top of page

Hong Kong Intelligence Report #42 A Distinction between Lenin's NEP & CCP's SOCIALIST Market Economy

Updated: Oct 31, 2023

Open-source intelligence (OSINT)

FILE PHOTO: Vladimir Lenin (L) and Deng Xiaoping (R) Images: Public Domain
FILE PHOTO: Vladimir Lenin (L) and Deng Xiaoping (R) Images: Public Domain


A patriot is one who respects the Chinese nation, sincerely supports the motherland's resumption of sovereignty over Hong Kong and wishes not to impair Hong Kong's prosperity and stability. Those who meet these requirements are patriots, whether they believe in capitalism or feudalism or even slavery. We don't demand that they be in favour of China's socialist system; we only ask them to love the motherland and Hong Kong. - Deng Xiaoping (1)

The bourgeoisie in the West is preparing its counter-blow in advance. The bourgeoisie more or less knows what elements it will have to depend upon and it builds its counter-revolutionary cadres in advance. We witness this in Germany; we witness this, even if not quite so distinctly, in France; and finally we see it in its most finished form in Italy, where in the wake of the uncompleted revolution there came the completed counter-revolution which employed not unsuccessfully some of the practices and methods of the revolution.
Whither is the NEP leading us: Toward capitalism or toward socialism? This is, of course, the central question. The market, the free trade in grain, competition, leases, concessions – what will be the upshot of all this? If you give the devil a finger, mightn’t it be necessary to give him next an arm and then a shoulder, and, in the end, the whole body, too?
If the country’s most important productive forces were to fall into the hands of private capital, then there could not naturally even be talk of socialist construction and the days of workers’ power would be numbered. [Today 4/5 of Chinese workers are employed by capitalists]
To put it differently, the ownership of various factories, railways and so on by diverse capitalists would be superseded by an ownership of the totality of enterprises, railways and so on by the very same bourgeois firm, called the state. In the same measure as the bourgeoisie retains political power, it will, as a whole, continue to exploit the proletariat through the medium of state capitalism, just as an individual bourgeois exploits, by means of private ownership, “his own” workers. The term “state capitalism” was thus put forward, or at all events, employed polemically by revolutionary Marxists against the reformists, for the purpose of explaining and proving that genuine socialization begins only after the conquest of power by the working class. The reformists, as you know, built their entire program around reforms. We Marxists never denied socialist reforms. But we said that the epoch of socialist reforms would be inaugurated only after the conquest of power by the proletariat. - Leon Trotsky (2)


  • ''One Country'' means 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' as a whole

  • ''One Country Two Systems'' = ''Socialism with Chinese characteristics''

  • ''Two Systems'' do not mean ''the Dual Power'' within one country

  • Lenin's The New Economic Policy (1921-1928) was the Soviet version of ''One Country Two Systems''

  • NEP and 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' are in the opposite direction

  • Contrary to Russia in 1921, the Maoist mode of economy had transformed China from the bottom of the world economy (1949) into the World's number 11th industrialised economic power (1978) with average annual increase rate of economy 6.8% especially during 1967 to 1976

  • Main issues are 1) ''privatisation'' of the state properties by kleptocrats in the party; 2) unrestricted ''political accumulation of capitalists''; 3) expanding social dominance of private ''monopoly capital'' in China in terms of Marxism (Xi Jinping is believed to be introducing deliberate and imperative corrections into the operations of the market now)

  • Today 4/5 of Chinese workers (87% in 2018; almost 90%) are employed by private capital (A critical difference)

  • According to the general survey of National Bureau of Statistics (国家统计局, 2016), private capital dominates 80% of the national economy of China (READ MORE: 普查数据 - 按登记注册类型分组的法人位数、产业活动单位数及从业人数)

  • Although ''state-ownership'' or ''state control'' on economy itself does not automatically mean ''socialism'' (it is all about class nature of policies in practice), advocates of "the state enterprises advance, the private sectors retreat" or any other anti-state run enterprise crusaders of China are core anti-CCP forces that totally ignore and disdain social functions of the public sector as less profitable, less effective ''business'' organisations

  • State-owned enterprises (SOEs) are the political, economic leverage of CCP. Decrease of the number of SOEs means decline of CCP's social control, and increase of privatisation cases (social accumulation of capitalists)

Under a genuine state capitalism, that is, under bourgeois rule, the growth of state capitalism signifies the enrichment of the bourgeois state, its growing power over the working class. (3)

Unlike the official ideological policy and optimistic assumption of the early 1980s, Hong Kong people's attitude toward so called 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' already showed critical significance on the recent social unrest (June 2019 - January 2021) and 'One Country Two Systems' in its entirety.

