51·
1 year agoPresident Xi Jinping launched the common prosperity drive in 2021 as an effort to reduce income inequality, which could threaten long-term economic growth and even the legitimacy of Communist Party rule.
They tell on themselves every single time.
-
Infinite growth is neither possible nor necessary for a prosperous society.
-
As a society reaches a sufficient level of prosperity, the need for the state to coerce its citizens by force becomes less necessary over time. Or in capitalist parlance, “this threatens the legitimacy of the state”. They can’t imagine a stateless society because they envision they will always need a monopoly on violence.
Sorry, but this
might beis a wall of text so: TL;DR possibly, but it will likely take several decades of disciplined party rule.The legitimacy of a state seems to derive itself in different ways. The U.S. for example, claiming to be a liberal democracy, derives its legitimacy from the beliefs of free press and fair elections (among other things). For this reason, it is very important to protect voting rights, demonstrate that the elections are fair, and give everyone a chance to share their views…or at least make it seem so, depending on your perspective.
China, claiming to be a society that is trying to achieve communism, derives its legitimacy from following the tenets of Marxist-Leninist theory (with Chinese characteristics). For this reason, it is very important for the CCP to provide common prosperity for all, and eliminate poverty entirely…or at least make it seem so, depending on your perspective.
So, one of the theories of communism is that as society becomes sufficiently prosperous, the citizens will no longer need to be coerced by the violence of the state to do what is right for the state. With the removal of the class structure, all of society can work toward common goals because the goals of the individual become the goals of society. The state will gradually wither away because its function will have been performed.
If one were to believe the CCP is acting honestly (which is a big ask on Lemmy), they claim to be trying to achieve a modern socialist state by 2049 that is “prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced and harmonious”. In my perspective, those conditions would then theoretically allow for the eventual withering of the state.
Now, if you wanted to analyze whether a government were truly acting toward their stated goals, you would start by seeing if their actions lead to those goals, right? We’re looking for positive evidence. So here’s the quote:
We see in the article that China has 1) launched a “common prosperity drive” to reduce inequality, and 2) the banks have implemented the policy and closed the income gap. This is perfectly in line with the goals of a communist state. It even shows banks being subservient to the will of the party. For me, this is one data point of evidence that the CCP is telling the truth about their plans. They are acting in line with their stated goals, and that path ends with the withering of the state - in theory.
I hope that answers your question, and the rest is just a side note.
Do you notice the analysis of the article that closing the income gap “could threaten long-term economic growth and even the legitimacy of Communist Party rule.”?
They are showing their whole ass. A true communist party would not value long term economic growth over common prosperity. And why would that question their legitimacy? If anything, closing the income gap at the expense of growth bolsters the legitimacy of the Communist Party.
The article is viewing China through a capitalist lens! A capitalist state values efficiency and infinite growth above all else. A state that values “income equality” and “common prosperity” IS questioning its own legitimacy! It should instead be acting more efficiently and funneling wealth to the top - equality be damned.
So why does the U.S., a liberal democracy, allow such press? It values free press! Free press gives the people information to make their own decisions, which they use to form political opinions. They use these opinions to vote, and the legitimacy of the state is upheld.
And that’s fine, right? Reuters has a capitalist lens, so it informs people from that perspective. It’s owned by a family of billionaires after all. But then, so are all the other mass media companies in America. All mass media has a capitalist perspective.
And who do you elect when all of your views are informed by capitalists? Anyone who will offer them as much growth as possible. And why is this a bad thing? Because the vast majority of Americans do not have the same relationship to the economy as capitalists do. They are in different classes.
The media structure of the state is not subservient to the state, but rather the opposite. So then which ideology is really running the show here?
The antagonisms between class interests will only heighten as wealth concetrates into fewer and fewer hands. Over time, more and more people will realize that the goals of their class are incompatible with the goals of the ruling class.
The CCP, for good or bad, likely sees this analysis as well. Liberal democracies allow for capitalist capture. They’ve apparently learned the lesson that media must be subservient to the state and that capitalism must be subservient to the state. The Great Firewall and the nationalization of industries reflect that.