Is China an Imperialist country by the definition of Lenin’s Scientific Imperialism theory? 6.4 - The Four Pillars of Socialist Practice:

Is China an Imperialist country by the definition of Lenin’s Scientific Imperialism theory?

6.4 - The Four Pillars of Socialist Practice: Education, Healthcare, Employment, Housing

"The principal thing in socialism is the welfare of the people." "The purpose of socialist production is to satisfy the needs of the people." Stalin, various works

"In socialist society, the state guarantees the right to work. “Lenin, various works

As a student of Marxism-Leninism for over half a century, I have come to believe that four fundamental indicators determine the development or direction of socialism in a country. The Socialist State is the living foundation and the four pillars on which socialism is built and sustained. Revolutions cannot be realized without the participation of large masses of people. Similarly, revolutionary governments cannot be sustained and strengthened without the trust, belief, and supportive participation of large masses. The path to gaining the belief and confidence of large masses can only be realized through the four pillars of socialist practice.

1- Free and compulsory education as an investment in the future.

2-The provision of basic medical insurance for all.

3-The guarantee of work as a matter of state policy.

4-The provision of free or affordable housing as a social right depending on the population and economic development of a given socialist country.

In classical socialism, Education and Healthcare were universally declared totally free (gratis at the point of service). Employment was universally guaranteed (though not "free" in cost—you earned a wage), and Housing was heavily subsidized, costing only a nominal fraction of income (usually under 3–5%).

Albania (Socialist Period, 1944–1990)

Education: Totally free at all levels (primary through university). Healthcare: Totally free and universal. Employment: State-guaranteed. The state assigned jobs to all graduates; unemployment was virtually non-existent. (Cost to worker: $0 for access). Housing: State-owned. Rent was nominal—typically 2–3% of a worker's monthly salary. After 1976, housing was distributed for free to families based on need, with only negligible municipal service fees.

North Korea (DPRK, since 1948)

Education: Totally free (including university). The state provided stipends to students. Healthcare: Totally free. 100% universal coverage with no out-of-pocket costs. Employment: Universal state assignment. Every able-bodied citizen is guaranteed a job by the state planning system. (Cost to individual: none). Housing: State-provided. Housing is distributed free of charge, with tenants paying only minimal utility fees (electricity, water)—generally less than 1–2% of average monthly income.

Cuba (Since 1959)

Education: Totally free from primary through university (including postgraduate). The state even pays for boarding and meals for rural students. Healthcare: Totally free. The system is globally recognized for its primary-care focus; there are no out-of-pocket fees for consultation or surgery. Employment: State-guaranteed. The communist party ensures near-full employment (though underemployment exists). Cost to worker: $0. Housing: Heavily subsidized. Rent in state-owned housing is fixed at no more than 10% of household income (often considerably less). Post-1959 land reforms allowed many to own homes, but property transactions are tightly controlled. The 1960 Urban Reform Act Law abolished private landlordism. It stipulated that all tenants who had been paying rent would become the owners of their homes by paying a monthly amortization to the state—capped at a maximum of 10% of household income. Today, 90% of Cubans own their home. No rent, no mortgage, no property taxes. They pay only for utilities (electricity, water, gas) and municipal services, which remain heavily subsidized.

Soviet Russia (USSR, 1917–1991)

Education: Totally free, including higher education (with stipends for high-performing students). Healthcare: Totally free and universal (established under the Semashko system). Employment: Universal. The Constitution guaranteed the "right to work," and the state planned full employment. (No cost). Housing: Massively subsidized. State-owned apartment rent was fixed at a very low fraction of income—earlier 1-2%, after the 1960s 3–5% of the family budget. Utilities were also heavily subsidized.