Therefore, objectively so called 'patriots' no longer can ignore or downplay the importance of understanding Chinese ''socialism'' as it has been one of inevitable social topics to push political evolution forward.

Nevertheless, self-proclaimed 'pro-establishment' camp and its paid ideologues are still incompetent to give citizens a clear distinction or definition about the one side of the same coin, 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' which is simultaneously a constitutional part of 'One Country'. In other words, the governing mode of 'One Country' is 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics', and one of 'Two Systems' is also 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics'. Thus 'Capitalism with Hong Kong / Macau characteristics' is dependent on 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics'.

Although it seems that both 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' and 'Capitalism with Hong Kong / Macau characteristics' (local governance system of local governments limited in Hong Kong and Macau) are paralleled or vertically related, all of them are part of 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' within 'One Country Two Systems'. Simply China is constitutionally a socialist country including Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau in terms of their constitution.

Unfortunately, ignorance and misunderstanding of 'One Country Two Systems' = 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' are grave dangers while both internal and external reactionaries (e.g., real estate monopoly capital) perfectly exploited the miserable status of uneducated citizens to instil ''anti-China'' ''anti-Communist'' grievances in a people's mind. This is one serious issue.

Furthermore, what is this analysis more concerning here is that Marxist quality of 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' itself. In fact, the revisionist reformist Deng Xiaoping (1904-1997) explained what it is as the citation above. Only abstracted 'patriotism' and 'profitability' were his concerns after 1978 (the end of the Mao era).

I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how. (4)

One post, an image of former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin with text added, appears to attribute a quip about vote counting to the dictator.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything," the post says, attributing it to "Communist Tyrant and mass murderer Josef Stalin." (5)

Obviously, it already lost proletariat characteristics while we cannot see any 'Marxist' characteristics in China. Moreover, one-party system or dictatorship itself does not indicate if it is a Marxist administration or militarist regime or nationalist government. No matter what the name of the ruling party is. In other hand, class nature and eligible governance define if it is good or bad. For instance, dictatorship of capitalists (so called bourgeois democracy) is good and democratic for the ruling class themselves while it means bad and dictatorship for the working class in reality. The powerless people in economy further got deprived of their political power socially under the illusion of 'bourgeois democracy'. Yes, the ruling class themselves exclusively self-nominate and count the votes always in capitalist society. This is exactly the same in entire China as capitalism already restored nationwide.

Where are Socialist / Marxist characteristics?

This demonstrates yet again, so called 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' is in fact 'Neoliberalism with Chinese characteristics' (David Harvey coined this term precisely) or 'State capitalism with Chinese characteristics' or 'Crony capitalism with Chinese characteristics' which is acceptable as long as it is patriotic to the motherland.

There are fundamentally several key points to distinguish Socialist / Marxist characteristics from State-capitalism / Bureaucrat-capitalism:

  • Workers' control on the state and methods of social production

  • All social production measures, transportation system, broadcasting system, financial system and trade system are publicly owned by the society not individuals

  • There is strongly irreversible policy orientation to transfer market economy into planned economy by consciously developing material conditions for it

'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' = Socialist market economy of China = Reform and Opening up does not possess the Marxist characteristics and orientation in general. On the contrary, it bears historical resemblance to the USSR's Perestroika (1986-1991) yet the Chinese reform is undeniably successful without hastily collapsing the country. Privatisation of state properties by bureaucrats and full-scale construction of advanced capitalist society are going to be gradually complete in 2049. The most important thing is that this entire process is the extreme opposite of Vladimir Lenin's NEP (The New Economic Policy, 1921-1928). There is no threat for Chinese capitalists on this matter at all.

This essay focuses on the distinction between 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' and NEP in order to dispel doubts or intimidation among Hong Kong citizens.


Lenin's NEP (1921-1928) perfectly explains what 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' (1979-) is. Today we hear a lot about the Chinese version of 'One Country Two Systems' but we hear less about the Soviet version of 'One Country Two Systems'(NEP).

First of all, discrepancies between Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924)'s socialist NEP and Deng Xiaoping (1904-1997) 's Socialist market economy of China are not about the strategic use of the market economy itself. This point (the use of the market economy) does not disqualify socialist revolutions of the 20th century scientifically.

Marxism is illegal under One Country Two Systems in Hong Kong? Although Communist Party of Hong Kong could be a political joke by opposition, the hostile reactions from 'loyal waste' (忠誠廢物) showed class nature and misconception of so called 'pro-establishment' camp on September 24, 2018.


