BEIJING: China issued its first national action plan to build a "strong education nation" by 2035, which it said would help coordinate its education development, improve efficiencies in innovation and build a "strong country". The plan, issued by the Communist Party's central committee and the State C
Marxism doesn’t see education as some abstract idea of ‘truth’ but as a tool shaped by material conditions. The question isn’t whether education is ‘true’ but who it serves. Does it serve the status quo, teaching workers to accept their place in the system. In socialism, education should aim to empower the working class and build a society free of exploitation.
Marxism encourages critical thinking, not blind allegiance. If education in any state doesn’t help people understand and challenge class oppression, it risks serving those in power instead of the people.
Who is the ruling class in the PRC? What should the Proletariat do in China?
In the PRC, the Communist Party leads the state, but Marxism tells us to go beyond labels and focus on material reality. The ruling class is defined by who holds and uses economic and political power. If the Party and state genuinely reduce exploitation, improve living conditions, and build socialism, they fulfill a proletarian role. But if they prioritize maintaining power or allow inequality to grow, they act as a ruling class.
For the proletariat in China, their actions depend on their material conditions. If the system serves their interests, they should work to strengthen and improve socialism. But if exploitation exists, workers must organize, critically engage with the Party, and demand reforms that align with Marxist principles of dismantling class oppression.
It’s difficult to fully understand the proletariat’s sentiment in a context where opinions may need to be hidden and opportunities for agency could be limited. This makes critical analysis even more important to ensure that socialism actually serves the people.
This isn’t an answer to my question, though. You’re just vaguely gesturing at an imagined issue without doing any of the “critical analysis” you claim is important.
If you’re genuinely a Marxist, you should be following the adage “no investigation, no right to speak,” because all you’re doing is signaling that this could be a problem without doing the materialist analysis to prove it.
If you’re not a Marxist, why are you trying to lecture Marxists on Marxism?
I’m not sure I understand the disconnect. I don’t see my discussions as being lecture. I’ve only thought to participate and hope I haven’t broken some taboo.
Your initial comment questioned how the PRC’s focus on education will look based on “entrenching compliance” as opposed to “liberating the working class.” This fundamentally presupposes that the PRC isn’t Socialist, yet without doing any legwork to bolster that claim. When pressed, you were even more vague, just saying we need to discuss it.
The PRC is Socialist, ergo educating the Working Class isn’t out of “compliance,” but because it is useful for the Working Class in steering the revolution that already gave the Working Class supremacy over Capital.
Tell me how that wasn’t frustrating & exhausting work 🎖️
The PRC being socialist would require that it aligns with the Marxist principles of worker control, class abolition, and revolutionary progress. Evidence suggests that the PRC’s actions often prioritize state control and compliance instead of working-class emancipation. We shouldn’t fall to beliefs, religion is the opiate of the masses after all
Why are you drawing a line between government ownership and central planning, and Proletarian Control? Government ownership and planning is the form of proletarian control, along with massively expanded worker protections and influence.
This is not analysis that you’re doing. You’re again being more vague, not explaining how government control is bad for Marxism or what “evidence” you have suggesting anything. As a consequence, your comments don’t genuinely offer any clarity, but ask more questions than they answer. Same with your vague assertion that “falling to beliefs” is “religion” when the only one making unbacked assertions here has been you.
What of Marx have you read? What do you think a Socialist economy looks like?
In Marxist theory, socialism isn’t just about government ownership or central planning, it’s about proletarian control. For a state to be socialist, the working class must actively manage production and society, rather than being ruled by a separate elite or bureaucracy acting “on their behalf.” State ownership can be a tool for socialism, but only if the state is democratically controlled by workers at all levels. Otherwise, it risks becoming state capitalism, managing production from above without true worker empowerment.
As for beliefs, Marx’s critique of religion as “the opiate of the masses” doesn’t dismiss ideas but warns against illusions that obscure material reality and class struggle. Critical analysis means questioning whether a state truly represents the working class or functions as a new ruling class. A socialist economy would feature collective ownership of the means of production and democratic planning to meet human needs. The key question is whether the PRC fulfills this vision of socialism or prioritizes state power over worker control.
As for the spammy demands for credentials or a reading list, Marxism doesn’t hinge on gatekeeping or appeals to authority. Marx emphasized praxis, to analyze material conditions and power structures. The “true Marxist” argument doesn’t address the substance: does the PRC align with Marxist principles of worker control, class abolition, and emancipation, or does it serve a centralized state elite? The answers requires evidence, not dismissive rhetoric or an insistence on orthodoxy.
I have a better question. What specific part of Chinese education do you believe is so problematic that it undermines socialism?
Because otherwise we are just blowing smoke clouds past each.