy and riches are built upon the poverty and suffering of the masses. This bourgeoisie is a mere handful of *nouveaux riches* imposing their own rules on the people. These pseudo-businessmen and bloated officials are well aware that they lack any useful skills and would be of no use to anyone in the West without their money. Their strategy is therefore simple: instead of improving life in Russia—something they do not know how to do—they are preparing for a life abroad, where everything is already well-established. All they want from Russia is the opportunity for unlimited self-enrichment.

Amy Yang

Aug 03, 2026

https://amyyyang00.substack.com/p/chinese-capitalists-are-domesticated?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=4pue40&utm_id=97757_v0_s00_e0_tv2_a1dennhb76nsba&fbclid=IwY2xjawThXPlwZG9mAWV4dG4DYWVtAjEwAGJyaWQRMUIwaUhxclNHaXg0ZlJPd3RzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEex9AJ7iaiedqW14AUDECRo7DRn4cY97jPNxQtfrZozOR1mpmcixBoS_b42Do_aem_Y4xZY-9OKmyMtkp6KoKgUg&triedRedirect=true

 

“China has restored capitalism because it has billionaires and it allows capitalists to join the Communist Party of China (CPC).” This is perhaps the most common misconception among many Western Marxists about China. The logic behind it is simple: “capitalists should not exist in socialist countries, no need to mention in a communist party.”

Undoubtedly, class and wage labour will be abolished on day one if we build socialism in Disneyland where there is neither a birthmark of the old system nor constraints of internal material conditions and external political pressures from the imperialist West. But how about when we build socialism on earth in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country? Can this either-or Western “empty thinking” void of dialectical materialism still work?

To develop a more holistic and objective understanding of this matter, we need to examine the following three questions:

• Why does China need capitalists to build socialism?

• Are Chinese capitalists a bourgeois class with political power?

• What are the concrete contributions of Chinese capitalists?

Why does China need capitalists to build socialism?

This question may sound strange or even incomprehensible to many Western Marxists, as they tend to view China, a third-world country, through the lens of the first world. No one can deny that if China were a Western country in the imperialist core with highly developed productive forces and advanced technologies, China could easily build a classless society without any exploitation and even without an army and police after the people’s revolution. No Chinese people would reject this. Unfortunately, this is nothing but fantasy. So, to understand why China needs capitalists to build socialism, we have to touch the grass and analyse the material and historical conditions after 1949.

The reality that China was a backward country with an extremely low level of productive forces and almost no industries did not change just because the CPC successfully defeated the imperialist Japan and the reactionary bourgeois party Kuomintang (KMT). The material conditions after the founding of the People’s Republic of China even exacerbated the situation not only due to the 22 years of internal war and imperial war, but also because the KMT stole almost all wealth from China and destroyed many remaining industrial facilities when it escaped to Taiwan province.

Given the material conditions in China after 1949, the Chinese government led by the CPC has no privilege to ignore the question of developing productive forces and could not solely focus on the question of the relations of production, as many Marxists in wealthy Western countries tend to do. After completing the three socialist transformations in 1956 and putting the ownership of means of production (e.g., land, bank, energy, etc) into the hands of the popular class, the CPC started tackling the more challenging problem: developing productive forces.

There was no instruction on how to develop productive forces in a backward country like China with almost 90% of its population being peasants. Even the Soviet Union had a higher starting point than China. Party cadres in the CPC are also not magicians who know answers to everything automatically. Together with unpredictable external factors like natural disaster and foreign relations with the USSR, many mistakes were made, and Chinese people paid high costs for these failures in the first two decades after 1956, especially the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

What makes the CPC a popular Marxist party highly supported by Chinese people is not that it never makes mistakes, but that it can correct them. Thanks to the CPC’s criticism and self-criticism, the party learned lessons from past mistakes and eventually found a transitional path towards socialism, i.e, harnessing the strengths of the market and capitalists to develop productive forces and build socialism.

This path is known today as “the Reform and Opening-up”. Many Westerners may believe that this is an idea and a decision of one single person, Deng Xiaoping. But in reality, all ideas, no matter it is called “Mao’s thoughts, Deng’s theories, Xi’s thoughts”- are a result of collective efforts, and all decisions are collectively made by all Chinese people. And “the Reform and Opening up” is no exception. The path is chosen by all Chinese people with the goal of common prosperity. The idea behind it has roots in both the “New Economic Policy” of Lenin and later the thoughts of Mao Zedong on “transformation of capitalist industry and commerce (资本主义工商业改造).

As Mao said clearly in 1953 at the Enlarged Meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee (在中央政治局扩大会议的讲话),

“Even if the bourgeoisie does not accept state capitalism (similar to today’s market socialism in China), there is no other path for them to choose. Even if we do not want to implement state capitalism and collaborate with the bourgeoisie, we also have no other option; we cannot confiscate their property at this stage when we still need them to develop the productive forces.”

Thus, the main reason why China needs capitalists to build socialism is to develop productive forces.

Many in the West may wonder why developing productive forces is so important for Chinese people that we are willing to make compromises to capitalists and to be exploited as wage labourers? I bet such a question will never be asked by people in the third world who have first-hand experiences of underdevelopment and poverty.

Without development of productive forces and advanced technologies, the Chinese state, regardless of how badly it wants, cannot produce enough food, build infrastructure like electricity nets, roads, highways, sewage systems, hospitals, schools, and provide free and high-quality healthcare and education. This was exactly the situation before the Reform and Opening-up, when every Chinese was equally poor and had equally no access to basic things like electricity, asphalt roads, water-flushing toilets, modern cooking stoves, modern medical equipment, schools with qualified teachers, things that are taken for granted in the imperialist West.

Are Chinese capitalists a bourgeois class with political power?

Having understood the necessity of having capitalists in China, many Westerners may still ask, “But why does the CPC allow Chinese capitalists to join the party? Does the CPC still represent the popular class (peasants and workers) when some of its party members are capitalists owning private companies?”

This concern is understandable given how political parties in the West work: regardless of the colour red, green or blue, all political parties are in reality puppets of the bourgeois ruling class, because the political power is completely in the hands of the bourgeoisie.

But this is not the case in China. As stated clearly in the “three represents”, the CPC represents “the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the people ( 最广大人民的根本利益)”, i.e, the popular class. Although capitalists are allowed to join the party, they are nothing but a tiny minority, which is not represented by the CPC. Moreover, the political power of Chinese capitalists has been completely expropriated after the socialist transformations in 1956.

The theory of “three represents” in Chinese

Nowadays, they only have limited economic power and are under strict control by the Chinese government led by the CPC. Requirements and expectations for the Chinese capitalists are stated clearly in the “Opinion of the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council on Improving the Modern Enterprise System with Chinese Characteristics (中共中央办公厅 国务院办公厅关于完善中国特色现代企业制度的意见)” published in 2024 , and the “Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Privately-Owned Enterprises (中华人民共和国私营企业暂行条例)” published in 1988.

With the political power in the hands of the Chinese popular class represented by the CPC, the Chinese capitalists are often heavily punished for their misbehaviour like tax evasion, environmental violation, and bribery, while the Epstein class, despite having committed way worse crimes than those Chinese capitalists in prison, can continue their vampire lives without being punished at all.

So, why does the CPC allow capitalists to join the party?

Encouraging capitalists to join the party is, in reality, one important way to domesticate capitalists for the socialist cause and prepare the ideological ground for further transition to the higher stage of socialism.

Being a member of the CPC sounds much easier than it actually is. To join the party, one has to prove one’s loyalty to the party, communism, and the Chinese nation. The checking process can last for several years until one officially becomes a party member. After joining the party, one has to attend monthly study groups, join the regular criticism and self-criticism sessions, read study materials assigned by the party, and write reports about all activities above.

In other words, even though many capitalists in China join the party for material benefits or positive images rather than their belief in Marxism, their “capitalist brains” will be washed regularly by Marxist theories once they have joined the party. Furthermore, the social expectation towards a party member is higher than a non-party member. For example, it is expected of capitalists who have joined the party to take more social responsibilities and provide better working conditions for their workers.

In addition, allowing Chinese capitalists to join the party is an effort to maintain the class contradictions at a non-antagonistic level, to make capitalists feel more included and accepted by society.

Different from capitalists in the West with vast generational wealth, the majority of Chinese capitalists came from a peasant or working class background and became rich very recently in the past three decades. Due to this background, they felt mistreated before the rule of party membership was changed: “Why can’t we join the party but our old comrades in the factory can, just because we decided to quit our jobs and start our own business after 1978?”

Changing the rule is exactly a response to the dissatisfaction of Chinese capitalists. As stated in the quotation from Mao above, China still needs capitalists to help develop its productive forces. It is thus important for the Chinese government led by the CPC to maintain healthy relationships with the capitalists. It would be counterproductive, or even harmful for the development of socialism, if Chinese capitalists without political power were treated as “class enemies” in a hostile manner, as mistakes made during the Cultural Revolution.

This is also why capitalists are usually called “entrepreneurs” in China. Giving capitalists a “tame” name is not a sign that the CPC has abandoned its socialist mission and betrayed the revolution, but a well-thought-out act to give some “carrots” for Chinese capitalists to work for socialism while still putting them under the strict “sticks” of the Chinese government.

What are the concrete contributions of Chinese capitalists?

So, what are these domesticated horses contributing to socialism in everyday life? Before listing their contributions, it is worth noting that, just as horses, they only carry out orders of the owner, so China’s economic, industrial and technological achievements are not due to the “kindness” of capitalists, but a result of socialist planning and a socialist redistribution system.

• They help China to develop industrial capacities and build complete industrial chains, especially in key strategic fields. Thanks to their contribution, China has developed its own telecommunications, electric vehicle, and green technology industries.

• By collaborating with universities and other research institutions, they help to develop China’s own advanced technologies and to achieve technology sovereignty. By doing so, they are indirectly contributing to the anti-imperialist cause as they have helped China, a third-world country, to end the technological domination of the imperialist West.

• No matter if they make profits or losses in a certain year, they have to pay all kinds of taxes such as Enterprise Income Tax (企业所得税), Sales Tax (营业税), Environmental Protection Tax (环境保护税), Natural Resource Tax (资源税), etc. And to get the right to use the land owned by the socialist state, they have to pay Land Appreciation Tax (土地增值税). The strict tax system for the capitalists is, in nature, a mechanism to transfer the surplus value exploited from the Chinese working-class people back to the people.

  With tax income increasing, the Chinese government is expanding and improving social welfare systems; for example, universal healthcare insurance has been expanded to cover more than 95% of the Chinese population (over 1,35 billion), 8.7 million new units of affordable rental housing are built for both young people and rural workers, and public compulsory education is gradually extended to high schools and kindergartens.

Conclusion

Just like dogs are domesticated wolves, Chinese capitalists are domesticated horses managed and trained by the CPC in a field designed and built by the Chinese socialist government. Just like dogs still like eating meat, these horses still have the instinct of accumulating capital. But just like dogs can provide both physical and mental care for people, these horses are making great contributions to the socialist cause in China. Having these horses does not make the CPC betray its socialist mission but rather helps the CPC to achieve it sooner.

Howard Yu

Howard Yu is professor of strategy and innovation at IMD Business School with campuses in Switzerland and Singapore.

The next phase is building factories and Chinese brands abroad as well as embedding its tech, industrial standards in global supply chains

China’s export boom is reaching its limits. The country’s next phase of growth will come not from shipping more goods abroad, but from exporting its factories, technologies and brands.

China is running up against the limits of its old model. It is obvious as the economy looks increasingly K-shaped. Weak consumer confidence and a prolonged property slump continue to sap domestic demand, forcing manufacturers to rely ever more heavily on overseas markets. Exports have become the Chinese economy’s strongest economic engine just as growth at home has faltered.

However, that approach is nearing its limits, despite China having shipped a record number of cars in June. That’s because such export growth is increasingly unwelcome in many countries. France and Germany, for instance, agreed recently to pursue tougher European Union trade safeguards, as advanced economies become less willing to absorb Chinese overcapacity.

For governments hoping tariffs will rebuild domestic industry, China’s next move will leave them disappointed. Levies can slow imports but not if China builds its factories overseas.

Recent economic data shows why China needs to change course. Its gross domestic product has expanded at the slowest rate in years, growing just 4.3 per cent year on year in the second quarter. Exports surged by 27 per cent in June, but retail sales were up just 1 per cent. Real estate investment plunged by 18 per cent in the first half.

This uneven growth reflects the K-shaped economy, and slowing growth is at the top of Beijing’s agenda. On Thursday, the Politburo promised stronger macroeconomic support and a faster pace of fiscal spending, underscoring policymakers’ determination to find new sources of growth as the old model loses momentum.

Already, the State Council has approved a new five-year plan to boost consumption, signalling that Beijing wants household spending to play a bigger role in driving growth. At present, it accounts for around 40 per cent of China’s GDP, below the average of around 54 per cent among OECD rich nations.

Much of economists’ debate has focused on whether China can sustain its export boom or revive domestic demand. That frames the challenge too narrowly. The key question is: what replaces export-led growth? The answer is to export the production system itself.

The next phase of China’s development will come from the buildout of factories overseas, expansion of Chinese brands into foreign markets and embedding of Chinese technologies and industrial standards into global supply chains. In other words, China’s next export will be the world’s factory itself.

Why? Because exporting goods eventually runs into political and economic limits. Exporting production, though, allows Chinese companies to keep expanding while earning income from what they own abroad. Increasingly, China’s overseas earnings will come from royalties, licensing fees and dividends rather than manufactured exports.

This is the transition China needs to make, and there is precedent: Japan made it four decades ago, after agreeing to voluntary restraints on car exports to the United States in 1981. Cars built in America were exempt from the quotas, however, and that drove a wave of Japanese investment in US manufacturing. Honda opened an Ohio plant in 1982, and Nissan, Toyota and Mazda followed with US plants too.

The result was a different growth model: Japan increasingly exported its production system rather than simply its products. Today, Japan makes far more from its investments abroad than its trade. Last year, net primary income, a reflection of earnings from overseas investments, hit a record high of ¥41.6 trillion (US$254 billion), while the goods trade balance remained in deficit.

China’s transition is well under way. Examples abound: Shenzhen-based BYD sold 71 per cent more cars overseas year-on-year in the first half of the year, while sales in China fell almost 40 per cent. US carmaker Ford’s battery plant in Michigan will produce cells using battery technology licensed from China’s Contemporary Amperex Technology Limited, meaning licensing income will flow to CATL’s headquarters in Ningde. Chinese carmaker Chery is producing cars at the former Nissan plant in Barcelona, Spain.

There is, however, one important difference. Unlike Japan, Beijing wants to globalise production while retaining control of the underlying technology. It is encouraging Chinese companies to build factories abroad even as it tightens export controls on battery technology and increases scrutiny of outbound investment.

China is reportedly weighing tighter export controls on advanced AI and chip technologies. It reveals Beijing’s ultimate economic strategy: it wants Chinese factories to go global while Chinese technology remains national.

Watch these two indicators over the coming decade: China’s trade surplus and its overseas investment income. The first made China the world’s factory. The second will determine whether it becomes something even more powerful: the world’s shareholder.

পুঁজি মানে এমন অর্থ যা আরও বেশি অর্থ উপার্জনের উদ্যেশ্যে বিনিয়োগ করা হয়।

পুঁজি যখন রাজনীতিকে কন্ট্রোল করে আমরা তখন সেই সিস্টেমকে পুঁজিবাদ বলি।

চীনে কি পুঁজি নিয়ন্ত্রক রাজনীতির?

উত্তর না। যদি হতো চীন তার রিয়াল এস্টেট ব্যবসায়ীদের বেইল আউট করত। চীন কমিউনিস্ট সরকার সরাসরি জানিয়ে দেয় ধনীদের হাউসিং নিয়ে ফাতকাবাজী করতে দেওয়া হবেনা। তাদের সম্পত্তির পরিমাণ কমলে কিছু যায় আসেনা। কারণ জিন্ফিং বলেন "হাউসিং ইস ফর লিভিং, নট স্পেকুলেশন"।

চীনের রাজনৈতিক নিয়ন্ত্রণ পুঁজির হাতে নেই বলেই ব্যাংকগুলো সব সরকারি। সেই সরকারি ব্যাংক থেকে করা হয় অজস্র অলাভজনক বা দুর্ঘসূত্রী খরচ তোলা যায় এমন উৎপাদনকারী বিনিয়োগ। যেমন পরিকাঠামো নির্মাণ, নিউ এনার্জিতে বিনিয়োগ, উচ্চ প্রযুক্তিতে বিনিয়োগ, ইত্যাদি। এই বিশাল অলাভজনক অথচ উৎপাদনকারী বিনিয়োগ পুঁজিবাদী দেশগুলো করতে পারেনা বলেই তারা বিশ্ব বাজারে চীনের সঙ্গে প্রতিযোগিতায় পেরে ওঠেনা।

পুঁজিবাদ হলে চীন বিপুল পরিমাণে মুনাফা নেই অথচ উৎপাদনশীল এমন বিনিয়োগগুলো চীন করতে পারত না।

অন্যান্য পুজিবাদী দেশগুলো পারেওনা। মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্র পুরোপুরি ফাটকাবাজিতে ডুবে গেছে। অনুৎপাদক সম্পত্তি কেনাবেচার ব্যবসাকে জায়গাই দেয়নি চীন।

চীন অন্যদিকে হাইটেক শিল্পে এতটাই এগিয়ে গেছে যে জার্মান একের পর এক গাড়ির কারখানা ও ভারী মেশিনের কারখানা বন্ধ হয়ে যাচ্ছে। একে বলা হচ্ছে চায়না শক ২.০। ইউরোপ চীনের সাথে প্রতিযোগিতায় পেরে না উঠে এখন ট্যারিফের পথে হাটছে।

চীনে সাধারণ মানুষের জীবনের মান বর্তমানে সাধারণ মার্কিন নাগরিকদের থেকেও বেটার। চীনকে যুবা মার্কিনীরা সেলিব্রেট করছে চায়নাম্যাক্সিং-এর নামে।

চীনে চিকিৎসা ও ক্লাস ১০ পর্যন্ত লেখাপড়া অত্যন্ত কম খরচের সরকারী ব্যবস্থা। চীনের রাষ্ট্রীয় কম্পানীগুলো দেয় বিপুল সাবসিডাইসড করমসংস্থান। ইউরোপ ও আমেরিকার শ্রমিক তৃতীয় বিশ্ব লুটের ভাগ পেত। চীন সেটা হাইটেক শিল্পে যত ঢুকছে তত কমিয়ে দিচ্ছে।

চীন জিতছে, সমাজতন্ত্র জিতছে। ওয়াল স্ট্রিট ও ইলন মাস্করা বলছে আগামী ১০ বছর পরে শ্রম বলে কিছু থাকবেনা, মানুষ বসে বসেই খাবে। মার্ক্স - এর ভবিষ্যৎ বাণি আজ স্বীকার করে নিচ্ছে বিগ বিস্নেস নিজেও। কমিউনিস্ম পুজিবাদি বিকাশের অনিবার্য পরিণতি।

28.07.2026

SAIKAT BHATTACHARYA

 

Mohammed Imran Chowdhury

 ·

খুব সুন্দর ও পরিষ্কার বিশ্লেষণ। আপনার লেখার সঙ্গে পুরোপুরি একমত। কয়েকটি বিষয়ে নিজের মতো করে সমর্থন জানাই:

পুঁজি বনাম পুঁজিবাদের পার্থক্য:

পুঁজি নিজে খারাপ নয়; সমস্যা তখনই হয় যখন পুঁজি রাজনীতিকে নিয়ন্ত্রণ করে। চীনে ঠিক তার উল্টোটা দেখা যায় — রাষ্ট্র পুঁজিকে নিয়ন্ত্রণ করে এবং তাকে উৎপাদনশীল খাতে নিয়োজিত করে। এটাই মৌলিক পার্থক্য।

বাসস্থান নীতি:

"হাউসিং ইজ ফর লিভিং, নট স্পেকুলেশন" — এই এক বাক্যেই বোঝা যায় চীনের মূলনীতি। পাশ্চাত্যে বাড়ি এখন একটি বিনিয়োগের জিনিস হয়ে দাঁড়িয়েছে, যেখানে চীনে এটি মৌলিক চাহিদা হিসেবে দেখা হয়। তাই রিয়েল এস্টেট ধনীদের বেইল আউট না করে সাধারণ মানুষের স্বার্থ রক্ষা করা সম্ভব হয়েছে।

উৎপাদনশীল বিনিয়োগ:

সরকারি ব্যাংকগুলো যে অলাভজনক কিন্তু দীর্ঘমেয়াদে দেশের ভিত মজবুত করে এমন খাতে — যেমন পরিকাঠামো, নবায়নযোগ্য জ্বালানি, উচ্চ প্রযুক্তি — বিনিয়োগ করতে পারে, তা কোনো পুঁজিবাদী দেশে সম্ভব নয়। সেখানে শেয়ারহোল্ডারদের তাৎক্ষণিক মুনাফার চাপে সব সিদ্ধান্ত নিতে হয়।

বিশ্ব অর্থনীতিতে পরিবর্তন:

জার্মান গাড়ির কারখানা বন্ধ হওয়া, ইউরোপের ট্যারিফ নীতি — এসবই প্রমাণ করে চীনের উৎপাদনশীল শক্তি কতটা বেড়েছে। প্রতিযোগিতায় টিকতে না পেরেই তারা বাণিজ্য বাধার পথ বেছে নিচ্ছে। চায়না শক ২.০ আসলে পুঁজিবাদী ব্যবস্থার সংকট।

জীবনযাত্রার মান:

স্বাস্থ্য ও শিক্ষার ক্ষেত্রে রাষ্ট্রীয় ব্যবস্থা থাকায় সাধারণ মানুষের ওপর ব্যক্তিগত ঋণের চাপ কম। এটাই সমাজতন্ত্রের প্রকৃত লক্ষ্য — মুনাফা নয়, মানুষ।

ভবিষ্যৎ:

মার্কসের ভবিষ্যৎবাণী আজ বাস্তবে রূপ নিচ্ছে। যখন যন্ত্র শ্রমিকের জায়গা নেবে, তখন পুঁজিবাদী ব্যবস্থায় কোটি কোটি মানুষের কী হবে? চীনের মডেলই হয়তো ভবিষ্যতের পথ দেখাচ্ছে — যেখানে উৎপাদনশীলতা মানুষের কল্যাণে নিয়োজিত হয়, শুধু ব্যক্তিগত মুনাফায় নয়।

অসাধারণ লেখা। ধন্যবাদ এত সুন্দর বিশ্লেষণের জন্য।

 

Capital means money that is invested with the aim of making more money.

When capital controls politics, we call that system capitalism.

Does capital control politics in China?

The answer is no. If it did, China would have bailed out its real estate developers. The Chinese communist government directly announced that the rich would not be allowed to splurge on housing. It doesn't matter if their asset value decrease. Because Jinping said, "Housing is for living, not speculation."

Since capital does not have political control over China, all banks are government-owned. Innumerable unprofitable or long gestation productive investments are made from those government-owned banks. Such as infrastructure construction, investment in new energy, investment in high technology, etc. Since capitalist countries cannot make these huge unprofitable yet productive investments, they cannot compete with China in the world market.

If it were capitalism, China would not be able to make such productive investments that are not profitable in huge amounts.

Other capitalist countries cannot. The United States is completely immersed in speculation. China has not given any space to the unproductive business of buying and selling assets.

China, on the other hand, has advanced so much in the high-tech industry that Germany is closing car factories and heavy machinery factories one after another. This is called China Shock 2.0. Europe, unable to compete with China, is now walking on the path of tariffs.

The standard of living of ordinary people in China is currently better than that of ordinary American citizens. Young Americans are celebrating China in the name of Chinamaxing.

In China, healthcare and education up to grade 10 are very low-cost government systems. Chinese state-owned companies provide huge subsidized employment.

Workers in Europe and America used to get a share of the Third World loot. China is reducing it as it enters the high-tech industry.

China is winning, socialism is winning. Wall Street and Elon Musk are saying that in the next 10 years there will be no such thing as labor, people will sit and eat. Today, even big business itself is accepting Marx's prediction. Communism is the inevitable consequence of capitalist development.

28.07.2026

SAIKAT BHATTACHARYA

"এআই ৫ বছরের মধ্যেই সব মানুষের সম্মিলিত বুদ্ধিমত্তার চেয়ে বেশি শক্তিশালী হয়ে যাবে।" এটা কোনো সায়েন্স ফিকশন লেখকের কল্পনা নয় ইলন মাস্ক (Elon Musk) নিজে টেসলা গিগাফ্যাক্টরিতে বসে দ্য ইনসাইডার (The Insider)-কে দেওয়া এক দীর্ঘ সাক্ষাৎকারে এই দাবি করেছেন।

মাস্কের ভাষায়, ২০৩১ সালের মধ্যেই এআই মানুষের সম্মিলিত বুদ্ধিমত্তা ছাড়িয়ে যাবে এবং মানুষ হওয়া ছাড়া এমন কিছু থাকবে না যা এআই মানুষের চেয়ে ভালো করতে পারবে না।

সাক্ষাৎকারের গুরুত্বপূর্ণ পয়েন্টগুলোঃ

১। "প্রাচুর্যের যুগ": মাস্কের মতে, সবচেয়ে সম্ভাব্য ভবিষ্যৎ হলো এমন একটা সময় যেখানে "যে কেউ যা কল্পনা করতে পারে তাই পেতে পারবে" শর্ত থাকে যে বিশ্বযুদ্ধ বা এমন কোনো বিপর্যয় না ঘটে ।

২। মুদ্রাস্ফীতি নয়, মুদ্রাসংকোচনঃ মাস্ক ভবিষ্যদ্বাণী করেন, পণ্য ও সেবার উৎপাদন যদি মুদ্রা সরবরাহের চেয়ে দ্রুত বাড়ে, তাহলে ডিফ্লেশনই আসল সমস্যা হবে। তিনি মনে করেন সরকার সরাসরি মানুষকে চেক পাঠাতে পারবে, কারণ ভবিষ্যতে ট্যাক্সেশনও অনেকটাই অপ্রাসঙ্গিক হয়ে যাবে।

৩। কাজ ঐচ্ছিক হয়ে যাবেঃ ভবিষ্যতে কাজ করাটা হবে বাগান করার মতো "আপনার প্রয়োজন নেই সবজি ফলানোর, দোকানে নিখুঁত সবজি পাওয়া যাবে। তবু কেউ কেউ শখের বশে বাগান করবে"।

৪। এআই সেফটি কো-অর্ডিনেশনঃ মাস্ক প্রস্তাব দেন, শীর্ষ এআই কোম্পানিগুলোর (গুগল ডিপমাইন্ড, ওপেনএআই, অ্যানথ্রোপিক ইত্যাদি) মধ্যে প্রতি কয়েক সপ্তাহে একটি কল হওয়া উচিত, যেখানে নতুন মডেল রিলিজের আগে প্রতিযোগীরা একে অপরের মডেল টেস্ট করে দেখবে।

চীনা এআই মডেল নিয়ে প্রশ্ন করা হলে মাস্ক বলেন, "কিমি কে৩ (Kimi K3) মডেলটা ফেবলের (Fable) খুব কাছাকাছি চলে আসছে, যদিও বাস্তবসম্মতভাবে ফেবলই এখনো সবচেয়ে স্মার্ট"। তিনি এটাও স্বীকার করেন যে চীনের কাছে যুক্তরাষ্ট্র, ইউরোপ এবং ভারত মিলিয়েও বেশি বিদ্যুৎ উৎপাদন ক্ষমতা আছে, যা ভবিষ্যতে এআই রেসে তাদের বড় সুবিধা দেবে।

সবচেয়ে চমকপ্রদ স্বীকারোক্তিটি ছিল নিজের ভুল নিয়ে। ২০২৩ সালে এআই স্লো-ডাউনের পক্ষে সই করা চিঠির প্রসঙ্গে মাস্ক বলেন, তিনি এখন সেই ঝুঁকি সত্ত্বেও "থামার বোতাম থাকলেও তা চাপা উচিত হবে না," কারণ সম্ভাব্য ফলাফল হলো "সবার জন্য অবিশ্বাস্য প্রাচুর্য।" তবে তিনি এখনো বিশ্বাস করেন এআই থেকে মানবতা বিলুপ্ত হওয়ার ঝুঁকি "১০ থেকে ২০ শতাংশ"।

China is allowing some engineering doctorate students to graduate by building a working invention instead of writing a traditional dissertation.

