Artificial intelligence is advancing so fast that some economists, technologists, and futurists believe we are heading toward a historic breaking point. Predictions range from 300 million jobs being automated to AI systems replacing everything from lawyers and teachers to software developers and journalists.
This raises a fundamental question:
If AI takes over most labor, where will people get money from, and can capitalism survive?
Interestingly, this debate echoes ideas written more than 150 years ago by Karl Marx, who warned that capitalism might ultimately be undermined by its own technological progress. Today, his predictions are being pulled back into the spotlight.
This article breaks down what Marx said, what AI is doing, and what the future of labor, and money, might look like.
1. What Marx Actually Predicted
Karl Marx believed capitalism had a built-in conflict: the drive to replace human workers with machines.
He argued two key points:
A) The “Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall”
Marx said that profit comes from human labor. But capitalists constantly try to replace human labor with machines because machines:
don’t get tired
don’t strike
don’t demand wages or rights
The more companies automate, the fewer workers they need.
But the paradox is:
If you replace too many workers, you remove the source of profit — human labor.
This, Marx believed, would eventually destabilize capitalism from within.
B) Automation makes workers “superfluous”
Marx predicted a future where technology becomes so advanced that:
masses of workers become unnecessary
unemployment grows
inequality rises
social tensions explode
For most of history, this sounded theoretical. Today, with AI able to perform cognitive work, Marx suddenly feels more contemporary than ever.
2. The AI Shock: Why This Time Is Different
In the past, automation replaced muscle:
factory robots
tractors
machinery
Those technologies eliminated many physical jobs but created others.
AI replaces the brain:
analysts
accountants
teachers
programmers
designers
writers
marketers
customer support
even medical diagnosis
White-collar workers, once considered “safe”, are now at risk.
Reports from groups like Goldman Sachs estimate that 300–800 million jobs worldwide could be automated in the coming years.
For capitalism, this is enormous. Capitalism is built on two pillars:
Labor → creates value
Wages → let people buy things
If AI replaces too much labor, wages disappear, and the system loses its customers.
This is what worries economists.
3. The Core Economic Problem: No Jobs = No Money = No Capitalism
Here’s the simple logic:
Companies automate work → fewer workers
Fewer workers → less income
Less income → less spending
Less spending → companies lose customers
Companies lose customers → profits fall
Profits fall → economic system breaks
Capitalism needs consumers. Consumers need wages. Wages come from labor. Labor is disappearing.
This is the exact contradiction Marx warned about.
4. What Happens to Society if AI Wipes Out Jobs?
Three major scenarios are being discussed in global economic circles:
A) Capitalism survives but transforms
Governments introduce:
Universal Basic Income (UBI)
AI and robot taxes
redistribution policies
national “AI wealth funds”
profit-sharing models
This keeps consumers alive even without traditional jobs.
B) Extreme inequality + political instability
If nothing is done:
wealth concentrates into a few tech giants
middle class collapses
consumer markets shrink
social unrest rises
governments face pressure for reform or revolution
This is the scenario many analysts fear.
C) A transition to “post-capitalism”
This idea doesn’t mean communism. Instead, it means a system where:
machines produce most wealth
humans work less or not at all
value is redistributed through society
the wage-labor system becomes obsolete
Some predict a peaceful shift. Others see a turbulent transition.
5. Will New Jobs Replace the Old Ones?
Historically, technological revolutions created more jobs than they destroyed.
But AI is different for three reasons:
It automates thinking, not just physical effort
New jobs may require skills most people don’t have
AI learns faster than humans can retrain
For the first time, technology is competing with humans in creativity, reasoning, and decision-making.
This makes the future less predictable than any previous industrial revolution.
6. Will AI Destroy Capitalism?
There are three main schools of thought:
1) AI will reshape capitalism, not kill it
The system adapts by creating safety nets like UBI, or by shifting focus to new industries.
2) AI will create “hyper-capitalism”
A handful of mega-corporations control all the AI models and extract enormous profits, leading to an extreme concentration of power.
3) AI will push us beyond capitalism
If machines produce nearly all value, the traditional logic of:
work → wages → consumption
falls apart.
In that case, capitalism as we know it would need to evolve or be replaced.
7. The Short Answer
If AI eliminates hundreds of millions of jobs and nothing is done, capitalism collapses because consumers vanish.
If governments and companies adapt, we enter a new economic era. Perhaps capitalism 2.0.
Marx didn’t predict AI, but he did predict the danger of a system that depends on labor while simultaneously trying to eliminate it. That contradiction is now the central question of the coming decade.
In the end, nobody truly knows where this collision between AI, labor, and capitalism will lead. Some predict unprecedented prosperity, others foresee economic collapse, and many warn that the transition itself may be chaotic.
Even politicians in several countries have started telling people to “buckle up,” hinting that families should keep basic supplies like food and water on hand. Not because disaster is guaranteed, but because the pace of disruption is now faster than society’s ability to adapt.