On Monday (24th), the government gazetted that it is to prohibit the operation of the Hong Kong National Party and listed it as an illegal society. On the same day, the "Hong Kong Communist Party" posted on the Facebook page that it had sent a letter to the Security Bureau to inform the party's establishment, stating that it would "actively try to build up armed forces and will not rule out armed uprisings", which caused concern. Elizabeth Quat, a member of the DAB Legislative Council, believes that the government must face up to and ban the relevant organisation. ... Michael Luk Chung-hung, a member of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, criticised that the people involved are "political clowns" who trample on the bottom line of the country. Pauline Ngan Po-ling, local deputy to the People’s Congress, described the move as a serious challenge to the Basic Law and "One Country, Two Systems."

As we know, so called 'pro-establishment' ideologues (they themselves are not Communists; in fact there is no Communist in Hong Kong politics) frivolously abandoned any incisive studies on socialist experiments of the 20th century. Instead, they themselves are flirting with Marxism, and opportunistically stand with anti-Communist KMT and compradors on this topic. Simply, they could say: 'Capitalism is good. In practice, Marxism is illegal under One Country Two Systems in Hong Kong. It sounds like Boris Yeltsin (1931-2007). In the future, they will loudly say this 'separatist' line when CCP starts disintegration. We are Chinese patriots not Marxists at all. (This is their true voice) ' Exactly, this is their genuine political colour as paid representatives of the local monopoly capital. Anyway who allows this exorbitantly treacherous attitude of the unreliable 'pro-establishment' camp which also can be seen as ideological chaos of this city?

Notably, Lenin's NEP had its Russian characteristics. Specifically, the October Revolution was a struggle to gain support of farmers by Bolsheviks and workers. Furthermore, they successfully established the Marxist administration before the civil war broke out. A sheer contrast to any other socialist revolutions including the Chinese Communist Revolution of 1949. For the latter, the workers and their parties lightened the burden of revolution after they won civil wars as resistance of the capitalist class was dramatically weakened.

As a result, during 1917 and 1921, Russia fatally had lacked three major material conditions to launch socialist construction of society: 1) Advanced productivity and mutually developed correlation between industry and agriculture; 2) Cultural and organisational sophistication of the ruling party and the class; 3) The final defeat of the internal and international bourgeoisies (today the world still lacks this condition), absence of imperialist interference and technocrat sabotage.

Apparently, the Bolshevik administration had suffered from the lack of material conditions to push socialist solutions even after the success of the October Revolution. For instance, nationalisation of 1917 and 1918 was not simultaneously accompanied by workers' reorganisation of companies (social production facilities). It was not adequate and thorough.

Even War Communism (1918-1921) was the farthest from any kind of socialism while it was just common General War policy under the Russian Civil War (1917-1923).

War-torn Russia was necessary to take the long-term capitalist method (market economy) to create material and technical conditions to move the track to socialism. For this purpose, management of companies, railways and social production facilities needed market economy to some extent.

However, there is a marked contrast between State / bureaucrat capitalism of China (1979 - present) and Lenin's NEP (1921-1928) that the workers' monopoly of tax and credit, establishment of social system for economic control.

Although State / bureaucrat capitalism of China (1979 - present) heavily depends on FDI, and its capitalist economic share / domination reached more than 60% of the entire national economy in 2020, Lenin's NEP (1921-1928) nationalised all industries, and they lent capitalists companies partially. Instead, they strictly did NOT allow privatisation of state enterprises like Deng Xiaoping. It is critically and irreparably DIFFERENT from 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics'.

Note: Originally landless peasants had enjoyed conditional landholding as the Decree on Land guaranteed since November 8, 1917 until 1929. The concept of NEP was embryonically contained in the decree itself.