Under new academic reforms, candidates in selected professional engineering programmes can submit a major practical achievement for their doctorate.

That could include a functioning product, a new manufacturing process, specialised equipment, an engineering design or a completed technical project.

The work still has to be documented, examined and defended before experts.

But instead of judging the student mainly by the number of pages they have written, reviewers can assess whether the invention actually works and solves a real problem.

At the Harbin Institute of Technology, one candidate earned his doctorate after developing advanced laser-welding equipment and processes.

At Southeast University, another defended a modular reinforced-steel system designed to help construct bridge pylons.

China has not abolished PhD dissertations, and the alternative does not apply to every engineering student.

It is a new route for selected professional doctorates where creating something useful may demonstrate expertise better than producing a long academic thesis.

For decades, earning a PhD meant proving you could explain an idea.

China is now allowing some engineers to prove they can build it.

China has carried out extensive rural housing and poverty alleviation programs across the Tibet Autonomous Region, replacing many older homes with modern, earthquake-resistant housing and improving access to electricity, clean water, sanitation, healthcare, and transportation. Government reports state that these initiatives have benefited millions of residents, including approximately 2 million people through various housing and infrastructure programs.

Supporters argue that the projects have significantly improved living standards, reduced extreme poverty, and strengthened public services in remote mountain communities. New housing developments have often been accompanied by roads, schools, clinics, and improved utility networks.

At the same time, some international human rights organizations have raised concerns about aspects of relocation policies, cultural preservation, and the degree of community participation in certain projects. As a result, assessments of these programs vary depending on the source.

Regardless of differing perspectives, the housing initiatives represent one of the largest rural infrastructure investments undertaken in the Tibetan region in recent decades.

According to reports, China has introduced strict restrictions on for-profit education for children aged 6 to 15, reinforcing its policy that compulsory education should not be operated primarily for commercial profit.

Under the regulations, private companies and investors are no longer permitted to run core after-school tutoring businesses for compulsory education as profit-making enterprises. Many tutoring firms were required to convert into non-profit organizations, and investment and capital raising in this sector have been heavily restricted.

Chinese authorities have said the objective is to reduce the financial burden on families, ease academic pressure on students, and promote more equal access to education. Officials have argued that compulsory education is a public good and should not become a business driven by profit.

Supporters believe the reforms can help reduce excessive tutoring costs, narrow educational inequalities, and create a healthier learning environment for children. Critics, however, argue that the measures have significantly affected the private education industry, led to job losses, and may limit educational choices for some families.

The policy has attracted global attention as governments around the world continue to debate the balance between public education, private participation, affordability, and educational quality.

The majority of Soviet citizens voted to preserve the USSR in the ‘91 referendum, but this was ignored by Boris Yeltsin when he signed the Belozezha accords later that same year. He then imposed shock therapy privatization that wrecked the former Soviet economy & when the Supreme Soviet voted to impeach him in ‘93, Yeltsin ordered tanks to shell parliament & arrest the lawmakers. A few years later, he had a public approval rating of about 3%, so he rigged the ‘96 presidential election against Gennady Zyuganov from the KPRF, Communist Party of the Russian Federation, to stay in power in spite of his alcoholism & declining health.

The 3rd of July marked the 30th anniversary of Boris Yeltsin's re-election in one of the most consequential presidential contests of the twentieth century. Western governments, corporate media and international financial institutions celebrated the result as a triumph of "democracy" over the alleged threat of a communist return. 

For the Russian working class, however, the election meant something entirely different. It marked the decisive consolidation of the capitalist counter-revolution that had begun with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

By 1996, the chief architect of Russia's capitalist restoration, Boris Yeltsin, was anything but a popular leader. Five years of "shock therapy," mass privatisations and capitalist restructuring had devastated the productive foundations inherited from socialism. Millions saw their savings wiped out, wages went unpaid for months, unemployment and poverty exploded, while a handful of oligarchs accumulated enormous fortunes by appropriating public wealth built through decades of socialist construction. The war in Chechnya further eroded the government's legitimacy, and Yeltsin's approval ratings had collapsed. Under normal political conditions, his defeat appeared entirely possible.

That prospect alarmed not only Russia's newly emerging capitalist class but also Washington and its Western allies. For U.S. imperialism, the issue was never Yeltsin as an individual. He had become the indispensable political instrument for making capitalist restoration irreversible. 

The Clinton administration openly backed his government, while the International Monetary Fund approved a multi-billion-dollar loan only months before the election, providing crucial financial breathing space for an increasingly unpopular administration. At the same time, Russia's oligarch-controlled television networks abandoned any pretence of neutrality, transforming the campaign into an unprecedented anti-communist offensive designed to prevent the victory of Communist Party candidate Gennady Zyuganov. 

Contemporary reports and later investigations also documented extensive violations of campaign regulations, the abuse of state resources and overwhelming media bias in favour of the incumbent. The famous Time magazine cover proclaiming "Yanks to the Rescue" symbolised a remarkable admission: when the interests of capitalism were at stake, U.S. political intervention was not denied but proudly celebrated.

The lesson of 1996 reaches far beyond Russia. The election demonstrated, once again, that imperialism has never regarded bourgeois democracy as an absolute principle. Elections are celebrated only when they secure outcomes acceptable to monopoly capital. When the possibility—even a limited one—emerges that the political course might challenge the interests of capitalism, the full weight of financial institutions, corporate media, diplomatic pressure and ideological warfare is mobilised to shape the result. The objective was not to "save democracy." It was to save capitalist restoration.

Three decades later, the consequences remain unmistakable. The election of 1996 accelerated the destruction of the remaining economic and social achievements inherited from Soviet socialism and consolidated the rule of oligarchic capitalism over Russia. Those who today denounce alleged foreign interference in elections rarely recall the enthusiasm with which Western governments applauded their own intervention in Russia's political future. There is no contradiction. For imperialism, "democracy" has always been subordinate to class interests.

The thirtieth anniversary of the 1996 election is therefore not merely a historical commemoration. It is a reminder of a fundamental truth repeatedly confirmed throughout modern history: whenever the interests of monopoly capital are threatened, imperialism abandons every moral sermon about democracy and openly intervenes to defend the existing social order. Washington did not save Russian democracy in 1996. It helped secure the victory of capitalist counter-revolution. And in doing so, it offered yet another demonstration that anti-communism remains, above all else, the ideological weapon of a system determined to preserve exploitation against the possibility of socialist change.

The top theoretical journal of China’s ruling Communist Party has run commentaries urging the country to cultivate “patient capital” for three days straight, as Beijing seeks to harness investment to boost long-term innovation amid fears of speculative excess in the artificial intelligence sector.

The three posts, published on Qiushi’s official WeChat account from Wednesday to Friday, were drawn from an article in the journal’s latest issue by Xu Siwei, chairman of the vast Chinese state-owned investment firm China Reform Holdings.

The article argued that patient capital – long-term capital willing to tolerate greater risk and longer investment horizons – would be an important source of strength for China amid rising great-power competition on the global stage.

“Building a robust patient capital ecosystem with sufficient scale, appropriately matched investment horizons and strong risk tolerance ... has become a strategic, foundational undertaking to strengthen China’s long-term competitiveness and reinforce the foundations of innovation-driven development,” Xu wrote.

Beijing has increasingly promoted patient capital as a source of long-term financing for deep-tech research and development, where lengthy investment cycles and uncertain returns often deter traditional venture capital, amid an intensifying technological rivalry with the United States.

The growing emphasis on patient capital came amid a wave of investment that has flooded into China’s artificial intelligence sector since the emergence of DeepSeek, sparking a surge in domestic AI-related stocks and concerns that speculative capital could crowd out longer-term investment.

Xu cautioned that capital’s pursuit of rapid and maximum returns tended to encourage short-term behaviour, creating structural obstacles to developing patient capital, and argued that its development could not be left to market forces alone but required top-level policy design and systematic institutional support.

Similar concerns over speculative trading have also emerged in neighbouring South Korea, where regulators have warned against excessive leverage and the concentration of retail investment in a handful of AI-driven chip stocks and related exchange-traded funds.

In the Qiushi article, Xu called for performance evaluations that reward long-term strategic contributions rather than short-term returns, alongside differentiated fault-tolerance mechanisms designed to encourage investment in high-risk, long-horizon technologies.

He also urged policymakers to improve exit mechanisms and mobilise government-guided funds and state capital to crowd in private investment.

Beijing has also recently started to deploy state-backed capital on a broader scale. Earlier this week, central bank governor Pan Gongsheng said China would increase the allocation of its foreign exchange reserves to Hong Kong, giving a further boost to the city’s capital market.

For nearly five decades, China has been cultivating the world's largest reforestation initiative, the 'Great Green Wall,' to halt the spread of the Gobi and Taklamakan deserts. A new study reveals a surprising trend: these 66 billion planted trees are expanding their leaf area 66% faster than nearby natural forests.

While younger, human-managed trees naturally grow quicker, researchers found that even after adjusting for age and local growing conditions, the planted forests still grew 4.6% faster than their natural counterparts.

Scientists believe this boost occurs because these younger forests respond more aggressively to rising carbon dioxide levels in Earth's atmosphere.

However, this rapid growth comes with a major catch: the advantage is temporary. The study shows that this growth surge peaks when the trees are between 30 and 40 years old, after which the acceleration begins to fade. While natural forests develop at a much slower pace, they continue to store carbon for centuries and support vastly superior biodiversity.

This means that while massive planting initiatives are an excellent short-term strategy to absorb greenhouse gases, they cannot replace the long-term ecological stability and carbon storage provided by protecting existing, ancient forests.

source: Luo, Y., Wang, Y., Wang, H., Wang, H., & Wu, J. (2026). Enhanced CO2 Response and Aging-Related Dynamics Drive a Greater Leaf Area Index Increase in China's Planted Forests in Comparison to Natural Forests. Geophysical Research Letters, 53(11).

In capitalist economy, wealthy people store wealth by buying extra houses which keeps price of houses rising. These house wealth often used as collateral for taking credit and then using that credit in investment. So fall in house prices reduce investment and growth.

In socialist China wealthy class are not allowed to speculate and use house as collateral for investment. Chinese government has ensured over supply in housing market so that house price keeps falling. So housing prices are falling and that doesn't effect investment and growth.

China is doing something almost no Western government has had the courage to try: actually deflating a housing bubble on purpose, in the name of livability instead of landlord profits.

For years, Beijing’s mantra has been that housing is “for living in, not for speculation” – a line first pushed by Xi Jinping in 2016 that then became the guiding principle for national real estate policy. That wasn’t just rhetoric. It translated into tighter credit for developers, curbs on speculative buying, and a refusal to use runaway home prices as a quick-and-dirty GDP stimulus. In other words: while the U.S. and much of Europe let housing become a financial asset class first and shelter second, China explicitly moved in the opposite direction.

China already has one of the highest homeownership rates on Earth, with roughly 90% of households owning their homes, far above most rich countries. When your starting point is near-universal ownership, the political calculus shifts. You can prioritize stabilizing or lowering prices to keep housing affordable for younger and poorer households, instead of worshiping “wealth effects” for existing owners at all costs. Beijing’s line has been consistent: stabilize land prices, stabilize home prices, stabilize expectations – and make rental housing and social housing part of the core system, not an afterthought.

There will be real economic pain, failed developers, and long, grinding provincial restructuring. But history may judge it as an almost unheard-of experiment: a major government choosing to puncture a bubble and accept short-term turbulence rather than keep feeding a housing casino. In a world where “housing policy” usually means “protect asset prices at any cost,” that alone is a radical, and instructive, choice.

Barack Obama ranks number one at 54. Right behind him: Bernie Sanders at 45, and Zohran Mamdani — the democratic socialist Mayor of NYC — at 44. That’s higher than Pete Buttigieg (43), Jon Ossoff (42), AOC (41), Kamala Harris (41), and Marco Rubio (41), the lone Republican who cracked the top tier.

For context on where the establishment wing lands: Chuck Schumer sits at 30, Hakeem Jeffries at 36, and Gavin Newsom ties the entire Republican Party’s favorability at 39.

Among Democrats specifically, Sanders and Mamdani are tied at the top with a 72/100 mean rating, ahead of AOC at 70. The party establishment trails behind: Harris at 68, Buttigieg at 67, Newsom at 64.

Meanwhile, Trump sits at 38 — tied with his own VP — and Tucker Carlson is the single most disliked political figure tested, at 28, even among his own party’s rank-and-file (40/100 with Republicans).

So next time some Democratic consultant tells you “the DSA is toxic” and voters want a “moderate,” maybe point them to the actual data: the most popular non-Obama figures in the country right now are a democratic socialist mayor and a democratic socialist senator who popularized the term.

Americans who paying attention don’t want the “center” between fascism and liberalism. Quasi-fascism and quasi-white supremacy aren’t going to cut it. We reject the MAGA ideology and cruelty — entirely.

The American people determine who the “moderates” are through their votes, not the corporate media pundit class.

New Strength In Numbers/Verasight polling (June 2026) asked Americans to rate political figures on a 0-100 “feeling thermometer.”

“Why did the Soviet Union collapse? Why did the Soviet Communist Party fall?

An important reason is that the ideological struggle was extremely fierce. A complete denial of Soviet history, the history of the Soviet Communist Party, denial of Lenin, denial of Stalin, and the spread of historical nihilism led to chaos in thinking. Party organizations at all levels were almost completely ineffective. Even the military was no longer under the Party’s leadership.”

—Xi Jinping

Taken from New York Post: https://nypost.com/2026/07/01/us-news/third-of-democrats-are-fond-of-socialists-as-party-drifts-further-to-the-left-poll/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nypost&sr_share=facebook&fbclid=IwY2xjawS0qkNleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFUZUFjaFZqazhUaVdwMW5Pc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHtxlRhq8Q7rJEYaIw_QsvceI7oEbon0VtZ3HX4wo5N5nmqDtNXAcUx8OMbwZ_aem_q6zASq91ZcivbLP3zhI6qA

Nearly one-third of Democrats say they want to see democratic socialists in office, according to a new poll released as far-left candidates rack up victories in New York City and Colorado.

A firm 32% of Democrats indicated they like democratic socialist pols, compared to just 11% who don’t and 56% who have no strong opinions on them, according to a survey from Pew Research.

Predictably, among self-described liberal Democrats, 52% like politicians who identify as democratic socialists, while 4% dislike them and 43% don’t have an opinion.

Moderate and conservative Democrats were more split, with 17% inclined to dislike socialists, compared to 15% who liked them, and 66% with no opinion.

Democratic socialists had the highest support from white, younger, upper-income, and college-educated party members — despite their claim of standing against the elites of society and for the working class.

White Democratic support for the socialist wing (40%) is nearly double that of black (21%) and Hispanic Democrats (20%).

Four in 10 upper-income Democrats also say they like democratic socialists, compared to 34% of middle-income Dems and 24% of low-income Dems.

The left flank of the party has racked up a series of victories in Democratic primaries over recent weeks, largely in safe blue districts.

More than three dozen Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)-backed candidates have won their primaries so far this year, including a trio of New Yorkers endorsed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Melat Kiros — who defeated 15-term incumbent Rep. Diana DeGette in Colorado Tuesday.

Still, data from Pew Research indicates that the broader American public is skeptical of the DSA.

Overall, 38% of Americans dislike self-described democratic socialist politicians, compared to 15% who like them, while 43% are indifferent, per the poll.

The highest disapproval rate came from Republicans (69%), though 3% of GOPers claimed to like democratic socialists and 27% were indifferent.

A Chinese robotics company put its humanoid machines to the ultimate industrial test, and they passed with striking results. Over a continuous six-day livestream from an active tablet factory, wheeled humanoid robots performed quality inspection, defect sorting, and material handling, logging more than 64 hours of uninterrupted operation and completing nearly 65,000 production tasks with a reported 99.99 percent success rate. Unlike controlled lab demos, this trial unfolded on a live commercial production line alongside human workers. The same week, the company confirmed delivery of its 15,000th robot, underscoring how fast humanoid manufacturing capacity is scaling in China, production quadrupled in speed within months. The episode is a strong signal that embodied AI is moving past pilot projects and into mainstream industrial deployment, a shift with major implications for global manufacturing competitiveness and labor markets.

A new Fox News poll found 68% of Americans disapprove of how the economy is being managed, with only 31% approving. For the people at the top, the markets are up and the year has been good. For everyone else, the rent went up, the groceries went up, and the paycheck did not. The gap in those numbers is not confusion. It is the gap between the people who own the economy and the people who only work in it.

New York City's Rent Guidelines Board voted 7-1 to freeze rents on all one- and two-year leases across the city's roughly 1 million rent-stabilized apartments. Starting in October, some 2 million tenants will see zero rent increases. Not a small bump. Zero.

It's the first-ever two-year lease freeze in the city's history.

Trump once promised his supporters: "We're gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning."

New Yorkers are tired of winning. In the best possible way.

This week alone: Mamdani's endorsed candidates swept congressional races and won a handful of state legislative seats.

He came into office as a Democratic socialist and the establishment said it couldn't work. Then he froze rents for 2 million people. Then he remade the congressional map. In a single week.

This is what it looks like when someone actually does what they said they'd do. No excuses. No compromises.

The landlord lobby is already threatening lawsuits. One rep resigned in protest before the vote even happened.

They lost anyway. 7-1.

THANK YOU, Zohran Mamdani, for doing exactly what you promised!

China is recycling millions of dead EV batteries — and turning them into brand new ones. As electric vehicles age out across the country, old battery packs are being shredded and broken down so their valuable materials can be pulled out and reused. New national standards now report recovery rates of around 99.6% for key materials, with similar success for others. The recovered materials go straight back into manufacturing fresh batteries, cutting the need for new mining. Companies across China are racing to build out this recycling industry as the number of retired batteries keeps climbing year after year. It's becoming one of the country's biggest steps toward a cleaner, more self sufficient EV supply chain.

China’s universities have revoked or suspended 12,200 undergraduate degree programs and introduced 10,200 new ones between 2021 and 2025 as the country reshapes higher education for the AI era.

The cuts were concentrated in arts, humanities, foreign languages, and management programs that officials increasingly view as outdated or oversaturated.

More than 30% of China’s university programs were adjusted during the overhaul, according to Ministry of Education data cited by Xinhua.

Many of the new programs focus on AI, robotics, and embodied intelligence as Beijing pushes to become a global leader in future technologies.

The changes come as China faces a graduate employment crisis, with more than 16% of young people unemployed.

China revoked 12,200 degree programs between 2021 and 2025 because they stopped leading to jobs, and replaced them with around 10,200 new ones built for the AI era. Fields like photography and design were folded into AI-integrated degrees so graduates could move with the economy instead of falling behind it. American colleges did neither, raising the cost of a degree as much as 45% over two decades while selling the same stale credentials. Students carry the difference, an average of nearly $40,000 each, out of the $1.64 trillion Americans now owe.

In the Gula Rice Field Art Scenic Area in south China's Nanning City, farmland has turned into a huge piece of living art! Colorful rice plants are used like "paint" to create eye-catching patterns across the fields.

During the May Day holiday, the scenic area attracted many visitors who came to stroll, take photos and enjoy this creative mix of farming and art. It's a fresh twist on rural tourism – where everyday farmland becomes a colorful open-air gallery.

কমিউনিস্মের পথে এগোচ্ছে চীন। উৎপাদনকে করে তুলছে আরও স্বয়ঙ্ক্রিয়। ব্যবহার করছে কৃত্রিম বুদ্ধিমত্তা চালিত রোবট। কমিউনিস্মের মূল কথা মেশিন সমস্ত প্রয়োজনীয় কিন্তু অনাকাঙ্খিত কাজ করবে আর মানুষ শুধু এমন কাজ করবে যেটা তার করতে ভালো লাগে। 

বেইজিং-হংকং-ম্যাকাও এক্সপ্রেসওয়ের ১৫৭.৭৯ কিলোমিটার দীর্ঘ একটি অংশ সম্পূর্ণ স্বয়ংক্রীয় যন্ত্রের সাহায্যে সম্পন্ন করা হয়েছে, যেখানে কাজে সরাসরি কোনো মানুষের হস্তক্ষেপ ছিল না। অটোমেটেড মহাসড়ক নির্মাণের ক্ষেত্রে এটিই বিশ্বের প্রথম উদাহরণ।

এই প্রকল্পের নেতৃত্বে ছিল যন্ত্রপাতি নির্মাতা বৃহৎ প্রতিষ্ঠান স্যানি (Sany), যারা একটি ২০-মিটার চওড়া চালকবিহীন পেভার, ছয়টি ডাবল-ড্রাম রোলার এবং তিনটি রাবার-হুইল রোলার ব্যবহার করেছে।

সবগুলোই নিখুঁতভাবে সমন্বিত বিন্যাসে কাজ করেছে। এর প্রতিটি পদক্ষেপ কৃত্রিম বুদ্ধিমত্তার অ্যালগরিদম এবং চীনের বেইডু স্যাটেলাইট সিস্টেম দ্বারা পরিচালিত হয়েছে, যা পুরো কাজ জুড়ে সেন্টিমিটার-স্তরের নির্ভুলতা নিশ্চিত করেছে।

মানব তত্ত্বাবধায়করা কেবল দূর থেকে কার্যক্রম পর্যবেক্ষণ করেছেন। বাকি সবকিছু — অ্যাসফল্ট বিছানো, কম্প্যাক্ট করা এবং ফিনিশিংয়ের কাজ — যন্ত্রগুলোই একবারেই সম্পন্ন করেছে, যা প্রচলিত মানব-চালিত নির্মাণকাজের চেয়েও বেশি নির্ভুল ও দ্রুতগতির।

এটি কোনো কোনো টেষ্ট বা পাইলট প্রজেক্ট ছিল না। এটি চীনের অন্যতম ব্যস্ততম একটি মহাসড়কে অটোমেটেড সড়ক নির্মাণের বাস্তব প্রয়োগ ছিল।

বিশ বছর আগে, যখন চীন পাতাল রেল তৈরি করছিল, তখন তাদের টানেল বোরিং মেশিনের (TBM) প্রয়োজন হয়েছিল, যার সবগুলোই জার্মানি থেকে আমদানি করা হতো।

জার্মানি থেকে একটি টানেল বোরিং মেশিনের দাম ছিল ৩৫ কোটি RMB—এক পয়সাও কম নয়। কেনার সময় কঠোর শর্তে স্বাক্ষর করতে হতো: যদি মেশিনটি নষ্ট হয়ে যেত, তবে কেবল জার্মান ইঞ্জিনিয়ারদের তা মেরামত করতে দিতে হবে।

চীনে আসার জন্য একজন জার্মান ইঞ্জিনিয়ারের দৈনিক মজুরি ছিল ৩,০০০ ইউরো, যা তখনকার দিনে ৩০,০০০ RMB-এর বেশি ছিল। তাদের ফার্স্ট ক্লাসে ভ্রমণের খরচ দিতে হতো এবং একটি পাঁচতারা হোটেলের প্রেসিডেন্সিয়াল স্যুইটে রাখতে হতো।

মেরামতের সময় কোনো চীনাকে দেখার অনুমতি ছিল না; সবাইকে সেখান থেকে চলে যেতে হতো। কাজ শেষ হলে, তারা সরাসরি বিলটি হস্তান্তর করত—একটি ছোট্ট সিলিং রিং প্রতিস্থাপন করতে ১,০০,০০০ RMB খরচ হতো।

কখনও কখনও একটি ছোটখাটো ত্রুটির কারণে একজন জার্মান ইঞ্জিনিয়ারের আসার জন্য তিন মাস অপেক্ষা করতে হতো, যার ফলে পুরো নির্মাণস্থলের শত শত শ্রমিক অলস বসে থাকত এবং প্রতিদিন লক্ষ লক্ষ RMB লোকসান হতো।

কিন্তু ২০০৮ সাল নাগাদ, স্বাধীন মেধাস্বত্ব অধিকারসহ চীনের প্রথম টানেল বোরিং মেশিন উৎপাদন শুরু হয়। জার্মানরা তখন এ নিয়ে মোটেও মাথা ঘামায়নি; তারা ভেবেছিল, চীনারা যা-ই তৈরি করুক না কেন, তা নিশ্চয়ই অকেজো হবে এবং কয়েক দিনের মধ্যেই নষ্ট হয়ে যাবে।

শেষ পর্যন্ত, চীনের টানেল বোরিং মেশিনগুলো শুধু যে কার্যকর ছিল তাই নয়, বরং এর দামও প্রতি ইউনিটে সরাসরি ৫০ মিলিয়ন RMB-তে নেমে আসে। এরপর, প্রযুক্তি আরও উন্নত হলে এবং উৎপাদন বাড়লে, এখন একটি দেশীয় মেশিনের দাম ২০ মিলিয়ন RMB-এর সামান্য বেশি—যা মূল জার্মান মডেলগুলোর দামের মাত্র এক-সতেরো ভাগের এক ভাগ।

টানেল বোরিং মেশিনের বাজারে জার্মানির একচেটিয়া আধিপত্যের ধারণাটি রাতারাতি ভেঙে চুরমার হয়ে যায়। দেখা গেল, জার্মানি, জাপান এবং যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের মতো হাতেগোনা কয়েকটি দেশই বিশ্বজুড়ে এগুলো তৈরি করতে পারত; তারা নিজেদের ইচ্ছামতো দাম হাঁকিয়ে আকাশছোঁয়া দাম রাখার জন্য আঁতাত করেছিল।

এখন চীনও এই প্রতিযোগিতায় যোগ দেওয়ায়, তাদের মূল্য নির্ধারণ ব্যবস্থা পুরোপুরি ভেঙে পড়েছে। আজকাল একটি জার্মান টানেল বোরিং মেশিন বিক্রি করতে হলে, তাদের দাম কমিয়ে প্রায় চীনের সমপর্যায়ে আনতে হয়।

আর প্রযুক্তির বাজারে এই ঘটনাই একের পর এক ক্ষেত্রে বারবার ঘটে চলেছে।

চীনারা যখন সফলভাবে এরোপ্লেনের ইঞ্জিন তৈরি করবে তখন পশ্চিমাদের গর্ব, বোইং আর এয়ার বাস কোম্পানিতে রাতারাতি লাল বাত্তি জ্বলবে। এইজন্য তারা বিভিন্ন স্যাংশন দিয়ে চীনকে আটকে রাখতে চায়।

@ Sharifus Salekin Sahan

China has the highest home ownership rates in the globe with nearly 96% of households owning their homes, according to global housing data.

