geikei

Property prices, especially Tier 2 and bellow cities are seeing sustained drops on average. So this is an accompanying measure and not the start. The CPC has been slowly deflating and deleveraging their property market for 1-2 years now (with ups and downs and regional differences) but it is happening and it is intentional even if it barely has moved the needle in a lot of places. If anything home sales are still static or lower now because often people are expecting the prices to drop further so they are holding on. So this measure is probably a way to push some to buy now

Also general the "meat" of China’s future RE market is not in the 200 million who live in the richest cities or the 400 million who’ve reached urban middle class but the next 1 billion who are still climbing the development ladder .So income growth vs RE prices in 3rd tier and below is very important and its showing positive trends and results, even if first tier housing prices ,speculation and bubbles may persist and go back and forth for years

Also the numbers about Chinese GDP being 30% real estate etc are western third party guestimates and include any activity remotely related or including real estate. Its a big issue but not at that scale. Government figures put it closer to just being some 5-6 % points higher than western countries

Chinese socialist revolution before Mao's leadership is pretty legit. Chen Duxiu, Li Dazhao, are all real socialists, they truely cares about the worker and envisions a better future for China.

So no revolution at all? 95% of the critical mass and anything that can be called a large scale revolution (with organizational successes of the masses) happened in China in the 30s and had little to do with Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao previous work ,no matter how admirable. The CPC almost died and was built back up multiple times by the time Mao succeeded and Mao was vital in that. You cant get more legit than revolution under Mao. Under probably the worst odds and situation any communist party and revolution had to face they endured, made correct and miraculous choices and political and military manuvers at every turn and won, uplifting and liberating hundreds of millions of peasants and women. No Mao, no successfull revolution in China and no emancipation of the masses. Good luck doing the long march and outmanuvering the KMT from the countryside by amassing immense support with Chen Duxiu's ideas about the peasantry.

Chen Duxiu, Li Dazhao may have envisioned a better socialist future for China but they were and would have been unable to make it happen. They lacked both the military genius, the correct analysis on the peasantry or the rhetoric and vision of mass politics that Mao had that allowed the CPC to pull through against all odds and win

Trans people in sports isnt complicated. Let them compete in whatever league or category they want and identify as. Thats perfectly duable right now in the current sports scene. No gender segregation in sports altogether is very complicated and would need a serious advance into a socialist society and population cultural mindset for it to be able to be implemented without hurting most the existing hundreds of millions of women athletes at all levels imo.

Under a socialist system of mostly amateur,well founded sports scene and the equivalent education i agree thats the ideal. In our current system i feel the realities of founding and way the sports ,especially competitive sports, are structured and approached would have a vast majority of female athletes understandably not wanting genderless sports league and any suggestion or movement towards that policy before or without prioratizing complete reform of how sports and sports leagues are structured wont go anywhere.

Why would women track and field athletes want genderless sports rn if that would 100% translate to them constantly losing and being left out of competitions, losing sports scholarships let alone financialy supporting themselves and having little chance of proffessional career or any international or national success. Even if they got payed all the same, there still a want and need for athletes to compete and have a chance to win on some level of the sport against their peers. So even in the amateur scene. If the best performing woman in t&f can only hope for in any competition, be it town,city, college, state or national , to with the 20th best time or throw or jump with everyone ahead of them being men then they wouldnt take that deal and even more so the others.

Same with team sports. At any level the team will be looking to win and will chose the players that will make that more likely. So you will end up with segregated leagues any way where even in amateur leagues 98% of the rosters are male. A solution would be to enforse a quota that every team must have X woman players on the team and they must play at minimum Y minutes but that would still lead to huge issues and idk if again the women athletes would want that

wonder how those stats are calculated. The bottom 50% in 1930s China were literal serfs with a life expectancy of 30 doing borderline slavery to feudal landlords. Are we really gonna pretend they owned like 20-30% of the country's income share ? What does that even mean or matter in a feudal context

People here miss the main reason for the Chinese graph. Due to rapid modernaziation and urbanization China is at a point where it has two countries with different levels of income within itself. One with some 200-300 million people in the big cities earning basicaly European level salaries and incomes and one of some 200-300 million rural residents that make 2-3 times less at least (and then various stages in between).So in the process of massive urbanization in a very short period of time a shitton of people have been uplifted to high income status while a shitton are in the way and a shitton are still not uplifted but most likely will. That creates a very unique impact in inequality metrics without context