Also, unlike China's Socialist market economy, which is dominated by private enterprises due to the liberation of foreign capital. The practice of the Soviet Union's New Economic Policy, which was the opposite to the former, was to nationalise all industrial enterprises and lent some of them to capitalists. Increased 2,000 small businesses that employ 40,000 to 50,000 workers were privately run for rent, while 4,000 well-equipped state-run companies employed 1 million workers in the market. Competed with controlled capitalists by maintaining credit and taxation mechanisms in hands of the workers and Bolsheviks, and socially curbed the political accumulation of capitalists. Moreover, foreign trade is monopolised by the state. This unprecedentedly expressed the genuinely Marxist approach to the market economy in the last century. (7)

Control over the economic process remains in the hands of the state power; and this power is in the hands of the working class. (8)

In addition, all the land was nationalised, the railway network was also nationalised, only 30% of the commerce was distributed by private capital, and in the process of workers acquiring market management skills, the market method while using it (learning by doing it), it was expected that it will make a structural transition by repeating systematic and comprehensive re-changes to cooperative-style, centralised planned economy that also incorporates farmers according to its development (China's five-year plans after 1978 are not part of ''planned economy'' just state investment projects) . The balance between national control and automatic market control was explained by Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky (1879-1940) comprehensively yet fundamental differences between NEP and SOCIALIST market economy of China were today totally buried almost imperceptibly.

This is the outline of the Soviet economy during the Lenin era, which did not truly restore capitalism, but effectively controlled it, albeit with concessions. The capitalist offensive is embodied in the most reactionary concentration of power on the bourgeois molecule (Hong Kong?), widening monopoly and widening inequality, or the opposition to the Soviet Union at the time. Moreover, the process of using capitalist methods for economic adjustment, eventually restructuring, and transitioning to socialism was essentially defined as inevitable. The problem was that much difference. In the Soviet Union at that time, the decline in productivity itself was serious , and there was the NEP era = Lenin era as a process of aiming for socialism while first raising it to a certain level. (9)

Contrary to Russia in 1921, the Maoist mode of economy had transformed China from the bottom of the world economy into the World's number 11th industrialised economic power (1978) with high average annual increase rate of economy 6.8% especially during 1967 to 1976. There had never been so called ''economic collapse'' or ''long term stagnation'' under CCP's leadership during 1953 to 1978 (industrialisation). Moreover, Mao Zedong (1893-1976) irreversibly transformed the war-torn agricultural society into an industrialised sovereign county in 1976. A sheer contrast to the ''anti-Communist'' official narrative of revisionists and imperialists. Maurice Jerome Meisner (1931-2012) was right that data tells the truth.

新中國成立後,經過三年經濟恢復,國民經濟已得到根本好轉,工業生產超過歷史最高水平。但同時,工業基礎仍然薄弱,且門類不全,許多重要工業產品的人均擁有量遠低於發達國家。1952年,我國GDP總量為679億元。 在國民經濟迅速恢復和發展的基礎上,1953年開始執行發展國民經濟的第一個五年計劃,成為我國工業化的起點。它的基本任務是:集中所有力量發展重工業,建立國家工業化和國防現代化的初步基礎。到1957年「一五」計劃完成時,我國的GDP總量達到了1069億元,GDP絕對值比1952年時增加了57%。 數據顯示,我國GDP總量在1960年達到1457億元後,經歷了兩年連續下行,1962年回落至1151億元,至1964年才重新達到1455億元。 到1966年,我國GDP總量達到1873億元。不過,1967~1968年連續兩年GDP總量減少,到1969年得以恢復,達到1945億元。 根據學者羅平漢等人的研究,1967年至1976年,我國社會總產值平均年增長6.8%,工業總產值年均增長率為8.5%,農業總產值年均增長率為3.3%。這一時期國家經濟政策的重心明顯偏向工業。
[...] 從中國經濟總量在世界排名來看,1978年,我國經濟總量居世界第十一位。[...] 人均GDP方面,1952年,我國人均GDP僅為119元,其後人均GDP的增長與GDP總量的增長曲線相似,經歷過兩次下滑,整體呈不斷上升趨勢。到1976年,我國人均GDP為318元,從絕對值增速看,比1952年增加了1.69倍,低於同期GDP總量的擴張速度。這主要是因為,上世紀五六十年代,我國人口經歷了快速增長期。[絕非餓殍遍野]
在產業結構方面,70年來我國產業結構發生了深刻變化。 1952年,我國的一二三產結構是51:20.9:28.2,工業水平很低。1952年開始的「一五」計劃中,為了加快工業化速度,採取了「優先發展重工業」的方針。其間,鞍山鋼鐵公司三大工廠、長春第一汽車製造廠、瀋陽機床廠和飛機製造廠先後建成投產。「二五」計劃中,二產佔比快速提高,在1960年這一比例達到了44.5%。在上世紀60年代後,儘管二產佔比一度下滑至31.2%,但總體來看,二產佔比在不斷提升,到1976年,我國二產佔比達到了45.2%,比1952年提高了24.3個百分點。一產佔比32.9%,比1952年下降了18.1個百分點;三產佔比為21.9%,比1952年下滑了6.3個百分點。(10)