This shift began in the 1990s when China moved away from its old government-allocated housing system, creating pathways for ordinary citizens to purchase their homes. Decades of housing reform, strong cultural values around property ownership, and consistent policy support made this possible.

Rural households lead at 97%, while urban households sit at over 90% — figures that most nations cannot match.

For context, the global average sits far lower, with many countries seeing home ownership become increasingly difficult for younger generations.

China's home ownership story is one of the most remarkable housing transformations in modern history.

Sources: World Population Review, Chinese Household Finance Survey, CNN, Peking University Institute of Social Sciences

China solves a notorious pollution problems with bamboo.

Scientists at Northeast Forestry University have developed a brand-new plastic made entirely from bamboo that is actually stronger than regular petroleum-based plastic. It handles heat above 180°C, resists heavy stress, and can be shaped using normal factory machines just like conventional plastic.

But here's the part that changes everything. This bamboo plastic fully breaks down in soil within 50 days. No microplastics. No toxic waste. Just gone. Regular plastic takes up to 500 years to disappear.

The research was published in Nature Communications in October 2025. Scientists broke bamboo cellulose down to the molecular level, then rebuilt it into a dense, tough material that outperforms most commercial plastics on the market today.

Mass production is still being worked out, but the science is real and verified.

২০২৪ সালে শি ঝিনপিং বলেছিলেনঃ বাসস্থান বাস করার জন্য, ফাটকাবাজীর জন্য না। অর্থাৎ বাসস্থানকে ভাবতে হবে বসবাস করার ভোগ্য পণ্য হিসেবে, তাকে সম্পত্তি ভেবে কেনা বেচা করে মুনাফা করা যাবেনা। সমাজতান্ত্রিক চীনে কিভাবে দেখা হয় ব্যক্তির বাসস্থানের অধিকার।

 

চীনে একটি হাইওয়ে নির্মাণ প্রকল্পের সাথে যুক্ত সরকারী সংস্থার ক্ষতিপূরণের প্রস্তাব প্রত্যাখ্যান করার পর এক বাড়ির মালিক বেশ বিখ্যাত হয়ে ওঠেন।

জানা গেছে, কর্তৃপক্ষ তাকে স্থানান্তরের জন্য ১.৬ মিলিয়ন ইউয়ান এবং সেই সাথে বিকল্প হোমস্টেড (বসবাসের জমি) দেওয়ার প্রস্তাব করেছিল, কিন্তু দুই পক্ষ কোনো চুক্তিতে পৌঁছাতে না পারায় শেষ পর্যন্ত আলোচনা ভেস্তে যায়।

বাড়িটি পুরোপুরি গুঁড়িয়ে দেওয়ার পরিবর্তে, প্রকৌশলীরা হাইওয়েটি ওই সম্পত্তির চারপাশ দিয়েই তৈরি করেন। এর ফলে নবনির্মিত সড়কের ঠিক মাঝখানে দুই তলা ঐ বাড়িটি একাকী দাঁড়িয়ে থাকে।

এই অদ্ভুত কাঠামোটি "নেইল হাউস" নামে পরিচিতি পায়। সাধারণত চীনে উন্নয়ন প্রকল্পের সময় যেসব ভবনের মালিকরা স্থানান্তরিত হতে অস্বীকৃতি জানান, তাদের ক্ষেত্রে এই শব্দটি ব্যবহার করা হয়।

যদিও এই বিচ্ছিন্ন বাড়িটি অনলাইনেজুড়ে ব্যাপক পরিচিতি পেয়েছিল এবং এর ডাকনাম দেওয়া হয়েছিল "দ্য আই অব জিন্সি", বাড়ির মালিক পরবর্তীতে স্বীকার করেন যে তিনি এই সিদ্ধান্তের জন্য অনুতপ্ত।

চীনা সংবাদ মাধ্যমগুলোর প্রতিবেদন অনুযায়ী, গাড়ির অবিরাম শব্দ এবং কম্পন দৈনন্দিন জীবনকে কঠিন করে তুলেছিল। প্রতিবেশী বাসিন্দারা ক্ষতিপূরণ নিয়ে চলে যাওয়ার পর নিজের বাড়িটি ব্যস্ত হাইওয়ের লেনের মাঝে আটকা পড়ে থাকতে দেখে তিনি এই পরিণতিকে একটি "জুয়ায় হেরে যাওয়া" হিসেবে বর্ণনা করেন।

"Marx and Engels did not envisage that a market economy could be developed under socialist conditions, and of course they could not foresee how socialist countries would treat capital. Although Lenin and Stalin led the socialist construction of the Soviet Union, at that time the Soviet Union implemented a highly centralized planned economic system and basically did not encounter large-scale capital problems. To engage in a socialist market economy is a great creation of our party.

Since it is a socialist market economy, it will inevitably produce various forms of capital. Although there are many differences between capital in capitalist society and capital in socialist society, capital is all about chasing profits. “The key to uniting the people is to manage their wealth appropriately." We should explore how to play the positive role of capital under the conditions of a socialist market economy, while effectively controlling the negative role of capital.

In recent years, due to lack of awareness and lack of supervision, capital has expanded in a disorderly way, manipulated arbitrarily, and made huge profits in some areas of our country. This requires regulating the behavior of capital, seeking advantages and avoiding disadvantages, not allowing “capital predators” to act recklessly, but also giving full play to the function of capital as a factor of production. This is a major political and economic issue that cannot be avoided."

As Eric Li, socialist Venture Fund Owner puts it: 

“In America, you can change the political parties but you can’t change the policies. Billionaires in America control all policy making. China is a vibrant market economy but it is not capitalist. Billionaires in China can’t control policy and capital does not have enshrined rights. In America, capital itself has risen above the nation. In the last 66 years China is being run by one single party, yet the political changes that have taken place have been wider and broader and greater than any other country in modern history.”

This is why it is far better to have one party that serves the people than two parties that both serve corporations and billionaires.

More than thirty years after the counterrevolutionary upheaveals and the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union, public attitudes in today's Russia toward its most emblematic leaders remain remarkably stable —and, in some respects, increasingly favorable.

The available polling data, primarily from the Levada Center, does not support the idea that decades of fierce anti-Soviet and anti-communist discourse have fundamentally reshaped mass perceptions.

The most recent large-scale survey (April 2025) shows that Joseph Stalin is named by 42% of respondents as one of the most outstanding figures in history, while Vladimir Lenin is cited by 28%. Importantly, Stalin’s figure has increased by 18 percentage points since 1991, indicating a long-term upward trajectory rather than decline.

Beyond rankings, evaluative data confirms the same pattern. According to the most recent Levada-based reporting, 67% of Russians assess Lenin’s historical role positively, marking the highest level recorded since 2006, when the corresponding figure stood at 40%. This represents a 27-point increase over less than two decades, pointing not to erosion but to consolidation of Lenin’s image.

The case of Stalin shows an even clearer shift. In the 1990s, negative attitudes were dominant, but longitudinal data demonstrates a steady reversal. By 2019, over 50% of respondents expressed a positive view of Stalin, while approximately 70% evaluated his role in history as “rather positive.” This trajectory has been consistent: favorable views rose from about 46% in 2017 to over 50% in 2019, with later surveys maintaining similarly high levels.

These attitudes are closely connected to broader perceptions of the Soviet past. According to Levada-based surveys, a majority of Russians consistently express positive evaluations of the USSR, associating it with social stability, justice, and state responsibility toward ordinary people. In some surveys, 59% state that the Soviet system “took care of ordinary people,” while large shares also emphasize stability, legitimacy, and social guarantees. In parallel, other data shows that a clear majority would prefer the Soviet system over the current one, and up to 75% describe the Soviet period as the greatest in the country’s history, indicating a broader historical framework within which Lenin and Stalin are evaluated.

Taken together, these findings are consistent across different types of questions—historical rankings, direct evaluations, and broader assessments of the Soviet experience. Lenin maintains a stable two-thirds positive majority with a rising trend, while Stalin’s image has undergone a measurable and sustained revaluation, moving from predominantly negative in the early post-Soviet years to broadly positive or balanced today.

What emerges from the data is not fluctuation but continuity combined with partial recovery. Despite decades of ideological pressure, both figures retain a central and resilient position in Russian public opinion, embedded within a wider positive reassessment of the Soviet period itself.

In a recent interview, Francis Fukuyama revisited his earlier "End of History" thesis, noting that China has forged a development path driven by quasi-market mechanisms and the integration of new technologies, with an innovative capacity surpassing expectations. In contrast, he said, American democracy is becoming increasingly fragmented. He added that if China sustains its current momentum, its model could offer valuable lessons.

What Xi Jinping is saying is actually very simple, and people only get confused because they use lazy Western shortcuts.

Calling China “capitalist” just because it uses markets is a category error. Markets are a tool, not a system. Capitalism is defined by who commands capital and whose interests the system ultimately serves. In China, capital does not rule the state. The state rules capital. That single fact already breaks the capitalist label.

China opened up to markets to raise productivity, absorb technology, and accelerate development. That was a strategic decision, not an ideological conversion. Political power was never privatized. Macroeconomic control was never surrendered to finance. The commanding heights — land, energy, transport, banking, telecoms — remain under public control. Those are the levers that matter, and they are not in private hands.

Profit exists, yes. Private firms exist, yes. But profit is tolerated only within boundaries set by the state. When capital undermines social stability, national security, or long-term development, it gets reined in, sometimes brutally. That does not happen in capitalist systems, where capital captures the state and writes the rules.

Boring idiots who shout “state capitalism” or “technocratic capitalism” are projecting old Cold War binaries. They assume socialism must look like frozen 20th-century models or else it’s fake. That’s dogma, not theory.

What they miss is that this adaptability is the very nature of communism itself. Dialectical materialism does not freeze history. It starts from material conditions, reads contradictions as they actually exist, and changes methods as reality changes. Socialism is not a museum exhibit. It is a moving process.

Marx never argued for a single timeless form. He argued that systems evolve through contradiction, development, and concrete conditions. If the productive forces change, the superstructure must adjust. Refusing to adapt is not being “more socialist.” It is being anti-materialist.

Modern socialism uses markets, data, planning, and technology together because those are the instruments available at this stage of development. Updating the method does not change the destination. It is precisely how a materialist system survives, consolidates, and advances instead of collapsing into ritual and nostalgia.

China’s system is socialist because development is subordinated to collective goals, long-term planning overrides short-term profit, and political authority is not for sale. Reform adjusted the means. It did not replace the logic.

So Xi is right to dismiss those labels. They confuse surface mechanisms with underlying power. And once you look at who actually commands the system, the capitalism accusation collapses on its own.

China's Xi Jinping was quoted with saying that "In recent years commentators both at home and abroad have questioned whether the road pursued by China is truly socialist."

"Some have called our road 'Social Capitalism,' others 'State Capitalism,' and yet others 'Technocratic Capitalism.' These are all completely wrong."

"We respond that socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, by which we mean that despite reform we adhere to the socialist road — our road, our theory, our system, and the goals we set out at the 18th National Party Congress."

Follow: @RTSG_News

Global Times:

Chinese authorities have recently released guidelines to regulate CEO romance micro dramas, emphasizing the need to avoid promoting ideals that glorify marriage with the powerful, wealthy individuals or families. Additionally, they warned against the intentional creation of eye-catching content by flaunting wealth and showcasing power, as Guangdianshijie, a WeChat account affiliated with China Press and Publishing Media Group Co. Ltd reported on Monday.

The guidelines, reportedly released by the National Radio and Television Administration, emphasize that creators should adhere to the principles of realism when producing short-form dramas that portray the entrepreneurial community.

The creators should avoid wrapping absurd stories under the guise of realism and using absurd artistic techniques as an excuse to fabricate overly bizarre plots that lack genuine value, Guangdianshijie said, as such practices could distort the public's perception of Chinese entrepreneurs and harm the profile of the entrepreneurial community.

The guidelines said creators should tell the stories of Chinese entrepreneurs from both history and contemporary times, rather than being limited to themes of romantic entanglements and family disputes, noting that in particular, creators should avoid promoting marriage concepts that clinging to the powerful, wealthy individuals and families.

The guidelines pointed out that management of CEO romance micro dramas should be strengthened. Specific measures include reducing the quantity, improving the quality, and avoiding the use of terms like "domineering CEO" as appealing titles to attract viewers.

It also emphasizes that short-form dramas must not deliberately create appealing points through content that promotes materialism, flaunting wealth, power, or hedonism.

The theme and the characterization of the protagonists should not deviate from mainstream values, and micro dramas should avoid promoting the views of getting something for nothing, instant success, or overnight wealth.

Now compare Global Times Report with my article: https://www.eastisrising.in/view-news/160 & https://www.eastisrising.in/view-news/174

From: https://interestingengineering.com/ai-robotics/humanoid-robots-set-to-run-smart-factories?utm_source=facebook,twitter&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwY2xjawOb4GFleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFqc3VrczlaM2NPNmx0aFVTc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHhcbdUsWslBtE1QR8sQhh1xXEamdATKpdLbd6SOu93iaoNGujqPKrPWsPem6_aem_VlpZiW-RkCJVUBb9W3wd7A

Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun has offered one of his strongest predictions yet about the future of manufacturing, telling Beijing Daily that the next five years will bring a major shift powered by artificial intelligence.

He said this change will not be gradual but rapid, with humanoid robots soon becoming central to how factories operate. These remarks coincide with China’s broader push for smarter, more advanced production systems as companies race to modernize aging industrial models.

Rapid automation is already taking hold

Lei highlighted the electric vehicle plant run by the tech giant as a clear sign of the transformation in progress. Large die-cast car parts usually require slow manual inspection, which often leads to mistakes.

He noted that no single company can build this market alone. Instead, he expects long-term growth to depend on partnerships and shared engineering platforms across the sector.

Robots set to enter Xiaomi’s factories

Looking ahead, he said Xiaomi will introduce humanoid robots across its production lines within five years. These robots will handle tasks now performed by workers, especially repetitive or precision-intensive steps that benefit most from automation.

According to the CEO, “And this is only the first step.” He expects domestic robots for households to become an even larger market. These home systems will require higher performance and face far more complex everyday activities than factory units.

He also said these upgrades free human workers to take on more advanced roles in planning, design, and engineering development. As humanoid robots take over physical labor, employees will shift toward tasks that require creativity and technical decision-making.

This aligns with China’s national roadmap for modernizing manufacturing using AI, robotics, and smart factory systems.

Beijing’s role in the next industrial upgrade

Lei also discussed the importance of Beijing in advancing intelligent manufacturing. He urged the city to avoid older methods that depend on low-cost labor.

Instead, he encouraged investment in next-generation systems that use automation and digital tools to strengthen industrial competitiveness. He said smart production is the key to Beijing securing long-term leadership in modern industry.

The tech firm’s strategy reflects this direction. The company is putting significant resources into AI development, robotics testing, and factory upgrades. Lei said the next five years will be decisive. Humanoid robots, inspection AI, and interconnected factory systems will become core parts of Xiaomi’s production network.

China plans to teach artificial intelligence in every school to build a skilled future workforce. Students will learn basic coding, data skills, and simple machine learning tasks. This move aims to prepare children for a tech driven economy. Researchers at Tsinghua University report that early exposure improves problem solving and digital readiness.

The curriculum expands nationwide as part of a long term strategy to strengthen innovation. Teachers receive new training programs and local labs develop age appropriate tools. Analysts say this shift will influence how fast the next generation adapts to advanced technology.

China Produced More Robots in 9 Months Than All of 2024!

The global push for Automation has just hit hyperdrive! In a clear sign of accelerating Digital Transformation, China produced an astounding 595,000 industrial robots and 13.5 million service robots in the first nine months of 2025—figures that officially surpassed the total output for the entire year of 2024 in both categories! 

This explosive growth is being fueled by huge Technology Investment in sectors like Automotive, Electronics, and New Energy. The production surge is solidifying China’s position as the world's largest manufacturer and user of Robotics, with robot density in factories more than doubling since 2020.

As manufacturers embrace AI and automation to solve labor shortages and boost efficiency, this wave is fundamentally reshaping the global Manufacturing landscape and pushing the boundaries of Embodied Intelligence.

IBN News 
শেনজেন-ভিত্তিক ইউবিটেক রোবোটিকস (UBTECH Robotics) বিশ্বের প্রথম “ম্যাস ডেলিভারি” ঘোষণা করেছে শিল্প-মানবাকৃতি রোবটের। ইতিমধ্যে শত শত ওয়াকার এস-টু (Walker S2) ইউনিট কারখানা থেকে উৎপাদিত হয়েছে।

সুত্রের বরাত, প্রথম ব্যাচগুলো সরাসরি যাচ্ছে BYD, Geely, FAW-Volkswagen, Dongfeng, Foxconn-এর মতো শিল্প-দানবদের কাছে। এখানে রোবটগুলো ম্যানুফ্যাকচারিং ও লজিস্টিকসে কাজ করবে, যেখানে ২৪ ঘণ্টা অবিরাম কাজ অপরিহার্য।

Taken from Regional Rapport Website: https://regionalrapport.com/marx-200-communist-belt-manifesto-part-ii/

Stalin & Mao

The Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin industrialized itself in just two five year plans under Gosplan (Planning Committee). The Soviet Union became second largest economy only after the US by 1938 and could defeat German military-industrial might in World War II. The victory in the war brought entire East Europe under communism. Soviet planning proved itself to be much more effective in allocating resources in basic infrastructural heavy industries, education and health.

Thus, the Soviet Union emerged as the supreme power in technology and armament industries. After the end of World War II, the Soviet Union under Stalin became one of the two superpowers in the cold war with the US. The success of the planned economy under the Soviet Union attracted many backward countries and communist movement flourished throughout the world. Following Leninist, theory movement flourished mainly in backward societies. Communist movements broke the backbone of colonialism.

After the death of Stalin, Kruschev became Soviet Head and began to criticize Stalinist policies. This was the beginning of problems. The growth began to slow down. Though the Communist Party replaced Kruschev many questions began to be raised against the Soviet Union policies. Kruschev called for more roles of market and incentives in the Soviet Union economy. This helped Mao Ze Dong to emerge as the number one leader of international communism after Kruschev criticized Stalin.

Mao upheld Stain’s legacies in communist movement while at the same time criticized Stalin for being too much dependent on bureaucracy for economic development. Mao criticized USSR leadership as revisionist and claimed that money motivation can be crushed even at the much lower level of economic development than what the Soviet Union has achieved. For that Mao ushered in the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward which failed to give desired results. Mao proved himself the genius in conducting the communist revolution in China and in destroying feudalism and building educational and health foundation. But his direct march to communism by culturally defeating money motivation proved to be disastrous for the Chinese economy.

Where Stalin went Wong

Actually, Stalin’s period saw rapid industrialization because of the communist policy of annihilation of feudal relations, state-led planned investment in non-profit motivated sectors like basic infrastructure industries, education and health. But after reaching this level the Soviet Union should have given more space for private entrepreneurship and profit motivation while keeping key industries under state planning. The Soviet Union created an educated and healthy society who could have been most ideal for further qualitative growth through private entrepreneurship guided by state planning. Though Kruschev raised these questions, his anti-Stalin rhetoric destabilized the Soviet Union leadership which prevented them to take these bold policies.

Moreover, capitalist world was following Keynesian state-led demand creation mechanism to counter overaccumulation crisis. Stalin ignored Keynes as somebody who wanted to reform capitalism and save it. Instead, Stalin should have paid more attention to the fact that capitalist class was not liking Keynes prescribed state-led non-profit making demand creating investments. The capitalist class was continuously attacking Keynesian policies since more state role is bringing with it many obstacles to capitalist profit-making like the job security breeding disincentive to work hard, etc. If the communist movement could integrate Keynesian policies successfully, they could have given market better role in the socialist economy.

Stalin failed to notice that global capitalism was already learning from the success of the Soviet Union economy. In the 1950s, the US helped Japan, South Korea and Taiwan to go for the abolition of feudal relations and heavy state-led non-profitable investments in education, health and basic industries.

The rise of Financial Capitalism: Deng and Gorbachev

By 1970s West underwent tremendous change and started to use debt to create demand and started negating the role of the state. State’s involvement often said to be inefficient and end up as the disincentive to work hard. Based on the petrodollar credit channel, the US  assured itself of unlimited credit and with this inflated its asset prices and then made the profit by trading in assets. Thus capitalists could find profit in asset trading and overproduction crisis was temporarily solved. Gradually West mainly the US started exporting its manufacturing base to Third World countries for making more profit by using the later’s cheap labour.

And West and the US itself started to profit by asset trading. Deng Xiaoping, the chairman of communist China since 1978, understood the opportunity of getting Western technology and capital to industrialize China quickly. Deng took the opportunity. Many people across the globe thought that Deng was moving towards capitalism. They failed to get that Deng has reacted to the changed material condition. Capitalism has transformed itself from production capitalism to financial capitalism. Debt to create demand has become more important than production to supply. Consumers became more important than labourers. This simply assures the fact capitalism is transforming itself in reaction to the overproduction crisis. And this transformation presented China a historical opportunity clearly noted by Deng in his thesis.

Another dimension of the rise of financial capitalism, Saudi led OPEC cartel was allowed to hike oil price much above production cost by the USA and part of this high rental income was raising consumption of oil-rich countries while another part was funding US profit from asset trading. Thus global capitalism started watching the renewed growth. Between 1920 and 1970 the Soviet Union registered second highest growth rate after Japan. But after 1970 the Soviet Union completely stagnated since its fertility rate fell below the replacement rate.

The Soviet Union was growing due to exceptionally high educated and healthy population who could go on inventing new technologies and add to new types of machinery while keeping average productivity per individual stagnant due to lack of incentives and profit motivation. Once population growth fell, growth began falling as well. Thus higher growth in the capitalist world on one hand and slowing down of the Soviet Union, on the other hand, forced the later to move towards market-oriented reforms to improve productivity. Gorbachev led the economic reforms.

Noticing failures of previous the Soviet Union leaders in making economic reforms, Gorbachev went for political reforms first. He destroyed political monopoly of the communist party. Then he started economic reforms. With market forces allowed to play, the Soviet Union being oil-rich caught Dutch Disease due to high global oil prices. That made entire manufacturing base of the Soviet Union completely uncompetitive in the global market. The open economy resulted in deindustrialization of the Soviet Union economy as a result.

Similarly, China had huge educated and healthy cheap labour that attracted huge investments from Western capitalists. Since the Soviet Union had already lost the demographic edge its labour was educated but expensive. Hence, it failed to attract enough Western capital. Everyone in the Soviet Union was blaming the communist government for economic woes while lack of monopoly in decision-making power gave communist party little chance to change the track. As a result, the Soviet Union collapsed by 1991. That was a great ideological defeat for the communist movement.

 Soviet Collapse  and Demographic Crisis

The Soviet Union collapsed because it was ideal for Leninist monopoly capitalist age not for post-Leninist financial capitalist age. The Soviet Union was lost due to twin effects: temporary solution of overaccumulation crisis by global capitalism and the fall of fertility rate of the Soviet Union below replacement rate. The Soviet Union had little to offer to global capitalists, unlike China which had cheap productive labour. In fact, the Soviet Union could have claimed higher growth rates with lower productivity as the socialist success of giving working class more leisure time, unlike the capitalist world.

This claim can be made only if the fertility rate is kept constant at some level. The Soviet Union failed to take any policies that would keep fertility rate constant. In fact, Lenin could never solve the dilemma between women working as part of the working class and motherhood. Lenin failed to see that women once joined working class cannot perform motherhood with equal determination as before. Women participation in outdoor jobs definitely helped USSR to grow in the short run. But it reduced birth rate and resulted in demographic crisis resulting in a lower growth rate in the long run.

Belt Road Age: Xi Jinping

China began to industrialize itself using capital and technology from the US and West and Japan while the US continues to take debt from China and other countries and generate demand for Chinese made products. The process started in the 1980s but after the 2007-08 global financial crisis, this process came under severe doubts. China’s economy has grown to more than US’s in purchasing power parity. China’s economy becoming too big to rely on debt created demand for the US economy.

The US also found itself indebted to a lot of countries and as its asset trading business in crisis, people started to question the deindustrialization process that went side by side with the growth of asset trading in the US. China in 2013 was the largest trading nation. China’s potential GDP is at least three times that of US and by Nobelist Robert Fogel predicting that, by 2040, Chinese GDP would be twice of America’s and Europe’s combined GDP. So Wall Street players know China is their future financial centre as well.

In 2013, under Xi Jinping’s leadership, China came up with the different idea to counter the overproduction crisis. China came up with the Belt Road Initiative which is about investing in infrastructure like ports, railways, roads across the globe and help different poor regions to develop and share the prosperity of China. China can endure long gestation period and long-term losses while the Western system cannot. This is because in Chinese economy surplus value appropriation of wage labour goes on. But while in West how to use surplus value is decided by private capitalist and banker class, in China the same is decided by the working class leadership.

Thus working class may enforce investment with long gestation period which is highly avoided by private capitalist and banker class. Thus while the Western system is more prone to go for short-term profit-making asset trading, China can go for real investment with a long gestation period. This simply proves Chinese system can deal with overproduction crisis without external indebtedness and remaining self-sufficient and keeping industrial base more or less intact. This also shows China will keep resource allocation power more in the hands of State than in hands of private capitalists.

The recent crackdown on top executives of Alabang, Wanda, etc. clearly showed that Chinese leadership will go for long-term non-profitable productive investments and not for short-term profitable non-productive investments in asset trading or entertainment. This is the new dimension of the struggle between communism and capitalism in the new Belt Road age. Thus most of Belt Road project to be developed by state-owned banks and infrastructural corporations.

China has also launched gold-yuan-oil scheme for all oil selling countries, and it has got 12% of global oil futures market in just first 50 days. Thus soon BRI will start to get financed by the yuan itself. Hence, China is already the production centre of the world and soon emerging as the global financial centre as well. The strongest economy in the world under the working-class dictatorship is definitely the most important event of history. Chinese communist leadership has already turned Chinese capitalist class as the mere appendage of socialism. Once China becomes the financial centre as well, it will turn global capitalist class as the tool to serve goals set by communist leadership.

Conclusion

This is our brief analysis of the march of Communism from Communist Manifesto by philosopher Marx to Belt Road Age under Xi Jinping leading the world’s largest economy. The rise and fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of China clearly show Marxism when applied correctly give spectacular results while if fail to change with changed material conditions can lead to disaster. The world communist movement now possesses the world’s largest economy and can have world’s best technology in next 10-15 years.

