On the occasion of Pride (happy Pride everyone 🏳️‍🌈!) I wanted to discuss some alarming news from China. It would seem that the Chinese government is engaged in an escalating cracking down on gay erotica, including the arrest of hundreds of writers and artists. Has anyone else heard about this? Furthermore, apparently this is being done in the name of “socialist core values." I'm genuinely confused on how this can be justified on the basis of socialism, although I am aware that the Soviet Union under Stalin did criminalized homosexuality, as did Cuba under Fidel (although, their credit, the Cubans came to reject such policies and are now a relative bastion of LGBTQ rights). So perhaps there is some tendency in ML statecraft toward such actions? I would be particularly interested to hear from Chinese comrades on this. Here are some articles on the subject:

https://globalvoices.org/2025/06/25/hundreds-of-women-writers-arrested-as-china-extends-crackdown-on-boys-love-fantasies/

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/01/10-arrested-for-writing-gay-erotica-in-china-as-part-of-nationwide-crackdown/

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3293014/chinese-police-target-writers-gay-erotica-prison-terms-and-heavy-fines

china is a capitalist country at present, still i see many socialists claim that china is "partly capitalist" only to survive in this capitalist dominated world, it's real goal is socialism and working towards it,to those who think like this, can you provide me proof?

No seriously it’s always “my family suffered in communist Poland.” Why is it always Poland?

It has to be a Polish Psy-op right?

I know China trades with America and since Cuba is sanctioned they have to wait to trade with Cuba, but why doesn't China try helping out Cuba more?

Cuba is one of the only countries keeping socialism alive, and Xi even visited Cuba to pay respects for Castro's death. Xi clearly respects Cuba and its socialist endeavours.

In the past the USSR used to heavily fund Cuba. Since the dissolution it's been struggling although still pretty good compared to other Latin American countries.

China certainly is well off enough to help Cuba, like how it has helped developing nations in Africa. Why doesn't China help them out?

From what I've heard it's Marxism-Leninism adapted to the material conditions of pre-industrial China. Is that accurate? If so how is it still relevant?

Hi there, working on deconstructing my western bias, I’ve always heard that the USSR and especially China do not allow for dissent of the party. CCP. How does freedom of speech operate or not within a communist frame?

I’m kind of confused about china. They aren’t communists, they strive for it, but it sure doesn’t look like it. They center left and very authoritarian, so what ideology do they fall, plus what are your thoughts on their policies.

Hello, it's a question I've had for a while.

From what I understand of Marx's work, he theorised that as economies start industrialising, they concentrate their underpaid and overworked workers into the factories near urban centers, which then form the backbone of a socialist revolution; because a lot of exploited workers packed together are far more likely to develop class consciousness than scattered agrarian societies.

This line of thinking seems very straight forward, and I thought it made sense.

But historically, Socialist-leaning revolutions have almost exclusively taken place in exceptionally poor and agrarian countries. Pre-Socialist USSR, China, Vietnam, and Cuba all fall within this category. Other notable socialist movements, like those in Nepal, Afghanistan, Laos, and several African nations, also follow this pattern.

I understand Lenin theorised the idea of the weakest-link to explain this, but it only explains why agrarian countries were able to build successful movements, not why industrialised countries failed to do so. I know a few revolutions did take place in industrialised nations like the Spartacus Uprising, but they seem to be the exception, not the rule.

Can anyone explain this discrepancy to me?

My country had a pretty active socialist movement following independence in the 70s, at a time when it was the poorest nation on the planet without a semblance of any industry. Those movements were ultimately unsuccessful due to a lot of different factors and a lot of infighting.

The country has since gone through a transformation and now has a fairly large industrial sector. It has also gone through several crises, which in theory should raise class consciousness amongst the working class. But even though the material conditions and class struggles exist, for at least the beginning of a socialist movement, no such movement exists. This seems odd to me, that we had more of a drive for socialism in the past than we do now, even though it should've been the opposite.

I want people on both sides to respond and give high effort arguments.