After the founding of New China, after three years of economic recovery, the national economy had been fundamentally improved, and industrial production had surpassed the highest level in history. But at the same time, the industrial base was still weak and the categories were incomplete. The per capita income rate was much lower than that of developed countries. In 1952, our country's total GDP was 67.9 billion yuan. On the basis of the rapid recovery and development of the national economy, the first five-year plan for the development of the national economy was implemented in 1953, which became the starting point of our country's industrialisation. Its basic task was to concentrate all forces on the development of heavy industry and establish a preliminary foundation for the country’s industrialisation and national defence modernisation. By the completion of the "First Five-Year Plan" in 1957, our country's total GDP had reached 106.9 billion yuan, and the absolute value of GDP had increased by 57% from 1952. Statistics show that after our country's total GDP reached 145.7 billion yuan in 1960, it experienced two consecutive years of decline. It fell back to 115.1 billion yuan in 1962 and finally reached 145.5 billion yuan again in 1964. By 1966, our country's total GDP reached 187.3 billion yuan. However, the total GDP decreased for two consecutive years from 1967 to 1968 and recovered in 1969, reaching 194.5 billion yuan. According to the research of scholar Luo Pinghan and others, from 1967 to 1976, our country's total social output value had increased by 6.8% annually, the average annual growth rate of industrial output value was 8.5%, and the average annual growth rate of agricultural output value was 3.3%. During this period, the focus of national economic policy was clearly biased towards industry. From the perspective of China's total economic output in the world, in 1978 [the last year of the Maoist era] , our country's total economic output ranked 11th in the world. [...] In terms of per capita GDP, in 1952, our country’s per capita GDP was only 119 yuan. After that, the growth of per capita GDP was similar to the growth curve of total GDP. It experienced two declines and showed an upward trend as a whole. By 1976, our country's per capita GDP was 318 yuan, which was 1.69 times higher than in 1952, which was lower than the growth rate of total GDP in the same period. This was mainly because in the 1950s and 1960s, our country's population experienced a period of rapid growth. In terms of industrial structure, our country's industrial structure had undergone profound changes in the past 70 years. In 1952, the structure of our country's primary, secondary and tertiary industries was 51: 20.9: 28.2, and the industrial level was very low. In the "First Five-Year Plan" started in 1953, in order to speed up industrialisation, the policy of "giving priority to the development of heavy industry" was adopted. In the meantime, the three major factories of Anshan Iron and Steel Group Corporation, Changchun No. 1 Automobile Manufacturing Plant, Shenyang Aircraft Corporation have been completed and put into operation one after another. In the "Second Five-Year Plan", the proportion of secondary industries increased rapidly, reaching 44.5% in 1960. After the 1960s, although the proportion of the secondary industry fell to 31.2%, overall, the proportion of the secondary industry continued to increase. By 1976, the proportion of the secondary industry in our country reached 45.2%, an increase from 1952 with 24.3 percentage points. The primary industry accounted for 32.9%, a decrease of 18.1 percentage points from 1952; the tertiary industry accounted for 21.9%, a decrease of 6.3 percentage points from 1952.


無論人們將毛澤東時代作何種評價,正是這個中國現代工業革命時期為中國現代經濟發展奠定了根本的基礎,使中國從一個完全的農業國家變成了一個以工業為主的國家。1952年,工業佔國民生產總值的30%,農業產值佔64%;而到1975年,這個比率顛倒過來了,工業佔國家經濟生產的72%,農業則僅佔28%了。 其實毛澤東的那個時代遠非是現在普遍傳聞中所謂的經濟停滯時代。而是世界歷史上最偉大的現代化時代之一,與德國、日本和俄國等幾個現代工業舞台上的主要的後起之秀的工業化過程中最劇烈時期相比毫不遜色。 在毛澤東身後的時代里,對毛澤東時代的歷史記錄的污點吹毛求疵,而緘口號不提當時的成就已然成為一種風尚——深恐提及後者便會被視為對前者的辯護。然而,對一個基本事實的承認,即毛澤東時代在促進中國現代工業改造——而且是在極為不利的國際國內條件下做的——過程中取得了巨大的成就,並不就等於是為歷史作非分的辯護。如果沒有毛澤東時代發生的工業革命,80年代將找不到要改革的對象。——美國學者莫里斯·邁斯納 (Maurice Jerome Meisner) (11)