One thing is sure: we are crossing a threshold into unknown territory, where the old rules may no longer apply. The question is not whether change is coming, but how prepared we are for the world on the other side.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee the accuracy of this information. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
Zohran Mamdani is the next New York City Mayor. He is a muslim, anti-Trump, Anti-capitalist, and will make free buses for the people in New York. At the same time, he will tax the rich. Trump moved out of New York long ago. So do many other wealthy people in New York.
Not only that. More than 1 million Orthodox Jews have escaped New York. Maybe we will see more jews escape New York as a muslim is their new Mayor. Time will show. But, there is no doubt; A massive storm is coming! Put your steel helmet on and fasten your seatbelt.
On the other hand, what we see today is not something new. This is how the system works. It goes, and then it goes down again, and again, and again. The crisis in New York has nothing to do with the Mayor. This is happening all over in the West. It is the system. Not the Mayor.
The Returning Storm: Capitalism’s Crisis & the Echoes of 1848
We hear it again and again: that the system is failing large numbers of people. The working class is struggling, costs are skyrocketing, and the ladder of opportunity seems broken. That’s why many vote for socialists: they look at the system not as a solution, but as the problem. But why does capitalism still persist when it doesn’t work for everyone?
Karl Marx saw it clearly: capitalism is built on the exploitation of workers (the proletariat) by those who own and control the means of production (the bourgeoisie). The extraction of surplus value, alienation of labour, cycles of boom and bust, and rising inequality. He argued that all of it spells eventual collapse, ushering in a socialist revolution.
Maybe what we’re witnessing now is not a violent revolution with barricades and guillotines, but a democratic and social one: a shift in consciousness, a call for new economic arrangements.
A Story That Shows What’s Wrong
Imagine an old woman in Spain who has lived in her apartment for seventy years. Her home is her past, her memories, her identity. Now, an American hedge fund buys the building. Her rent shoots up far beyond what her pension covers. She’s told: “Move out or pay the price.”
What kind of capitalism is this? Where the place you’ve lived your entire life, the neighbourhood you know, becomes a profit asset to someone else, and you, the tenant, are simply a cost-to-be-cut or revenue-to-be-raised.
This isn’t small-scale displacement; it’s systemic.
According to research, private equity firms now own a significant share of the U.S. housing stock, and their business model often involves raising rents, cutting maintenance, and treating homes as profit centres.
When individuals who’ve paid their dues, who’ve worked and saved, are pushed aside so someone else can “monetize” their roof, the legitimacy of the system is damaged.
1848 and the Warning from History
Nine years ago, I wrote an article about the French Revolution, and I need to get back to that story once again. Back in February 1848 in France, the blueprint of revolt was laid bare. The monarchy of Louis Philippe, once hailed as a “Citizen King,” had drifted away from the people. Wages collapsed, food prices soared, and despair turned to anger. When the government repressed the protests, Paris erupted in barricades. The king fled, and a second French Republic was proclaimed.
The lesson is clear: when a system fails the many and protects the few, the many find a voice. When inequality is visible, persistent, and reinforced by institutions that claim neutrality, resistance builds. The revolution of 1848 was not just about a king dying. It was about legitimacy dissolving.
So, Why Do We Still Have Capitalism?
Because it works. For some. Because markets deliver dynamism, innovation, and wealth. If measured for the few. Because institutions decide the rules and often shield the winners. Because alternatives are messy, unproven, and intimidating for those who benefit now.
Yet the crisis is also structural. The logic of profit demands cost-cutting, evictions, rent hikes, financialization of housing, and commodification of basic needs. When a woman who’s lived somewhere for 70 years is priced out overnight, that’s not a bug. It’s a feature of the system.
Are We on the Edge of a New Revolution?
Perhaps. Not in the storm-and-fury sense, but in the long, accumulating demand for change. When politicians like Zohran Mamdani win with promises of free buses, rent freezes, and groceries for all, the message is: the old order is brittle. The working class has been squeezed too long. The vote is a signal.
But the storm won’t vanish just with promises. The funding model matters. The rents, taxes, business flight, and investment flows. All these determine whether change can be real or become another wave of disappointment.
The Elderly Woman and the Bigger Question
When you see her story. 70 years of life, on a fixed income, facing eviction because of global capital chasing returns, you understand what’s at stake. It’s not just housing. It’s dignity. It’s the promise of stability. It’s the belief that society isn’t only for the rich.
And when capitalism no longer delivers that promise for large swathes of people, then the logic of Marx begins to look less like ideology and more like prophecy.
In 1848 they overthrew a king. In 2025 they may overthrow the illusion. The illusion that capitalism still works for everyone.
The storm is coming
It might be messy. It might be uncomfortable. But history shows us that when systems stop working for most people, change happens. So ask yourself:
Are we watching the death of the promise of capitalism as we knew it? Or are we witnessing its evolution — into something fairer, more inclusive, more human?