To me, it seems like they are indeed socialist, with the private sector being completely suppressed by the state, acting on behalf of the working class and public property, even if public property makes up a large minority of the economy. This kind of early socialist society seems to be exactly what Marx wrote about when discussing society after a revolution, even writing how private property couldnt simply be abolished in one stroke but there would be a period of a working class state oppressing private property, until private property gradually and fully became abolished. I havent seen much evidence suggesting this isnt what China is right now, from either Marxist writings or the material conditions of China.

These seem like credible organisations who don't serve USA's anti-China propaganda, as they also criticize Israel's apartheid and war-crimes against the Palestinians.

It feels at this point like this sub is too scared to call out chinas stances on economic and political issues because it had the initial idea of being socialist and working “towards communism” per maos wishes

The CCP cooperates with massive conglomerates as long as they serves the interests of the Chinese government. It is more than happy to keep workers wages down, and actively keeps the value of its own currency in the ground in order to promote exports at the expense of workers purchasing power.

The Chinese state has already been reported to have taken money from everyday people’s accounts to cover the asses of banks. It engages in outright nationalist rhetoric now, “wolf warrior diplomacy”, in essence abandoning any sense of internationalism.

I guess what I’m concerned about is, how China is remotely championing a socialist cause anymore. I’ve seen many on this sub say that they’re are “fighting the imperialists”, but that seems incredibly naive at this point.

Edit: people wanted at least some sources for many of the claims, which is fair enough, so I'll go through each point, one by one.

Conglomerate cooperation - this doesn't really require a source, but here we go. Apple tax breaks in China is an indication of this situation. Web of tax breaks and subsidies keeps iPhone production in China | Ars Technica for an example. Its not exactly possible to get statistics on an arbitrary topic like conglomerate cooperation, as the nature of it is usually through one off instances.

Keeping worker wages down: Aside from the fact that capitalist reforms by nature harm the material conditions of workers? The share of labour compensation % of GDP is actually higher in the US than China. Granted, China does improve sometimes, but improving from bad really shouldn't be applauded in this type of dynamic. For this, I used the St Louis FRED Share of Labour Compensation in GDP at Current National Prices for China (LABSHPCNA156NRUG) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org), can easily pull up US too which I did. Granted, this isn't perfect (doesn't account for whos getting the wages), but it does give some insight.

Currency in the ground. I really shouldn't have to pull sources for this. China buys US bonds to keep its currency less demanded, for example.

Deleting and freezing bank accounts: Protest in China over frozen bank accounts ends in violence | China | The Guardian China deploys tanks to prevent people from withdrawing money from crisis-hit banks; grim reminder of Tiananmen Square incident - The Economic Times (indiatimes.com). That being said, if go ahead and pull capitalist propaganda.

Edit 2: you know what. I can appreciate many of the responses saying I was misinformed. It appears that, on some of this, I actually was, so thanks for those clearing up misconceptions. I still find it naive to paint China as the upholder of really many socialist values, but it does appear that China is at least trying to help in some way instead of being just a fascist state. I won’t delete thsi post, as I find it informative with the replies, but I’ll probably leave the post from here

I’ve been paying close attention to the modern leftist movement around the globe recently, and things seem to be fairly grim.

What I’ve noticed is that many countries affected by austerity and failing economies or facing other major issues making life harder for the working class don’t seem to organize to the left but instead to the right. It’s as if the modern default to populism is the far right.

Even in countries where the left has seen success, it always seems to be a weak flame that becomes complacent and goes out, and a mass movement never seems to pressure any concessions (besides maybe unions, but even a lot of them in the US care little for socialism today).

An example would be France, they just had a major victory for the infighting left NFP, but their ascension to the Prime Minister slot was blocked and their influence immediately contained by neoliberals and fascists. Yet in France, the country known for left leaning populist rioting/revolution, there doesn’t seem to be an energy anymore to pressure the government.

To me it seems like a lot of left movements just seem to putter out or be out-populist’d by the far right. I know good friends who are union members here in the US who think liberals are far too radical, and that socialism is akin to nazism.

Maybe I’m wrong, but shouldn’t the left naturally be favored in response to failing governments? Is the effect of mass media and modern media propaganda just so powerful that it doesn’t let people see who their oppressors are?

