I: What Defines Socialism
According to Marxist-Leninist theory, socialism is not a utopia but a transitional mode of production between capitalism and communism defined by public ownership of the commanding heights (and) of the economy (land, energy, heavy industry, finance, etc.), political power held by the proletariat, expressed through the dictatorship of the proletariat safeguarded and protected by People's Vanguard, planned orientation of the economy to serve social needs rather than private profit, and progressive gradual elimination of class divisions through redistribution, collectivization, and ideological transformation.
“Corporatism,” on the other hand, is a capitalist system of class collaboration mediated by the state to preserve private capital and the existing class hierarchy. The question, then, is not “Does China have markets?" (Markets are neutral and existed before Capitalism was even a Thought in someone's Mind) but who controls them and for what social purpose.
II. Class Character of State Power
1. The Party as the Political Expression of the Working Class. The Communist Party of China, led by the masses through local and national assemblies and the practice of the Maoist Mass-Line remains the vanguard party constitutionally and, practically, the core of state power and thereby of People’s Power. The People’s Congress System, the CPC leadership over the PLA, and the State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission SASAC ensure that the means of command in politics, ideology, economy and production remain in proletarian hands. Even under Deng's “reform and opening up,” private capital cannot override the strategic decisions of the Party. This, is the dialectical guarantee that socialism remains the dominant mode.
The conclusion is that class power in China is proletarian in form and content, not bourgeois. The asymptote of this conditional line is the completion of the socialist project: the withering away of all classes, and the destruction of the state itself.
III. Economic Structure: The Socialist Market Economy
The term itself is a dialectical synthesis of plan and market, of socialism and the Market. Precisely, it is not “state capitalism,” or “Corporatism,” for the following reasons:
1. Ownership Structure
State-owned enterprises control 80–90% of the key sectors, energy, transport, telecommunications, finance, land, etc., while private enterprises operate in non-strategic sectors, and are always completely subordinate to the Party, via party Committees, planning guidance, etc.
2. Planning and Control
The Five-Year Plans and long-term programs such as Made in China 2025, Dual Circulation etc. embody a planned market towards national-social development, entirely on the logic of Lenin’s NEP : the market is used as an instrumental tool in the interests of socialist development, not a process towards capitalist restoration. In other words, the presence of market elements, and the market economy itself is not an end goal but a dialectical tool.
IV. The Dialectic of Uneven Development
As both Lenin and Mao insisted, socialism does not develop in a straight line, it develops unevenly, forward-backward-forward and so on. China, thus, had to overcome the following challenges:
(1). Its early productive forces were underdeveloped, which required rapid development through partial marketization to move towards the higher stage.
(2). The CCP had to use capital for socialism, but it could not, under any circumstances, let socialism be hostage to capital.
(3). It had to change the productive class from agrarian petty producers to modernized socialized labourers.
Hence, “richer and poorer", "public and private", "urban and rural” are not actual proof of Corporatism in China, but rather of contradictions that were indeed inevitable early transition from Feudalism to Socialism, but those are Contradictions are gradually resolved, be it through redistribution, regulation, or ideological transformation, e.g., projects such as "common prosperity,” “dual circulation,” and “rural revitalization". The coexistence of socialist and market elements is but a reflection of the transitional mode of production, which they do not betray.
V. Corporatism vs. Socialist Planning:
Who Commands Whom?
Categories: Corporatism versus Socialist Market Conclusion From the above, we have the following conclusion: The two opposing paradigms are corporatism, which acts in service to the interests of private capital, and (Chinese) socialism, where the State commands capital on behalf of the Masses. The state embodies the interests of the people, who are their own rulers. Therefore, even though private capital exists, the direction of causality is reversed: In corporatism, the state serves and is administered by Private capital and Market Forces. In Chinese socialism, capital serves and is administered by the Socialist State and the Market Forces are subordinated to the Socialist State. Whereas Corporatism intends to harmonize Classes to bring Death upon the Class Struggle, Chinese Socialism continues Class Struggle. and at last, Corporatism is enslaved to global capital, Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is independent in their strategies (i.e. Multipolarity, BRI etc.). So, the superstructure ideologically complements the socialist base:
VII. Synthesis Dialectically:
1. Thesis: Planned socialism 1949-1978 built the foundation of collective ownership.
2. Antithesis: Market reforms 1978-2012 unleashed productive forces through controlled liberalization.
3. Synthesis: Xi-era socialism 2012-present restores socialist primacy through “common prosperity,” party supervision of capital, and ideological consolidation. Chinese socialism, based on this analysis, is self-correcting, not self-destructive. This result matches Marx’s original idea of the negation of the negation. Therefore, by Marxist-Leninist and dialectical standards:
The PRC is socialist, not corporatist, because (1) the proletarian-led vanguard CPC party commands the state; (2) the state commands the commanding heights of the economy; (3) the market is subordinated to planned socialist objectives; and (4) contradictions arising from marketization are recognized as transitional, not structural. The PRC’s use of market forms is a dialectical necessity, not a betrayal, just as Lenin’s NEP, or Mao’s “two-line struggle” did. It is the socialism of uneven development, moving historically toward the higher stage through material and ideological transformation.