China is already celebrating Marx’s 200^th birthday with renewed vigour. The Soviet Union proved how to abolish feudalism in backward economies and industrialize rapidly by investing non-profitably through state planning in education, health and basic infrastructure industries. Chinese reforms have proved that market works best under the working-class dictatorship where surplus value appropriation of wage labour goes on but the use of surplus is determined by working class leadership, not capitalist leaders. This is the best way to solve overaccumulation crisis at the aggregate level and money motivation at the individual level. So China is already a role model for the developing world.

The capitalist world is currently witnessing two crises: debt crisis (which is a transformed version of overaccumulation crisis in the age of financial capitalism) and demographic crisis. China has already started stated state-led demand creating investments under BRI to counter debt crisis emanating from financial capitalism. But China has to find a way to solve the demographic crisis as well. China still has 400 million rural populations who will help China to grow in the next 20-30 years. China has to raise fertility rate above replacement rate in this time period. China is now demand constrained economy and so additional population will add extra demand in its economy which will help it to grow. That will make China a model for the industrialized nations too since the entire industrial world is suffering from the demographic crisis.

The 21st-century communist movement must not only intend to develop third world countries on lines of Chinese market socialism but must also intend to solve the demographic crisis among industrialized nations. If world communist movement is able to move with these two objectives, developing the world and the developed world both will become ripe for communist movement in the Belt Road age.

Taken from Regional Rapport Website: https://regionalrapport.com/marx-200-communist-belt-manifesto-part/

The rise of Communism since the birth of Marx is the most influential event in industrial civilization. Communist movement shaped not only political discourse but also had its influence upon many major social and academic developments.

The article discusses how Marx and Engels saw the dynamics of society and how close reality was from his prediction. The also shed light on how Lenin tried to narrow the difference between Marx’s prediction and reality and gave rise to a new dimension in the communist movement. Achievements and problems of Stalin and Mao policies while policies of Deng and Gorbachev in the post-Leninist reality will also be in the discussion. Finally, The may discuss the rise of Xi Jinping as the leader of world’s largest economy and its implications. We will also discuss the debt crisis and demographic crisis in the industrial civilization and how communism may triumph the global politics in the near future.

Karl Marx

Marx has written most of his important thoughts in books like “Communist Manifesto”, “Wage Labour and Capital” and three volumes of “Capital”. His thoughts can be summarized as capitalism is a process of money for making more money. Capitalist class invests money in the production process to make profits and then channelize the profits for even more profit. In this process, the capitalist class owns the means of production i.e. machines, buildings, land, etc. They buy labour power of the labour class at market-determined wage rate and labour class use of means of production to produce output. Marx called machines as stored-up labour which exhausts with gradual depreciation.

Thus the profit that the capitalist class obtains is actually produced by labour class. Hence, profit signifies the exploitation of labour class. Moreover, in pursuit of profit the capitalist class competes with each another for the market. Thus the capitalist class has to use economies of scale and automation in their production process to make cheap but quality output by which they try to outcompete each other. Due to economies of scale, big capitalists tend to out-compete small capitalists and the later joins the rank of the labour class. The capitalist class also goes on automating the production process and thus wage rate does not grow as much as profit rate. Now capitalist class uses most of its income for investing in production process while labour class use most of its income for consuming output derived from the production process.

Thus, production capacity grows much more than purchasing capacity. Hence, over-accumulation crisis starts. Marx further thought that small capitalists will be totally eradicated and society will become a class struggle between the capitalist class and labour class. The overaccumulation crisis will force the labour class to rise in revolt against not only capitalist class but also capitalist system. The labour class will strip the capitalist class of their right to private ownership and will gradually go for social ownership of all means of production. The period between seizure of state power by the labour class and complete establishment of social ownership will be the dictatorship of working class.

Engels in his book “Anti Duhring” further explained that working class after seizing power of the state must declare state ownership of means of production and must fight the overaccumulation crisis. They must go on improving technology and automation till the money motivation in the society completely fades out. When that is done state will wither away and social ownership will be complete. Marx and Engels further predicted that the most industrialized countries will see working class revolution and thus the revolutionary working class state will have the best of the world’s technology at its disposal.

Where Marx Stood Wrong

Firstly, technological progress does not mean automation only it implies invention of new goods and services too. Thus while automation reduces the growth of wage rate new products can raise earning an opportunity and hence wage rate growth. Similarly, while economies of scale results in the destruction of small business the invention of new products give small business new opportunities to survive.

Secondly, in face of continuous automation and use of economies of scale working class can reduce family size and its population growth rate. This fall clearly counters the fall in wage rate growth and also minimize the effects of the crisis on individual lives and families.

Thirdly, Marx used political economy and the Ricardian labour theory of value to understand dynamics of capitalism. This theory views price as the supply-side phenomenon. Neo-classical economists to counter Marx developed marginal utility theory to understand demand side of price. Thus Marx failed to use the much more effective tool of neoclassical economics which sees the price as an equilibrium emanating from the supply side and demand side conditions.

Where Marx Proved Correct

Economies of scale resulted in the destruction of small business and by 1890s most of the production became dominated by few large companies and cartels in all capitalist countries. Moreover, despite new technological inventions were coming in they were weak enough to counter the effects of automation and economies of scale. Thus effects of the over-accumulation crisis were visible by late 19^th century.

Age of Monopoly Capitalism: Lenin

Lenin by the first decade of the 20^th century began to analyse the problems of the then communist movement. He first identified that centralisation of production process and overaccumulation crisis were Marx’s successful predictions. He also identified despite the crisis, the working class of industrially advanced capitalist countries was not showing revolutionary tendencies. Lenin pointed out few important characteristics of the new monopoly capitalist or imperialist age.

The industrially developed capitalist countries are exporting capital to backward economies including their colonies and semi-colonies in Asia, Africa and Latin America to counter over-accumulation crisis at home as well as to make more profits by exploiting their cheap labour and raw materials. Thus the capitalist countries were colonizing more and more lands. The part of this profit derived from exploiting resources of colonies and semi-colonies are distributed among working class of the industrially advanced capitalist countries. Thus working class in advanced countries no longer feel the urge for revolution. Similarly, capital, industries and technology being exported to backward economies including colonies and semi-colonies create working class there. This backward society’s working class are most exploited among all and they will the main agents of revolution in the imperialist age.

But a new problem arises from it. This working class of colony and semi-colony are the minority in the society and these economies are not yet industrially developed. Feudal relations were still strong in these countries. Theoretically, Marxists believed that capitalist class uniting peasant class revolts against feudalism and abolishes feudal relations after capturing state power. Actually, feudal class nobility and clergy use too much resource in living luxurious lives and wars. Once these classes are removed from power capitalist class can start using resources with profit maximizing motive. This starts in agriculture and finally ushers in the industrialization of the entire society.

This is what that happened in Europe. So how can working class go for socialist revolution when feudal relations were still intact? Lenin answered those feudal relations could be annihilated by capitalist class only when it was still small ownership based on competitive capitalism. Thus there were numerous middle-class capitalists who could challenge the then relatively few rich feudal rulers. Since capitalism has reached the monopoly stage only a few big rich capitalists dominate the production process and small capitalists are no longer viable to survive the competition.

Thus in monopoly capitalist era rise of numerous middle-class capitalists is no longer possible in any nation. Thus in 20^th century backward societies including colonies and semi-colonies, there will never be the capitalist class revolt against the feudal relations. Hence it becomes the duty of the working class in the colonies and semi-colonies not only to dethrone the ruling class but also to abolish the feudal relations there and usher in industrialization.

Since the working class are revolting against the rulers of colonies and semi-colonies they directly come into contradiction with the advanced capitalist countries which are allied with these rulers as colonial masters. Thus working class has to revolt against the colonialism too. Thus working class has to make the alliance with peasant class and a section of anti-colonial capitalists against feudal class, pro-colonial capitalists and colonial master advanced countries.

Similarly, another problem of Leninist revolution is that the working class in the backward countries after the revolution would not have the best technology at their disposal. So these countries have to invest a lot in education, health and basic infrastructural industries. This must have resource allocation power to invest in sectors that will lead to rapid industrialization.

Where Lenin Went Wrong

The investments in education, health and basic infrastructures do not give profit immediately and so capitalists fail to invest there. The 19th-century neo-classical pro-market economists also accepted this reality and they advocated state investments there. In fact, Germany and USA in the late 19^th century could challenge British industrial might much quickly and successfully simply because they gave state more roles in determining where to invest. Lenin tried to relate Engels prescribed state ownership of developed industrial base under the dictatorship of working class to working class state-led industrialization process. Lenin actually advocated the state-led industrialization while Marx-Engels advocated for state ownership of existing developed industries. Lenin’s primary concern was industrial development and technological progress while Marx-Engels advocated state-led planning to check overaccumulation crisis and gradually wither away money motivation. Lenin never made the distinction between these two working-class state-led planning.

Another problem of Lenin was about women emancipation. Lenin declared world women’s day which is still observed today. Lenin praised motherhood but also sought women participation in outdoor jobs. A woman performing outdoor jobs fails to perform as the mother. This is proved by falling of fertility rate below replacement rate (2.1) throughout the industrialized nations. One of the causes of the collapse of USSR was this falling fertility which we will deal later.

Where Lenin Proved to be Correct

Thus Lenin successfully transformed the communist movement from advanced industrial civilization’s working-class movement to backward feudal civilization’s anti-feudal and anti-colonial movement. So clearly Lenin understood advanced civilization can no longer place for the communist revolution. Moreover, capitalism under the then conditions cannot challenge the feudal relations in backward societies. Hence, communist revolutions can be sold to these societies. The rapid industrialization of Soviet Union under Stalin transformed it from backward feudal society to world’s second largest economy in just twelve years. Moreover, communists must take part in anti-colonial movement too.

This really ushered in many communist movements across the globe especially in industrially backward countries including colonies and semi-colonies. Russia saw the first communist revolution in the world only to be followed by China, Indo-China, Korea, Cuba and many more. From 1917 to 1971 (the triumph of communists in Vietnam), Leninist understanding seemed to be theoretically invincible. In fact, communist bandwagon ushered by Lenin was the most important tool that destroyed colonialism.

Taken from Regional Rapport Website: https://regionalrapport.com/socialist-perspective-globalization/

The story of globalization is told by Western scholars as globalization is the result of capitalist West’s victory over the communist Soviet Union. In this article, I construct my argument by rejecting this Western perspective, looking globalization from the perspective of the Communist Party of China which is the most successful socio-economic and political institution in the era of globalization. We can summarize our position as Globalization is the outcome of victory of communist-led anti-imperialist movement over the Western colonialism in the 1970s.

The victory of the Anti Imperialist Movement against West

From 1917 Communist Party of the Soviet Union led the anti-imperialist movement against West. After World War II, Soviet emerged victorious in East Europe and China. West failed to maintain the colonial government in the face of the communist-led anti-imperialist movement. Communists were emerging successful by raising demand for independence and urge for rapid industrialization. Soviet state-led industrialization model was land reformation, state-led investment in education, health, infrastructures and heavy industries. These investments give no direct profits but raise all-round productivity of the society. So state-led planned resource allocation was necessary instead of the private-led market. As more countries of Latin America, Africa, Asia were following this Soviet model, West itself adopted this model in Taiwan, South Korea and Malaysia to check the growth of communism. In the 1970s, West started to relent into the pressure of anti-imperialist mass. West led by the USA recognized communist China and communist East Germany and allowed Saudi led OPEC cartel to raise oil price much above production cost.

Rise and Fall of Brettonwoods Agreement

Post World War II boom of the 1950s and 1960s ended in 1970s. The post-war boom was led by the fact that the USA was acting as an export market for Western Europe and Japan. In 1944, USA share of global GDP was as much as 45% while Western Europe and Japan have 30% (measured in PPP). So the USA started to act as the export destination of West Europe and Japan and the US Dollar was made most accepted global currency to suit the purpose. This is recognized as Brettonwoods Agreement where US Dollar value was also fixed with the price of gold. But by 1970, it fell down to approximately 33% for each of the USA as well as Western Europe and Japan took together. So the USA economy became too small to serve as the export destination of the later. This forced US Dollar depreciation and its fixed relation with gold price finally collapsed in 1971. This is the collapse of Brettonwoods Agreement.

Financial Capitalism

Anti-imperialist movement and economic crisis of the 1970s pushed the USA to financial capitalism. Financial capitalism means more investment in unproductive asset trading. Capitalism did this to get rid of the overproduction crisis. But to keep asset trading profitable you need to constantly inflate asset prices. This can be done only by channelling debt into an asset market. USA settles this fact by using its geopolitical strength which it inherited after World War II from Anglo-French-Dutch colonial empires. USA asked oil-rich gulf Arab states to sell oil in US Dollar only and save the earned income in the US asset market by buying US Treasury bills. Oil is needed by all countries and so US Dollar got a huge global demand both as a medium of exchange as well as a store of value. Thus the whole world started to deposit their earnings and liabilities in US asset market. US Federal reserve then distributes these deposits throughout the US asset market as debt. Thus the US asset market got a steady flow of debt which kept inflating its asset prices and hence profits from asset trading kept soaring. West Europe and Japan also tried to follow the US model of financial capitalism. But they failed because they did not have any geopolitical influence as the US had. So they gradually became stagnant by 1990s.

Globalization

As the USA began to concentrate on asset trading, it began to export its manufacturing base to cheap yet productive labour endowed Third World countries. Here an important point often overlooked is the fact that for making profit only cheap labour is not enough, labour needs to be productive as well. Profit seeks to maximize the difference between average productivity and average cost. All Third World countries labour is cheap but not all are productive enough. To increase productivity a country needs to have an independent nation-state, land reforms, investment in education, health, and infrastructure and base industries. Initially West and Japan tried to export its manufacturing base to Taiwan, South Korea and Malaysia where this model was followed to stem in the tide of communism. But by 1970s, it was communist China with a huge pool of productive cheap labour that attracted US attention. So the USA started to export its manufacturing base to China and it relied on asset trading. Gradually the globalization model emerged in the 1990s where the US acted as the main source of global demand and China as the ultimate source of global supply.

Soviet failed to adapt to New Reality

The Soviet Union failed to prosper in this new material condition due to many reasons. The Soviet Union was designed to counter imperialism of first half of 20th century. By 1970s old imperialist model was defeated and a new financial capitalist model emerged. This new model was luring erstwhile colonies with the promise of a higher price for oil, greater access to the US market and more sharing of technology and liquidity. So naturally, Third World countries liberated by the Soviet Union began to drift away towards West in the 1980s. Soviet leaders tried to reform the old model but in the wrong way. Soviet leaders dethroned the communist party and brought multi-party democracy and launched indiscriminate privatization. The result was breakdown of economy and dissolution of the Soviet Union. West thought it was the victory of capitalism. We clearly say: No. It’s not. It could have been a capitalist victory if Russia emerged economically prosperous after embracing capitalism. Instead, Russia and most of the erstwhile socialist countries lost human capital and faced de-industrialization.

West’s Wrong Understanding of Globalization led its Downfall

West thought it had defeated communism with the fall of Soviet Union. So West can return to the pre-Soviet days of colonialism. This belief led the USA to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. False belief naturally resulted in disaster for the USA and West. The USA lost money, time and its military were exposed to be weak in Afghanistan and Iraq. Words like democracy and freedom became synonymous with colonialism.

Correct Understanding of Globalization by Chinese Communist Party

But what Chinese leadership did? They uphold the communist party rule and allowed private to operate in consumer goods industries while keeping key sectors mostly under state ownership. So the Chinese did not destroy the base created during the 1950s and 1960s but added the elements like competition, private ownership to attract Western technology and liquidity and get more access to the Western market. But Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia also did the same. We can say China and these countries operated similarly up to the 2008 crisis. But after that China again took a decisive new course which only a socialist country can.

China took Center Stage of Globalization

2008 crisis happened mainly due to the fact that the US economy has become too small to act as the source of global demand. Its share in global GDP fell to 18% (in PPP). While the Chinese economy has become so big that it cannot rely on the Western market alone. Its global GDP share rose to 11% (in PPP). So China began to invest in infrastructure in a big way. This is impossible for a capitalist country because investment in infrastructure in most cases have a long gestation period and hence capital in search of quick profit avoids them. Chinese state-owned enterprises undertook most of such non-profitable yet productive, employment-generating and hence demand generating investment.

Firstly between 2008 and 2013, they did it inside China. By 2013, China under Xi Jinping offered this model to be applied throughout the globe. This is epitomized as Belt Road Initiative. Thus, China now started to lead globalization by creating demand through non-profitable infrastructure investment. China is now establishing itself not only as of the main supply source of globalization but also as its main demand source. The USA is gradually being pushed out of its chief role in the global economy. This is clearly reflected in Trump’s anti-globalization policies against WTO, Paris Accord, WHO. US share in global GDP in 2019 is just 15.11% while for China its 19.25% (in PPP).

Socialist Destiny of Globalization

In the last 40 years of Globalization, emerging economies’ share in global GDP (in PPP) rose from 30% to 60% while of developed economies fell from 68% to 33% (Word Bank, 2019  Data). But China’s share rose from 2% to 19%. So China accounting for more than half of the rise in the share of emerging economies. If we take into account the higher commodity price due to rise of China catering to higher-income among Emerging economies, we can say that China is only a success story of Globalization. Hence we can conclude that if the rest of the Third World follows the Chinese model, the rest of the World will develop too.

Globalization has two opposing effects. Negative Effect: Globalization results in the movement of capital from countries of higher wages to countries of lower wages which reduce the bargaining power of working-class in different nations. Positive Effect: Globalization helps Third World to gain access to richer market, over accumulated capital and higher technology of First World. Thus the gap of productive forces between the two worlds got reduced. As Globalization will proceed, the development gap between First World and Third World will be reduced further which will reduce the wage gap between two worlds as well. As the wage gap will fall, capital cannot bargain much by moving from one country to another country. Globalization will not be able to give capital any edge over the working class. It is then that working-class will gain superior bargaining position globally.

Conclusion

The Soviet Union defeated the old Western imperialist model. This forced West to adapt financial capitalist model which resulted in globalization. Endowed with cheap and productive labour, Socialist China was better placed to take the benefits of globalization compared to capitalist ruled Third World countries. So globalization is not resulting of the capitalist victory, rather it is the result of communist victory over imperialism. And now communist China is in position to lead globalization. Gradually gap between developed and developing countries will be reduced and the global working class will take centre stage. Like defeating European Colonialism and US hegemony, this will be another milestone step towards Communism.

Taken from Regional Rapport Website: https://regionalrapport.com/gradual-progress-stalin-xi/

Socialist economy progressed gradually from Stalin to Xi Jinping, Stalin’s rapid industrialization model was criticized by Mao and Deng learnt from Mao’s theory and practices, but Xi is building a new stage of the socialist economy where capital becomes dependent on non-profit-making investment flow.

Stalin’s Progression

Stalin in his book, “Economic Problems of Socialism in USSR” claimed that planning is base of socialist economy and law of value (or money motivation in commoners’ words) worked partly in the socialist planned economy. Mao

Stalin achieved the rapid building of heavy industries, education and health. This created a productive labour and infrastructure base very quickly. But after that, the Soviet economy began to struggle in consumer goods or light industry production. Post Stalin era saw the return to money-motivated incentives in a big way. These problems challenged Stalin’s understanding of the socialist economy in a big way.

Mao’s Critique of Stalinism

Mao criticized Stalin’s position in his book “Critique of Economic Problems of Socialism in USSR” and said planning is the superstructure, the base of a socialist planned economy is commodity production and the law of value works fully under panned socialist economy. Mao further said that socialist economy produces by looking at use-value while capitalist economy produces by looking at exchange value. Another way of saying the same is in the socialist economy, the investment must be social need-oriented while in a capitalist economy, the investment must be profit-oriented.

So Mao’s primary proposition was planning does not change the mode of production i.e. commodity production and the law of value remains intact. It only replaces profit from the prior objective of investment. Thus investment money under socialism is no longer M-C-(M+dM) and this change has been done from the superstructure of the planning commission. So while individuals are still working for money, the superstructure of the planning commission is preventing capital to be activated by investing in giving priority to social needs and not profit. Stalin was wrong to think this change in the nature of investment money has been done from the base.

Thus while Stalin thought that private property is in the moribund stage, Mao stressed that private property remains and takes birth in reaction to every action taken under the socialist planned economy. Now, Mao wanted to counter this by culturally attacking commodity production, money motivation, private property. His Cultural Revolution failed to produce desired results. Instead, the attack on money motivation seriously reduced the growth of productive forces.

Mao on Light Industries

Mao pointed out another important drawback of Stalin’s planned economy. It gives too much stress on heavy industries while cares little about light industries. Mao pointed out that the use-value of heavy industries and infrastructure can be determined by planners and economists and bureaucrats. But use value of light industries is determined by people only. So people must be involved in what to produce, how to produce and for whom to produce. The decision must be made democratically in economic planning. It should not be left upon bureaucrats. People’s involvement in planning also did not give the desired results. Professionals were often not listened to and that often led to disaster because people did not understand production.

Deng and Cultural Reveloution

Deng emerged when China was enduring the bad effects of the Cultural Revolution. He did not reject Mao completely. Not only Deng accepted Mao’s contribution in fighting imperialism, eradicating feudalism and building strong education-health-physical infrastructure-military industries, but also accepted Mao’s critique of Stalin. Deng accepted that base of a socialist planned economy is still a commodity production where the law of value acts fully and private property emerges every day.

Deng also accepted that light industry or consumer good industry use-value cannot be determined by planners. People have to decide that. People have failed to produce consumer goods through democratic planning as they could not understand production. Only professionals can produce them. But people can decide use-value by revealing their preference in the market. The market is needed in light industries and consumer goods and services.

But Deng also cherished socialist economy’s power to invest for use-value production. He understood that socialism can have the advantage of it only if it fully utilizes the base of commodity production. So Deng allowed private property to operate, allow competitive market and take advantage of the global market and global technology both of which are superior to Chinese counterparts. So Deng fully activated a base of commodity production while continue to pursue investment priority for use-value (social needs) over exchange-value (profit).

Thus Deng refused to go for rampant privatization and electoral politics unlike Gorbachev of USSR. Deng continued to keep state ownership in key sectors and infrastructural industries and services, while allowed private ownership in the consumer goods sector. The private desire for exchange value (money motivation) is allowed to identify the area with a competitive advantage while state-led use-value (infrastructure) creation goes on to create new areas of competitive advantage without taking into consideration of exchange value (profit).

President Xi and Value Creation

President Xi recommended demand creating infrastructure investment which not only create areas of new competitive advantage but create demand for existing industries and services. Thus a new advantage of a socialist economy is proved. Socialism not only invests in use value creation better than capitalism but also can create demand in the process and thus make profit-motivated investment dependent on-demand creation through planned use-value. So exchange value creation becomes permanently dependent on use value creation which gives no exchange value return. So Xi has is leading the most advanced stage of socialism attained by mankind yet.

Conclusion

Hence we conclude that Deng’s policy recommendations were created taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of Stalin’s policies, analysing critiques of Stalin by Mao and identifying the areas of failure of Mao’s policies. Xi’s policies are based on the success of Deng. This is the reason Deng policy is proving to be the best development policy ever created in mankind. Deng policies will be a great source of inspiration for developing productive forces of the Third World and reducing the gap in productive forces and wages between Third World and First World. Similarly, Xi’s policies are inspiring First World people to go for use-value prioritized investment over exchange value (profit) prioritized investment.

Taken from Facebook Page of Engineering Facts:

China just made a major leap in space sustainability — its Tiangong Space Station has successfully produced oxygen and rocket fuel directly in space, marking a world-first achievement that could redefine future space missions. Using a process called electrolysis, Chinese scientists converted carbon dioxide (CO₂) exhaled by astronauts and water collected from the station into oxygen for breathing and methane-based rocket fuel for propulsion. This closed-loop life-support system means astronauts can stay in orbit longer without relying on Earth for resupply — a critical step toward deep-space exploration and long-term missions to the Moon and Mars.

The experiment also demonstrated that the system can run continuously in microgravity with minimal energy loss — a challenge that space agencies like NASA and ESA have struggled to overcome. With this success, China’s Tiangong station isn’t just orbiting Earth — it’s laying the foundation for self-sustaining human habitats in space.

China taking over space: https://engineerine.com/artificial-photosynthesis-in-orbit/

Ben Norton Facebook Page

When China refers to its system as a socialist market economy, it's not just rhetoric; it's the real deal.

The Chinese state owns a slight majority (55%) of the total capital of all companies.

Obviously China no longer has a totally planned economy, like it was in the Mao era. Markets play an important role. But the system is still socialist. China continues to issue five-year plans that are taken very seriously, and planning is prioritized in specific strategic sectors (like, say, electric vehicles and green energy).

This data is from Thomas Piketty's 2021 book A Brief History of Equality.

Following the Reform and Opening Up that was initiated by Deng Xiaoping in 1978, China did privatize state-owned companies (especially in non-strategic sectors), but Piketty wrote, "It is striking to note that the privatization of property in China ended around 2005–2006". Since then, the level of state ownership of the total capital of Chinese companies has stayed steady, at around 55%.

Piketty argued that China "is no longer truly communist, but it is not completely capitalist, either". That's why the best term to describe it is the one that China itself uses: a socialist market economy.

Author Saikat Bhattacharya's Addition:

Actually after 2007 crisis, china began to rely less on global market for demand and more on state led infrastructure demand. So state role started rising in infrastructure which started to create more new profitable sectors for private. state creates charging stations, which make EV buy sale easier and profitable.

Hence under Xi’s leadership, China came up with a different idea to counter the overproduction crisis. China came up with the Belt Road initiative which is about investing in infrastructure like ports, railways, roads across the globe and help different poor regions to develop and share the prosperity of China. China has a huge trade surplus and it is still growing funding infrastructure worldwide will not be a problem. But long gestation period i.e. non-profitability for a long period of time is often considered to be a great problem for Belt Road Initiative. It may lead to the indebtedness of many countries to China. But will this be a real problem for China?
https://qutnyti.wordpress.com/2019/03/25/time-for-global-communists-to-unite-under-xi-and-the-communist-party-of-china/

China’s space program just made history by achieving something that could redefine future missions: producing both oxygen and rocket fuel directly aboard its space station. This innovation marks a major step toward long-term space habitation and self-sustaining deep space travel, eliminating the need to constantly resupply from Earth—a costly and complex task.

This milestone proves that China is not only catching up in the global space race but actively leading in critical life-support and propulsion technologies. From growing plants in orbit to creating the resources needed for astronauts to breathe and return home, the Tiangong Space Station is fast becoming a model for next-gen space ecosystems.

The Chinese government has received more than 3,113,000 online suggestions for consideration in the country’s five-year plan, to be implemented from 2026 to 2030.

Earlier this week, Chinese President Xi Jinping, instructed the government and the Party to “investigate broadly and deeply the people’s conditions, listen to the voices of the people, and gather the wisdom of the masses to consolidate a powerful joint force that will push forward Chinese-style modernization and continuously realize the people’s aspirations for a better life.”