Vietnam (Socialist Period: North 1954–1975; Unified Socialist Period up to 1986 Doi Moi)

Education: Free for primary and secondary levels. University had nominal fees, but scholarships and stipends covered most costs for the poor. Healthcare: Largely free in the North during the war. After reunification, the state ran a free system, though it faced resource constraints. Employment: State-guaranteed for the public sector; cooperatives provided work in rural areas. (No cost). Housing: State-owned housing and cooperatives provided low-rent units, costing a minimum fraction (~5%) of wages.

(Note: Since the 1986 Doi Moi reforms, Vietnam has shifted toward a socialist-oriented market economy. Today, healthcare and education involve co-payments, and housing is largely privatized.)

China

China is the most complex because its policy is sharply divided into two distinct eras:

Pre-1978 (Mao Era): Education, healthcare, and housing followed the classical model—largely free or nominal. Urban workers received free healthcare, free education for children, and virtually free housing (rent ~1–2% of salary). Rural areas had the Cooperative Medical System (very low-cost, practically free) and barefoot doctors.

Post-1978 (Reform & Opening to present): China dismantled the universal free model and introduced a socialist-market welfare system. In this system, Education, Healthcare, and Housing are no longer "totally free" but are framed as "affordable".

In economics, "affordable" does not mean zero cost. It is strictly defined by cost-to-income ratios and poverty-alleviation thresholds. Rather than free distribution, China applies a multi-tiered, targeted subsidy and insurance framework:

Healthcare: China has built the world's largest basic medical insurance network (covering over 1.3 billion people—~95% of the population). It operates on a tripartite system: Urban Employee Insurance (employed), Urban-Rural Resident Insurance (rural/urban non-employed). The government subsidizes ~70% of the premium for rural/resident schemes. Patients pay deductibles and co-insurance, but catastrophic illness insurance kicks in for expenses above a local threshold and covers 50–80% of additional costs. As a result, the national average out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure as a percentage of total health spending has dropped from ~60% in 2000 to roughly 27–30% today—bringing China close to the "affordable" WHO standard for the majority.

Life expectancy has risen to over 78 years, comparable to developed countries. Maternal and infant mortality rates have dropped sharply. China has successfully eradicated major infectious diseases like malaria and is making significant progress against tuberculosis.

Housing: Acknowledging that market prices in megacities are unaffordable, China has implemented the "dual-track" housing system:

Public Rental Housing – provided to low-income families at rents 30–50% below market rates, typically capped at ~30% of household income.

Shared-Ownership Housing  – allows middle-income buyers to purchase a partial share (e.g., 50%), paying a mortgage on that share while renting the rest at subsidized rates, keeping total monthly costs under the 30% income threshold.

Housing – the State Council has mandated that all cities must ensure affordable housing accounts for a significant portion of new urban supply. Rent controls and price caps are rigorously enforced to maintain the 30% affordability ratio. The government has invested trillions in affordable housing projects, particularly in urban areas. The "shantytown renovation" program has improved the living conditions of hundreds of millions. As a result, urban per capita housing area has increased from less than 10 square meters in 1990 to over 40 square meters today. The government has prioritized the housing needs of young professionals and rural migrants through policies like the "housing provident fund."

Housing prices in major cities have risen significantly, and the government is actively regulating the market to curb speculation. The socialist state aims to keep housing affordable and accessible.

Education: China mandates 9 years of compulsory education (primary and junior secondary), which is tuition-free. The state provides the "Two Exemptions and One Subsidy" policy - exemption from tuition and textbook fees, plus living subsidies for boarding students in rural poverty-stricken areas. Senior high school and university are not free, but the state offers extensive need-based scholarships, work-study programs, and low-interest student loans to ensure that the total cost does not exceed 10–15% of a rural household's annual income—keeping it economically "affordable." China spends over 4% of GDP on education, with continuous increases in funding for rural and poor areas. The literacy rate has risen from 80% in 1980 to over 97% today. China has eliminated illiteracy among youth. Over 60% of the population has completed secondary education.