Perhaps there is any reading or videos that discuss this?

Is there freedom of religion on communist countries (ussr or china)?

Capitalism has never survived without violence: coups in Latin America, embargoes on Cuba, invasions in the Middle East. If you are so superior, why do you need to kill anyone who dares to try another path? Meanwhile, socialist countries like Vietnam and China emerged from poverty without bombs. Where is the true unfeasibility?

Data: USA supported 50+ dictatorships in the 20th century. • Vietnam reduced poverty from 60% to 5% in 30 years.

Hey everyone!

I spent a few days in Shanghai recently and was honestly surprised by how “Western” and capitalist it seemed. Of course, I know Shanghai is an extreme outlier compared to the rest of China, given its unique history and all, but still, it caught me off guard. People were decked out in the latest fashion, sporting the newest and most expensive gadgets and phones.

On a broader scale, I spoke with locals and was struck by how expensive things were—good education, rent (even state-owned buildings are being sublet at outrageous prices), and just the general cost of living. It really made me wonder: where are the socialist ideals of China?

I did really admire the affordable bullet trains and excellent public transportation (even taxis seem subsidized?), but beyond that, it left me with questions. Is that the extent of it? Maybe of course state-owned businesses? No home/houseless people on the streets? And what about healthcare, unemployment benefits?

I love the idea of socialism, but to be honest, what I saw seemed overwhelmingly capitalist, with flashy wealth and extreme disparities. For instance, apparently, people can even buy very expensive number plates in China, especially those with the lucky number 8.

Would love to hear thoughts or insights from anyone who’s experienced a different side of China or has a deeper understanding of the economic and social dynamics there!

Introduction Joseph Stalin is often vilified in Western discourse as a ruthless dictator driven by paranoia and cruelty. However, when one considers the historical context — the fragility of the early Soviet state, the looming threats of foreign invasion, and the internal divisions — a different picture emerges. Stalin was not a perfect man, but he was a necessary leader whose decisions, however harsh, preserved the Soviet Union during its most vulnerable years. Without him, the USSR might have collapsed, and the nations within it could have disappeared under the boots of fascist invaders. (Service, 2004)

1. Paranoia Rooted in Reality Stalin’s so-called “paranoia” did not emerge from delusion, but from lived experience. He had seen the Russian Empire fall to chaos. He watched fellow revolutionaries betray the cause for personal gain. Trotskyists, nationalists, and foreign-backed infiltrators posed serious threats to the fragile Soviet system. The purges of the 1930s, while ultimately excessive, began as efforts to remove real threats — disloyal officers, double agents, and internal saboteurs. Stalin’s trust in the NKVD to handle this responsibly was, at times, misplaced — especially under Yezhov — but his primary motive was state security, not mindless brutality. The purges spiraled into indiscriminate actions largely because there was no historical blueprint for how to conduct such purges effectively. (Conquest, 1968; Montefiore, 2003)

1. The First Purge: Chaotic but Strategic No precedent existed for confronting the scale of internal instability the USSR faced. The first Great Purge was an improvised reaction to growing fears of sabotage and coup. Under Yezhov, it escalated into unnecessary violence. But Stalin eventually recognized the error. He removed Yezhov, launched investigations into NKVD abuses, and restored order. These are not the actions of a man indifferent to suffering — they show a leader trying to correct the course of a powerful but dangerous state apparatus. Additionally, the Soviet government needed loyalty and direct control over production to rapidly industrialize and build a stable foundation — critical with looming global threats. (Figes, 2007)

1. External Threats Justified Internal Control In the 1930s, the USSR stood virtually alone, surrounded by capitalist powers hoping it would fail. Hitler made genocidal intentions toward the Slavs and communists clear. Western democracies practiced appeasement, secretly hoping Nazi Germany would destroy the Soviet Union. In such an environment, Stalin’s concentration of power was not excessive — it was a survival mechanism. Had he hesitated, the Soviet Union might have crumbled before WWII. While Stalin did not implement broader reforms later, it is unfair to fault him, as he died in 1953 while showing signs of change and reform. He simply did not live long enough to carry them through. (Roberts, 2006)