নির্বাচন আগে না সংস্কার আগেঃ এই হাসকর ডিবেট-এর কারণ হল বাংলাদেশের সমস্ত পক্ষ পশ্চীমা সাম্রাজ্যবাদের গণতন্ত্র বনাম স্বৈরতন্ত্র বয়ান মেনে চলে।

বিএনপি আর ভারত বলছে নির্বাচিত সরকার চাই। এনসিপি ও অন্তর্বর্তীকালীন সরকার বলছে আগে সংস্কার করে ফের নির্বাচন করতে হবে। তা না হলে ২০০৮-এর নির্বাচন যেভাবে স্বৈরাচার ডেকে এনেছিল সেটাই আবার হবে। বিএনপি বলছে কোনও অনির্বাচিত সরকারের করা সংস্কার তারা মানবেনা। বরং নির্বাচনে বিজয়ী দল সংস্কার করবে। নির্বাচনে যাওয়ার আগে সংস্কার-এর বিষয়গুলো তুলে ধরবে সমস্ত দল। ফলে নির্বাচন হয়ে যাবে সংস্কারের পক্ষে ম্যান্ডেট। তাই নির্বাচন আগে, সংস্কার পরে।

ডিম আগে না মুর্গী আগে, এরকমভাবেই চলছে বাংলাদেশের রাজনীতির চর্চা। এই হাস্যকর ডিবেট-এর পেছনে লুকিয়ে আছে যে সমস্যা তা হল দুই পক্ষেরই ধারণা হল পৃথিবীটা বহু দলীয় গণতন্ত্র এবং স্বৈরতন্ত্র, এই দুই-এর মধ্যে বিভাজিত। পশ্চীম-এর দেশগুলো, ভারত হল আদর্শ গণতন্ত্র আর চীন রাশিয়া ইরান উত্তর কোরিয়া হল স্বৈরতন্ত্র। বাংলাদেশের দুই পক্ষই এই পশ্চীমা বয়ান বিশ্বাস করে। 

যদিও রাশিয়া আর ইরানে বহুদলীয় গণতন্ত্র আছে কিন্তু শাসক পুতিন ও প্রধান বিরোধী দল রুশ কমিউনিস্ট পার্টি ভূ-রাজোনীতিতে মার্কিন বিরোধী অবস্থান নেয় বলে পশ্চীম রাশিয়া-কে স্বৈরতন্ত্রই বলে যায়। অন্য দিকে, ইরানে তৃতীয় চেম্বার গার্ডিয়ান কাউন্সিল বিভিন্ন দলের হয়ে নির্বাচনে কে দাঁড়াতে পারবে আর পারবেনা তা নির্ণয় করে দেয়। তাই পশ্চীমের ওপর নির্ভরশীল ব্যবসায়ীরা নির্বাচনে নিজেরাও দাঁড়াতে পারেনা বা অন্য ব্যক্তিকে দাঁড় করাতে পারেনা। ফলে ইরানকে নিয়ন্ত্রণ করতে ব্যর্থ হয় মার্কিন সাম্রাজ্যবাদ। 

আসলে বহু দলীয় নির্বাচনী গণতন্ত্র বনাম একদলীয় স্বৈরতন্ত্র-এর বয়ান তৈরি হয়েছে রুশ বিপ্লবের পরে। পশ্চীমের সাম্রাজ্যবাদী দেশুগুলো এই বয়ান তৈরি করে মূলত রুশ বিপ্লব-কে আটকাতে। এই তত্ত্ব আসলে কার্ল কাউতস্কির মতো লেনিন বিরোধী কমিউনিস্ট-এর তত্ত্ব যা পরে পশ্চীম গ্রহণ করে। কিন্তু এই গণতন্ত্র বনাম স্বৈরাচার তত্ত্ব আদৌ ঐতিহাসিকভাবে সঠিক নয়। ঐতিহাসিকভাবে পশ্চীমে গণতন্ত্র কখনোই শেষ লক্ষ্য হিসেবে আসেনি। পশ্চীমে নির্বাচনী গণতন্ত্র এসেছিল মূলত মেধা বা শ্রম অনুযায়ী প্রাপ্তিকে প্রতিষ্ঠিত করতে। অর্থাৎ লক্ষ্য হল মেধা বা শ্রম অনুযায়ী প্রাপ্তি আর গণতন্ত্র হল মাধ্যম। তাই প্রথমে ইংল্যান্ডে কেবল রাজাকে কর প্রদানকারী জমিদার, সামন্ত ও পদারীরাই নির্বাচিত করার ও নির্বাচনে দাঁড়াবার অধিকার পায় (১৬৮৯ সালে ইংল্যাণ্ডের জনসংখ্যার ০.৫%-এরও কম উচ্চবিত্ত শ্রেণি এই অধিকার পায়)। এরপরে ফরাসী বিপ্লব ১৭৮৯ সালে এসে বলে যে মধ্যবিত্ত (বুর্জোয়া)-রাই মূল কর প্রদানকারী আর তাই তাদেরই নির্বাচন করার ও নির্বাচিত হওয়ার অধিকার আছে। ফরাসী বিপ্লবের পরে গণতন্ত্রে স্থিতিশীলতা আসছিলনা বলে নেপোলিয়ন রাজতন্ত্র কায়েম করেন কিন্তু মেধা বা শ্রম অনুযায়ী প্রাপ্তিকে আরও কঠোরভাবে প্রয়োগ করেন। নেপোলিয়নের পতন হলেও বিপ্লবী হাওয়া বইতেই থাকে এবং শেষ পর্যন্ত ১৮৩২ সালে ইংল্যান্ডেও মধ্যবিত্ত-রা নির্বাচিত হওয়ার ও নির্বাচন করার অধিকার পায়। ১০ পাউন্ড বা তার বেশি কর দিলেই কেবল গণতান্ত্রিক অধিকার পায় ইংল্যাণ্ডবাসীরা। ফলে ১৮৩২ সালের পরে ৭.৫% ইংল্যাণ্ডবাসী গণতান্ত্রিক অধিকার পায়। এর পরে আসে কার্ল মার্ক্স এবং তিনি দেখান যে বুর্জোয়ারা যে কর দেন তা দিতে পারেন মুনাফা করে এবং মুনাফা তারা করতে পারেন শ্রমিক শ্রেণি শ্রম দেয় বলেই। ফলে শ্রমিক শ্রেণির গণতান্ত্রিক অধিকারের পক্ষেও আওয়াজ উঠিতে থাকে। ১৮৫৬-তে মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রে এবং ১৮৬৭-তে যুক্তরাজ্যে শ্রমিক পুরুষ অধিকার পায় গণতন্ত্রের। অর্থাৎ সমাজের প্রতিটা শ্রেণি ধাপে ধাপে প্রমাণ করেছে যে তারা সামাজিক উৎপাদন ও রাষ্ট্রের আয়ের মূল ভিত্তি এবং তার জোড়েই তারা গণতান্ত্রিক অধিকার দাবি করেছে। অর্থাৎ রাষ্ট্র তাদের আয়ের টাকায় চলে আর তাই রাষ্ট্রের নীতি প্রণয়নে তাদের চাওয়াকে গুরুত্ব দিতে হবে রাষ্ট্রকে।

মজার ব্যাপার এই ধারা মেনেই রুশ বিপ্লব হয় এবং তারা জমিদারী উচ্ছ্বেদ ও দ্রুত শিল্পায়ণ কর্মসূচী নিয়ে এগিয়ে যায়। রুশ বিপ্লবের মত ছিল বিপ্লবী দল-এর শাসনে মেধা বা শ্রম অনুযায়ী অনুযায়ী প্রাপ্তিকে অনেক গভীরভাবে প্রতিষ্ঠিত করা যায় যা বহু দলীয় শাসনে যায়না। কারণ বহুদলীয় শাসনে উচ্চবিত্ত-রা নির্বাচনে অর্থ দিয়ে নির্বাচিতদের নিয়ন্ত্রণ করবে এবং মেধা বা শ্রম অনুযায়ী অনুযায়ী প্রাপ্তিকে প্রতিষ্ঠিত করার বদলে নিজেদের লুট বজায় রাখতে চাইবে। রুশ বিপ্লবের মতে জমিদার ও পুঁজিপতিদের অর্থ দখল করে তা শিল্পায়ণ কর্মসূচীতে বিনিয়োগ করলে অনেক দ্রুত শিল্পায়ণ বাস্তবায়িত করা যাবে। আর বিদেশী আঘাত সামলাতে বানানো যাবে শক্তিশালী সামরিক বাহিনী। বহুদলীয় গণতন্ত্র থাকলে উচ্চবিত্তরা অর্থনীতি নিয়ন্ত্রণ করে লুট করবে এবং তা থেকে বিভিন্ন বিলাসবহুল পণ্য ও পরিষেবা কিনতে যাবে। ফলে শিল্পায়ণ কর্মসূচী সেভাবে এগোতে পারবেনা।

দ্বিতীয় বিশ্বযুদ্ধের পরে তৈরি হওয়া দেশগুলো যারাই পশ্চীমা সাম্রাজ্যবাদের গণতন্ত্র বনাম স্বৈরতন্ত্র বয়ান মেনে এগিয়েছে, তারাই শেষ পর্যন্ত লুটেরা পুঁজিপতি শ্রেণির খপ্পরে গিয়ে পড়েছে। তারা না করেছে দ্রুত শিল্পায়ণ, না করেছে শক্তিশালী সামরিক বাহিনী। তারা কেবল দেশের সস্তা শ্রমকে শোষণ করে মুনাফা করেছে এবং মুনাফার অধিকাংশ হয় জমা করেছে পশ্চীমা ব্যাঙ্কে নয় কিনেছে বিলাসবহুল পণ্য ও পরিষেবা। এভাবেই দেশের সস্তা শ্রম শোষণ করে চলে লুটেরা পুঁজি। কিন্তু শ্রমিকদের মান ও উৎপাদনশীলতা বাড়াতে কোনও বিনিয়োগ করেনা। ফলে দেশ সস্তা শ্রমিকের দেশই থেকে যায়। বাংলাদেশের আজ এরকমই অবস্থা হতে চলেছে। যেখানে লুটেরা পুঁজিকে ক্ষমতাচ্যুত করে উৎপাদনশীল শ্রেণিগুলোকে ক্ষমতায় আনা মূল লক্ষ্য হওয়া উচিত সেখানে লুটেরা পুঁজি ও পশ্চীমা সাম্রাজ্যবাদের বয়ান "গণতন্ত্র বনাম স্বৈরতন্ত্র"-এর গোলকধাঁধায় ঢুকে পড়েছে। এই বয়ান থেকে যতদিন না বের হতে পারছে, তত দিন বাংলাদেশ বিপ্লবকে এগিয়ে নিয়ে যেতে পারবেনা।

আমার ২০০৯ সাল থেকেই এই ধারণা গড়ে উঠেছিল যে চীন-এর উত্থান একদিকে মার্কিন হেজিমনি ভেঙ্গে দেবে এবং গুজারাতি হিন্দি সাম্রাজ্য ভেঙ্গে পড়বে। আমার ধারণা ছিল মার্কিন হেজিমনি ভাংতে ভাংতে ২০৩৫ হবে আর গুজারাতি হিন্দি সাম্রাজ্য ভাংবে ২০৩৩ থেকে ২০৪০-এর মধ্যে। কিন্তু ২০২৫-এ এসে বোঝা যাচ্ছে যে মার্কিন হেজিমনি ভেঙ্গে পড়ছে আমার ধারণার অনেক আগেই।

২০১৭ সালে লাখভিন্দার সিং প্রথম আমাকে বোঝায় কেন ২০২৫-এই চীন-এর যুগ শুরু হয়ে যাবে। বর্তমানে বোঝা যাচ্ছে লাখভিন্দার সিং-এর ধারণাই সঠিক। ২০২৫-এ এসে মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রকে বহু প্রযুক্তিতেই পেছনে ফেলে দিয়েছে চীন। শুধু তাই নয়, উদ্ভাবনের অর্থায়নে নতুন সমাজতান্ত্রিক মডেলও তৈরি করে ফেলেছে চীন যা মার্কিন পুঁজিবাদী উদ্ভাবন অর্থায়ন থেকে অনেক বেশি সাশ্রয়ী এবং লক্ষ্যপূরণে সক্ষম। উৎপাদনে চীন বহু আগেই মার্কিনকে পেছনে ফেলেছে। বাকি আছে মুদ্রার বাজার যেখানে মার্কিন ডলার এখনো শিক্তিশালী থাকলেও শক্তি ক্ষয় যে হচ্ছে তা দেখাই যাচ্ছে। ট্রাম্প যে চুক্তি চাইছেন চীনের সাথে, সেই চুক্তি হলেই মুদ্রার বাজারেও মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্র চীনকে অনেকটা জায়গা ছাড়তে বাধ্য হবে। দঃ এশিয়াতে বহু ক্ষেত্রেই দেখা যাচ্ছে মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্র চীনের বিরুদ্ধে গিয়ে গুজারাতি হিন্দি সাম্রাজ্য-কে আর সাহায্য করছেনা। অর্থাৎ মার্কিন সরকার চীনের সঙ্গে বিশ্ব ভাগ বাটোয়ারায় রাজী আর দঃ এশিয়া চীনের নিকটে বলে চীনের পকেটেই যাবে। এর অনিবার্য পরিণতি হল গুজারাতি হিন্দি সাম্রাজ্যের পতন। বোঝা যাচ্ছে আগামী ৫-৭ বছরের মধ্যেই এই সাম্রাজ্য ভেঙ্গে যাবে।

২০৩০-৩৫ সালের মধ্যে চীন মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের ধরা ছোঁয়ার বাইরে চলে যাবে। ১৪০ কোটি সম্মিলিত চীনের সামনে ৩৫ কোটির মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্র আসলে খুবই দুর্বল। কেবল শিল্পায়ণ ও আধুনিকিকরণ মার্কিন দেশে চীনের থেকে ১৮৩ বছর আগে থেকে শুরু হয়েছে বলে মার্কিনীরা একটা সাময়ীক সুবিধে পেয়েছিল। যেভাবে ১ কোটির দেশ হল্যাণ্ড-কে ছাপিয়ে গেছিল ব্রিটেন আর ৬ কোটির দেশ ব্রিটেনকে ছাপিয়ে গেছিল ৩৫ কোটির দেশ মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্র, সেভাবেই চীন মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রকে ছাপিয়ে যাচ্ছে। হল্যাণ্ড-কে ছাপিয়ে যাওয়ার মধ্য দিয়ে ব্রিটেন বাণিজ্য পুঁজিবাদের জায়গায় নিয়ে আনে উৎপাদন পুঁজিবাদকে আর ব্রিটেনকে ছাপিয়ে গিয়ে মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্র নিয়ে আনে ফাটকা পুঁজিবাদকে। তেমনই মার্কিনীদের ছাপিয়ে গিয়ে চীন নিয়ে আনছে বাজার সমাজতন্ত্রকে। তাই চীনের জয়ের সাথে সাথে বাজার সমাজতন্ত্র প্রবল্ভাবে জয়ী হবে।

বাজার সমাজতন্ত্রের প্রথম প্রভাব পড়বে রাশিয়ার ওপর। রাশিয়া কমিউনিস্ট শাসনের রাষ্ট্রীয় সমাজতন্ত্র থেকে উদারবাদ ও বহু দলীয় গণতন্ত্রে গিয়ে ব্যর্থ হয়েছে। চীন কমিউনিস্ট শাসন বজায় রেখে রাষ্ট্রীয় সমাজতন্ত্র থেকে বাজার সমাজতন্ত্রে গিয়ে সমৃদ্ধি পেয়েছে। পোল্যাণ্ড হাঙ্গেরী ছাড়া কোনও পূঃ ইউরোপীয় দেশই উদারবাদে গিয়ে লাভবান হয়নি। তাই রাশিয়াতে পুতিনের পরেই কমিউনিস্টদের পুনরুত্থান ঘটতে চলেছে। রুশ কমিউনিস্টরাও চীনের মতো বাজার সমাজতন্ত্র প্রয়োগ করবে। ক্রেমলীনে লাল পতাকা পুনরায় উত্থিত হলে বিশ্বের বহু দেশেই তার প্রভাব পড়বে। এমনিতেই বিশ্বায়ণ যুগে চীনের জয়জয়কার চলেছে। কোনও উদারবাদী বহুদলীয় গণতান্ত্রিক দেশই বিশ্বায়ণের সুফল পায়নি। গুজারাতি হিন্দি সাম্রাজ্য ভেঙ্গে পড়ার সাথে সাথে এটা সম্পূর্ণ রূপে প্রমাণ হয়ে যাবে যে অ-পশ্চীমা কোনও দেশেই উদারবাদী বহুদলীয় গণতন্ত্র কার্যকর নয়। পশ্চীমও জোর করে বহুদলীয় শাসন রেখে দিতে পারবেনা কারন পশ্চীমের তা করার মতো শক্তি আর থাকবেনা। তাই বিশ্বের বহু দেশই বাজার সমাজতন্ত্র প্রয়োগ করতে চাইবে।

বাজার সমাজতন্ত্রের প্রধান চরিত্র হল পুঁজিপতিদের ভোগ্যপণ্যের বাজারে গুরুত্ব দিয়ে পরিকাঠামোগত জায়গায় রাষ্ট্রকে দেওয়া। রাষ্ট্রের তৈরি পরিকাঠামো নির্মাণের ওপর ভোগ্যপণ্যের বাজার নির্ভর করবে আর এভাবেই পুঁজিপতিদের ওপর কমিউনিস্ট শাসিত রাষ্ট্র নিয়ন্ত্রণ কায়েম করবে। এছাড়াও বড় প্রতিষ্ঠানে কমিউনিস্ট দল মনোনিত ডিরেক্টর রাখা, একচেটিয়াকরণ আটকে দেওয়া, নতুন নতুন উদ্যোগীদের সুবিধে দিয়ে পুরনো পুজিপতিদের শেষ করে দেওয়া- এরকম অনেক প্রক্রিয়ার মধ্যে দিয়ে পুঁজিপতিদের রেখে দিয়ে তাদের নিয়ন্ত্রণে রেখে বাজার সমাজতন্ত্র চলে। সোভিয়েত ইউনিয়নের রাষ্ট্রীয় সমাজতন্ত্রের সমস্যা ছিল সেখানে আমলাদের হাতে গোটা উৎপাদন পদ্ধতি চলে যায়, এবং আমলারা স্তালিনের মৃত্যুর পরে নিজেদের পুঁজিপতিতে রূপান্তর করে। পশ্চীমা দেশগুলো শিল্পায়ণ সোভিয়েতের অনেক আগে থেকে শুরু করায় অনেক এগিয়ে ছিল বাজার এবং উৎপাদনে। সোভিয়েত প্রযুক্তিতে অনেক এগোতে পারলেও নতুন পণ্য উদ্ভাবনের কোনও সমাজতান্ত্রিক মডেল দাঁড় করাতে পারেনি। তাই পশ্চীমের থেকে অর্থনীতিতে পিছিয়ে পড়া এবং আমলাদের পুঁজিপতি হয়ে ওঠার আকাঙ্ক্ষার ফলে সোভিয়েত ভেঙ্গে যায় এবং রাশিয়া সহ সোভিয়েতের সমস্ত প্রজাতন্ত্র উদারবাদী বহু দলীয় গণতন্ত্রের পথ গ্রহণ করে। চীন সোভিয়েতের থেকেও পিছিয়ে ছিল অর্থনীতিতে। তাই চীন রাষ্ট্রীয় সমাজতন্ত্র-এর জায়গায় বাজার সমাজতন্ত্র নিয়ে আনে এবং কমিউনিস্ট শাসন অটুট রাখে। চীন এটা করতে পেরেছে কারণ চীনে একটা সিভিল সার্ভিস পরীক্ষা কেন্দ্রীক আমলাতন্ত্র বিদ্যমান আছে ২ হাজার বছর আগে থেকেই। বংশ পরম্পরায় নয়, পরীক্ষা দিয়ে পাশ করে আমলা হওয়ার পরম্পরা আমলাদের সরাসরি পুঁজিপতি হতে একটা সামাজিক বাঁধা হিসেবে কাজ করে চীনে। এছাড়াও মাও-এর সাংস্কৃতিক বিপ্লব চীনে একটা শক্তিশালী শ্রেণি চেতনা তৈরি করতে পেরেছিল। এই শ্রেণি চেতনাও আমলাদের পুঁজিপতি হতে বাঁধা দেয়। স্তালিন সোভিয়েতে কোনও সাংস্কৃতিক বিপ্লব না করায় সেখানে শ্রেণি চেতনা ছিল দুর্বল। এছাড়াও সোভিয়েত-দের অনেকেই শ্বেতাঙ্গ হওয়ায় পশ্চিম-এর প্রতি সদ্ভাবও পোষণ করত। পশ্চীম ও অ-পশ্চীমের মধ্যেকার যে বৈষম্য তা নিয়ে সোভিয়েতের একটা বড়ো শ্বেতাঙ্গ জনসংখ্যা চিন্তিত ছিলনা। ফলে পশ্চীমের উদারবাদকে মেনে নিয়েছিল। চীন অন্যদিকে পশ্চীমের সাম্রাজ্যবাদের নগ্ন রূপ দেখেছে। পশ্চীমের প্রতি চীনের অবিশ্বাস ছিলই। কমিউনিস্ট দলের নেতৃত্ব ছাড়া চীন পশ্চীমা সাম্রাজ্যবাদকে পরাজিত করতে পারতনা। ফলে চীনে কমিউনিস্ট দলের পক্ষে জনমত ছিলই। তাই চীন বাজার সমাজতন্ত্রের পথ ধরে এগিয়ে গেছে আর রাশিয়া উদারবাদী বহুদলীয় গণতন্ত্রে গিয়ে শেষ হয়ে গেছে।

এবার প্রশ্ন ২০৩০-৩৫ সালের মধ্যে চীন মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের ধরা ছোঁয়ার বাইরে চলে যাওয়ার পরে দুনিয়া জুড়ে বাজার সমাজতন্ত্রের ঝড় উঠবে কি না? উত্তর হল অবশ্যই ওঠার প্রবল সম্ভাবনা আছে। পশ্চীমা অর্থনীতি গুরুত্ব হারালে পশ্চীমা ব্যঙ্কে অর্থ জমানো কঠিন হবে তৃতীয় বিশ্বের শাসকদের। তখন তৃতীয় বিশ্বের শাসক শ্রেণিগুলো খুবই দুর্বল হয়ে পড়বে। শাসিত শ্রেণির ক্ষমতা ছিনিয়ে নেওয়ার ওটাই সময়। এই সময় ইসলাম এবং অন্যান্য ধর্মের সাথে কিভাবে গাটছড়া বেঁধে এগোবে কমিউনিস্টরা তার ওপর পুরো পরিস্থিতি নির্ভর করছে। আমার ধারণা ২০৩০-এর পরে আমরা সম্পূর্ণ নতুন ধরণের বিপ্লব দেখব যা বিংশ শতকের মার্ক্সবাদ লেনিনবাদ-এর থেকে সম্পূর্ণ ভিন্ন হবে। আমি একে বলব তৃতীয় বিপ্লবী ঢেউ।

Written By Kumar Abhinav https://www.facebook.com/kasu.abhinav
Let’s break it down with clear, real-world examples. The terms narcissist excess and codependent inertia describe two pathological extremes in human behavior and society—both are unhealthy, and they feed off each other.

1. Narcissist Excess:

This is when an individual or group inflates themselves at the cost of others. Their confidence is not grounded in competence, but in dominance, attention, and the emasculation of others. Key Traits: Craving admiration and control. Lack of empathy. Overconfidence without substance. Display over depth. Examples: A. Corporate Elites: A billionaire CEO posts on social media about his lavish lifestyle, jets, and yachts, while underpaying workers and lobbying against healthcare for them. His wealth and image depend on exploiting a compliant workforce. This is narcissist excess—status built on the back of silence. B. Influencer Culture: An influencer flaunts luxury brands and curated happiness, while their real life is hollow. Their power comes from projecting a perfect self, not from contributing anything meaningful. The crowd’s likes feed their ego. Their platform breeds comparison, envy, and insecurity—extracting emotional attention from others. C. Political Strongmen: A political leader speaks constantly about his own greatness, takes credit for others’ achievements, demands loyalty not competence, and fires anyone who questions him. He thrives not on results, but on personal worship and dramatics.

2. Codependent Inertia:

This is when a person or group stays small, silent, or submissive to maintain peace or approval—even when they are being harmed or devalued. Key Traits: Fear of conflict or disapproval. Excessive empathy and self-sacrifice. Difficulty saying no. Finds identity in helping or supporting others—even to their own detriment. Examples: A. The Overworked Employee: An employee works unpaid overtime, never asks for a raise, and always says yes—even when exploited. They’re afraid to disappoint the boss. They confuse “being needed” with “being respected.” This is inertia: passivity mistaken for virtue. B. The Family Peacemaker: A person in a toxic family tolerates disrespect, carries everyone’s emotional baggage, and never complains. They avoid conflict by erasing themselves. Their silence becomes the soil where narcissists bloom. C. The People’s Psychology in Colonialism: Colonized subjects internalized inferiority. They saw the oppressor as superior and themselves as incapable. Even after liberation, generations still felt unworthy. That psychological residue—learned helplessness—is codependent inertia on a civilizational scale. How They Feed Each Other: Narcissist excess requires codependent inertia to function. The narcissist feels powerful when the codependent shrinks. The codependent feels safe when the narcissist is pleased. One performs; the other enables. One exploits attention; the other fears visibility. Why Antinarcissism Matters: The Dictatorship of Antinarcissists, as we discussed with China, intervenes in both sides: It checks narcissists by dismantling celebrity culture, ego-driven leadership, and performative capitalism. It uplifts codependents by giving them structure, purpose, education, and economic dignity—not just pity or slogans. It treats the emotional architecture of society, not just its laws or GDP.
 

The Dictatorship of Antinarcissists: Toward a Monist Society Beyond the Narcissist–Codependent Dualism

In every dystopia, there lies a sickness—a toxic polarity between those who dominate and those who submit, between narcissists who extract and codependents who enable. This psychological schema maps eerily well onto Marxist class theory, where the bourgeoisie hoard capital and narrative control, and the proletariat internalize servitude as identity. If narcissism is the ideology of the ruling class—self-glorifying, exploitative, theatrical—then codependency is the psychology of the ruled—sacrificial, deferential, and emotionally shackled to false hope.

Antinarcissism, as a revolutionary principle, does not seek to invert this hierarchy (as classic Marxism does), but rather to dissolve it. It envisions a monist society—a unified psychosocial body where hierarchy is not based on ego or dependency, but on competence, character, and contribution. The instrument to forge such a society is the Dictatorship of Antinarcissists, a transitional regime whose purpose is not the accumulation of power, but the erasure of its most toxic expressions.

The most compelling real-world prototype of this framework is modern China’s post-Mao transformation—a project that, beneath its authoritarian surface, exhibits key features of antinarcissistic governance. Its success in eradicating extreme poverty, developing national infrastructure, and controlling the proliferation of narcissistic capitalism within its borders reveals a state mechanism that suppresses both flamboyant egoism and the sentimental romanticism of victimhood.