According to Marxist-Leninist theory, socialism is not a utopia but a transitional mode of production between capitalism and communism defined by public ownership of the commanding heights (and) of the economy (land, energy, heavy industry, finance, etc.), political power held by the proletariat, expressed through the dictatorship of the proletariat safeguarded and protected by People's Vanguard, planned orientation of the economy to serve social needs rather than private profit, and progressive gradual elimination of class divisions through redistribution, collectivization, and ideological transformation.
“Corporatism,” on the other hand, is a capitalist system of class collaboration mediated by the state to preserve private capital and the existing class hierarchy. The question, then, is not “Does China have markets?" (Markets are neutral and existed before Capitalism was even a Thought in someone's Mind) but who controls them and for what social purpose.
II. Class Character of State Power
1. The Party as the Political Expression of the Working Class. The Communist Party of China, led by the masses through local and national assemblies and the practice of the Maoist Mass-Line remains the vanguard party constitutionally and, practically, the core of state power and thereby of People’s Power. The People’s Congress System, the CPC leadership over the PLA, and the State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission SASAC ensure that the means of command in politics, ideology, economy and production remain in proletarian hands. Even under Deng's “reform and opening up,” private capital cannot override the strategic decisions of the Party. This, is the dialectical guarantee that socialism remains the dominant mode.
The conclusion is that class power in China is proletarian in form and content, not bourgeois. The asymptote of this conditional line is the completion of the socialist project: the withering away of all classes, and the destruction of the state itself.
III. Economic Structure: The Socialist Market Economy
The term itself is a dialectical synthesis of plan and market, of socialism and the Market. Precisely, it is not “state capitalism,” or “Corporatism,” for the following reasons:
1. Ownership Structure
State-owned enterprises control 80–90% of the key sectors, energy, transport, telecommunications, finance, land, etc., while private enterprises operate in non-strategic sectors, and are always completely subordinate to the Party, via party Committees, planning guidance, etc.
2. Planning and Control
The Five-Year Plans and long-term programs such as Made in China 2025, Dual Circulation etc. embody a planned market towards national-social development, entirely on the logic of Lenin’s NEP : the market is used as an instrumental tool in the interests of socialist development, not a process towards capitalist restoration. In other words, the presence of market elements, and the market economy itself is not an end goal but a dialectical tool.
IV. The Dialectic of Uneven Development
As both Lenin and Mao insisted, socialism does not develop in a straight line, it develops unevenly, forward-backward-forward and so on. China, thus, had to overcome the following challenges:
(1). Its early productive forces were underdeveloped, which required rapid development through partial marketization to move towards the higher stage.
(2). The CCP had to use capital for socialism, but it could not, under any circumstances, let socialism be hostage to capital.
(3). It had to change the productive class from agrarian petty producers to modernized socialized labourers.
Hence, “richer and poorer", "public and private", "urban and rural” are not actual proof of Corporatism in China, but rather of contradictions that were indeed inevitable early transition from Feudalism to Socialism, but those are Contradictions are gradually resolved, be it through redistribution, regulation, or ideological transformation, e.g., projects such as "common prosperity,” “dual circulation,” and “rural revitalization". The coexistence of socialist and market elements is but a reflection of the transitional mode of production, which they do not betray.
V. Corporatism vs. Socialist Planning:
Who Commands Whom?
Categories: Corporatism versus Socialist Market Conclusion From the above, we have the following conclusion: The two opposing paradigms are corporatism, which acts in service to the interests of private capital, and (Chinese) socialism, where the State commands capital on behalf of the Masses. The state embodies the interests of the people, who are their own rulers. Therefore, even though private capital exists, the direction of causality is reversed: In corporatism, the state serves and is administered by Private capital and Market Forces. In Chinese socialism, capital serves and is administered by the Socialist State and the Market Forces are subordinated to the Socialist State. Whereas Corporatism intends to harmonize Classes to bring Death upon the Class Struggle, Chinese Socialism continues Class Struggle. and at last, Corporatism is enslaved to global capital, Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is independent in their strategies (i.e. Multipolarity, BRI etc.). So, the superstructure ideologically complements the socialist base:
VII. Synthesis Dialectically:
1. Thesis: Planned socialism 1949-1978 built the foundation of collective ownership.
2. Antithesis: Market reforms 1978-2012 unleashed productive forces through controlled liberalization.
3. Synthesis: Xi-era socialism 2012-present restores socialist primacy through “common prosperity,” party supervision of capital, and ideological consolidation. Chinese socialism, based on this analysis, is self-correcting, not self-destructive. This result matches Marx’s original idea of the negation of the negation. Therefore, by Marxist-Leninist and dialectical standards:
The PRC is socialist, not corporatist, because (1) the proletarian-led vanguard CPC party commands the state; (2) the state commands the commanding heights of the economy; (3) the market is subordinated to planned socialist objectives; and (4) contradictions arising from marketization are recognized as transitional, not structural. The PRC’s use of market forms is a dialectical necessity, not a betrayal, just as Lenin’s NEP, or Mao’s “two-line struggle” did. It is the socialism of uneven development, moving historically toward the higher stage through material and ideological transformation.