Regardless of what people think of the Mao Zedong era, it was this period of China's modern industrial revolution that laid the foundation for China's modern economic development and transformed China from a completely agricultural country to an industrialised country. In 1952, industry accounted for 30% of gross national product and agricultural output value accounted for 64%; by 1975, this ratio was reversed, with industry accounting for 72% of the country’s economic production and agriculture only 28%. In fact, Mao Zedong’s era was far from the so-called economic stagnation era in popular rumours. It is one of the greatest modernisation eras in the history of the world. It is not inferior to the most dynamic period in the industrialisation process of the major rising stars on the modern industrial stage such as Germany, Japan, and Russia. In the era after Mao Zedong, it has become a fashion to criticise the stains of the historical records of Mao Zedong's era, and it has become a fashion not to mention the achievements of the time. People are afraid that mentioning the latter will be regarded as a defence of the former. However, the recognition of the basic fact that the Mao Zedong era made great achievements in the process of promoting China’s modern industrial transformation - and doing it under extremely unfavourable international and domestic conditions-and it does not mean inadequate defence as it is a work for history. Without the industrial revolution that took place in the Mao Zedong era, there would be no targets for reform in the 1980s.


There are 124 Chinese companies on the Fortune Global 500 list in 2020, which is more than 121 companies in the United States. 68% of the Chinese-funded companies on the list are state-owned enterprises in major industries. The dominant position of Chinese state-owned enterprises has become a source of friction between China and the global market. Some critics believe that state-owned enterprises receive preferential treatment in different areas. For example, government policies will be more beneficial to them in terms of financing, licensing and awarding contracts. Many critics also pointed out that China's state-owned enterprises play a particularly large role. Disrupting competition also distorts the market. In fact, China's state-owned enterprises contribute about 30% of the GDP, which is higher than that of developed countries; more than 150,000 state-owned enterprises account for about 40% of the total number of enterprises. However, the difference between state-owned enterprises in China and state-owned and private enterprises in other parts of the world is their mission and purpose. Chinese state-owned enterprises not only regard making money as an internal purpose, but also consider factors such as the implementation of government policies and social stability. State-owned enterprises have made great contributions to China's rapid economic growth. Capital-intensive industries such as infrastructure construction, commodity development, exploration and mining, and heavy equipment are vital to any economy, but such projects require a large sum of money in the early stage, and they will have a long period of time before they have a chance to appear. Profits are all factors that hinder the investment of private enterprises, while state-owned enterprises can invest funds in these industries to support economic development. Most countries, including China, regard employment as a basic element for maintaining economic and social stability. About one-fifth of China's labour force, or about 70 million people, are employed by state-owned enterprises, which is almost the same as the entire population of France. During the economic downturn, the central and local governments can require state-owned enterprises to sponsor public projects, reduce unemployment, and help start the local economy. Under such circumstances, the behaviour of state-owned enterprises often runs counter to market forces. Private enterprises may need to lay off employees in times of economic difficulties, while state-owned enterprises may go the other way and hire more people.


In the first half of this year (2021), the total number of new tax-related market entities in China reached 6.243 million, of which private entities accounted for 98.9%, becoming an important source of China’s economic vitality. In the first half of this year, private investment increased by 15.4% year-on-year, of which private investment in manufacturing an increase of 21.1%, private investment in infrastructure increased by 17.2%; in the first half of this year, the import and export of private enterprises in our country was 8.64 trillion yuan, an increase of 35.1%, accounting for 47.8% of our country's total foreign trade value. [...] "Equal protection of the property rights of private enterprises and the rights of entrepreneurs in accordance with the law" "Further relaxation of market access for private enterprises"... The "14th Five-Year Plan" and the 2035 long-term goal outline have revealed a series of measures to promote the accelerated development of private enterprises. Through tax incentives, enterprises are encouraged to increase R&D investment, and financial institutions reduce fees to benefit enterprises and the people...


The annual profit of industrial enterprises above designated size was 6451.6 billion yuan, an increase of 4.1% over the previous year. In terms of economic types, the profit of state-owned holding enterprises was 1,486.1 billion yuan, a decrease of 2.9% over the previous year; joint-stock enterprises were 4.5445 billion yuan, an increase of 3.4%, foreign and Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan-invested enterprises were 1,823.4 billion yuan, an increase of 7.0%; private enterprises were 2,026.2 billion yuan , An increase of 3.1%.