---

I. Understanding the Dualism: Narcissists as Bourgeoisie, Codependents as Proletariat

In traditional capitalist societies, narcissists rise through manipulation, performance, and domination—controlling capital, media, and culture. They curate myths of meritocracy while exploiting emotional labor. Codependents, meanwhile, are trained to serve, apologize, and endure—keeping industries running and egos inflated.

This relationship is inherently dystopian, a psychological echo of the exploitative base-superstructure dynamic. The narcissist uses image to gain power; the codependent uses suffering to justify their existence. Neither can be free within this polarity.

---

II. The Role of Antinarcissists: Not Rulers, but Neutralizers

Antinarcissists are not saints. They are moral technicians, psychological realists who understand that healing requires restriction. Their dictatorship is not about indulgence or vengeance; it is about structure, discipline, and de-escalation. It rejects both the narcissist’s grandiosity and the codependent’s martyrdom.

They regulate:

Narrative power, disallowing cults of personality.

Economic excess, curbing individual hoarding.

Media egoism, suppressing attention economies.

Sentimental politics, dismantling identity-based manipulation.

Instead, merit is tracked, not proclaimed. Leadership is rotational, not charismatic. Emotional hygiene is enforced like civic hygiene. This is not repression; it is detox.

---

III. Case Study: China’s Post-1990s Development as Antinarcissistic Praxis

China’s trajectory from poverty to global power is not solely an economic miracle—it is a psychosocial reengineering project.

Poverty Eradication: Over 800 million people lifted out of extreme poverty in four decades. This was not achieved by appealing to capitalist charity or moral theatrics, but by organized discipline, enforced collectivism, and mass infrastructural logic. The narcissist impulse to hoard was blocked; the codependent impulse to endure poverty as fate was systematically dismantled.

Meritocratic Bureaucracy: Leadership within the CCP rises through vetted loyalty and performance rather than charisma. There is no space for celebrity politicians. The leader is not idolized for personal grandeur but as a vessel of continuity.

Digital Regulation: Platforms that reward egoism (like livestreaming excess wealth) are monitored or banned. Even billionaires are called to heel. Jack Ma’s disappearance after critiquing the system was not accidental—it was the state telling the narcissists: You are not the center.

Civic Homogenization: While controversial, the regulation of religious extremism, ethnic separatism, and identity politics has stabilized a national psyche fragmented by historical trauma. Individual ego identities are subordinated to a cohesive national project. From an antinarcissist lens, this is not erasure—it is integration.

---

IV. Toward a Monist Society: Compelling Health by Design

The dictatorship of antinarcissists is not a passive evolution—it is an intervention. A monist society is not built on emotional consensus but on compelled psychological health:

No one is allowed to become too adored.

No one is allowed to live parasitically.

No one is allowed to emotionally exploit or be exploited.

All are required to contribute to collective function.

This is not utopia. It is stern, orderly, and emotionally minimalist. But it is stable. It creates citizens who are neither slaves nor idols, but sovereign participants in a shared fate.

---

Conclusion: The Future Lies in the Middle Path

Where classic communism failed by succumbing to new narcissists, and capitalism fails by worshipping them, antinarcissism offers a third path: disempower the narcissist, heal the codependent, and install structures that neither seduce nor degrade the human spirit.

The Chinese model, imperfect and harsh, is a prototype of this future. Its brilliance lies not in how much it developed, but in how it did so without falling prey to Western narcissistic excess or sentimental socialist decline.

A dictatorship of antinarcissists is not meant to last forever—it is a bridging regime, a therapist-state, a transition phase towards socialism and eventually communism. Once the dualism dissolves, it will dissolve itself. But until then, it remains the scalpel that cuts the tumor of ego from the heart of society.

And in its wake, something monist, something sane, something whole may finally rise. 

 

The Dictatorship of Antinarcissists: China’s Path to a Monist Society Beyond Class and Ego

In a world fractured by egotism and emotional exploitation, the psychological architecture of civilization often mirrors a dysfunctional binary: the narcissist, who thrives on spectacle and control, and the codependent, who survives through sacrifice and silence. Bourgeoisie and proletariat are not just economic categories—they are psycho-spiritual roles in a theater of systemic imbalance.

But what if a state refused to play along? What if it rejected both delusions of grandeur and martyrdom of submission? What if governance was stripped of emotional excess and reduced to its most essential task: functional coherence?

Enter the Dictatorship of Antinarcissists—a governance philosophy that neutralizes both grandiose self-worship and pathological self-erasure. It does not invert hierarchies; it dissolves them. And today, the boldest living approximation of this philosophy is found not in Western democracies or utopian experiments, but in the People's Republic of China.

While the West often mislabels China as coldly authoritarian, what it fails to grasp is that China is not ruled by ego, but by a conscious antinarcissistic design: a system engineered to suppress emotional exhibitionism, penalize parasitic individualism, and reward only what sustains the collective. Not to entertain, but to endure. Not to seduce, but to stabilize.

---

I. From Chaos to Control: Rewriting the National Psyche

China’s modern history is a crucible of psychic extremes—centuries of feudal dominance, colonial humiliation, revolutionary fervor, and ideological turbulence. These epochs trained its people to oscillate between submission and fanaticism. But the post-Mao transformation marked something different: a movement away from emotional extremism toward psychological equilibrium.

Where other systems respond to trauma with new dogmas or flamboyant messiahs, China's leadership evolved to reflect an antinarcissistic ethos: emotion is a liability; drama is danger; function is salvation.

---

II. Deng Xiaoping and the End of Narcissistic Revolution

The turning point came with Deng Xiaoping, a man who rejected both ideological heroism and personality cults. He understood the tragedy of narcissistic politics and the paralysis of sentimental socialism. His mantra—"It doesn’t matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice"—was the first formal proclamation of antinarcissism in governance.

Deng’s China was not obsessed with moral purity, but with material efficacy. He didn't seduce the masses; he redirected them. He birthed a political class not of idols, but of civil engineers—technocrats of national psychology, building the machinery of coherence.

---

III. Xi Jinping and the Codification of Antinarcissism

Under Xi Jinping, this architecture matured into a full doctrine. Far from a narcissistic autocrat, Xi represents the formalization of antinarcissism: the deliberate suppression of ego across cultural, economic, and digital spheres.

Celebrity Containment: Pop idols and influencers are regulated, not celebrated. Public figures are expected to exemplify discipline—not indulgence. Narcissism is not glamorized; it is pathologized.

Corporate Humbling: Billionaires who previously projected spectacle and arrogance, like Jack Ma, have been politically neutralized—not out of envy, but as a systemic response to the danger of ego becoming a parallel power.

Digital Moderation: China's internet may seem slower, duller, less explosive—but that is precisely the point. It is a firewall not just against cyberattacks, but against emotional contagion and narcissistic virality.

Meritocratic Sobriety: Promotion within the Communist Party requires loyalty, discipline, and outcomes—not charisma or vision-boarding. Politics is not theater—it is architecture.

Where Western democracies often amplify narcissism through endless spectacle, China’s system absorbs and mutes it. Emotional neutrality is policy. Egotism is entropy. The state is not a canvas for personalities—it is a crucible for discipline.

---

IV. Poverty Eradication as a Psyche Reset

China’s eradication of extreme poverty—over 800 million lives transformed—is not merely economic. It is psychospiritual. It dismantled the internalized inferiority of rural populations and reoriented them toward collective self-worth. No charities. No saviors. No pity. Just infrastructure, education, and expectation.

This is antinarcissism at scale: not sympathy, but structure. Not sentiment, but systems. It says: “You are not a victim. You are a vector of national purpose.”

In doing so, the codependent psyche—once defined by acceptance of lack—was rewired into one of sober productivity. Narcissists are denied dominance. Dependents are denied despair. All are compelled to function.

---

V. Toward Monism: Beyond Class, Beyond Ego

As China advances, what emerges is not an egalitarian fantasy but a monist society—where emotional dualisms are mechanically erased:

The bourgeois ego is absorbed into collective responsibility.

The proletarian self-sacrifice is restructured into civic dignity.

A new human type is shaped: useful, self-regulating, un-spectacular.

Freedom in this system does not mean personal indulgence—it means psychological security. Expression is not suppressed for cruelty, but for clarity. The aim is not to stifle the human spirit, but to cleanse it of emotional pollution.

It may not be romantic—but it is rational. And that makes it revolutionary.

---

Conclusion: The Quiet Power of the Antinarcissist State

The Dictatorship of Antinarcissists is not a soft power, nor a sentimental vision. It is a force of psychic stabilization—disciplining a civilization once torn between trauma and hubris.

China does not flatter the individual. It flattens the ego. It does not market identity—it engineers coherence. In doing so, it demonstrates that wellness is not a matter of freedom from rules, but freedom from emotional dysfunction.

This is not the West’s dream. But it may be the world’s cure.

Where the narcissist demands worship and the codependent demands rescue, the antinarcissist state demands only this: Do your part. Silence your spectacle. Serve the real.

That is not tyranny. That is medicine.

It's now confirmed that China's CO2 emissions have been declining for a year now, since 2024, when their official target was to reach peak emissions by 2030 (and carbon neutrality by 2060).

You can say what you want about China but there's no denying that this is an impressive achievement and excellent news for the whole world."

কমিউনিস্ম মানে উতপাদক শক্তি এমন জায়গায় পৌঁছবে যে সমস্ত প্রয়োজনীয় অথচ করতে ভালো লাগেনা এমন ক্রিয়া মেশিন করবে আর মানুষ কেবল এমন ক্রিয়াই করবে যা করতে মানুষ পছন্দ করবে।

যেহেতু মানুষ নিজের পছন্দের ক্রিয়া করে তাই জীবনের ক্রিয়াকে আর শ্রম ও উপভোগে পার্থক্য করা যায়না।

যেহেতু মানুষ নিজের পছন্দের ক্রিয়া কেবল করে সে তার ক্রিয়ার সময়-কে বিক্রী করেনা আকাঙ্ক্ষিত কিছু পেতে কারণ সে আকাঙ্খিত ক্রিয়াই করছে আর তাই সম বিনময় মূল্য বলে কিছু থাকছে অর্থাৎ অর্থের বা মুল্যের জন্যে ক্রিয়া (যাকে শ্রম বলে) আর থাকছেনা।

যেহেতু মানুষ পছন্দের ক্রিয়াই করছে আর অপছন্দের ক্রিয়া মেশিন করছে তাই অন্য কোনও মানুষকে লোভ বা ভয় দেখিয়ে নিজের পছন্দের কোনও ক্রিয়া করাতে হচ্ছেনা আর তাই সমাজ শ্রেণিহীন।

শাসক শ্রেণির শাসিত শ্রেণিকে লোভ আর ভয় দেখিয়ে কাজ করানোর হাতিয়ার রাষ্ট্র আর তাই শ্রেণিহীন বলেই রাষ্ট্র নেই।

Communism means that productive forces will reach a point where machines will do all the necessary but unpleasant tasks, and humans will only do the tasks they enjoy doing.

Since people do things of their own choosing, the activities of life can no longer be distinguished into labor and enjoyment.

Since man only does the action of his choice, he does not sell the time of his action to get something desired because he is doing the desired action and therefore there is no activity for equivalent exchange value, that is, there is no more action for money or value (called labor).

Since people do the things they like and machines do the things people dislike, no one else has to be tempted or intimidated into doing anything and therefore society is classless.

The state is a tool of the ruling class to make the ruled class work through greed and fear, and therefore, the state does not exist because it is classless.

Marx declared:

In the higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therefore also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the production forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

[Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Selected Works of Marx and Engels, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, p. 24.]

​​​​​​https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1964/phnycom2.htm?fbclid=IwY2xjawJAQglleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHXJfKEOwcuI_n-t4yPuHvdj9lbu0ZGM44npDbvLCRox_LwDwSwDe4fj90g_aem_hGwg7yf57E4DJOxxtd19yw

চীনা শিল্প নীতি দক্ষতার সাথে রাষ্ট্রীয় নির্দেশনা এবং বাজার ব্যবস্থার সংমিশ্রণ ঘটায়। রাষ্ট্র-সমর্থন এবং বাজার-বাহিনীর মধ্যে সীমারেখা আরও অস্পষ্ট করে বেইজিং অর্থনৈতিক অংশীদারদের জন্য বিভিন্ন ধরনের ভর্তুকি মূল্যায়ন করা আরও কঠিন করে তুলেছে।

জার্মানির গোপন চ্যাম্পিয়নদের (জার্মান শিল্পোৎপাদন প্রচণ্ডভাবে ছোট মাঝারি শিল্প প্রতিষ্ঠানগুলোর ওপর নির্ভর করে যাদের নাম সাধারণভাবে অজানা আর এদেরই গোপন চ্যাম্পিয়ন বলা হয়) দেখে অনুপ্রাণিত হয়ে, চীনা থিঙ্ক ট্যাঙ্ক এবং বিনিয়োগ ব্যাংকিং নথিগুলি জার্মান গোপন চ্যাম্প-দের অনুকরণ করার জন্য একটি মডেল হিসেবে বিবেচনা করে। জার্মান গোপন চ্যাম্পিয়ন ধারণাটি জার্মান ব্যবস্থাপনা তাত্ত্বিক এবং পরামর্শদাতা হারমান সাইমন বিশ্ব বাজারে জার্মান ছোট ও মাঝারি শিল্প-এর সাফল্য ব্যাখ্যা করার জন্য তৈরি করেছেন। এই সংস্থাগুলি জার্মানিতে বর্তমান অর্থনৈতিক ও সামাজিক পরিস্থিতি থেকে আবির্ভূত হয়েছিল, যেমন চমৎকার বৃত্তিমূলক প্রশিক্ষণ, সামাজিক ব্যাঙ্কগুলির সাথে ঘনিষ্ঠ সম্পর্ক এবং একটি স্বতন্ত্র কর্পোরেট সংস্কৃতি। বেইজিং মনে করে যে এটি রাষ্ট্রীয় হস্তক্ষেপের মাধ্যমে তাদের সাফল্যের প্রতিলিপি তৈরি করতে পারে। চীনের খুব ভিন্ন সামাজিক ও অর্থনৈতিক পরিবেশের অর্থ হল স্থানীয় গোপন চ্যাম্পিয়নদের উত্থানের আয়োজন করা সরকারী কর্মকর্তাদের উপর নির্ভর করে।

উচ্চ প্রযুক্তির ক্ষুদ্র ও মাঝারি আকারের উদ্যোগগুলি চীনের শিল্প নীতিতে মূল নতুন খেলোয়াড় হিসাবে আবির্ভূত হয়েছেঃ তাদের বাজারে বিশেষজ্ঞ হওয়ার, বিদেশী আমদানীর দেশীয় বিকল্প তৈরি করার এবং চীনের শিল্প শৃঙ্খলকে শক্তিশালী করার সম্ভাবনা রয়েছে। বেইজিং এই সংস্থাগুলির জন্য একটি ব্যাপক সাহায্যের ব্যবস্থা প্রতিষ্ঠা করেছে, যেমনটি মূলত মেড ইন চায়না ২০২৫ কৌশলে বর্ণিত হয়েছে।

চীনের "এক্সিলারেটর রাষ্ট্র"-এর উত্থান ছোট সংস্থাগুলির প্রতি চীনা নীতিনির্ধারকদের একটি নাটকীয় প্রসারকে চিহ্নিত করে: এটি চারটি ধাপে কাজ করে: প্রথম ধাপে ১ মিলিয়ন উদ্ভাবনী ছোট সংস্থাকে তাদের কাজের ক্ষেত্রের ভিত্তিতে চিহ্নিত করা হয় এবং রাষ্ট্রীয় তহবিল এবং রাষ্ট্রীয় সহায়তা দেওয়া হয়। ১ মিলিয়নের মধ্যে দ্বিতীয় ধাপে, ১00, 000 বিশেষায়িত ছোট সংস্থা নির্বাচিত হয় এবং আরও রাষ্ট্রীয় তহবিল এবং সমর্থন দেওয়া হয়। ১০,০০,০০০ বিশেষায়িতছোট সংস্থাগুলির মধ্যে ১০,০০০ ক্ষুদ্র দানব নির্বাচিত হয় যাদের কেবল আরও বেশি রাষ্ট্রীয় তহবিল এবং সমর্থন দেওয়া হয় না তবে বেসরকারী বিনিয়োগকারী এবং শেয়ার বাজারের সহায়তাও দেওয়া হয়। ১0,000 ক্ষুদ্র দানব থেকে, ১000 উৎপাদন চ্যাম্পিয়নদের তুলে আনা হয়।

পূর্ববর্তী শিল্প নীতি প্রাথমিকভাবে কৌশলগত লক্ষ্য অর্জনের জন্য বৃহত্তর সংস্থাগুলিতে সংস্থানগুলি নির্দেশ করে। কিন্তু এখন ছোট সংস্থাগুলিকে উদ্ভাবনের মূল্যবান উৎস হিসাবে দেখা হয়। এটি কারণ ছোট সংস্থাগুলি সাধারণত লাভের চেয়ে উদ্ভাবনের জন্য স্বতন্ত্র তাগিদ/স্বপ্ন দ্বারা তাড়িত হয়ে কাজ করে। সরকার ক্ষুদ্র দানব এবং অন্যান্য ধরণের উচ্চ-প্রযুক্তির ছোট সংস্থাগুলোকে চয়ন করতে নির্বাচনের মানদণ্ড ব্যবহার করে। পৌরসভা এবং প্রাদেশিক স্তরের কর্মকর্তারা সংস্থাগুলি মূল্যায়ন ও বাছাই করতে সেই উল্লিখিত মানদণ্ডের উপর নির্ভর করে। এরপরে তারা আরও সহায়তার জন্য উচ্চতর কর্তৃপক্ষের কাছে সুপারিশ করে। মানদণ্ডগুলি বিস্তৃত যেমন কুলুঙ্গি পণ্য, বৃদ্ধির কর্মক্ষমতা, আবিষ্কারের পেটেন্ট এবং গবেষণার সংখ্যা। কিন্তু ক্ষুদ্র দানব প্রোগ্রামের প্রথম দুটি ব্যাচে নির্বাচিত ৪৪টি রোবোটিক্স সংস্থাগুলোর একটি নমুনার মধ্যে অনেকেই নির্বাচনের মানদণ্ডগুলো পূরণ করতে ব্যর্থ হয়েছে এবং অপেক্ষাকৃত কম অর্জনকেই মেনে নিতে হয়েছে সরকারের।

বেইজিং বাজার-এর সাথে রাষ্ট্রীয় দিকনির্দেশকে একত্রিত করে: চীন স্থানীয়, প্রাদেশিক এবং জাতীয় পর্যায়ে সক্রিয়, প্রথমে বিশেষায়িত উচ্চ-প্রযুক্তি ছোট সংস্থাগুলিকে সনাক্ত করতে এবং তারপরে তাদের বৃদ্ধি দ্রুত ট্র্যাক করার জন্য একটি গতিশীল মাল্টি-লেভেল মূল্যায়ন এবং সহায়তা সিস্টেম তৈরি করেছে। এর অর্থ সংস্থাগুলিকে মুনাফা বা বিনিময় মূল্যের পরিবর্তে ব্যবহার মূল্য-এর ভিত্তিতে মূল্যায়ন করা হয়। সুতরাং সংস্থাগুলিকে অবশ্যই রাষ্ট্রীয় বিনিয়োগ পেতে প্রযুক্তিগত শর্ত পূরণ করতে হবে। বেশি মুনাফা বিনিয়োগ পাওয়ার মানদণ্ড নয়।

সরকার-প্রত্যয়িত উচ্চ প্রযুক্তির ছোট সংস্থাগুলোকে "বিশেষায়িত ছোট মাঝারি সংস্থা" বা "ক্ষুদ্র দানব" হিসাবে চিহ্নিত করা হয়: তারা প্রত্যক্ষ এবং অপ্রত্যক্ষ রাষ্ট্রীয় সহায়তার একটি বিস্তৃত ব্যবস্থা থেকে উপকৃত হয়। প্রতিযোগিতা ওপর ব্যবস্থাটি প্রতিষ্ঠিত হওয়ায় এই সংস্থাগুলি বিশ্রাম নিতে পারে না এবং তিন বছর পরে সরকারের সহায়তা আবারও অর্জন করতে হয়। সুতরাং সংস্থাগুলি এখন তিন বছর পরে আরও রাষ্ট্রীয় তহবিলের জন্য প্রতিযোগিতা করছে। প্রতিযোগিতা সংস্থাগুলোকে উচ্চতর স্কোর করতে রাষ্ট্রীয় মানদণ্ডের শর্ত অবশ্যই পূরণ করতে হবে। আবারও মুনাফা বিনিয়োগ পাওয়ার জন্য মাপকাঠি নয়।

Chinese industrial policy deftly combines state guidance and market mechanisms. By further blurring the lines between state-support and market-forces, Beijing has made it even more difficult for economic partners to assess subsidies of various forms.

Longing after the manufacturing might displayed by Germany’s hidden champions, Chinese policy, think tank and investment banking documents regard them as a model to emulate. The German hidden champions concept has been developed by German management theorist and consultant Hermann Simon to explain the success of German SMEs in global markets. These firms emerged organically from the economic and social circumstances present in Germany, such as excellent vocational training, close ties to social banks, and a distinctive corporate culture. Beijing thinks that it can replicate their success through state intervention, essentially turning a bottom-up process on its head. The very different social and economic environment in China means that it is down to government officials to orchestrate the emergence of local hidden champions. Hence the cultivation system has been set up to identify potential success stories and channel state support.

High-tech small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have emerged as key new players in China’s industrial policy: They have the potential to specialize in niche markets, develop domestic alternatives to foreign inputs and reinforce China’s industrial chain. Beijing has established a comprehensive support system for these firms, as originally outlined in the Made in China 2025 strategy.

The emergence of an “accelerator state” in China marks a dramatic extension of the industrial focus of Chinese policymakers towards smaller companies: It works in four steps: In first step 1 million innovative SMEs are identified on the basis of their area of work and given state funding and state help. In second step among 1 million, 100, 000 specialized EMEs are selected and given more state funds and backing. Among 100,000 specialized EMEs, 10,000 Little Giants are selected who are given not only more state funding and backing but also help from private investors and stock market. From 10,000 Little Giants, 1,000 Manufacturing Champions are endorsed.

Previous industrial policy primarily directed resources to larger firms to achieve strategic goals. Smaller firms are now seen as valuable sources of innovation. This is because smaller firms usually thrives on individual urge/dream to innovate rather than profit. The government uses selection criteria to choose Little Giants and other types of high- tech SMEs. Officials at the municipal and provincial levels rely on them to evaluate and pick companies which they then recommend to higher authorities for further support. The criteria are broad in scope and cover aspects such as niche product focus, growth performance, the number of invention patents and R&D intensity. Out of a sample of 44 robotics firms selected in the first two batches of the Little Giants program, many appear to fall below the selection standards or to undermine its objectives.

Beijing’s tiered-cultivation combines state guidance with market forces: China has developed a dynamic multi-level evaluation and support system, active at the local, provincial and national levels, to first identify specialized high-tech SMEs and then fast-track their growth. This means companies are evaluated on the basis of use-value rather than exchange-value. So companies must fulfill technological conditions to get state investments. Profit is not the criteria for getting more investment.

Government-certified high-tech SMEs are labeled as “Specialized SMEs” or “Little Giants”: They benefit from a comprehensive system of direct and indirect state support. But these firms cannot rest on their laurels as the system is set up to promote competition and after three years the government support has to be earned once again. So the firms are now competing for more state funds after three years. To score high in competition firms must fulfill government given criteria of production. Again profit is not the focus for getting investment.

Officials are channeling ever more finance towards high-tech companies: Beijing has mobilized public financial institutions and is pushing private investors to direct capital towards government-certified start-ups and SMEs, worth tens of billions of yuan. The government has increased loan financing through the banking system and expanded access to equity markets for high-tech SMEs.

The support system seeks to cover all the needs of its SMEs: The government is encouraging all state-connected entities to help high-tech SMEs. This means more state subsidies and R&D support, increased collaboration with universities and research institutes and a more favorable intellectual property system. Officials are also directing large firms to act as financiers, clients and mentors. Big companies are not allowed to buy out successful SMEs. Here again, state is creating hindrances in centralization of production.

The model's Success: The system is channeling more funding to high-tech SMEs. Several state-backed firms such as Leaderdrive and Endovastec in the robotics and MedTech sectors are advancing self-reliance in core technologies.

The Model's Weakness: Yet, there are also signs of weaknesses. The system relies on the capacity of officials to identify the most promising firms, which may be flawed. Support measures could result in significant bad investments and misuse of funds.

The Model's Speciality: Little Giants are increasingly viewed as sound investment options. According to Bloomberg, one venture capital firm only invests in Little Giants.30 Numerous bank reports also highlight Little Giants as aligned with government policy and displaying strong growth potential. So state given certificates are drawing in foreign investments too besides state investments. But private investments show that private players believe the certification processes and evaluation systems. 

To be included in the Little Giants program, companies must operate in one of ten priority sectors from the “Made in China 2025” plan. These include computer numerical control (CNC) machining, electric vehicles, or medical devices. Additional evaluation criteria include a company's potential to replace imports or to secure a significant global market share in innovative niche products.

These are government-backed firms which benefit from increased cooperation with large companies, to help them fill supply chain gaps, as well as with universities on research and development (R&D). They are supported in intellectual property rights – and, above all, financially supported. The state acts as a patient investor to early-stage high-tech SMEs by leveraging government guidance funds and through favorable loans from state-owned banks, which serve "Little Giants" in specially created departments.

Companies can also more easily raise capital on the stock markets thanks to simplified listing requirements. In 2022, 40 percent of listings on the Shanghai, Shenzhen and Beijing stock exchanges were made by Little Giants. For example, in September, Hubei Kait Automotive raised CNY 133 million (around EUR 15 million) during its IPO in Beijing. The supplier of automotive electronics and sensors counts Chinese automaker BYD and Volkswagen among its customers.

Numerous Little Giant firms are contributing to China's rise in the e-mobility sector. Guizhou Anda produces battery materials for major battery manufacturers such as CATL, BYD, and CALB. The company was listed on the Beijing stock exchange in March 2023, raising CNY 650 million (around EUR 88 million). Welion, a provider of high-performance solid-state batteries, is rapidly expanding its production capacities and plans to go public by 2025. The company has already won Nio as a customer and has reportedly attracted interest from companies like Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz.

The Europeans could lose market share in China and globally. The EU’s exports to China are worth EUR 230 billion in total and are heavily concentrated in machinery, vehicles and other manufactured goods. About 40 percent of that could be threatened by Chinese competitors.

Foreign companies producing in China are less vulnerable to China's efforts to secure supply chains. However, domestic competition is growing, especially in sectors that China defines as strategically important, such as mechanical engineering, an area where German companies are especially active.

China's ambitious high-tech SME program ought to be a wake-up call. In many areas, the times when European companies enjoyed a clear technological advantage in China are coming to an end. Europe’s automotive sector, especially in the field of electric vehicles, has already experienced a rude awakening. Now Europe’s Hidden Champions could be next.