The transition from "totally free" in small, planned economies like Albania, North Korea, and Cuba to "affordable" in massive, complex economies like China/Vietnam is not a retreat from socialism but an adaptation to scale and global market integration. China's approach of "affordability" is scientifically managed through actuarial ratios, 10% for health, 30% for housing, ensuring that even without universal gratuity, basic social goods remain accessible without causing impoverishment, which is argued to be a pragmatic continuation of the "drawing lessons" from their pre-1949 localized experiments.

Employment: The Chinese government considers employment a macroeconomic priority. The Constitution recognizes the right to work. Measures include public employment services, job training programs, and support for small and medium enterprises. The government invests heavily in infrastructure and industrial development to create jobs. The "Made in China 2025" initiative is also designed to create high-quality employment.

China has maintained an urban registered unemployment rate of around 4-5%, despite having a workforce of over 700 million. The government has lifted over 700 million people out of poverty in recent decades, largely through employment creation. Structural unemployment exists as the economy transitions from manufacturing to services. Youth unemployment is a concern, but remains manageable compared to many developed countries.

Regarding the 'four pillars of socialist construction,' the current trajectories of China and Vietnam remain a subject of debate, requiring sustained observation to determine their ultimate direction—whether toward socialism or toward the restoration of capitalism. As noted above, these pillars are crucial for the construction and defense of a socialist state. The revolution is carried on the shoulders of the workers and peasant masses, who are equally its primary guardians. However, if conditions evolve against their fundamental interests—weakening their resilience and collective power—the four pillars will inevitably collapse. In that event, it will be those very masses who become the main force for the destruction of that foundation.

6.5-  Who owns the lands in a socialist state

Looking specifically at the constitutional ownership of rural and urban land across these six socialist states, they actually split neatly into two distinct legal models, rather than a spectrum.

Model 1: The "Unified State/Public" Model (State is the sole legal owner)

In this model, the law makes no distinction between urban and rural ownership. The state (or "the people" as represented by the state) owns 100% of the land, and rural cooperatives or farmers are strictly users granted rights by the state.

Soviet Union (USSR): Unified State Ownership. The 1977 Constitution declared all land state property. Collective farms (kolkhozy) and state farms (sovkhozy) held perpetual use rights, but they were not legal owners.

Vietnam: Unified "Ownership by the Entire People". As we discussed, the State acts as the administrator. Urban and rural land are legally identical in ownership status; the distinction is purely based on usage permits (agricultural vs. non-agricultural).

Cuba: Unified State Ownership. The 2019 Constitution retains land as state property (with some usufruct rights for cooperatives and small farmers). The state grants temporary use rights to UBPCs (Basic Units of Cooperative Production), but ultimate legal title remains exclusively with the state.

Albania (under Hoxha, 1976 Constitution): Unified State Ownership. Article 10 explicitly declared that "land, minerals, waters, forests... are state property." Agricultural cooperatives managed the land and had use rights, but the state was the singular legal owner—identical in structure to the Soviet model.

Model 2: The "Dual-Track" Model (State owns Urban; Collective/Cooperative owns Rural)

In this model, the law recognizes two distinct legal owners: the state for cities/industry, and a collective legal entity (villages/cooperatives) for farmland.

China: Urban land owned by the State; Rural land owned by the Village Collective (legal ownership). The collective acts as the proprietor, even though it operates under state planning.

North Korea (DPRK): Urban/industrial land owned by the State; Rural agricultural land owned by the Cooperative (Cooperative Ownership). Constitutionally, it matches China's dual structure, though functionally it operates like the Soviet model due to total central planning.

6.6- A final note to the section

The question is not whether China is imperialist. The question is: Is the direction of the Socialist State of China (and, by extension, Vietnam) toward building socialism, or toward restoring capitalism?

Because of two-pronged policies and practices—state-sector planning alongside market mechanisms, public ownership alongside private capital—legitimate questions arise in the minds of Marxist-Leninists. These questions are open to objective discussion and debate. However, such debate must not be used to throw dirt on those socialist states. It must be conducted within the framework of Marxist norms and Marxist criticism—not to teach or judge from above, but to study, experience, and draw lessons for the cause of socialism globally.