Also that doesnt translate to equaly huge disparty in quality of life or purchasing power since in rural or small town China life ,even beyond rent, is indeed much cheaper compared to urban ereas in a degree not seen in the vast majority of countries . That particular configuration is very specific to China. For example the median US "rural" income is just 20% lower than the median urban one and despite that income inequality is so immense nationwide

And all that ignoring the particularities that arise if you try to make a wealth graph for China instead of income. With 90% home ownership rate, very large savings compared to other countries, an ever present in kind welfare state and a "at least on paper" people's state that can be argued to actively control most of the wealth in various ways . Even for a "de formed" workers state how can you really make a wealth graph that accounts for the non capitalist particularities of ownership and control

Also how can you even compare stats like that between different modes of production. The bottom 50% in 1930s China were landless peasant serfs slaving on feudal warlords and living till 33 years old. What does them having 25% of Chinas income share even mean or even matter? How can you compare it to the situation I described above. How is it even calculated in such a context ?

It's nothing like comparing and calculating the stats in Western capitalist countries now vs in the 30s or 40s

A very large part of Chinese income inequality is the huge rural-urban divide. All countries have it but its an order of magnitude worse in China so there are basicaly 2 different countries within China . Having 300 million people in the biggest cities earning western levels of income and 300 million people in rural small towns and villages earning a 4th of that skews the metric a lot EVEN tho life in rural ereas is indeed that much cheaper.Thats hugely different than wages in London being 1.5 times more than "rural" england but prices becides rent being almost at the same level. And thats besides talking about wealth vs income inequality

As far as i have seen property prices have been dropng like a rock in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities and are dropping a bit even in tier 1

Like i comment elsewhere a very large part of Chinese income inequality is the huge rural-urban divide. All countries have it but its an order of magnitude worse in China so there are basicaly 2 different countries within China . Having 300 million people in the biggest cities earning western levels of income and 300 million people in rural small towns and villages earning a fraction of that skews the metric a lot EVEN tho life in rural ereas is also much cheaper and without taking into account that this is a symptom of the rapid urbanization and mpsernization that will probably uplift the latter group like it did the former

what relationship? With the USSR ? That had almost irreversibly went to shit by the time Deng got on the driving seat

How would Trotskyism be any less "authoritarian" Than marxism leninism ? Also almost every claims on some level to be "orthodox marxist", lenin most of all and MLs as well

Maybe because by having a headstart of 2 centuries in industrialization and modernization along with pillaging and imperializing most of the globe for the last century , the US has accumulated a ton of riches and a global cultural hegemony that makes citizens even in a rapidly developing nation like China want to go there , especially for richer western-phile ones for whom America might provide a better living. And of course as i said western cultural hegemony and global media dominance make it seem like the American Dream is still a thing and that the grass is greener at the other side. But still your point ,even without this nuance, is losing steam. Chinese migration numbers to the US has been rapidly falling ,as are Chinese enlistments to US collages and schools, with the number of Chinese people repatriating multiplying over the years and the common feeling being "US kinda sucks after all"

Even if China's demographic issues are as big as dumbass clickbait YT vids and reddit comments make it out to be that would still put China in the demographic position of SK a couple of decades ago. S. Korea quintupled industrial production between 1992-2010 and their productivity rose x6 while it's factory workforce dropped 25%. It's all about education, tech, and productivity. More important than the aggregate Chinese population is the technically proficient,college educated, Chinese population. That has grown 20-fold, or by 2,000%, in the past 40 years and will continue to grow due to the hundreds of millions of untapped rural population despite the decline in population.

So point is, economy is still growing. The plan has always been to create self-sustaining growth in exports to the Global South with BRI infrastructure + productivity leap at home. Both of those aspects show great success. Exports and imports to the GS are expanding and the entire SEA is brought in the sphere of Chinese digital economy. The "greater China" economy includes another billion people in SE and Central Asia.China is getting 2x to 8x productivity leaps with AI/5G apps in industry/mining/logistics.

And all that is assuming China cant and will not tackle demographic issues in any other manners