[Reference: https://merics.org/en/report/accelerator-state-how-china-fosters-little-giant-companies?fbclid=IwY2xjawIxWVFleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHWjKwgWyKSeBRK4HT11Xg9wZ0Dd41vta802Fb1wcctwSkYAXm0v8ds7pJw_aem_Frr5mVCBNBcbWJsdk4stUQ ]

The Chinese Communist Party stands on the thought of Karl Marx, Lenin, Mao Zedong, and Deng Xiaoping. From Marx, they received guidance on long-term international goals, from Lenin, they received a tool for the struggle against the historical hegemony of the West, from Mao, they received the means to use Marx and Lenin in the context of China, and with the help of Deng, they combined the traditional forces of China with Marx, Lenin, and Mao.

Marx believed that the advancement of technology would one day reach such a level that all the activities that people do not like to do but are socially important will be done by automatic machines and people will only do those activities that they like to do. When this situation is created, we will reach a communist society. A person who does the activities he likes will not do those activities for the purpose of any exchange value (money) and therefore all activities and production in society will be social. That is, there will be no investment for profit and no work will be done for money. Also, no person will be able to make other people do any work for his own benefit by showing fear or greed because if he does not like it, no one will do any work. Therefore, society will be classless. Exchange value and classes will disappear. All activities and production will be social and therefore individual property will become social property.

But Marx believed that capital must first develop, that is, the production system must become so automated that the productive power of society will be huge but for that there will be no need to use the full labor power of society. As a result, the real wages of the working class in society will not increase as much as the profits of the capitalist class will increase. Since a large part of the workers are buyers, the purchasing power of society will lag behind the productive power of society. As a result, a crisis of overproduction will arise. To overcome this, it is necessary for a revolutionary state led by the working class to invest without keeping profit as its main goal, and as a result, the crisis of overproduction will be overcome. It can be said that since profit is not the main goal, social investment and initiative will increase. Gradually, a state led by the working class will automate production more and more and give the workers more time to do the things they like. In this way, gradually all the work that they do not like to do will be automated and the entire human race will be able to do the things they like. Marx believed that since people would continue to work for exchange value until they were given the opportunity to act as they wished at the individual level, it was not possible to organize social investment or enterprise through privately owned enterprises. Therefore, only a revolutionary state led by workers could organize social investment or enterprise.

Lenin said that in the 20th century, capitalism has transformed from competitive capitalism to monopoly (basically oligopoly) capitalism. The entire production system is controlled by large wealthy capitalists. The middle-class capitalists (who are called bourgeois in French) have taken a marginal position in production. As a result, it is no longer possible for them to break feudalism by carrying out bourgeois reforms and develop production as before. The working class must also carry out these bourgeois reforms and break feudalism and develop production and automation. As a result, Lenin gives the responsibility of industrialization to the state led by the working class. He also shows that social production and investment will not only be effective in the crisis of overproduction. Rather, social investment (where profit is not the main goal) is also fruitful in the development of industrialization and automation. The rapid development of Soviet industrialization proves that a revolutionary state led by the working class can develop heavy industry and infrastructure and education and health very quickly through social investment. It can be said that state-led social investment in areas such as basic industry, education, health and research was very effective. Under Stalin's leadership, Soviet industry and military power, based on industrial strength, surpassed those of Germany, Britain and France.

But in the 1950s, it was proven that despite being ahead in heavy industry, infrastructure, education, health, and research, state-run social investment in light and consumer goods industries was not yielding good results. State-run social investment was also not yielding any results in innovative industries. Mao highlighted the bureaucratic weaknesses of state-run social enterprises. And he tried to develop the light and consumer goods industries by creating democratically run social enterprises. But that effort failed. In the 1980s, Deng said that despite being ahead in heavy industry, infrastructure, education, health, and research, there should be state-run social investment in light and consumer goods industries and private profit-oriented enterprises in the light consumer goods industry. Deng's model led to rapid progress in China. But since 2008, the Communist Party of China has become concerned that China is still lagging behind in innovative initiatives.

Innovation is almost impossible without individual dreams and initiatives. Again, the innovation industry is mainly created in the United States, and there, companies are speculating (buying and selling shares of companies) on which companies will succeed in investing in innovation, hoping to make a profit. As a result, a bubble is created in the US stock market, and when that bubble bursts, an economic crisis occurs. What's more, to repeatedly attract investment in innovation, a very strong currency is needed, which deinvests the country's industrial production and all investment goes into the property trading business. Therefore, a profit-oriented innovation system is not to China's liking.

Then the Communist Party of China remembered the famous Nobel Prize winner of Bangladesh, Muhammad Yunus. Yunus said that an individual will take up social initiatives if the society benefits from that initiative and the happiness of many people in the society also brings happiness to the social investor. That is, a person can make social investments by focusing not on profit but on the happiness that he brings to the society. That is, where Marx Lenin thought that only the state should be remembered for social investment, Yunus found the source of social investment within the individual. Using Yunus' social initiatives, many countries were able to eliminate poverty without the state. While the Western world repeatedly saw Yunus' social initiatives as a means to eliminate poverty, China began to think about developing the innovative field using Yunus's theory.

China saw that if the happiness or progress of society is a source of individual happiness, then individuals can take up social initiatives. Then, developing the country by advancing in the field of innovation and defeating the US blockade can also be a source of individual happiness. Again, individuals can invest without keeping profit as the main goal to make their innovative dreams come true. In this way, China started using Yunus' social entrepreneurship to promote their own innovative fields. Municipalities in various cities in China started investing heavily in all such privately owned social enterprises where innovation is the main goal, profit is secondary. Liang Wengfeng, the founder of DeepSik, said that their main goal is the use value, profit or exchange value of innovation. And this is why DeepSik was released to the market completely free of charge. Earlier, China also brought the Covid vaccine to the market for free, but that vaccine was developed by the state (it is important to remember that state-led social investment in health and research is quite fruitful). But despite being an individual, DeepSik has taken up social initiatives. Also, the US innovation sector, being profit-oriented, aims to attract a lot of investment, thus increasing the cost of innovation. The Chinese innovation model, being social, emphasizes the utility or use value of innovation and has less investment growth or cost growth. Therefore, the cost of creating DeepSik is one-third of the cost of Chat-GPT.

The Chinese model so far is as follows:

Heavy infrastructure industry and services: state and social

Education health research: state and social

Light consumer goods industry and services: private and profit-oriented

Innovative industry and services: private and social

Social = production with use value or utility in mind

Profit-oriented = production with exchange value or profit in mind

An Important Reference: https://beamstart.com/news/global-entrepreneurship-competition-hicool-2025?fbclid=IwY2xjawIsHt9leHRuA2FlbQEwAGFkaWQBqxnAChyT_gEdoPu_qatUrzVwouUuuAuTv5eHJzDvaC40k5iDCZwk9Xp7vHws6J3Y_wO0_aem_5ScT_u79zJvydJ2ysLMjYA

কার্ল মার্ক্স, লেনিন, মাও জে দং ও দেং শিয়াওফিং-এর চিন্তার ওপরেই চীনের কমিউনিস্ট পার্টি দাঁড়িয়ে আছে। মার্ক্স -এর থেকে তারা দীর্ঘমেয়াদী আন্তর্জাতিক লক্ষ্য সম্পর্কে দিক নির্দেশ পান, লেনিন পশ্চীমের ঐতিহাসিক আধিপত্যের বিরুদ্ধে সংগ্রামের হাতিয়ার, মাও-এর থেকে চীনের পটভূমিকায় মার্ক্স ও লেনিন-কে ব্যবহার করার উপায় পান এবং দেং-এর সাহায্যে চীনের পরম্পরা গত শক্তির মেলবন্ধন ঘটানো হয় মার্ক্স লেনিন ও মাও-এর সাথে।

মার্ক্স মনে করতেন প্রযুক্তির অগ্রগতি একদিন এমন স্তরে পৌঁছে যাবে যে মানুষের করতে ভাল লাগেনা কিন্তু সামাজিকভাবে গুরুত্বপূর্ণ এমন সমস্ত ক্রিয়া করবে স্বয়ংক্রিয় মেশিন আর মানুষ কেবল এমন ক্রিয়া করবে যা সে করতে পছন্দ করবে। এই অবস্থা যখন তৈরি হবে তখন আমরা কমিউনিস্ট সমাজে পৌঁছব। যে মানুষ তার পছন্দের ক্রিয়া করে তাই সে কোনও বিনিময় মূল্যের (অর্থ) উদ্দেশ্যে সেই ক্রিয়া করবেনা আর তাই সমাজে সমস্ত ক্রিয়া ও উৎপাদন হবে সামাজিক। অর্থাৎ মুনাফার জন্যে কোনও বিনিয়োগ হবেনা আর অর্থের জন্যে কোনও কাজ হবেনা। এছাড়াও কোনও মানুষ অন্য মানুষকে ভয় বা লোভ দেখিয়ে নিজের স্বার্থে কোনো কাজ করিয়ে নিতে পারবেনা কারণ পছন্দ না হলে কেউ কোনো কাজই করবেনা। তাই সমাজ হবে শ্রেণিহীন। বিনিময় মূল্য ও শ্রেণি বিলুপ্ত হবে। সমস্ত ক্রিয়া ও উৎপাদন হবে সামাজিক আর তাই ব্যক্তি সম্পত্তি হয়ে যাবে সামাজিক সম্পত্তি।

কিন্তু মার্ক্স মনে করতেন আগে পুঁজির বিকাশ হতে হবে অর্থাৎ উৎপাদন ব্যবস্থা এতটাই স্বয়ংক্রিয় হয়ে উঠতে হবে যে সমাজের উৎপাদন শক্তি হবে বিশাল কিন্তু তার জন্যে সমাজের পূর্ণ শ্রম শক্তিকে ব্যবহার করার প্রয়োজনীয়তা থাকবেনা। ফলে সমাজে শ্রমিক শ্রেণির আসল মজুরি ততটা বৃদ্ধি পাবেনা যতটা পুঁজিপতি শ্রেণির মুনাফা বৃদ্ধি পাবে। যেহেতু শ্রমিকদের বিশাল অংশই ক্রেতা তাই সমাজের ক্রয়ক্ষমতা সমাজের উৎপাদিকা শক্তির থেকে পিছিয়ে পড়বে। ফলে দেখা দেবে অতি উৎপাদন সঙ্কট। একে কাটাতে প্রয়োজন শ্রমিক শ্রেণির নেতৃত্বে বিপ্লবী রাষ্ট্র যে মুনাফাকে মূল লক্ষ্য না রেখে বিনিয়োগ করবে এবং এর ফলেই কেবল অতি উৎপাদন সঙ্কট কেটে যাবে। মুনাফা মূল লক্ষ্য থাকছেনা বলে বলা চলে সামাজিক বিনিয়োগ ও উদ্যোগ বেড়ে যাবে। ক্রমেই শ্রমিক শ্রেণি পরিচালিত রাষ্ট্র আরও বেশি স্বয়ংক্রিয় করে তুলবে উৎপাদনকে এবং শ্রকিকদের আরও বেশি সময় দেবে নিজের পছন্দ মতো ক্রিয়া করার জন্যে। এভাবেই আস্তে আস্তে সমস্ত করতে ভালো লাগেনা এমন কাজকেই স্বয়ংক্রিয় করে ফেলা হবে এবং সমগ্র মানব জাতিই পছন্দ মতো কাজ করতে পারবে। মার্ক্স -এর ধারণা ছিল যেহেতু মানুষ ব্যক্তিস্তরে পছন্দ মতো ক্রিয়া করার সুযোগ না পাওয়া পর্যন্ত বিনিময় মূল্যের জন্যেই কাজ করে যাবে তাই ব্যক্তি মালিকানাধীন সংস্থা দিয়ে সামাজিক বিনিয়োগ বা উদ্যোগ সংগঠিত করা সম্ভব নয়। অতএব সামাজিক উদ্যোগ বা বিনিয়োগ করতে পারে কেবল শ্রমিক পরিচালিত বিপ্লবী রাষ্ট্র।

লেনিন বলেন বিংশ শতকে পুঁজিবাদ প্রতিযোগিতামূলক পুঁজিবাদ থেকে একচেটিয়া (মূলত ওলিগোপলি) পুঁজিবাদে পরিণত হয়েছে। পুরো উৎপাদন ব্যবস্থা বৃহৎ ধনী পুঁজির মালিকেরাই নিয়ন্ত্রণ করছে। মধ্যবিত্ত পুঁজির মালিকেরা (যাদের ফরাসী ভাষায় বুর্জোয়া বলা হয়) উৎপাদনে প্রান্তিক অবস্থান নিয়েছে। ফলে তাদের পক্ষে আর আগের মতো বুর্জোয়া সংস্কার ঘটিয়ে সামন্ততন্ত্র ভেঙ্গে উৎপাদনের বিকাশ ঘটানো সম্ভব নয়। এই বুর্জোয়া সংস্কার ঘটিয়ে সামন্ততন্ত্র ভেঙ্গে উৎপাদন ও স্বয়ংক্রিয়তা বিকাশের কাজও করতে হবে শ্রমিক শ্রেণিকেই। ফলে লেনিন শিল্পায়ণের দায়িত্ব শ্রমিক শ্রেণির নেতৃত্বাধীন রাষ্ট্রকেই দেন। এছাড়াও উনি দেখান যে সামাজিক উৎপাদন ও বিনিয়োগ কেবল অতি উৎপাদন সংকটেই কার্যকর হবে তা নয়। বরং শিল্পায়ণ ও স্বয়ংক্রিয়তা বিকাশেও সামাজিক বিনিয়োগ (মুনাফা যেখানে মূল লক্ষ্য নয়) ফলদায়ক। সোভিয়েত শিল্প্যণের দ্রুতগামীতা প্রমাণ করে যে শ্রমিক শ্রেণির নেতৃত্বাধীন বিপ্লবী রাষ্ট্র সামাজিক বিনিয়োগ করে ভারী শিল্প ও পরকাঠামো এবং শিক্ষা স্বাস্থ্য খুব দ্রুত উন্নত করে ফেলতে পারে। বলা যায় বুনিয়াদী শিল্প শিক্ষা স্বাস্থ্য এবং গবেষণার মতো ক্ষেত্রে রাষ্ট্র চালিত সামাজিক বিনিয়োগ খুবই ফলদায়ক হয়। স্তালিনের নেতৃত্বে সোভিয়েত শিল্প ও শিল্প বলের ওপর নির্ভরশীল সামরিক ক্ষমতা জার্মানি ব্রিটেন ফ্রান্স-কে ছাপিয়ে যায়।

কিন্তু ১৯৫০-এর দশকে এসে প্রমান হয় যে ভারী শিল্প, পরিকাঠামো, শিক্ষা, স্বাস্থ্য ও গবেষণাতে এগিয়ে থাকলেও হাল্কা ও ভোগ্যপণ্য শিল্পে রাষ্ট্র পরিচালিত সামাজিক বিনিয়োগ ভাল ফল দিচ্ছেনা। উদ্ভাবনমূলক শিল্পেও কোনো ফল পাচ্ছেনা রাষ্ট্র চালিত সামাজিক বিনিয়োগ। মাও রাষ্ট্র চালিত সামাজিক উদ্যোগগুলোর আমলাতান্ত্রিক দুর্বলতার কথা তুলে ধরেন। এবং গণতান্ত্রিকভাবে পরিচালিত সামাজিক উদ্যোগ তৈরি করে হালকা ও ভোগ্যপণ্য শিল্পের বিকাশ ঘটানোর চেষ্টা করেন। কিন্তু সেই উদ্যোগ ব্যর্থ হয়। ১৯৮০-এর দশকে দেং বলেন ভারী শিল্প, পরিকাঠামো, শিক্ষা, স্বাস্থ্য ও গবেষণাতে এগিয়ে থাকলেও হাল্কা ও ভোগ্যপণ্য শিল্পে রাষ্ট্র পরিচালিত সামাজিক বিনিয়োগ থাক আর হাল্কা ভোগ্যপণ্যের শিল্পে ব্যক্তিমালিকানাধীন মুনাফা কেন্দ্রিক উদ্যোগ থাক। দেং-এর মডেল চীনের দ্রুত অগ্রগতি ঘটায়। কিন্তু ২০০৮ সালের পর থেকে চীনের কমিউনিস্ট পার্টি আশঙ্কিত হয়ে ওঠে এই জন্যে যে উদ্ভাবনমূলক উদ্যোগে চীন তখনো পিছিয়ে।

ব্যক্তির স্বপ্ন ও উদ্যোগ ছাড়া উদ্ভাবন প্রায় অসম্ভব। আবার উদ্ভাবনমূলক শিল্প মূলত তৈরি হয় মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রে আর সেখানে কোন সংস্থা উদ্ভাবনমূলক বিনিয়োগ করে সফল হবে তা নিয়ে ফাটকাবাজি (সংস্থার শেয়ার কেনাবেচা করা) করে মুনাফার আশায়। এর ফলে মার্কিন শেয়ার বাজারে বুদবুদ তৈরি হয় আর সেই বুদবুদ যখন ফাটে তখন অর্থনৈতিক সঙ্কট তৈরি হয়। তার চেয়েও বড় কথা এভাবে বারবার উদ্ভাবনমূলক ক্ষেত্রে বিনিয়োগ টানতে গেলে খুব শক্তিশালী মুদ্রা দরকার যা সেই দেশের শিল্পোতপাদনকে বিনিয়োগশূন্য করে দেয় আর সমস্ত বিনিয়োগ চলে যায় সম্পত্তি কেনাবেচার ব্যবসাতে। তাই মুনাফা কেন্দ্রিক উদ্ভাবন ব্যবস্থা চীনের পছন্দ নয়।

তখন চীনের কমিউনিস্ট পার্টি স্মরণাপন্ন হয় বাংলাদেশের বিখ্যাত নোবেল পুরস্কার প্রাপ্ত মহম্মদ ইউনূস-এর। ইউনূস বলেন যে একজন ব্যক্তি সামাজিক উদ্যোগ গ্রহণ করবেন যদি সেই উদ্যোগ থেকে সমাজ লাভবান হয় এবং সমাজের বহু মানুষের আনন্দ সামাজিক বিনিয়োগকারীকেও আনন্দ দেয়। অর্থাৎ একজন ব্যক্তি মুনাফাকে মূল লক্ষ্য না করে সমাজের ভালো করে যে আনন্দ সেই আনন্দকেও লক্ষ্য করে সামাজিক বিনিয়োগ ঘটাতে পারে। অর্থাৎ মার্ক্স লেনিন যেখানে সামাজিক বিনিয়োগের জন্যে কেবল রাষ্ট্রের স্মরণাপন্ন হওয়ার কথা ভেবেছিল সেখানে ইউনূস ব্যক্তির মধ্যেই সামাজিক বিনিয়োগের উৎস খুঁজে বের করেন। ইউনূসের সামাজিক উদ্যোগ ব্যবহার করে বহু দেশ রাষ্ট্রকে ছাড়াই দারিদ্র্য দূর করতে সক্ষম হয়। পশ্চীমি দুনিয়া বারবার ইউনূসের সামাজিক উদ্যোগকে যেখানে দারিদ্র্য দূরীকরণের উপায় হিসেবে কেবল দেখে, চীন সেখানে ইউনূসের তত্ত্ব ব্যবহার করে উদ্ভাবনী ক্ষেত্রকে বিকাশ করার কথা ভাবোতে লাগল।

চীন দেখল সমাজের আনন্দ বা অগ্রগতি যদি ব্যক্তি আনন্দের উৎস হয় তবে ব্যক্তি সামাজিক উদ্যোগ গ্রহণ করতে পারে। তাহলে উদ্ভাবনী ক্ষেত্রে বিকাশ ঘটিয়ে দেশকে এগিয়ে নিয়ে যাওয়া এবং মার্কিন অবরোধকে পরাজিত করাও ব্যক্তি আনন্দের উৎস হতে পারে। আবার ব্যক্তি উদ্ভাবনী স্বপ্নকে ফলপ্রসূ করতেও মুনাফাকে প্রধান লক্ষ্য না রেখে বিনিয়োগ করতে পারে। এইভাবে ইউনূসের সামাজিক উদ্যোগ-কে নিজেদের উদ্ভাবনী ক্ষেত্র বকাশে কাজে লাগাতে থাকে চীন। চীনের বিভিন্ন শহরের পুরসভাগুলো বিপুলভাবে বিনিয়োগ করতে থাকে এমন সব ব্যক্তি মালিকানাধীন সামাজিক উদ্যোগে যেখানে উদ্ভাবন করাটাই মূল লক্ষ্য, মুনাফা গৌণ। ডিপসিক-এর প্রতিষ্ঠাতা লিয়াং ওয়েংফেং বলেছেন তাদের মূল লক্ষ্য উদ্ভাবনের ব্যবহারমূল্য, মুনাফা বা বিনিময়মূল্য তাদের কাছে গৌণ। আর এই জন্যেই ডিপসিক-কে পুরোপুরি বিনামূল্যে ছাড়া হয়েছে বাজারে। এর আগে চীন কোভিড ভ্যাক্সিনও বিনামূল্যে বাজারে আনে কিন্তু সেই ভ্যাক্সিন উভাবক ছিল রাষ্ট্র (মনে রাখা দরকার স্বাস্থ্য ও গবেষণায় রাষ্ট্র চালিত সামাজিক বিনিয়োগ যথেষ্ট ফলদায়ক)। কিন্তু ডিপসিক-এর উদ্ভাবক ব্যক্তি হওয়া সত্তেও সামাজিক উদ্যোগ নিয়েছে। এছাড়াও মার্কিন উদ্ভাবনী ক্ষেত্র মুনাফাকেন্দ্রিক হওয়ায় প্রচুর বিনিয়োগ টেনে আনাকেই লক্ষ্য ভাবে এবং এইভাবে উদ্ভাবনের খরচ অনেক বাড়িয়ে তোলে। চীনা উদ্ভাবনী মডেল সামাজিক হওয়ায় উদ্ভাবনের উপযোগিতা বা ব্যবহার মূল্যের ওপর জোড় দেয় এবং বিনিয়োগ বৃদ্ধি বা খরচ বৃদ্ধি কম হয়। তাই ডিপসিক তৈরি করতে খরচ হয়েছে চ্যাট-জিপিটি-র এক তিরিশাংশ।

চীনের মডেল এখনো পর্যন্ত এরকমঃ

ভারী বুনিয়াদী পরিকাঠামো শিল্প ও পরিষেবাঃ রাষ্ট্রীয় ও সামাজিক

শিক্ষা স্বাস্থ্য গবেষণাঃ রাষ্ট্রীয় ও সামাজিক

হাল্কা ভোগ্যপণ্য শিল্প ও পরিষেবাঃ ব্যক্তিমালিকানা ও মুনাফাকেন্দ্রিক

উদ্ভাবনমূলক শিল্প ও পরিষেবাঃ ব্যক্তিমালিকানাধিন ও সামাজিক

সামাজিক = ব্যবহারমূল্য বা উপযোগিতা মাথায় রেখে উৎপাদন

মুনাফাকেন্দ্রিক = বিনিময়মূল্য বা মুনাফা মাথায় রেখে উৎপাদন

An Important Reference: https://beamstart.com/news/global-entrepreneurship-competition-hicool-2025?fbclid=IwY2xjawIsHt9leHRuA2FlbQEwAGFkaWQBqxnAChyT_gEdoPu_qatUrzVwouUuuAuTv5eHJzDvaC40k5iDCZwk9Xp7vHws6J3Y_wO0_aem_5ScT_u79zJvydJ2ysLMjYA

We will explain here some concepts of Marx like capital, capitalist society and over production crisis. Then we will look at the critics against those concepts and counter arguments to those critics too.

Marx proposed that capitalist class and its profit maximizing motivation control the capitalist society. Capital is defined as money used with the intention of making more money (whether the intention is realized or not does not matter). And when capital controls a society the society is called capitalist society.

(Capitalists can gain profits from looting, trading and producing. In case of production capital, the capitalists buy labour power from the workers at fixed wages and make them work with machines owned by themselves. The final products are owned by the capitalists who then sell them at maximum possible profit. In this article we will not deal with surplus value appropriation or theory of exploitation. We will deal it in a separate article in part-3. We will concentrate mainly on the theory of Over Production Crisis.)

Critic: In a society where production is done for maximizing profit, capitalist class may not have full control. This is because there are other important elements in any capitalist state e.g. military, bureaucracy,  judiciary, different interest groups of a society like workers, farmers, petty traders & producers (those who trade or produce for fulfilling needs), women, men, other genders, religious/ racial/ national institutions, etc. They will bargain for more money and power too. Capitalists cannot control the society as the mentioned social elements will compete against capitalists' complete control.

Counter to Critic: Profits of capitalists are the ultimate source of income of a capitalist society. So capitalist class will ultimately prevail over other social elements. Military, bureaucracy, judiciary have their income from state revenue and profits of capitalists are main source of state revenue. So these three powerful social elements cannot prevail over capital.

Power of genders vary with capital's requirement of production and reproduction. Religious/ racial/ national institutions are important in determining the power of genders, military, bureaucracy and judiciary. We will see later how capitalists' interests, interests of genders and religious/ racial/ national institutions can contradict each other. This is the least touched portion of Marx. We will explain it in details later in part-2.

But first let us explain how capitalists prevail over farmers, petty traders & producers and workers who earn independently.

Capitalists socialize production within market and within workplace.

Let us explain socialization of production within market. Before capitalists emerged, all individuals used to farm fields and make clothes simultaneously. But capitalists tend to socialize production within market when one individual began to concentrate in farming land and another individual concentrate in making clothes. Then the two individuals traded in the market. Both gain from this trade if one can do one job better than the other (absolute advantage) and even if one does both jobs better, the trade will benefit both as cost of production of the other individual will be less (comparative advantage).

Similarly, capitalists also socialize production within workplace. It means several factories making same product tend to merge together for reducing per unit cost of production. Socialization of production within workplace results in concentration of capital. Thus few big capitalists out compete numerous small capitalists in every sector of production. Socialization of workplace continue by forward and backward linkages as well.

(We will deal with socialization of production separately in part-4.)

So we can say that socialization of production within market convert need based life into money driven life as trade is beneficial and essential for daily necessities while socialization of production within workplace force numerous small capitalists, farmers,  petty traders and producers out of business and become force them to become workers.

Big capitalists use higher wages to attract workers from small capitalists, petty traders and producers. Thus as capital concentration grow, wages of workers tend to grow as well. So capitalists use automation in the production process to reduce demand for workers. As demand for workers fall, real wages (wages net of inflation) tend to fall as well.

So socialization production tend to increase the supply of workers while automation tend to reduce the demand for workers. As a result real wages will fail to grow at the rate of growth of real profit. So few big capitalists will earn a lot of profits while the majority of society i.e. workers will not earn as much. Since profits are money only to be used for making more money by capitalists, we can say that rise in profits mean rise in supply capacity of the society. Similarly, workers use wages mostly for consumption and so less growth of wages mean less rise in demand capacity of the society. This leads to supply greater than demand. We call it over production crisis or over supply crisis. Since huge amount of supply of products cannot be sold profitably, capitalists reduce the production resulting in more outlay of workers and hence even lower real wages and hence even lower demand. The cycle continues and it ultimately results in massive unemployment among workers with low real wages and capitalists end up with huge money nowhere to invest profitably. Marx assumed that such a hopeless condition will force workers to revolt against capitalists. Workers have to seize the control of the workplaces by degree according to various conditions of different countries and time-period. Marx further thought that workers will be investing the excess profits (that cannot be invested profitably due to lack of demand) non profitably.  This non profitable investments will grow as socialization of workplaces and automation will rise and ultimately a stage will be reached when all necessary but disliked activities will be automated and humans will do voluntary activities only. This ultimate stage is called communist society while the journey from revolt against capitalists to communism is called socialist transition stage.

