He is a Party member—a billionaire. That is all I know about him.

If this is true that this is all you know, you would probably benefit from the teaching of Chairman Mao: No investigation no right to speak.

If you had investigated you would have found that while true that due to the failings of Jiang and Hu a handful of capitalists were given party membership, that in reality it is in name only and they hold no power.

The one and only time they tried to exert power by pushing to loosen banking regulations, so they could offer consumer micro loans, the party made them disappear and restructured the company. Foreign capitalists cried about this for years because it showed the truth, capital has no real power in China.

Also since 2014 the faulty lines of Jiang and Hu are being corrected.

Really, this is what I'm more getting at:

Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing) — with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality, with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade — is immeasurably richer than “metaphysical” materialism, whose main problem is its inability to apply dialectics to the Bildertheorie, to the process and development of knowledge.

Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided and exaggerated development, inflating and distending one of the aspects or facets of knowledge into an absolute — divorced from matter and nature, deified. It is true that idealism is clerical obscurantism, but philosophical idealism is also, more correctly, a road to clerical obscurantism through one of the sides of the infinitely complex dialectical knowledge of man.

• V. I. Lenin

Stalin was correct about industrialization in the 1930s, especially considering the external conditions and environment the soviets found themselves in. The incredible rates of industrialization were unprecedented in history, and the fact that industrialization was completed is why the heroic Red Army was equipped and able to defeat the Nazi menace.

Mao's economy was also fantastic at getting rapid growth. Under Mao, life expectancy similarly doubled, and production was rapidly expanding. At the same time, growth was unstable, and many areas were lagging behind. What the CPC identified as lacking was on the technological front, as well as the productive forces in general. Deng's advancements did not overturn what Mao had created, they built upon it.

While Stalin's artels were effective, and I was unaware of many of their specifics as you have now pointed out to me (thank you, by the way), they still did not have the same impact of undermining western production and accelerating technology transfer that Reform and Opening Up brought. I do not care for the "soul" being tarnished, the fact of the matter is that western technology is no longer a monopoly to hold on the world and enforce unequal exchange, and now China is eroding the foundations of modern imperialism and neocolonialism.

As for Khrushchev, I do not deny the benefits of the Krushchevkas and other advancements. However, I called Khrushchev a snake, because the snake had venom. In casting Stalin to hell, he created a sense of historical nihilism. His insistence that the USSR had abolished class was also shortsighted. These fundamental errors weakened the CPSU, and created the foundation for further errors in Gorbachev's reforms. The CPC watched and refused to make the same mistakes.

"Individuals who participate in the pension insurance for urban and rural residents, who have reached the age of 60 and have paid a cumulative contribution for 15 years, and have not received the basic pension protection treatment stipulated by the state, can receive the pension insurance benefits of urban and rural residents on a monthly basis."

Everyone receives a minimum pension but you cannot take the basic pension on top of other pensions.

Comrade I wish I could say you appear intelligent and sincere but it would be a lie in both cases I am afraid to say.