news

History shows that socialist welfare is less than relevant so long as the state is capable of being subverted and all that work is capable of being undone. Most 20th century socialist states met all those qualities that give Maoists the starry-eyed glimmer, yet those states don't exist anymore. To assume that China can achieve that "socialism in one country" label and become "Fortress Communism" is frankly chauvinistic conceit that ignores the lessons provided by 20th century AES. It's equally non-dialectical to pull one's hair at China's socioeconomic condition without considering that China doesn't need to outdo itself, just others in relativistic terms. When the rest of the world is in the shitter, it’s unrealistic to expect China to wholly avoid getting some mud splashed on it. Europe and North America's economic conditions are far more dire than anything looming on China's horizon, which bears reminding.

Another thing that people should understand is that even if China went FULL Soviet right now, its welfare state redistributionary policies would be weaker for the average chinese compared to current euro social democracies, than where the USSR's stood compared to its contemporary social democracies. This may seem counterintuitive given the development in China but even now after all this absurd growth China is still lagging the US or advanced European countries in GDP per capita (PPP or not, wealth or income or not) comfortably more than whatthe USSR and other AES were lagging their contemporaries in most of the cold war. China being at ~ 40-60% of the way there vs 60-80% or above for the USSR in PPP terms. People should understand that you cant magically get the left end of the income distribution in a middle income country to attain welfare outcomes of a high income socdems country’s middle class with redistribution policy. At some point the numbers do matter and not neoliberalism to say that they will get there even under a socialist government by YoY progress relative to the rate of the country's development. And still healthcare access, affordability and quality for the average Chinese person and is comfortably better than any remotely comparable country in income/wealth per capita.

Looking at it from another angle to understand where CPC's focus were regarding welfare, during the GFC China was like was only 48% urbanized (versus 65% today). Would China have been better off focusing on building out a nordic level safety net for the better part of the last 10-20 years? Did the neolib CPC not want better healthcare for the masses and instead for whatever reason diverted resources to corrupt and inefficient state-owned construction companies? Of course not, its obvious that urbanization and massive infastructure building would achieve (and achieved) much more bang for the buck regarding welfare outcomes given just how rural China still was than trying to build an advanced social safety net at like 6k GDP per capita. Urban disposable income was over three times rural levels in 2008. No amount of redistribution could ever give households more spending power and better welfare outcomes than focusing in turning rural workers into urban ones and upgrading infastructure in rural and urban areas alike. And again China’s 65% urbanization today is where Japan, the EU and South Korea were in 1962, 1973 and 1985, respectively. Still ways to go . The welfare outcome juice left in urbanization and investment and infasrtucture building is still where the most potential is for China. China diverted most of its capital to manufacturing and infrastructure rather than welfare programs over the last 10-15 years not because they didnt want better welfare outcomes for households for but because that was and is still the best way to achieve them. And no neither China nor any other country at a similar level of development had and has enough capital, money and labour to focus on both these redistributive approches at remotely to the same degree

So in making sense of Chinese "welfare" focus and policies ppl have to recognize that these bigger increases in income and welfare outcomes came by funding infrastructure and keeping shit cheap (forcufully price wise or with supply & productivity rump up). Per capita production expansion did more than focusing on social safety net redistribution at China’s development level. Welfare redistribution can ease some hardships but it won’t integrate poorer regions and lower classes of a billion people into productive economic activity and high standards of living and ultimately you cannot support consumption of what you don’t make. If the pie isn’t big enough splitting it creatively won’t fill everyone. The vast majority of the country that would most benefit from income and wealth transfers need transfers of production factors first, not transfers of consumption.

So right now China is engaging in extensive redistribution from the rich to the poor. That redistribution comes in the form of state owned financial system taking capital gains from growth to try to build those production factors in the places where most low income people are. All the infastructure China has been purring money to without end in EVERY province and all the production and manufacturing power and "oversupply" keeping goods and services cheap IS redistributionary welfare policy, a much more effective one for China's strengths and levels of development at this point with much higher multipliers. It is the reason the average Chinese has seen their welfare get better much more so than any worker in any developing country. Its one of the more pro-social redistributive-oriented economic regimes the world has seen. Its pre-distributional vs post-distributional welfare economics. Capex socialism