Your entire reply perfectly demonstrates what it means to use moral indignation to mask theoretical incompetence. The more you elaborate, the more you expose that you’re not analyzing China’s economic foundation and international relations at all, but rather using your utopian fantasies to tailor reality. You treat every developing contradiction as evidence for conviction, yet you never analyze the material roots of these contradictions.

You claim China is imperialist, yet you haven’t even grasped the scientific definition Lenin built upon from Hobson and others in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Lenin pointed out the decisive significance of monopolies, the formation of financial capital, capital export, and the great powers’ partitioning of the world. This is a rigorous political and economic structure, not a moral label you can arbitrarily slap on participation in international trade or the pursuit of national interests. Which aspect of China’s overseas investments, ownership structure, and the distribution of surplus value conforms to the characteristics of financial monopoly capital extracting superprofits from peripheral countries through political hegemony? If you cannot prove China is imperialist based on capital control and exploitation mechanisms, then stop using this term as an emotional outburst. More importantly, discussing diplomacy in isolation from the domestic economic foundation is absurd. China’s massive state-owned economy, state-led financial system, and strategic planning capabilities ensure that private capital must submit to the state’s development will, making it impossible for a financial oligarchic dictatorship to form independently above the state.

Your ramblings on welfare issues are even more astonishing. By the end of 2025, China’s basic medical insurance covered over 1.33 billion people, basic pension insurance covered over 1.08 billion people, and long-term care insurance covered over 320 million people. This is a massive state machine operating with trillions of yuan in public funds. How can you close your eyes and say that China has no welfare? You have committed a classic metaphysical error. The work unit system and commune welfare of the earlier era were based on system of production and the urban-rural dual structure of the time. As the economy transforms into a highly complex, urbanized, and multi-ownership economy, the distribution and security system must inevitably be restructured. You romanticize past forms of security while ignoring their material limitations; you refuse to acknowledge today’s modern social security system covering over one billion people simply because it does not conform to your stereotypical view of socialism. Equating the historical evolution of welfare systems with abandoning the people is utter idealism.

Regarding women’s liberation, you again substitute appearance for essence. The Chinese revolution, through marriage laws, widespread education, and the promotion of women’s participation in large-scale social production, fundamentally destroyed the material foundation of the feudal patriarchal system. By the end of 2024, China had 320 million employed women, accounting for 43.4% of the total employed population. This is a real transfer of material power. You attempt to use certain conservative tendencies in contemporary policies to obliterate the historic leap of hundreds of millions of women into large-scale social production. Marxism holds that the prerequisite for women’s liberation is a return to public labor. China continues to achieve this.

As for the conspiracy theory that China supports the European right wing, it is utterly absurd. The rise of the European right wing is an inevitable product of intensified internal class contradictions, the bankruptcy of social democracy, and the decline of working-class organization. You fail to analyze the corruption of the ruling class in Europe itself, instead shifting the blame to China, which adheres to the principle of non-interference in internal affairs. This scapegoating behavior precisely demonstrates the cowardice and theoretical bankruptcy of your Western left in the face of its own political failures.

On the African issue, your parasitic narrative is completely detached from material reality. Imperialism is characterized by exploitation and dependence, while China’s actions in Africa involve the transfer of productive forces. Data from September 2026 shows that China is building modern vocational schools in Côte d’Ivoire and other locations, establishing 38 Luban workshops in 32 countries, and providing industrial robot and automation training to over 30,000 students and 160,000 technicians. In 2024, China also forgave 23 interest-free loans due to 17 African countries. China is helping host countries build independent industrial capacity, not destroying their economic sovereignty through structural adjustments like the IMF has done. Ignoring these substantial technology transfers and debt relief, and forcibly applying the template of neo-colonialism, only shows that your understanding is still stuck in the Western propaganda pamphlets of the Cold War era.

You say China stands idly by regarding Palestine, which exposes your extreme ignorance of the material basis of geopolitics. In December 2025, China announced $100 million in humanitarian aid to Palestine. More importantly, despite US sanctions, China continued to purchase Iranian oil and, through complex trade settlement mechanisms and dual-use technology exports, provided Iran with a vital economic lifeline. Even reports from the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission and Reuters acknowledged that Chinese trade underpinned Iran’s ability to circumvent sanctions. Iran is the core backbone of the axis of resistance. By maintaining Iran’s industrial and financial operations, China provided solid material internationalist support. This is far more effective than empty slogans shouted in the streets.

On the Nepal issue, you have used the Maoist label as a blank check to solicit sponsorship from the Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese Communist Party has its own strategic assessments and internationalist principles and has no obligation to fund every armed group operating under the Maoist banner. The fact is, China maintains close inter-party exchanges with the legitimate, mainstream Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist center). As for those ultra factions that are hostile to China and often obsessed with Gonzalo esque dogma, they treat China as an enemy of revisionism and actively sever their connection with objective reality. International solidarity is not unprincipled charity. Their isolation due to their dogmatism and alienation from the masses is entirely their own fault.

Your biggest theoretical flaw lies in treating socialism as a static policy list. Capitalist countries can also provide welfare, and the existence of private enterprises does not equate to a capitalist restoration. To judge the nature of a country, one must look at its fundamental class relations: Who controls the strategic means of production? How does the state manage capital? How is social surplus distributed? China’s constitution and economic foundation clearly stipulate the dominant position of public ownership and the leading role of the state-owned economy; the state possesses the absolute ability to subordinate private capital to macroeconomic development goals.

If you insist on proving that China has abandoned socialism, then present a materialist analysis: prove that China’s strategic lifeline has escaped state control, prove that private financial oligarchs have usurped state power, and prove that China’s economic structure is systematically reproducing the capitalist ruling class. If you can’t produce this material evidence, then put away your condescending moral judgment. No investigation, no right to speak; your arrogance cannot conceal your ignorance.