Closing thought
In 1848, they forced the king to abdicate. Today, maybe we don’t need to kill a king. We need to kill the illusion that this system works for everyone. Change isn’t coming tomorrow. It’s already knocking at the door.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee the accuracy of this information. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
The Korean Peninsula was inhabited as early as the Lower Paleolithic period. Its first kingdom was noted in Chinese records in the early 7th century BCE. The succeeding Korean Empire (1897 – 1910) was annexed in 1910 into the Empire of Japan.
Japanese rule ended following Japan`s surrender in World War II, after which Korea was divided into two zones: a northern zone, which was occupied by the Soviet Union, and a southern zone, which was occupied by the United States.
After negotiations on reunification failed, the southern zone became the Republic of Korea in August 1948, while the northern zone became the communist Democratic People`s Republic of Korea the following month.
In 1950, a North Korean invasion began the Korean War, which ended in 1953 after extensive fighting involving the American-led United Nations Command and the People`s Volunteer Army from China with Soviet assistance.
The war left 3 million Koreans dead and the economy in ruins.
The May 16 coup of 1961 led by Park Chung Hee put an end to the Second Republic, signaling the start of the Third Republic in 1963.
South Korea`s devastated economy began to soar under Park`s leadership, recording one of the fastest rises in average GDP per capita.
Despite lacking natural resources, the nation rapidly developed to become one of the Four Asian Tigers based on international trade and economic globalization, integrating itself within the world economy with export-oriented industrialization.
The Fourth Republic was established after the October Restoration of 1972, in which Park wielded absolute power.
The Yushin Constitution declared that the president could suspend basic human rights, and appoint a third of the parliament.
Suppression of the opposition and human rights abuse by the government became more severe in this period
South Korea has since then had a huge economic success. They have big companies like Samsung (which is the biggest company in South Korea), LG Energy Solution, Hyundai, and Kia to name a few.
On top of that, they also have BTS which is a boyband from South Korea. According to the Hyundai Research Institute, BTS was estimated to generate around $3,6 billion annually for the South Korean economy.
In some years, their direct and indirect contribution has been as high as $4,6 billion, which is comparable to major multinational corporations. BTS has been estimated to contribute around 0,3% to 0,5% of South Korea`s GDP in recent years.
This is a remarkable figure for a single music group, considering the country`s GDP was around $1,63 trillion in 2020.
South Korea`s economic success is well known all around the world, and they has become an economic powerhouse. But right now, it seems like their economic model is running out of steam. The economy has been slowing for years. It has basically stopped.
The economy in South Korea is on the way to be like Japan. What in the world is going on?
It all started in the 1950`s. Their economic growth was 10%, and it reached the top in the 1980`s. Then it began to slow. Growth in the 90`s declined to around 7%. Ten years later, the growth went down to 4%. In 2010, their growth was only 3%.
But something has happened in the last five years. The growth has been slowing year by year. This is what’s happening with the economy as they get richer. It happens in all rich countries. But, in South Korea, it seems like this is not temporary. It seems to be a new normal.
Bank of Kora (BOK) has warned that South Korea`s economy may enter negative territory in the next decade. The country is on a declining trajectory. Unless this is going to change, the next generation will be worse off than their parents.
But, how is it possible that a successful country like South Korea with so many high-tech companies can decline like this? Well, it has its own explanation. We need to look at their economic model, and how it came to be, and how it operates today.
The core of the South Korean economy is made up of something called «Chaebols». «Chae» stands for wealth or property, while «Bol» stands for clan or group.
«Chaebols» refers to large, family-owned business conglomerates in South Korea that wield significant influence over the country`s economy.
The influence of chaebols is often cited as a contributing factor to some of South Korea`s economic challenges, but they are not the sole reason for any economic decline. Several factors, including chaebols’ dominance, are at play when examining South Korea`s economic issues.
This is what we see in the U.S., but also in many other places in the West. They blame big corporations, wealthy entrepreneurs, and investors.
It is the concentration of economic power. Chaebols control a large portion of South Korea`s economy, leading to less competition. Their dominance can stifle small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), limiting innovation and growth in other sectors.
Chaebols have also been involved in corruption scandals, often using their power to influence political decisions. This has led to inefficiency in governance and public discontent, undermining economic reforms.
Over-reliance on Export-driven Growth is also considered to be a challenge. Chaebols are heavily focused on industries like electronics, shipbuilding, and automobiles, which are export-driven. This makes the South Korean economy vulnerable to global economic shifts and trade disputes, especially in a world where the diversification of industries is increasingly important.
They also face succession and corporate governance issues. Since chaebols are family-controlled, they often face challenges with leadership transitions between generations. This can lead to inefficiencies and financial mismanagement within these conglomerates.
Strong and independent entrepreneurs have made the wealth you and I have today. They have created products that made our lives better, and their companies have grown to be multi-billion corporations. If this is a problem for countries around the world, well, what can we say? If so, this is not the only reason why the growth is slowing.