The state maintains tight control over the most important parts of the economy, often referred to as the ‘commanding heights’: heavy industry, energy, finance, transport, communications, and foreign trade. Finance – which has a key influence over the entire economy – is dominated by the ‘big four’ state-owned banks. These banks’ primary responsibility is to the Chinese people, not private shareholders. China’s land was never privatised, although collectivisation was mainly rolled back. It remains owned and managed at the village level. (15)

Unlike Deng Xiaoping ''revised'' Marxism in China, the productivity that produces the new mode of production is NOT ABSTRACT, but rather a method of capital, and in its use that creates a new method of planned economy together with its basic conditions, and is planned economy. It was perceived as a higher mode of production in which the highly developed method of capital will be transformed. From the combination of market and planning to the abolition of the market and the complete transition to planning. This dialectics was and still is the genuine Marxist approach to the market economy.
Privatisation of state properties by kleptocrats and political accumulation of capitalists are purely counter-revolution cannot even create the necessary conditions for any Marxist goal. On the contrary, it will only be suicidal to the revolution and the party. Thus Lenin's NEP did not permit it.
It was not bureaucratic dictatorship in the general war system but it was the Labour National Security Council that directly controlled the economy during the NEP era.

From their Marxist point of view, it is a true socialist mission to transform the working-class from waiting and pacifism into a revolution and the rising productivity into a socialist trajectory. It also has the task of identifying trends in economic development and promoting those trends.

Finally, free social human co-operation that works systematically with a common means of social production and technically spends as a single social workforce, conscious of many individual workforces, has yet to be realised and materialised. It is the essence of true socialist society. Lenin's NEP was and still is the scientifically practicable Marxist policy, the quintessence of the 20th century socialism. This is what CCP already abandoned in practice.


  • New Economic Policy: The Soviet version of One Country, Two Systems pioneered by Lenin As mentioned above, there is indeed an essential difference between Lenin's new economic policy and Deng Xiaoping's "socialist market economy/socialism with Chinese characteristics/reform and opening up". Moreover, the policy directions of the two are exactly opposite. The biggest difference is that Lenin’s New Economic Policy did not allow any privatisation of the state properties. The capitalist operation of the New Economic Policy was based on the nationalisation of social production methods (strictly controlled at a rate of 30% of the overall economy). They could suspend it anytime. Its main policy was to create the material conditions for the social transformation through the capitalist market economy, and gradually establish a planned economy with the direct participation of the working class. This was the Soviet version of One Country, Two Systems created by Lenin.

  • It can be said that the new economic policy adopted by Lenin was exactly the road of scientific socialism (Marxism) worthy of the name. It is the essence of the 20th century socialist experiment.

  • Deng Xiaoping's reform and opening up = socialist market economy = socialism with Chinese characteristics from the peaceful evolution of Socialism in One Country is the most successful revisionism in history. Contrary to Lenin's New Economic Policy, its ultimate goal is no longer to return to or explore a planned economy, but to revive China as the world's largest economy.

  • However, the so-called “socialist market economy” is neo-liberalism with Chinese characteristics that actively promotes privatisation (at present, private enterprises account for more than 60% of the Chinese economy). Its policy orientation is to completely abandon and divorce the planned economy and its possibility. Instead, actively opening-up (privatisation) means true and real revisionism. Therefore, the so-called orthodox communism/Marxism has long been peacefully toppled in the Mainland. The Hong Kong working class, long instilled and misled by the ''real estate hegemony'' oligarchs and their imperial establishments, and the opposition’s anti-communist thinking, does not need to worry about the non-existent spectre of the “Marxist-Leninist threat from Beijing”. Instead, the worry is that the collusion between the SAR government and oligarchs will continue to suppress the working class, thus alienating the central government and local workers.

  • The problem lies mainly in the unhealthy politically vested interest groups standing between the central government and local working class people. The anti-extradition bill amendment bill riot proved that the so-called loyal waste/monopoly capital representatives of the establishment are the political cancer, that is, the alternative reactionary power that harms Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, as long as the aspirations of the working class are stifled and suppressed, it is enough to incubate anti-China and anti-communist sentiments and intensify radical politicisation. This does not require any special political propaganda to instigate. Hong Kong's characteristic public relations politics still cannot resolve this crisis of popular sentiment, and can only deceive and suppress popular grievances. For this reason, it is hard to deny that the oligarchs, the corrupted officials who bully the poor and fear the rich, and the so-called ''pro-establishment'' camp have also greatly contributed a lot, and the opposition cannot be blamed only. Citizens never need to be blind to those loyal waste.

