China’s feudalism began in the Qin and Han dynasties and continued until the late Qing dynasty. The most prominent characteristic of these two thousand years of dynastic changes was that the essence remained the same despite the change in form. As Jin Guantao described it in his earlier work, this created a kind of “super-stable” mechanism. More specifically, it meant slow or even stagnant development of productive forces and social structures; peasant uprisings and dynastic changes were merely “changes in the form, not the substance.”
This “historical cycle” was finally broken with the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the establishment of the socialist system, the practice of the people’s democratic dictatorship, and the implementation of socialism with Chinese characteristics after the reform and opening up in 1978.
The West has long since passed the feudal era and entered a highly mature stage of capitalism. However, super-stable, stagnant development is not necessarily unique to feudalism. Is it possible for the West to enter such an era?
A new political trend, “Gen Z Socialism,” is emerging in the US and Europe, entering the mainstream Western political arena in a more direct and emotional way than the previous wave of “Millennium Socialism.” Public anger is accumulating further, and the electoral cycle of simple party changes is no longer a solution; the outbreak of some form of violent revolution is not impossible.
It must be pointed out that socialism has different meanings in China and the West. In China, socialism represents the political system, public ownership, and direct state control over social life. In the West, socialism is more about welfare; state intervention in the economy and society is a means of social stability and justice, but not necessarily related to ideology.
After World War II, socialist forces in Europe were built on a highly unionized industrialized foundation. Their goal was not to overthrow capitalism, but to exert control over it through the nationalization of public utilities and the redistribution of wealth through taxation. The uncontrolled free-market capitalism of the pre-war 1930s, which led to the Great Depression, has proven unsustainable. However, after the 2007-2009 financial crisis, “millennial socialists” criticized union socialism (which could also be called reformed capitalism) for being out of touch with ordinary workers and too slow on climate issues, proposing solutions such as allowing workers to enter boards of directors, developing employee ownership, and subsidizing green technologies.
Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders and New York City Mayor Zoran Mandini, as key figures in the DSA, interacted with Generation Z on the streets.
The “millennial left-wing solution” has suffered repeated setbacks in realpolitik. In 2019, under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, the Labour Party suffered its most devastating defeat since 1935. Bernie Sanders’ two unsuccessful bids for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 and 2020, and Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of the French left-wing party La France Insoumise, have consistently failed to break through the French political glass ceiling. The Western left was once plunged into strategic uncertainty.
Now, a new wave of socialism is rising. Part of the driving force behind this wave is the anger sparked by the humanitarian crisis triggered by Israel’s military action in Gaza. But for many, Gaza represents not only a war, but also the consequence of Western governments investing heavily in overseas affairs while neglecting the real difficulties faced by their own people.
Following the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, developed economies presented a picture of low unemployment, high incomes, and booming stock markets on a macro level. However, the micro-level experience became increasingly negative, with people struggling to make ends meet. Soaring rents, rising food prices, and the difficulty of maintaining a decent standard of living in ordinary jobs created a contradiction between “paper prosperity” and “real poverty,” which is fertile ground for new political sentiments.
Distrust of the system among Western citizens is also deepening. A growing number of polls show that three-fifths of Americans believe “corporate greed” is the “main cause” of inflation, and the percentage who believe federal income taxes are “too high” is hovering at its highest level in nearly 20 years. The proportion of Britons supporting increased government spending has dropped significantly, while the proportion who believe income taxes are “unfair” or “very unfair” has doubled since 2019. In France, the percentage who trust the government’s ability to effectively use public funds has fallen from 33% in 2023 to 22% in 2025.
Even more unsettling is the development of technology, especially AI. Over 60% of respondents in the UK, US, and Canada feel anxious about AI, with young people worried about AI replacing jobs, compared to a global average of around 50%. “Generation Z socialists” (also known as “digital natives,” typically referring to those born between 1995 and 2005) believe that if today’s economy is already a scam, then the AI-driven future economy will only be worse. A tiny minority of tech giants will gain unprecedented wealth and power at the expense of the vast majority. At a recent university ceremony, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt was booed by students every time he mentioned AI.
“Generation Z socialists” argue that society needs to fight against a dysfunctional economic system. The modern economy constantly benefits vested interest groups, while almost all ordinary people, except the wealthy, are being “harvested” by this system. GDP is rising, but rent and living costs are rising, and decent jobs are becoming increasingly difficult to find.
Therefore, the state needs to directly regulate the prices of goods and services, especially necessities like food and housing, with funding raised by taxing the wealthiest.
This differs from socialism based on ideology; it stems from the cost of living and economic anxiety. It emphasizes not public interest or progressivism, but the most direct, practical demands: lower my rent! Lower my bills! Free childcare! Free public transportation! Protect my job! Newly elected New York City Mayor Mamdani is a prime example. Traditional left-wing issues like DEI and climate change have faded, and people are ideologically distancing themselves from left-wing politics.