We see the same going on in South Korea as well as in Japan and many other places. Broader factors are leading to economic challenges, and one of them is the aging population. South Korea has one of the lowest birth rates in the world, leading to a shrinking working-age population.
This demographic challenge puts pressure on economic growth and social welfare systems. This is not only happening in Japan and South Korea. It`s happening in many other places around the world.
We also have a global economic slowdown. South Korea`s heavy reliance on exports means it is susceptible to the global economic downturn. Trade tensions, especially between the U.S., and China, impact South Korea`s major industries.
On top of all that, we have technological disruption. Even though chaebols have driven much of South Korea`s technological advancements, their scale makes them slow to adapt to new digital trends and innovations compared to more agile startups.
So, what is South Korea doing to address these issues? The South Korean government has been working to implement reforms aimed at reducing chaebols’ influence, promoting transparency, encouraging innovation, and supporting small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
While chaebols have contributed significantly to South Korea`s rapid industrialization and growth, their outsized role can create imbalances in the economy, making reforms crucial for long-term, sustainable growth.
In conclusion, while chaebols are not the sole cause of South Korea`s economic challenges, their dominance and related issues do play a role in creating an environment that can hinder broader economic diversification and reform. As we can clearly see, successful entrepreneurs and large corporations can be both beneficial and problematic for an economy.
Unfortunately, we very often see that successful entrepreneurs are attacked. Especially by socialists. But we have to ask ourselves what we should do without them? Because they are the ones that are creating wealth in the long run. No socialism without capitalism. The socialists need money for the welfare system, and that money comes from entrepreneurs who make goods and services.
Entrepreneurs drive innovation, create new industries, and develop new technologies that can improve productivity. Successful businesses, especially startups, can grow into larger companies, and boost economic growth.
Large corporations provide millions of jobs and stimulate related industries (e.g., supply chains, and service providers). For example, companies like Apple Amazon, or South Korea`s Samsung employ a large global workforce and indirectly create additional jobs in the ecosystem surrounding their businesses.
We can see time and time again, that entrepreneurs are often the source of disruptive innovation, bringing new products and services to the market. Successful entrepreneurs can help transform entire industries.
Large corporations often have the resources to invest in research and development (R&D), leading to technological advancements. For example, tech giants like Google and Microsoft invest heavily in artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and other areas that push technological boundaries.
Multinational corporations make a country more competitive on the global stage. For example, South Korea`s chaebols (Samsung, Hyundai) or the U.S. tech giants, like Google and Apple, enhance their countries’ global influence. They also attract foreign investment and contribute to the trade balance through exports.
Successful entrepreneurs and large corporations are not inherently bad for the economy. In fact, they can drive growth, innovation, and global competitiveness. However, their dominance can lead to economic and social imbalances that harm the broader population if left unchecked. Balancing their power with fair regulations, competition, and equitable policies can be essential for sustainable economic development.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
People in the West like to think that democracy in the West is much better than autocracy in Russia and China. But, what if China`s «one rule» party, the CCP (China Communist Party) is a better solution than the democratic mess (according to Vladimir Putin) in the West?
Democracy is one of mankind`s greatest achievements. But, for democracy to thrive and grow it must also adapt. We need to know what a democracy is.
The word democracy comes from the Greek words «demos», meaning people, and «Kratos» meaning power, so democracy can be thought of as «power of the people». A way of governing which depends on the will of the people.
It is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. A state governed under a system of democracy.
People in the West vote for their president, political parties, politicians, and prime ministers. In other words: a democratic process. But what about China? They are ruled by one party, and that is CCP. China`s Communist Party. Is it a democracy?
The answer is yes. But it`s more sophisticated than we like to think. People in China call it «Whole-process people`s democracy, which is a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) political concept describing the people`s participation in, and relationship to, governance under socialism with Chinese characteristics.
The term «whole-process democracy» was used to describe existing governance practices such as Chinese experiments with democratic elements in the legislative process and in local government activities.
CCP general secretary Xi Jinping first used the term publicly on November 2, 2019, while visiting Shanghai, and he stated:
«China`s people`s democracy is a type of whole-process democracy» in which legislation is enacted «after going through procedures and democratic deliberations to ensure that decision-making is sound and democratic.»
On July 1, 2021, Xi incorporated the word «people`s» into the concept during his speech at the 100th Anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party, coining the concept’s current name «whole-process people`s democracy.»
Xi tied the concept to «common prosperity.»
The addition of «people`s to the concept emphasizes the Maoist practice of the mass line.
Xi describes four components of whole-process people`s democracy, expressed as pairs relationships:
Process democracy and achievements democracy
Procedural democracy and substantive democracy
Direct democracy and indirect democracy
People`s democracy and the will of the state
According to Xi, this results in «real and effective socialist democracy.»
The concept`s emphasis on «whole-process» is intended to further distinguish the CCP approach to democracy from the procedural qualities of liberal democracy. It includes primarily consequentialist criteria for evaluating claims of democracy`s success. In this view, the most important criterion is whether democracy can «solve the people`s real problems,» while a system in which «the people are awakened only for voting» is not truly democratic.
