If that was true I feel you’d have a less warped view. But it is the internet and you are clearly driven by some vendetta.

Policy and ideology is generally more of an in person topic but there is still plenty of it online just not on platforms like 小红书 because they are specifically lifestyle or whatever else focusednand generally moderated to keep it that way, and even they have plenty of politics if you search the proper keywords.

You also clearly don’t know what socialism is which almost any Chinese person could explain even if not in great detail from school. Socialism is the transitionary period between capitalism and communism. It retains a lot of the contradictions of capitalism as they are worked through and overcome. This leads to people still working for a wage but with certain guarantees from the government as they ensure capital works for the public good as it is reigned in and collectivised over time.

All you’ve done is show you don’t really know anything about what you’re arrogantly preaching.

Come to China I can give you a tour you can talk to the actual people on the ground. You have less than 0 understanding of what you’re talking about.

Wow bot jacketing me instead of actually contending with anything I have to say. unfortunately not the first time.

Corruption is not caused by “power” in the abstract. It’s produced by class relations and ownership of production. Every class society has authority, the issue is which class controls it. That is until class society is abolished on a global scale, but that’s so far in the future acting like it’s the next step is infantile and ridiculous.

Saying “no system handles corruption better than another” is just blatantly false. Under the Communist Party of China, billionaires and senior officials are regularly investigated, removed, and jailed. In capitalist states, corruption is legalized and encouraged pointing this out isn’t exceptionalism I’m not sure you know what that word means. Is it exceptionalism to say that liberal democracy handles representation of the people better than feudalism? Obviously not that’s ridiculous.

I’ll give the same example again as you skipped over it to bot jacket me. Jack Ma was disciplined for pushing US-style financialization. In the United States, that same behavior is rewarded and institutionalized.

“Get rid of money” without explaining how you suppress bourgeois forces, organize production, and defend society during transition is not a program, it’s a slogan. Repeating this again from earlier: money like the state only withers away after classes are abolished far in the future.

Corruption is a known contradiction of the socialist transition period. It does not delegitimize the socialist project it simply proves continuous class struggle and anti-corruption campaigns are necessary hence their implementation in socialist states under communist parties.

Where you complain about “hierarchy” you’re just doing vague “human-nature” metaphysics. This is idealism and is about as reliable as scripture for analysis.

Look I don’t want to be mean (even if I find you to be unduly arrogant and condescending and I really don’t appreciate the bot jacketing), however these comments reek of Euro-American left liberalism. All vibes no dialectical or historical materialism or really any serious analysis at all.

You effectively do the “human nature” bit which is idealist metaphysics bullshit and you really seem to lack any understanding of any leftist theory.

You really should consider studying scientific socialism and deconstructing your liberal foundations. Vibes are not analysis and that’s all you have for now. If you want I can recommend you some books/articles that can help you but I have a feeling you disagree with my framing of you.

This line of thinking is idealist and deeply unserious “baby leftism”.

“Just remove leadership” and “get rid of money” is not a political program. It’s a slogan. Every class society has leadership and structures of power. The real question is which class controls them, and through what institutions.

Leadership is not automatically a separate class. Under socialism, leadership is supposed to be subordinated to proletarian power through party discipline, mass supervision, and state control over capital. Corruption is a contradiction of the socialist transition period, not proof that the entire project is invalid. Treating it that way is infantile.

Look at the CPC. They openly recognize corruption as a systemic danger and run continuous anti-corruption campaigns that jail and execute billionaires, senior officials, and generals. Compare that to liberal “democracies,” where corruption is legalized via lobbying and campaign finance and a blind eye being turned when those already blurred lines are crossed.

Take Jack Ma. When he tried to push aggressive financialization that would have subordinated productive industry to speculative capital, he was disciplined and his empire was reined in. In the United States, the same behavior is rewarded, normalized, and expanded. Finance capital literally writes policy.

In socialism, capital is constrained by the state; in capitalism, the state is owned by capital.

Saying “democracy is the only hope” without asking democracy for which class is pure liberal abstraction. Bourgeois democracy just rotates which capitalist is managing the country. It does not challenge capital itself.

And “remove humans from leadership”? That’s tech-utopian nonsense. Machines don’t resolve class contradictions. Only organized masses do.

Yes, money corrupts. Yes, corruption exists. Marxists already understand this. The answer isn’t abolishing government by decree, it’s proletarian state power, continuous class struggle, mass line, and strict control over capital during the transition to communism.

Reducing all this to “power corrupts, therefore everything is invalid” is not serious. It’s just nihilist bullshit.

They enforce their authority on others, by force when necessary they are “authoritarian”. Being accountable to their supporters in their areas doesn’t change that. Until their is a global overthrow of class society by necessity their will be power structures where one class has authority and another doesn’t. All governments/movements/classes that have been or are, are “authoritarian”.

This renders authoritarian a useless term for analysis and as such has relegated it to being used to paint groups/movements/governments as evil or immoral should they stand outside liberal sensibilities.

I understand what you’re saying it’s just not relevant.