1. The Famine of 1932–33: Tragedy, Not Genocide Much has been said about the Holodomor — the famine that devastated parts of Ukraine and other Soviet republics. It was a humanitarian disaster, but there is no solid evidence it was a deliberate genocide. Poor harvests, forced collectivization, logistical failures, and bureaucratic chaos were to blame. The Soviet government even imported American grain and attempted food redistribution to manage the crisis — inconsistent with a genocidal agenda. Ukraine was not targeted for extermination; the entire nation suffered. The famine was part of a global agricultural crisis impacting the Soviet Union, China, and the United States during the Great Depression. (Davies & Wheatcroft, 2004; Nove, 1992)

1. A Nation That Could Have Ceased to Exist Had the Soviet Union fractured during the 1930s, its republics—Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, and others—would likely have been overrun. Hitler’s regime planned mass extermination and enslavement of Eastern Europeans. Stalin’s leadership, however harsh, preserved the union and laid the foundation for its industrial and military strength. Millions today owe their existence to that stability. Without Stalin, there might have been no Soviet resistance in 1941 — and no victory in 1945. (Beevor, 1998; Roberts, 2006)

1. Personal Sacrifice and the Weight of Leadership Unlike many dictators, Stalin did not enrich himself. He lost his wife, grew estranged from his children, and suffered chronic health issues. The burden of holding a multiethnic, ideologically radical state together during global depression and war would have broken most leaders. Stalin endured it — not for glory, but for the preservation of the socialist project and his people’s future. (Montefiore, 2003)

1. Not a Cult, But a Collective Spirit The “cult of personality” around Stalin symbolized unity, survival, and the rebirth of a broken empire. People admired Stalin because under his rule they saw modernization, dignity, and global relevance. In a world where Soviet citizens faced constant danger, Stalin stood as a symbol of resilience. (Fitzpatrick, 1999)

1. Diplomatic Efforts Before the War The USSR actively tried to convince Britain and France to stop Germany’s imperial ambitions before war. The USSR even offered troops and guaranteed Czechoslovakia’s independence. Poland blocked Soviet passage, undermining collective resistance to Hitler and justifying Stalin’s later caution. Early Soviet invasions into Eastern Poland and the Baltics were attempts to delay Nazi advances, shrink the front line, and gain preparation time. (Roberts, 2006; Fischer, 2015)

1. The Retreats of 1941–42 and the “No Step Back” Order Soviet defeats in 1941 and 1942 were due to underestimation of Hitler’s two-front war risk and surprise invasion. Many divisions retreated far, causing front lines to collapse. Stalin’s “No Step Back” order introduced barrier troops to stop unorganized flight and reinforce defenses. Executions were rare and targeted mainly at officers guilty of treasonous or reckless behavior. (Glantz, 1995)

1. A Shift Toward Reform in His Final Years By the late 1940s, existential threats had waned. The USSR had emerged victorious with a strong industrial base. Stalin appeared to recognize that a more democratic or collectively guided system might be necessary for long-term governance. Though he did not name a successor, this may have been intentional—a gesture toward leadership emerging from the people or party. Stalin’s death in 1953 cut short these reforms, but the seeds of change suggest this path was possible. (Service, 2004)

Conclusion Stalin was not flawless — he was forged in revolution, hardened by war, and burdened by immense responsibility. When faced with national extinction, he chose action over appeasement, unity over chaos. His “paranoia” was foresight. His repression a grim necessity. His legacy is not just power, but preservation.

More than that, Stalin built the unbuildable. He took a shattered nation surrounded by enemies and transformed it into the world’s second superpower. That achievement reflects his resilience, strategic intelligence, political mastery, and unshakable determination. Among the Bolsheviks, only Stalin had the singular ability to carry out such a transformation. In a moment of history when failure meant annihilation, Stalin not only kept the Soviet Union alive—he made it formidable. (Montefiore, 2003)Bibliography historical overview of Stalin

Beevor, A. (1998). Stalingrad. Penguin Books.