Liberal democracy or Western democracy is the combination of a liberal political ideology that operates under a representative democratic form of government. It is characterized by-elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all people.
To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either codified or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract.
Whole-process people`s democracy also serves as a political tool to both defend the Chinese government`s governance practices and criticize liberal democracy.
In the CCP`s view, whole-process people`s democracy is «more extensive, more genuine, and more effective» than American democracy.
The CCP uses the concept of whole-process people`s democracy as a means to participate in global discourses on democracy, seeking to deflect criticism and improve its foreign relations. This ties into the government`s larger efforts to promote its global leadership.
In that regard, the Chinese government`s 2021 white paper China: «A Democracy that Works» emphasizes the whole-process people`s democracy perspective in an effort to demonstrate the country`s «institutional self-confidence.»
The white paper argues that the whole-process people`s democracy is the impetus behind China`s development and growth.
Qin Gang is a Chinese diplomat and politician, and he stated this. «Isn`t it obvious that both China`s people-center philosophy and President Lincoln`s «of the people, by the people, for the people», are for the sake of the people? Shall we understand China`s socialist whole-process democracy as this: from the people to the people, with the people, for the people?»
China practices the whole-process people`s democracy, which not only means that people engage in democratic elections, but they`re also involved in consultations, decision-making, management, and oversight.
According to CCP, people`s democracy is the lifeblood of socialism, and it is integral to China`s efforts to build a modern socialist country in all respects.
If we compare Chinese Democracy with American Democracy or Western Democracy, the key difference is that China focuses far more on substantial democracy. Western Democracy places more emphasis on procedural democracy. A Democracy in the West is equivalent to «one person, one vote, universal suffrage, and a multi-party system.»
China`s democracy focuses far more on the purpose and objectives of democracy. Especially good governance, and what they can deliver to the people.
Whole-process democracy encourages the expansion of democratic channels, and diversifies the forms of democracy, so as to ensure that people can participate in the management of State, economic, cultural, and social affairs.
It also ensures that people`s congresses at all levels are formed through democratic elections, and guarantees that people`s congresses and their standing committees lawfully exercise the powers of enacting laws, conducting oversight, making decisions, appointing, and removing officials.
It improves the working mechanisms for drawing on public opinion and pulling the wisdom of the people. And these are not only words. When Chinese leaders say something, they mean it and take action to turn that into reality.
The Chinese people`s political consultative conference (CPPCC), is China`s highest advisory body and plays a vital role in China`s consultative democracy. It encourages active participation in the deliberation, and administration of state affairs, promoting the democratic, and scientific decision-making process of the party, and the state.
The CPCC has more than 3,200 organizations at four administrative levels. National, provincial, city, and country, with more than 600,000 CPPCC members from 34 areas, including 8 other political parties, and representatives from Science and technology, literature and art, economics, sports, religion, and other areas.
According to Chair Professor at Soochow University, Victor Gao Zhikai, few people in Western countries want to acknowledge that the Communist Party of China is not the only political party at all. In addition to the CPC, there are 8 other democratic parties;
The Communist Party of China
The Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang
The China Democratic League
The China Democratic National Constitution Association
The China Association for Promoting Democracy
The Chinese Peasants and Workers Democratic Party
The China Zhi Gong Party
The Jiu San Society
The Taiwan Democratic Self-government League
In addition to this, there is a large Chamber of Commerce, which caters to business owners, private business owners, etc, and on top of that, there is a larger group of people called people without political affiliations.
This is the only way China has achieved such explosive productivity, efficiency, and economic, and political transformation over a short period of only about 43 years.
The legislative information offices not only promote China`s rule of law, but also practice whole-process people`s democracy by listening to the public and gathering the wisdom of the people for efficient, and high-quality National legislation.
The small grassroots legislative information office has become a significant democratic platform.
It`s all a part of a Chinese evolution. In November 1931, before the People`s Republic of China was established, the first national people`s Congress of the Soviet Republic of China was held in Zhangshi province.
In caves along the northern Shanxi Plateau, they used soybeans to cast their votes to elect the cadres. In September 1954, the first session of the first national people`s Congress was held. Marking the official establishment of the people`s Congress system as the fundamental political system in China.
After decades of practice, and exploration, China has been continually improving the people`s Congress system. People accessing their voting rights is an important manifestation of people being the masters of the country, which is the essence of democracy.
Among the nearly 3,000 deputies to the 14th NPC, 16,69% are workers and farmers. Besides the Communist Party, there are 8 other political parties that all have representation in the NPC. There are also a sizable proportion of delegates without any stated political affiliation. The 55 ethnic minorities hold 14,85% of the NPC seats.
For many people in the West, democracy means the right for each person to vote for their leaders. This is basically why they reject the idea that China has a democracy. But what people in the West don’t understand is that Chinese people are deeply involved in the elections of leaders of various levels.