  • The people of Hong Kong must wake up to the fact that the only political force in China that can rescue the working class of Hong Kong who has been brutally exploited by ''real estate hegemony'' is still the Communist Party of China. On this issue, the Hong Kong working class who is truly worried about repeat of the fall of the CPSU in China is the loving-Hong Kong patriot who truly understands and embrace the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the great cause of the new Chinese revolution under Xi Jinping administration. This requires the establishment of a direct communication channel between the Hong Kong working class (the real majority of citizens) and the Chinese Communist Party immediately.

  • At that time, the CCP will surely find that the vast majority of Hong Kong workers hope that the CCP will truly return to the original intention of the revolution to liberate Hong Kong workers who are on the brink of desperation, otherwise there will be no political organisation in Hong Kong to faithfully represent the class interests of the Hong Kong working class. Only eliminating the opposition (one of the disposable pawns / scapegoats controlled by the ''real estate hegemony'' monopoly oligarchs), and still entrusting labour affairs to the labour aristocrats (the main body is a private property management company) is not enough to solve this fatal problem. The truly reliable basis of public opinion and popular support should lie in the absolute majority of the working class, which accounts for more than half of the total population.





問題主要出在站在中央和本港打工仔之間的不良政治既得利益集團。黑暴證明了所謂建制派這股忠誠廢物 / 壟斷資本的舉手機器才是政治毒瘤,也就是另類禍港勢力。在港,只要扼殺和壓低勞動者階級的心聲,就足以醞釀反中反共情緒和激化政治化。這根本不需要什麼特別的政宣來煽動的。香港特色公關政治依然無法化解這個民心危機,只能矇騙和壓制民怨而已。為此,難以否認的是一昧服務寡頭,欺貧怕富的廢官與所謂建制派的貢獻也都頗大,不能只怪反對派。市民絕不需要忠誠廢物。


本港市民都必須要醒悟的事實是,全中國唯一能夠搶救被地產霸權殘暴剝削的本港勞動者階級的政治勢力就是中國共產黨。在此問題上,真正擔憂蘇共亡黨在中國再演的本港勞動者階級才是真正理解和容納中國共產黨領導和新中國革命大業的愛港愛國者。這需要建立香港勞動者階級(真正的大多數市民)與中國共產黨之間直接溝通的渠道。到時中共一定會發現其實絕大多數香港勞動者希望中共真正回到革命初衷解放瀕於絕境的本港打工仔,否則在港毫無政治組織忠實地代表本港勞動者階級的階級利益。只消滅反對派(地產霸權壟斷寡頭控制的用完即棄的棋子/ 代罪羔羊之一而已),依然如故地將勞動事務委託給勞動貴族(其本體是私營物業管理公司)也仍然無法足以解決此致命的問題。真正可靠的民意基礎應當在於佔總人口一半以上的絕對多數勞動者階級。


  1., Deng Xiaoping, (June 22-23, 1984) 'Deng Xiaoping on "one country, two systems" (full text)'. Available at:

  2., Leon Trotsky, (Nov. 14, 1922) 'The New Economic Policy of Soviet Russia and the Perspectives of the World Revolution'. Available at:

  3. Ibid.

  4., Boris Bazhanov, (1992) 'The Memoirs of Stalin's Former Secretary'. Available at:

  5., Mariah Timms, (Nov. 10, 2020) ''Fact check: Stalin likely didn't say quote about 'those who count the votes decide everything'''. Available at:

  6., Mingpao, (Sep. 27, 2018) '葛珮帆促取締「香港共產黨」 批撩事鬥非搞亂社會.' Available at:港聞/article/20180927/s00001/1538031177502/葛珮帆促取締「香港共產黨」-批撩事鬥非搞亂社會

  7., Leon Trotsky, (Nov. 14, 1922) 'The New Economic Policy of Soviet Russia and the Perspectives of the World Revolution'. Available at:

  8. Ibid.

  9. Ibid.

  10., 林小昭, (Jun. 20, 2019) '中国经济70年:GDP从600亿到90万亿,第三产业逐步成为发展新引擎'. Available at:

  11., 北京大学新闻中心主办, (Nov. 29, 2013) '各国精英对毛泽东的评价'. Available at:

  12., 陳智思, (Jul. 31, 2021) '重公共利益 華國企賺錢兼顧環境'. Available at:重公共利益%20華國企賺錢兼顧環境

  13., 央視網, (Jul. 30, 2021) '市場主體活力增強 中國經濟穩健發展'. Available at:

  14., 国家统计局, (Feb. 28, 2021) '中华人民共和国2020年国民经济和社会发展统计公报'. Available at:

  15., Carlos Martinez, (October 1, 2018) 'Is China Still Socialist?'. Available at:


Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.


bottom of page