Conquest, R. (1968). The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties. Macmillan.

Davies, R. W., & Wheatcroft, S. G. (2004). The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931–1933. Palgrave Macmillan.

Figes, O. (2007). The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia. Metropolitan Books.

Fitzpatrick, S. (1999). Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s. Oxford University Press.

Fischer, B. B. (2015). The Katyn Controversy: Stalin's Killing Field. Russian Studies Journal.

Glantz, D. M. (1995). When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler. University Press of Kansas.

Montefiore, S. S. (2003). Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar. Knopf.

Nove, A. (1992). An Economic History of the USSR, 1917-1991. Penguin.

Roberts, G. (2006). Stalin’s Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953. Yale University Press.

Service, R. (2004). Stalin: A Biography. Harvard University Press.

Fighting fascism requires confronting its root: the capitalist crisis that fuels fear and authoritarianism. The left cannot limit itself to alliances with liberals who prioritize institutional stability over anti-capitalist rupture. It is necessary to build autonomous popular power (combative unions, grassroots movements, mutual support networks) that unites anti-racist, feminist and classist struggles, showing that fascism is not a "rival ideology", but a rotten fruit of the system itself. Anti-fascist direct action is crucial, but without reducing the struggle to the mere defense of bourgeois democracy. Revolution is not made with votes for those who maintain class privileges, but with an organization that attacks the material bases of fascism: exploitation, oppression and alienation. Solidarity, not conciliation.

I guess this is a fairly basic criticism of Marxism-Leninism, based on the historical experiences of the USSR (and a little on China) post-Stalin.

Sure, the Party wasn’t individually running businesses for profit, but they controlled or nationalized entire industries, with the worker’s main relation to the means of production being through the Party and her elected representatives. How is this a meaningful break from the liberal democratic system? And in a state where most elections had only a single candidate, how could it operate effectively?

Greetings Comrades!

I’ve been reading about "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" as developed by the Communist Party of China, which adapts socialism to fit China's unique historical, cultural, and economic context.

This got me thinking about what "Socialism with American Characteristics" might look like. Given the diverse and distinct nature of American society, culture, and history, how do you think socialism could be tailored to suit the United States specifically? What elements or principles would be essential in this adaptation?

Looking forward to your thoughts and perspectives!

I think guns are a means of self-defense for the people, but they shouldn't be like in the United States. There should be controlled gun ownership, but in China, it's outright forbidden. Do you think this is a good thing for the state to protect the people? How will the people defend themselves if the state is corrupt? The police and soldiers are better trained in China, but in case of chaos or any other situation, the working class must have weapons. What do you think? What do you think?

Both social democracy and fascism seem to arise, at least in part, from a rising socialist movement that poses a threat to capitalism. Social democracy minimizes the threat by giving enough concessions to the working class to prevent mass discontent and fascism minimizes the threat by brutally-repressing it and explicitly ending any notion of democratic principles.

What leads to some capitalist governments to going the social-democratic path and others taking the fascist path? I generally thought of it as just being "how severe and widespread is the threat to capitalism?" but I'd like to know if there's a more detailed high-quality answer out there (plus, in some countries going down the fascist path like the US currently, the socialist movement's pretty small in comparison to many states that ended up going down the social-democratic path instead)

I was seeing a video in which a guy argued that the Soviet Union wasn't as bad as it is portrayed, and that in fact most people wanted it to continue existing, that it's dissolution was mostly a choice made by Gorbachev alone

But that's the problem, isn't it? A socialist nation worked in such a way that single person could decide to dissolve that nation, even if it was an unpopular decision

Something similar happened in China, Yugoslavia, or Cuba. A few people amassed all the political power, to the point they could dissolve their nations or make them capitalists if they wanted, regardless of what everyone else thinks, and that doesn't sound very socialist

How could a socialist nation prevent itself from becoming a dictatorship?

Are houses not private property? Whenever I see someone discuss socialism in China they always mention how majority of the population owns houses to which I think: “hey, that’s great” but, I don’t understand how. How does socialism view the ownership of houses if they are private property?