Millions of urban and rural citizens do in fact directly vote for the representatives who govern their daily lives, who then make decisions that accurately reflect the needs, and desires of the people from the most fundamental level.
It`s normal for more than 90% of Chinese voters to turn out in the village, and Community elections all across China, which is much higher than in most Western democracies.
There are now over 2,7 million deputies in the people`s Congress across the country. More than 1 million registered voters have participated in county, and Township level elections.
The ultimate goal of elections is to choose the virtuous, and the capable who can solve today`s most urgent problems, and lead the country toward development.
China`s political system guarantees the rights of its people to elect their representatives, but more importantly, it guarantees that those representatives will be held accountable to the people.
The CPC leadership regards democratic supervision by the people as one of the highest priorities. Article 3 of the Constitution of the people`s Republic of China states:
«All administrative, judicial, and procuratorial organs of the state are created by the people`s congress to which they are responsible, and under whose supervision they operate.»
Democratic supervision refers to consultative supervision carried out by means of opinions, suggestions, and criticism. China has implemented several channels of democratic supervision. Today, democratic supervision is part of everyone`s daily life. People can monitor, and supervise how authorities exercise power at any place, and at any time through many kinds of democratic channels, and platforms.
China has a 1,2,3,4,5 citizen hotline service center, and that has been going on since 1987. When you call 1,2,3,4,5 to file a complaint, an operator will put you through to the right department to talk to. In 2019, the hotline was upgraded with time-sensitive feedback services.
In 2021, the mechanism was further improved and upgraded. They selected the most common issues that people called about that were hard to solve. They dedicated special task forces to focus on these issues.
About 350 cities have these hotlines, and they provide first-hand information about public opinions and concerns that City officials could hardly get in other ways.
Since the founding of New China, people have expressed their opinions on state affairs, both large and small, and party leadership has been relentlessly exploring appropriate, convenient, and diversified forms of supervision by the people.
Satisfying the public need for information, and the need to speak out is no easy task for a country of 1,4 billion people. Undeterred by this daunting task, the country`s leadership has emphasized democratic supervision throughout the whole process of performing duties.
The only litmus test of a democracy is whether it can generate real benefits. Making the country a better place to live, and making the lives of its people better.
Democracy has always been cherished by China, and its people, and it will continue to evolve in China with its own Chinese characteristics. China has lifted nearly 99 million out of poverty. It has built the world`s largest social security system, and health care system, covering more than 1,3 billion people. More than 10 million jobs have been created each year for 15 consecutive years.
China`s success is caused by one major thing: capitalism. It doesn`t matter what system you have if you don`t earn money. Even the Soviets would have succeeded if they earned money. The editor’s opinion is that the difference between democracy, autocracy, or dictatorship is very tiny. It`s all about money. It`s money that matters. Money comes first.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
Xi Jinping visited Vladimir Putin today, and they both called each other «dear friends.» Xi says China is ready with Russia to stand guard over world order based on international law, on Moscow visit earlier today. Xi added that with Russia, China was ready to defend the UN-centric international system.
Xi pushes China to play a more dominant role in managing global affairs. China`s New World Order is on the way.
This is what the war in Ukraine is about: the new world order. The war in Ukraine is set to fundamentally transform the International order, and some people call it the world`s «de-Westernization».
A World Order is an impressive work that focuses on the geopolitical distribution of power, Henry Kissinger wrote in his book World Order.
During the 20th century, political figures such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill used the term «new world order» to refer to a new period of history characterized by a dramatic change in world political thought and in the global balance of power after World War I and World War II.
The interwar and post-World War II periods were seen as opportunities to implement idealistic proposals for global governance by collective efforts to address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to resolve while nevertheless respecting the right of nations to self-determination.
Such collective initiatives manifested in the formation of intergovernmental organizations such as the League of Nations in 1920, the United Nations (UN) in 1945, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949, along with international regimes such as the Bretton Woods system and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), implemented to maintain a cooperative balance of power and facilitate reconciliation between nations to prevent the prospect of another global conflict.
After World War II, they all said; «Never again», and the winners, led by America, drafted conventions that defined unpardonable crimes against humanity, and sought to impose costs on those committing them.
Recalling the economic disasters and human miseries that paved the way to world war, the framers of this order built the UN and other international institutions to promote cooperation and development.
Progressives welcomed international organizations and regimes such as the United Nations in the aftermath of the two World Wars but argued that these initiatives suffered from a democratic deficit and were therefore inadequate not only to prevent another world war but to foster global justice, as the UN was chartered to be a free association of sovereign nation-states rather than a transition to democratic world government.
British writer and futurist H.G. Wells went further than progressives in the 1940s by appropriating and redefining the term «new world order» as a synonym for the establishment of a technocratic world state, and of a planned economy, garnering popularity in state socialist circles.