What does this have to do with anything? None of this word salad even approaches the point we were talking about. The Zapatista movement is “authoritarian” just like every governing body that has been or is (who they serve is irrelevant to being or not being “authoritarian”). Authoritarian is a useless buzzword used mostly by liberals to smear movements and countries they don’t like.

So? They institutionally dominated the region kicking out the cartels, US and Mexican government. They are authoritarian just as every form of governance is. Who the “authoritarianism” affects is a separate question.

On Authority

Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means.

1040 weeks is still technically a number of weeks.

They enforce/enforced their authority often violently against the Mexican government, cartels, and the US.

Authoritarian is a useless buzzword for liberals to paint countries/movements they don’t like as immoral.

Have you never seen any depiction of Atlas?

That’s fair. You have to start somewhere.

Thank you. I am surprised to hear that even serious organisations are not running night classes or the like. I had heard groups such as the BPP would intensively study Chairman Mao’s 红宝书 as a group.

You’re very clearly a “baby leftist” from your few comments here so I really don’t want you to take this the wrong way. You really need to read some theory. Your heart is seemingly in the right place but that doesn’t mean much when you have yet to deconstruct your liberal foundations and actually come to understand the how and why of scientific socialism.

Cowbee’s reading list should give you a good start

Socialism is not an end point. It is the transitionary phase between capitalism and communism.

On Authority

Removed by mod

No capital isn’t a ghost with a name tag, it’s a material social relation: ownership of production, control of investment, wage labor, and the institutions built to defend them. That’s why elected officials who threaten profits immediately face capital flight, media attacks, legal sabotage, and economic strangulation, among other attacks, regardless of their intentions. You keep reducing structural power to personalities because liberalism can’t think past individuals.

Again I beg read Lenin and Chairman Mao, looks into what was done to Aellende Sankara and Lumumba. Until you understand that class power determines the state (not vibes and ballots) you’re just repeating liberal talking points and it’s not worth continuing this.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/suicide-rate-by-country

You are a loser. You really should stop talking about things you don’t know or understand.

You’re still doing the same shell game: redefining terms mid-argument, ignoring material institutions, then declaring victory.

You said “every attempt at communism results in elites stealing surplus labor.” That is a specific claim about class extraction. It is not the same thing as “inequality exists.” You keep pretending they’re interchangeable because your original statement collapses otherwise.

You wave away Cuba by saying “whoever controls the state owns the surplus.” That’s liberal abstraction. Cuban officials do not privately own factories, land, or finance. Surplus is overwhelmingly allocated socially (healthcare, education, housing, food subsidies) under permanent blockade. That is categorically different from capitalist ownership. Calling every state-administered surplus “elite theft” empties the concept of meaning.

You dismiss Yugoslavia even though workers’ councils directly controlled enterprises and surplus. That alone falsifies your “every attempt” claim. Your preferences don’t override historical structure.

On China under Mao Zedong, you claim redistribution was “just revolution, not communism.” No. Those mechanisms were implemented through socialist institutions: collectivization, mass-line governance, cadre supervision, campaigns explicitly aimed at suppressing bureaucratic privilege. When inequality later rose after political line changes, you treat that as proof against socialism instead of proof that outcomes depend on material conditions and leadership. You’re proving the materialist point while denying it.

You invoke the “nomenklatura” in the Soviet Union as if this is some revelation. Marxists have analyzed bureaucratic degeneration for over a century. Yes, a privileged stratum emerged under siege, devastation, and isolation. That does not automatically make them a property-owning bourgeoisie, nor does it validate your universal claim. Degeneration under pressure is not identical to surplus extraction as a ruling class.

Your rain-and-curtains analogy is embarrassing. Social systems aren’t weather. They operate under concrete historical forces. Treating imperialism, sanctions, invasion, and sabotage as background noise is textbook idealism.

Then you retreat into “communism vs socialism” hair-splitting to dodge counterexamples like the Paris Commune, where officials were recallable and paid worker wages, or early Soviet soviets and factory committees with income caps. These were explicit anti-elite mechanisms. They directly contradict your claim.

At this point the pattern is obvious: whenever concrete institutions don’t fit your thesis, you redefine “communism,” redefine “elite,” or redefine “surplus.” That isn’t analysis. It’s cope.

And your final pivot is telling: “no system works unless the world cooperates.” congratulations on discovering imperialism. Marxists begin with the reality of imperialism. You invoke it only to declare socialism impossible, while giving capitalism a pass despite it requiring global coercion just to function.

Now for the part where you really make yourself look ridiculous: you pretend you’re some “hard science” guy while dismissing historical and dialectical materialism. I have a bachelor’s, master’s, and PhD in STEM, alongside a master’s in Marxist theory. Socialist theory is not vibes or moral preference, it’s a systematic framework for analyzing class relations, production, surplus, and material conditions. You clearly don’t understand that method, yet you keep lecturing people who do. Liberal capitalism, by contrast, rests on idealist fairy tales about “human nature,” “markets,” and “incentives.”

At this point you’re either arguing in bad faith or you fundamentally don’t grasp basic political economy. Either way, this isn’t a serious exchange anymore. I’m done engaging with someone who substitutes semantic evasions and surface-level cynicism for material analysis.