Lenin himself, in 'Left-Wing' Communism: An Infantile Disorder, explicitly warned against the ultra-left sectarianism that refuses to engage with the complexities of concrete conditions. He understood that revolutionary strategy must adapt to terrain, and that denouncing a socialist state for its tactical compromises while living safely in the imperialist metropole is the height of petit-bourgeois arrogance.

The real question, therefore, is this: What serves the cause of socialism best from afar?

• Throwing dirt on a socialist state, amplifying bourgeois propaganda, and reducing complex material conditions to moralistic condemnation?
• Or offering constructive, comradely criticism without falling into rote, sectarian, or ultra-left dogmatism?

We must never forget the fundamental fact that we are living in the era of Ideological Warfare. The vast majority of the means of mental production—statistics, news media, think tanks, expert organizations, academic publishing—are owned and controlled by the capitalist class. No Marxist-Leninist should ever take data from bourgeois sources at face value. Critical suspicion is not optional; it is a methodological necessity.

To uncritically repeat the data and narratives produced by the World Bank, the IMF, or the CIA—even while claiming to 'critique' China—is to surrender methodologically to the very class enemy we claim to oppose. A Marxist analyzes the material base behind statistics; he does not consume them as neutral facts.

Anyone who calls himself a Marxist-Leninist but resorts to using bourgeois gossip, manipulated data, and imperialist-funded "research" to support his subjective, rote, or sectarian arguments cannot honestly be called a socialist. At best, such a figure is an ultra-leftist—incapable of understanding that the construction of socialism is a long, uneven, contradictory process, not a static ideal to be measured against abstract perfection.

One of the most widespread gossip items (even used by some leftist writers is: “Xi Jinping” is a multi-billionaire. The evidence? None. Under current Chinese laws and Party regulations, the specific asset declaration records of individual Party leaders are not public information. Strict legal and disciplinary provisions prohibit unauthorized access to, leakage of, or public dissemination of these internal records to protect national security and social stability.

Because the law explicitly restricts public access to this data, the public cannot verify any specific figures or claims about "billion-dollar assets" circulating online or through unofficial channels, and they inherently fall into the category of unsubstantiated speculation and gossip. Because no legally permissible channel allows an ordinary citizen to obtain this specific data, no external claim can be backed by legally admissible evidence.

While the public cannot access this data, the internal oversight bodies, specifically the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) and its local branches, do have full statutory authority to access, review, and audit these declarations. The restriction on public access does not mean an absence of oversight; rather, it means oversight is conducted internally and confidentially through strict Party and state mechanisms.

In simple words; The asset declarations of the party leaders and members are submitted to and reviewed by internal inspection departments. Laws and Party regulations impose heavy penalties for unauthorized access or publicizing this information. Consequently, any external public claim about specific asset amounts is, by definition, baseless gossip because the legal framework makes it impossible for the public to obtain or verify that information.

Using gossip to support an argument alone indicates subjectivity and the argument's worthlessness.

History teaches us that revolutions are not made in laboratories. Socialism is built in the teeth of imperialist encirclement, economic blockade, and ideological subversion. The task of the genuine Marxist-Leninist is not to police the purity of socialist states from a comfortable distance, but to study their concrete conditions, learn from their successes and failures, and defend them against imperialist attack—while offering fraternal, constructive criticism where it is due.

Regardless of the internal contradictions China faces, one objective fact remains: the People's Republic of China is the largest, most powerful socialist state on earth. Its survival and development under 75 years of US-led encirclement is one of the greatest achievements of the international working class in the 20th and 21st centuries. To weaken it with reckless accusations is to weaken the entire anti-imperialist camp.

That is the only path consistent with proletarian internationalism.

7. Conclusion