Right-wing populist John Birch Society claimed in the 1960s that the governments of both the United States and the Soviet Union were controlled by a cabal of corporate internationalists, «greedy» bankers, and corrupt politicians who were intent on using the UN as the vehicle to create a «One World Government».
This anti-globalist conspiracism fueled the campaign for U.S. withdrawal from the UN.
In his speech, Toward a New World Order, delivered on 11 September 1990 during a joint session of the US Congress, President George H.W. Bush described his objectives for post-Cold War global governance in cooperation with post-Soviet states. He stated:
«Until now, the world we`ve known has been a world divided – a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict, and the cold war. Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the genuine prospect of new world order.
In the words of Winston Churchill, a «world order» in which «the principles of justice and fair play …. protect the weak against the strong…..»A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.»
The New York Times observed that progressives were denouncing this new world order as a rationalization of American imperial ambitions in the Middle East at the time.
And now, everything has changed. Again. China`s New World Order is coming.
We are moving from a Unipolar world to a Multipolar world where Europe and the U.S. are less influential. The war in Ukraine is dividing opinions between people in Western nations, and those in countries like China, India, and Turkey, a new poll suggests.
The war in Ukraine has laid bare the «sharp geographical divides in global attitudes» on «conceptions of democracy, and the composition of the future international order,» according to a new survey from the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).
While Western allies have «regained their sense of purpose on the global stage,» the gulf between their perspective and the «rest» has grown wider, the ECFR added.
There are different views about the general role the West will play in the future world order. Some people expect a new bipolar world of two blocks led by the U.S. and China, whereas there were signs that most people in major non-Western countries see the future in more multipolar terms.
China has always been in front. The silk road is known for all the roads from China to Europe, and nobody knows how old it is, but it can be as old as ten thousand years. The silk road was popular because the Chinese sold silk to Europe.
Today, China is still in front as they are considered to be the factory of the world. But this is probably not a surprise for people in China. Why?
For more than two millennia, nomarchs who ruled China proper saw their country as one of the dominant actors in the world. The concept of Zhongguo (the Middle Kingdom, as China, calls itself), is not simply geographic.
It implies that China is the cultural, political, and economic center of the world.
This Sino-centrist worldview has in many ways shaped China`s outlook on global governance. The rules, norms, and institutions that regulate international cooperation. The decline and collapse of imperial China in the 1800s and early 1900s, however, diminished Chinese influence on the global stage for more than a century.
But China is back. China has reemerged as a major power in the past two decades, with the world`s second-largest economy and a world-class military. It increasingly asserts itself, seeking to regain its centrality in the international system, and over global governance institutions.
These institutions, created mostly by Western powers after World War II, include the World Bank, which provides loans and grants to developing states, the International Monetary Fund, which works to secure the stability of the global monetary system; and the United Nations, among others.
President Xi Jinping, the most powerful Chinese leader since Mao Zedong, has called for China to «lead the reform of the global governance system,» transforming institutions and norms in ways that will reflect Beijing`s values and priorities.
For over two thousand years, beginning with the Qin dynasty (221-226 BCE) and ending with the collapse of the Qing (1636-1911 BCE), monarchs who ruled China proper invoked a mandate of heaven to legitimate their own rule and rhetorically assert their own centrality to global order, even though they never built a truly global empire.
Even when China`s influence collapsed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Chinese elites dreamed of regaining global influence.
At the end of World War II, China became an initial member of the United Nations and seemed poised to play a larger role in the new international order. But after the Communist Party won the civil war and took power in 1949, China rejected the international system and tried to help create an alternative global governance order.
Frustrated with the existing international system, the Republic of China (Taiwan) remained seated on the UN Security Council, instead of the People`s Republic of China, Beijing promoted alternative values and institutions.
In 1953, Premier Zhou Enlai enunciated «The Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence», mutual respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, mutual nonaggression, noninterference in each other`s international affairs, equality, mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence.
Endorsed by leaders of many newly independent former colonies, these principles formed a basis for the nonaligned movement (NAM) of the 1960s. NAM became a counterweight to Western-dominated global governance.
China returned to the international system in the early 1970s and rebuilt its ties with the United States. It accepted a weaker international role and sought to participate in the institutions and rules set up after World War II.
After the end of the Mao era, China opened up in the 1980s and 1990s, reformed its economy, and increased its role in global governance, including by cooperating with international institutions. During this time, China adapted many domestic laws to conform to those of other countries.
Deng Xiaoping, who ultimately succeeded Mao, oversaw major economic reforms in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which launched China`s growth and ultimately increased its global reach. Deng introduced market reforms, and encouraged inflows of foreign capital and technology, among other steps.
During this period, China also joined more global financial and trade institutions, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Intellectual Property Organization, and the Asian Development Bank.
In 1989, the Chinese government violently cracked down on democracy protestors in Beijing`s Tiananmen Square, and elsewhere in the country, which resulted in widespread international condemnation.