Critic 1: Joseph Schumpeter pointed out that entrepreneurs come to market with new products, production processes, managements, markets. Thus entrepreneurs keep creating new areas for profitable investment. New products, markets tend to raise the demand for workers and hence tend to raise real wages too. This continuously act as a counter weight to over production crisis.

Counter to Critic 1: As a capitalist country develops. more and more industries are there to be automated and new industries play a marginal role. While during the initial years of capital accumulation, less industries are there for automation and new industries have more prominent role. Hence we can say that as a capitalist country develops the impact of automation begins to outweigh the impact of new industries. Thus tendency for over production crisis rises. But new industries indeed helps to lower the intensity of over production crisis.

Critic 2: Lenin pointed out that capital's development is not equal across the globe. Today North America, Europe, East Asia are industrialized to a great extent, but most of Latin America, Africa and most of Asia remain under developed. In Lenin's time only US, UK, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, France and Japan were considered developed. Lenin said that Marx's analysis of over production assumed a closed developed economy or a completely developed world. Since in reality capital's development is not equal across the globe, excess profit in a developed country can be invested profitably in an undeveloped country where capital accumulation is low with no chance for over production.  In this way, capital can solve the over accumulation crisis in a world with unequal capital accumulation across countries. This process also helps a developed country's industries by having access to raw materials and cheaper wages of under developed countries which further increases the country's competitiveness in the global market. 

Lenin further said that different developed countries colonize less developed countries to export its excess capital and  raise its competitiveness. This leads to rivalry among developed countries for control of colonies which then lead to imperialist wars among developed capitalist countries. Lenin's theory explained the two world wars brilliantly.

Counter to Critic 2: The lower the development level of a country, lower will be its productivity and income and so lower will be its capacity to absorb investment. In fact, undeveloped countries never attract significant amount of capital from developed countries. On the contrary, more developed countries have more capacity to absorb investment. Capital flow between developed capitalist countries is always more than capital flow from developed to undeveloped countries. So export of capital from developed economies to undeveloped economies cannot solve the over accumulation crisis. But colonizing undeveloped countries to acquire competitiveness in global economy still holds true.

Critic 3: Global trade and investment are very important for every capitalist country. So is global currency associated with global trade and investment. A country's currency represents its production value, asset value and military might. Usually a dominant capitalist country rules the global capitalist economy using its production value, asset value and military might. So whenever the dominant capitalist country whose currency acts as global currency faces challenge from another country (may be capitalist, may be not) a global market disequilibrium is created. This is because the challenger initially gains upper hand in production value but its military might while is still lagging behind. This results in over production in the challenger country and the dominant country's currency continue to dominate the global economy. This create inflation in the dominant country. High inflation in dominant country pushes the asset price and production cost higher. This resulted in foreign exchange flight from other nations to the dominant country. Thus dominant country's currency value rises more making its production further uncompetitive while creating asset price bubble.  So unemployment from over production becomes the character of the challenger country, inflation with unemployment becomes common in rest of the world and weak economies face the extra problem of foreign exchange shortage. So these crises are more a result of the transition in the world geopolitical order. Two world wars happened mainly because British domination was challenged by Germany and then by USA and then by USSR and Japan. Today also we can see that China is becoming most dominant country in production while military might continues to rest with USA. So transition in world order is the main cause of economic crisis. Leninist theory of export of excess capital and Marxian theory of over production crisis may not that much vital..

Counter to Critic 3: This theory does not contradict with Marxian theory of over production. Instead it adds momentum to the over production theory. It shows while challenger capitalist country has to face over production crisis, dominant country has to face high inflation and asset price bubble resulting in less production and high consumption based on debt. Again when we compare 1900-1914 challenger country Germany and 1918-1929 challenger country USA with the present era challenger nation China, we find that while Germany and USA faced massive over production crisis, socialist China which has huge non profitable investment faces no over production crisis at all. So non profitable investment indeed reduces chance of over production crisis significantly. Moreover, when US led new geopolitical order was finalized replacing UK led one by 1944 (Brettonwoods Agreement), then most of the economic problems were solved.

Critic 4: Neo Classical economists claim that capital is a commodity with its own price known as interest rate. Supply of capital rise if interest rate is raised and demand for capital rise if interest rate is lowered. Similarly supply of capital fall if interest rate is lowered and demand for capital fall if interest rate is raised. So whenever there will be excess profits, supply of capital will be more than demand for capital and as result interest rate (price of capital) will fall resulting in rise in demand for investment. This will make many previously thought unimaginable investments  possible. Thus flexibility of interest rate will counter over production crisis.  

Counter to Critic 4: After 1929 Great Depression, John Maynard Keynes came with Liquidity Trap theory. The theory says that when interest rate is too low, asset price is too high (due to compound interest rate equation). Thus people anticipate share price fall in future resulting in capital loss. So they refuse to invest in capital market. Thus private investment dries up. This can be compensated by increasing government spending through fiscal deficit financing only. So Keynes indirectly accepts Marxian over production theory. Keynes was accepted soon by all capitalist countries and academia resulting in indirect victory of Marxian over production crisis.

It is further identified by economists like Hayek and Paul M. Sweezy that when interest rate is too low, risky ventures become less costly and this leads to asset price speculation which ultimately creates asset price bubble only to burst after a certain point of time. This burst only transforms over production crisis into financial crisis.

An important point is after the Great Depression of 1929, capitalist world accepted that Over Production crisis is indeed a system problem. Capitalist governments and academia try to solve it through expansionary fiscal policies and expansionary monetary policies. Expansionary fiscal policies mostly went to direct cash in hand to targeted segments of the society to riase consumption, appease the discontent masses and disunite the working class in the name of historically privileged section and historically downtrodden section. Thus came identity politics which put women working class against men working class, white working class against non white working class and so on. Expansionary monetary policies helped capitalist economies to create asset price bubble and raise consumption of working class by distributing debt through collateralizing the inflated assets. Thus emerged a new Financial Neo Liberal Capitalist society based on Identity Politics and debt led consumption. 

Conclusion: We can say that Marx was correct to notice the over production crisis in a capitalist economy. But there are counter tendencies like continuous development of new industries, capital flow from one country to another, interest rate flexibility, asset price speculation, finalization of a new geopolitical order and currency revaluation associated with it. Even non profitable investments by state was accepted by capitalist academia and governments. Thus we find different capitalist countries with different intensity of economic crisis. In Japan we find three decades of economic stagnation and in US we find a declining but steady growth rates over three decades. European Union has shown declining steady growth in first two decades but gradually became crisis ridden in the last decade. We can clearly identify that if a capitalist country has strong currency like US Dollar, then the country can generate continuous asset bubbles even after several bursts while maintaining low interest rate on average. But if the capitalist economy has weak currency like Yen then one single asset bubble and burst will lead the economy to continuous stagnation. European Union can be considered somewhat middle between the two extremes.

Khomenee Ehsan
সিরাজ সিকদারের লাল সন্ত্রাস কি? মগজহীন ছাপড়িরা প্রচার করছে শহীদ কমরেড সিরাজ সিকদার লাল সন্ত্রাস করেছেন। প্রশ্ন হলো, ৭২-৭৫ পর্যন্ত মুজিবের আওয়ামী ফ্যাসিবাদকে খতম করা কি লাল সন্ত্রাস ছিল? ভারতের দালাল খতম করা কি লাল সন্ত্রাস ছিল? আরেকটু কড়া করে বলি, পনের আগস্ট রাতে শেখ মুজিবকে অ্যারেস্ট করার সিদ্ধান্ত হলেও মুজিবকে দেখেই গুলিয়ে চালিয়ে দেওয়া মেজর নূর ছিলেন কমরেড সিরাজ সিকদারের দল সর্বহারা পার্টির সদস্য। তাহলে মুজিব হত্যাকে লাল সন্ত্রাস বলা হচ্ছে। মূলতঃ রাজনৈতিক বেকুবরা জানে না যে, সিরাজ সিকদারকে লাল সন্ত্রাস বললে ওদের চৌদ্দ গোষ্ঠীর লিগ্যাসিও থাকে না। ফেসবুক-ইউটিউব দেখে বিপ্লবী সাজা ছাপড়িরা বলুক তারা যে মেজর ডালিমকে নিয়ে এত মাতামাতি করছে সেই ডালিম পনের আগস্ট কয়টা গুলি ছুড়ছে? একদিকে ডালিমকে নিয়ে লাফাবা আরেক দিকে বাপেরও বাপ শহীদ সিরাজ সিকদারকে লাল সন্ত্রাসের জনক বলবা এই ফাজলামো কেন? শহীদ সিরাজ সিকদার বাংলাদেশের রাজনীতিতে সর্বোচ্চ উচ্চতায় প্রতিষ্ঠিত এক মহান বিপ্লবী। তার রাজনীতিতে সম্পৃক্ত লোকদের নাম বললে ছাপড়িদের অশিক্ষার দারিদ্র্য ছাড়া আর কিছুই প্রকাশিত হবে না। শুনে রাখো, শহীদ জিয়াউর রহমান নিজেও পূর্ববাংলা সর্বহারা পার্টির সঙ্গে সম্পৃক্ত ছিলেন। লেখক হুমায়ুন আহমেদ, মানে জাফর ইকবালের বড় ভাই হুমায়ুন সর্বহারা পার্টি করতেন। জামায়াত ও ছাত্রসংঘের লোকেরা একাত্তরের পর শহীদ সিরাজ সিকদারের পার্টিতে আশ্রয় পেয়েছে। শহীদ গোলাম আযম দেশে ফিরলে তার নিরাপত্তা দাতা যেসব লোক ছিলেন তারা সর্বহারা পার্টি থেকে জামায়াতে এসেছিলেন। এরমধ্যে একজন বর্তমান সরকারের এক উপদেষ্টার ভাগ্নি জামাই। আমি যেসব লেখলাম তা জানতে হলে রাজনৈতিক শরীফ হতে হয়। 

একাত্তরের পর বাংলাদেশে ভারতীয় সম্প্রসারণবাদ বিরোধী লড়াইয়ের নেতৃত্ব দিয়েছিলেন শহীদ কমরেড সিরাজ সিকদার। তিনি চীনপন্থী ছিলেন। তাকে সন্ত্রাসী বলে প্রচারণায় জড়িত বাম ও ডানপন্থীরা মূলতঃ ভারতের দালাল। এরা পরিকল্পিতভাবে ভারতীয় আধিপত্যবাদ বিরোধীদের নামে বদনাম ছড়ায়৷ এরমধ্যে চারদলীয় জোট সরকারের শত শত ভারত বিরোধী বিপ্লবী কমিউনিস্টকে ক্রসফায়ারের নামে হত্যা করা হয়। তাদেরকে হত্যার কারণেই দেশে প্রতিরোধের ভারসাম্য নষ্ট হয় ও লাগামহীন ফ্যাসিবাদের উত্থান ঘটে। শুনলে অবাক হবেন এসকল বিপ্লবী কমিউনিস্টরা ফিলিস্তিনি মুক্তি সংগ্রামে সম্পৃক্ত কমিউনিস্ট বিপ্লবীদের সঙ্গেও সম্পৃক্ত ছিল। একথা বললে অনেক ইতর ডানপন্থী পোলাপান বিস্মিত হবে৷ কিন্তু এবারের গাজা যুদ্ধেও বিপ্লবী কমিউনিস্টদের দল অংশগ্রহণ করেছে। কাজেই বাংলাদেশে ভারতের দালালি করতে শহীদ সিরাজ সিকদার ও শহীদ মোফাখখার চৌধুরীদের নামে অপবাদ ছড়াবেন না।

"Middle class or poor can become policy maker in Chinese Communist System if he or she has merit.

He or she has to pass gaokao (college entrance test) & guokao (civil service examination) to become policy maker. For passing the exams he or she needs merit.

He or she gets elected by common adult people in local elections. If his or her performance for several years is good (as par opinion of electorate & target set by higher authority) he or she will be elected by higher body ie city council members (common adult don't have right to vote here). If performance is good then next level ie provincial council, then central and so on.

In USA or India to meaningfully contest the elections you need of money to make common adult believe your fake promises. If you can't spend enough, you will be defeated by competitors. So either you have to be rich or you need the help of rich. Naturally only rich can become policy makers. Middle class and poor only have right to vote. Multi party democracy is a system rigged by the rich.

So Communist system is BEST."

১৯৬০ এর শেষে ও ১৯৭০ এর শেষে সমাজে ও অর্থনীতিতে প্রচুর পরিবর্তন এসেছে।

এক, পুঁজির বিশ্বায়ণ যা পুঁজির শ্রমিকের সাথে দর কষাকষি করার ক্ষমতা বাড়িয়ে দিয়েছে। কারণ পুঁজি অনায়াসে উচ্চ মজুরির দেশের থেকে নীম্ন মজুরির দেশে চলে যেতে পারে যদি শ্রমিক শ্রেণি মজুরি বাড়াতে বা ছুটি বাড়াতে আন্দোলন করে।

প্রথম বিশ্ব ও তৃতীয় বিশ্বের মধ্যে যে মজুরি পার্থক্য বিশাল বলেই পুঁজি এই সুযোগটা পাচ্ছে। তাই বলাই যায় এই মুহূর্তে যে কোন দেশের আভ্যন্তরীন শ্রেণী বৈষম্যের চেয়ে প্রথম বিশ্ব ও তৃতীয় বিশ্বের মধ্যেকার বৈষম্য বেশি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ।

তাই দেং স্পষ্ট ভাষায় বলে দেন আগে আন্তর্জাতিক বৈষম্য দূর করতে হবে, তবেই মজুরি পার্থক্য দূর হবে এবং পুঁজি আন্তর্জাতিক মজুরি বৈষম্যকে ব্যবহার করে নিজের দর কষাকষি করার ক্ষমতা বাড়াতে পারবেনা। শ্রমিকের উৎপাদনশীলতা যত বেশি হবে, মজুরি বাড়ানো তত সম্ভব হবে অর্থাৎ পুঁজির বিরুদ্ধে শ্রমিক শ্রেণির দর কষাকষির ক্ষমতা বাড়বে।

অতএব তৃতীয় বিশ্বের যে কোন কমিউনিস্তদের প্রথম কাজ নিজের দেশের শ্রমিকদের উৎপাদনশীলতা বাড়ানো এবং দেশের উৎপাদিকা শক্তিকে প্রথম বিশ্বের স্তরে নিয়ে যাওয়া।

চীন এই কাজটাই করে চলেছে শেষ ৪০ বছর। উৎপাদিকা শক্তিকে বাড়াতে প্রথম বিশ্বের উন্নত প্রযুক্তি, লিকুইডিটি ও বড় বাজার বুবহার করেছে এবং দেশের শ্রমিকদের উতাপাদনশীলতা বাড়িয়েছে এবং মজুরি বাড়িয়েছে ৫-৬ গুণ।

শেষ ১০ বছরে চীন দেশের আভ্যন্তরীন বৈষম্য দূর করতেও সচেষ্ট হয়েছে কারণ চীন অতি উৎপাদন স্তরে পৌছতে পেরেছে তার আগের ৩০ বছরে (১৯৭৮-২০০৭)। তাই আগে যে কোন তৃতীয় বিশ্বের দেশকে অতি উৎপাদন স্তরে পৌছতে হবে যার পরে কেবল দেশের আভ্যন্তরীন বৈষম্য দূর করতেও সচেষ্ট হতে পারবে।

এখন মোট উৎপাদনে চীন মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের প্রায় সমান। তাই তৃতীয় বিশ্বের খনিজ সম্পদ বিক্রেতা দেশগুলোর প্রথম বিশ্বের সাথে দর কষাকষির ক্ষমতা বেড়ে গেছে। কারন পশ্চীম বা জাপান ন্যয্য মূল্য, বাজা্‌ লিকুইডিটি, প্রযুক্তি দিতে অস্বীকার করলে চীন দেবে, চীন অস্বীকার করলে পশ্চীম বা জাপান দেবে। এর ফলে এই সমস্ত তৃতীয় বিশ্বের মজুরিও বেরেছে কোন কোন সেক্টরে।

অতএব সবার আগে লড়াই করতে হবে প্রথম বিশ্ব ও তৃতীয় বিশ্বের মধ্যে যে বৈষম্য আছে তার বিরুদ্ধে। এই বৈষম্য দূর হলেই কেবল দেশের আভ্যন্তরীন শ্রেণী দ্বন্দ্ব দূর করা সম্ভব হবে।

দুই, চীনের জন প্রতি উৎপাদন আর তার ওপর ভিত্ত করে থাকা মজুরি এখনো প্রথম বিশ্বের চেয়ে ১/৪। মানে চীনের শ্রমিকের উৎপাদনশীলতা আরও বাড়াতে হবে। তাহলে এই প্রক্রিয়া আরও বাড়বে।জনপ্রতি উৎপাদনশীলতা বাড়াতে সমাজতান্ত্রিক দৃষ্টিভঙ্গিতে উদ্ভাবন দরকার। তার জন্য সমাজতান্ত্রিক দৃষ্টিভঙ্গিতে উদ্ভাবনকারীকে অর্থায়ন করা দরকার। পুঁজিবাদী দৃষ্টিভঙ্গির হাজারে একজন সফল উদ্ভাবক-এর অনেক রোজগার হবে আর বাকি ৯৯৯ জন উদ্ভাবক শেষ হয়ে যাবে, এই ভুল পুঁজিবাদী অর্থায়ন থেকে বেড়িয়ে আসা দরকার। না হলে রিস্ক ফ্যক্টর বেড়ে যাবে উদ্ভাবকের আর তাই অনেকেই উদ্ভাবন করতে এগিয়ে আসবেনা। অন্যদিকে চীন নতুন সমাজতান্ত্রিক উদ্ভাবনের অর্থায়ন শুরু করেছে যেখানে ভাবা হয় যে রিস্ক নেওয়াটাকেই পুরস্কৃত করা দরকার। আর তাই একটা সফল উদ্ভাবনের রোজগারের অংশ অসফল উদ্ভাবকদেরও প্রাপ্য। এইভাবে সমাজতান্ত্রিক নতুন উদ্ভাবন অর্থায়ন মডেল এনেছে চীন যেখানে মানুষ উদ্ভাবন করতে উৎসাহিত হবে পুজিবাদী দেশের থেকে অনেক বেশি। শ্রমিক শ্রমিক শ্রেণীর মতো একটা নতুন সমাজতান্ত্রিক উদ্ভাবক শ্রেণীও তৈরি করতে হবে।

তিন, কমিউনিস্টরা নারীকে শ্রম বাজারে নিয়ে এসেছিল নারীর মুক্তি ঘটাতে। কিন্তু ১৯৬০-এর শেষের দিক থেকে উদারবাদীরা নারীর পুরুষের সাথে যৌনতায় দর কষাকষির জায়গায় করে দিয়ে নারীকে শোষিত থেকে শোষকে পরিণত করেছে। নারী সে কোন পোষাক পরে সকল পুরুষকে প্রলুব্ধ করতে পারবে কিন্তু নারী কেবল তার পছন্দসই পুরুষের সঙ্গেই সঙ্গম/প্রেম/বিয়ে করবে। এর ফলে কেবল উচ্চ শ্রেণীর ক্ষমতাবান রূপবান পুরুষই লাভবান হবে আর অধিকাংশ গড়পড়তা পুরুষ শোষিত হতে থাকবে নারীর হাতে। যৌন দর কষাকষি করে পুরুষকে শোষণ করার এক অভিনব ক্ষমতা নারীর হাতে তুলে দিয়ে নারীকে প্রতিক্রীয়াশিল অংশ বানিয়ে ফেলা হয়েছে।

এর সঙ্গে যুক্ত হচ্ছে স্বল্প জন্মহার সঙ্কট যার ফলে ভবিষ্যতে কর্মক্ষম বয়সের মানুষের সংখ্যা অনেক কমে যাবে। অতএব নারী প্রশ্নকে নতুনভাবে ভাবার সময় এসেছে।

সুতরাং তিনটে বিষয় কমিউনিস্টদের অন্তর্ভুক্ত করতে হবেঃ

১। আন্তর্জাতিক বৈষম্য দূরীকরণ দেশের আভ্যন্তরীন বৈষম্য দূর করার থেকে বেশি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ। শিল্পে অনুন্নত দেশকে আগে অতি উৎপাদন স্তরে পৌঁছতে হবে এবং তার পরেই কেবল আভ্যন্তরীন বৈষম্য দূর করার কথা ভাবতে পারে।

২। উদ্ভাবক শ্রেণীকে শ্রমিক শ্রেণীর সাথেই বিপ্লবী শ্রেণী বলে স্বীকার করতে হবে এবং উদ্ভাবনের সমাজতান্ত্রিক অর্থায়ন মডেল তৈরি করতে হবে।

৩। নারী যৌনতায় দর কষাকষিকে ব্যবহার করে নতুন শোষক শ্রেণীতে পরিণত হয়েছে এবং স্বল্প জন্মহার সঙ্কট নারী প্রসঙ্গে নতুন চিন্তার অবকাশ তৈরি করছে।

Watch out the video: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnHdqPBrtH8

USSR could not use scale of global market. It means USSR was mere 10% of global economy while USA was 35% of global economy and USA could trade with West Europe and Japan who made another 25% of global economy which USSR could not. USSR traded mainly with East Europe who make 5% of global economy. Third World have only raw materials and no technology to trade with.

USSR could not use individual entrepreneurship and so failed to commercialize the technologies invested by USSR scientists. USSR was number one in patent making from 1960 to 1985. In USSR technological demand mainly used to come from military and little from from production.

USSR shows central planning is best for Research and Inventions and market is best for commercializing those inventions. Thus USSR could easily compete with USA in technologies but not in production and the more USSR lost in production the more its competitive edge in technology is lost.

Low fertility rate (less than replacement rate of 2.1) since 1970s further weakened production base of USSR as it could not rely on rise in productivity and efficiency of workers which is considered exploitation due to flawed understanding of Marxism. USSR growth was dependent on growth of population and since 1970s this only growth factor was gone.

In 1970s, it seems USSR was winning mainly due to rise of anti colonial movements across the Third World and USA's non intervention approach due to Kissinger's decolonisation policy after loss of Vietnam War. Also high inflation in global market made USSR economic condition look good and its non integration to global economy was given credit.

In 1970s, USSR economy looked in good shape due to high oil price. Many of USSR problems were neglected in 1970s due to the fact that oil exports was leading to huge foreign exchange gains. In fact, this high oil price further weakened production base of USSR.

In 1980s when oil price went down, USSR understood its production base was gone. Population growth has stopped and so production growth has to rely on productivity gains only. So reforms had to start which was looked down upon as anti Marxist again due to lawed understanding of Marxism.

Global market in 1980s is facing low inflation rate due to lower oil price and becaue of integration of huge Chinese productive cheap labor force into the global economy.

It is said that Marxists are masters of using rivalry among capitalists for their own gains. Lenin used German vs British to form USSR. Stalin used American British rivalry with German Japanese to make USSR a super power. But Breznev failed to use the capitalist rivalry between UK based computer maker ICL and US based counterpart IBM. Gorbachev failed to use Japanese offer for help to counter US competitors. Toshiba, the Japanese chip maker tried to help USSR chip making but Gorbachev failed to use the offer. In fact, Toshiba was punished severely by US government for offering help to USSR.

As productive forces keep growing, more of involuntary yet necessary activities will be automated and so people will be left with more room for voluntary activities.

So as more room provided for voluntary activities, mankind will march towards communism.

In every stage of history, a specific class relation is formed in which some people (ruling class/men/specific race or nationalities) have more room for voluntary activities while others people have less (ruled class/women/specific race or nationalities).

In slavery, this ratio is most skewed while in feudalism the ratio is less skewed than slavery and in capitalism it is even less.

In socialism this gap will keep falling to null. remember, productive forces grow and so mankind moves towards communism.

The class struggle, gender struggle, national struggle all happen as productive forces growth tend to give more room for voluntary activities to people who don't have it previously while people who have it tend to counter it.

As productive forces keep growing, more of involuntary yet necessary activities will be automated and so people will be left with more room for voluntary activities.

So as more room provided for voluntary activities, mankind will march towards communism.

In every stage of history, a specific class relation is formed in which some people (ruling class/men/specific race or nationalities) have more room for voluntary activities while others people have less (ruled class/women/specific race or nationalities).

In slavery, this ratio is most skewed while in feudalism the ratio is less skewed than slavery and in capitalism it is even less.

In socialism this gap will keep falling to null. remember, productive forces grow and so mankind moves towards communism.

The class struggle, gender struggle, national struggle all happen as productive forces growth tend to give more room for voluntary activities to people who don't have it previously while people who have it tend to counter it.

As productive forces keep growing, more of involuntary yet necessary activities will be a

As productive forces keep growing, more of involuntary yet necessary activities will be automated and so people will be left with more room for voluntary activities.

So as more room provided for voluntary activities, mankind will march towards communism.

In every stage of history, a specific class relation is formed in which some people (ruling class/men/specific race or nationalities) have more room for voluntary activities while others people have less (ruled class/women/specific race or nationalities).

In slavery, this ratio is most skewed while in feudalism the ratio is less skewed than slavery and in capitalism it is even less.

In socialism this gap will keep falling to null. remember, productive forces grow and so mankind moves towards communism.

The class struggle, gender struggle, national struggle all happen as productive forces growth tend to give more room for voluntary activities to people who don't have it previously while people who have it tend to counter it.

utomated and so people will be left with more room for voluntary activities.

So as more room provided for voluntary activities, mankind will march towards communism.

In every stage of history, a specific class relation is formed in which some people (ruling class/men/specific race or nationalities) have more room for voluntary activities while others people have less (ruled class/women/specific race or nationalities).

In slavery, this ratio is most skewed while in feudalism the ratio is less skewed than slavery and in capitalism it is even less.

In socialism this gap will keep falling to null. remember, productive forces grow and so mankind moves towards communism.

The class struggle, gender struggle, national struggle all happen as productive forces growth tend to give more room for voluntary activities to people who don't have it previously while people who have it tend to counter it.

As productive forces keep growing, more of involuntary yet necessary activities will be automated and so people will be left with more room for voluntary activities.

So as more room provided for voluntary activities, mankind will march towards communism.

In every stage of history, a specific class relation is formed in which some people (ruling class/men/specific race or nationalities) have more room for voluntary activities while others people have less (ruled class/women/specific race or nationalities).

In slavery, this ratio is most skewed while in feudalism the ratio is less skewed than slavery and in capitalism it is even less.

In socialism this gap will keep falling to null. remember, productive forces grow and so mankind moves towards communism.

The class struggle, gender struggle, national struggle all happen as productive forces growth tend to give more room for voluntary activities to people who don't have it previously while people who have it tend to counter it.