To help rebuild its reputation and ties with other countries, beginning in the early 1990s, Beijing increasingly embraced multilateralism and integration with global governance institutions. Beijing signed multilateral agreements it had previously been reluctant to join.
In the first decade of the twenty-first century, China often proved willing to play by international rules and norms. As its economy grew, however, Beijing assumed a more active role in global governance, signaling its potential to lead and challenge existing institutions and norms.
The country boosted its power in four ways; it took on a bigger role in international institutions, advertised its increasing influence, laid the groundwork to create some of its own organizations, and sometimes subverted global governance rules.
In 2010, China surpassed Japan to become the world`s second-biggest economy and earned the third-greatest percentage of votes in the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It also created its own Multilateral Organizations.
China started to create its own Beijing-dominated institutions. A process that would expand in the 2010s. In the previous decade, Beijing had established the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which built on the earlier Shanghai 5 group, and brought together China, Russia, and Central Asian states.
In the 2010s, the SCO would become a vehicle for China to challenge existing global norms, such as pushing its idea of closed internet controlled by governments, rather than one global, open internet.
Under President Bush and Obama, Washington generally accepted that Beijing would increasingly support global governance norms and institutions. In 2005, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick publicly urged China to become a «responsible stakeholder» in the international system.
The Donald J. Trump administration, by contrast, has expressed greater concern over Chinese efforts to subvert existing norms and has pushed back against Beijing`s efforts to use international institutions to promote Chinese foreign policies and programs like the Belt and Road Initiatives.
But China challenges International norms and rules. Under Jiang Zemin`s successor Hu Jintao, China more openly challenged international norms. Beijing asserted that its sovereignty over disputed areas of the South China Sea was a «core interest,» and «non-negotiable, « despite participating in negotiations with other claimants.
Beijing also expanded its footprint in the South China Sea; it built military facilities on disputed islands and artificial features. And it expanded its aid around the world.
Since the early 2010s, as China`s economic and military power has grown, so too has its ambition and capability to reform the global governance system to reflect Beijing`s priorities and values.
Some of the priorities Beijing promotes in global governance are defensive in nature and reflect long-standing. Chinese aims: preventing criticism of China`s human rights practices, keeping Taiwan from assuming an independent role in international institutions, and protecting Beijing from compromises to its sovereignty.
Yet China also now seeks to shape the global governance system more offensively, to advance its model of political and economic development. This development model reflects extensive state control over politics and society and a mix of both market-based practices and statism in core sectors of the economy.
Xi Jinping has called for more shared control of global governance. He has declared that China needs to «lead the reform of the global governance system with the concepts of fairness and justice».
The terms fairness and justice signal a call for a more multipolar world, one potentially with a smaller U.S. role in setting international rules. The Donald J. Trump administration`s retreat from global leadership has added to China`s opportunity to fill the void and promote multipolar global governance.
China is now pushing for a bigger role in International agencies. Chinese officials lead four of the fifteen UN specialized agencies. They are also creating alternative institutions. Beijing is building its own, China-centered institutions.
In 2013, Beijing launched the Belt and Road Initiatives. A vast plan to use Chinese assistance to fund infrastructure, and boost ties with, other countries, like their neighbor Russia. Beijing`s more proactive global strategy serves the Xi administration`s dream of returning China to its past glory.
China`s evolving global governance strategy is most apparent in four major issues; global health, internet governance, climate change, and development finance.
China seeks to become a leader in global internet governance and to promote the idea of «cyber sovereignty». That a state should exert control over the internet within its borders. In October 2017, Xi Jinping unveiled his plans to make China a «cyber superpower.»
Globally, Beijing promotes its domestic cyber sovereignty approach to internet governance, which hinges on Communist Party control and censorship. Xi`s administration uses increasingly advanced technology to dominate the domestic internet and social media, blocking global search engines, and social media sites, and promoting domestic versions.
China`s domestic internet offers an alternative to existing, freer models of internet governance, and Beijing also uses its influence at the United Nations, and other forums to push countries to adopt a more closed internet.
Meanwhile, Chinese corporations such as Huawei, and CloudWalk have supplied repressive governments in Venezuela and Zimbabwe with surveillance tools like facial recognition technology.
And the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) contains a «Digital Silk Road Initiative» that includes inviting foreign officials to participate in workshops on information technology policy, including controlling the internet.
If China and Russia can set the standards for internet governance, they could pave the way for other countries to embrace cyber sovereignty, sparking a divided world with two internets. One is generally open, and the other is closed and favored by autocracies.
The world has become less democratic in recent years. Democracy is in decline. The number of people that have democratic rights has recently plummeted: between 2016 and 2022, this number fell from 3,9 billion to 2,3 billion people.
The world underwent phases of autocratization in the 1930s and again in the 1960s and 1970s. Back then, people fought to turn the tide and pushed democratic rights to unprecedented heights. But what now? Can we do the same again?
A new Chinese world order is coming, and they are not democratic.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
Ket Garden
Shiny bull 