However, both sides are on the same page when it comes to distancing themselves from ideology. A survey by Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government shows that between 2020 and 2025, support among young Americans for both capitalism and socialism at the ideological level will decline significantly. Replacing ideology are practical demands: higher incomes and lower living costs. Governments are taking action to improve the lives of the poor, prevent AI from disrupting society, curb excessive corporate pricing power, force the economy to serve the people rather than just corporate executives and shareholders, reverse the K-shaped global trend, and especially increase taxes on the super-rich. In a world where trillionaires like Musk are constantly provoking public outrage, this is an attractive solution.
Socialism is based on distribution according to work; improving living standards needs to be linked to changes in the relations of production. When social injustice reaches a certain level, revolution and wealth redistribution are not necessarily inevitable, but redistribution itself requires rigorous organization, revolutionary practice, and ideological indoctrination. This is where Generation Z socialists need to strive.
The highly developed Western capitalism is linked to globalization, which is one reason why union-based socialism has failed: with the outflow of capital and employment, the previously closed-loop redistribution system through taxation has been broken, making union-based socialism unsustainable.
Globalization has also created a China. Globalization originally addressed the question of “who produces what.” The US developed technology and finance, Germany focused on automobiles and machinery, Japan concentrated on precision manufacturing, and China relied on its labor advantage to focus on low- and mid-range consumer goods. The logic behind this international division of labor is what economists call “comparative advantage”: countries leverage their strengths and exchange what they need through trade.
To a large extent, “Made in China” has “advanced” through institutional progress. For example, in CDs, DVDs, and Blu-ray discs, Chinese-made discs are lighter, thinner, and more flexible than European-made ones. The advantage is less material and lower cost, but the cost is a higher error rate. However, Chinese machines utilize overclocking to reduce error rates to almost nothing, while maintaining virtually no change in machine costs. Thin and lightweight eyeglass lenses require high-index glass, a complex and costly process. But China is now using a principle similar to photolithography to customize Fresnel lens glass for customers, achieving high-index, thin lenses with low-cost glass. China, through industrial support policies and a socialist market economy, achieves a balance between market regulation of resources and macro-control, balancing efficiency and social equity.
On September 27, 2025, in Antananariro, the capital of Madagascar, protesters held placards to protest ongoing water and power outages. Hundreds of young people clashed with police.
New energy, electric vehicles, shipbuilding, and construction machinery are familiar examples. The realization of these high-tech and heavy industries relies on the socialist system with Chinese characteristics, attracting capital to translate into actual industrial and technological research and development, ultimately benefiting the people.
It is this progress that has gradually made many European and American companies, relying on traditional craftsmanship, find themselves lagging behind, unable even to catch up.
This regional job loss has caused considerable anxiety in the West. And this doesn’t seem to be enough; AI has added another dimension of anxiety.
AI is transitioning from generative to proxy-based; physical AI is the next step. From generative to agent-based AI, a large number of clerical jobs are already threatened, and physical AI may threaten many skilled worker jobs as well.
The dual anxieties brought about by globalization and AI are an unbearable burden. For many, the lack of participation further highlights the contradiction between paper prosperity and real poverty.
One consequence of union socialism is that it has fostered a unionist mentality in Western societies. Raising incomes and lowering the cost of living are crucial. Governments must take action to improve the living standards of the poor, prevent AI from disrupting society, curb excessive corporate pricing power, force the economy to serve the people rather than just corporate executives and shareholders, reverse the K-shaped global curve, and especially increase taxes on the super-rich. None of these measures involve a complete subversion of ownership.
Taxing the rich more is a popular slogan. The top 1% of income earners in the US hold roughly one-third of the nation’s wealth, seemingly justifying higher taxes. The problem is that much wealth is not legally taxable. Income is taxed once initially, so after-tax income deposited in banks may be taxed on interest but not on the principal. Investments are only taxed upon realization; otherwise, they are merely figures on paper and cannot be taxed. Overseas assets also cannot be taxed. The wealthy are high-profile, and tax evasion is easily caught, but legitimate tax avoidance is legitimate tax avoidance and cannot be taxed. The simplistic and crude approach of “taxing the rich more regardless of the consequences” offers high emotional value, comparable to Trump’s tariffs, but it won’t work because of vested interests, systemic flaws, and legal loopholes.
AI can be both beautiful and wild. Rather than preventing it, it’s better to manage it, but this requires not only talent but also a solid industrial foundation.
Taking away corporate pricing power and having the government control prices is a method familiar to Chinese people after the reform and opening up; China’s rise began after achieving this kind of socialism.
Increasing income, reducing the cost of living, and the economy serving the people are all attractive slogans. The key is “how to turn beef into breeding stock?” Slaughtering others’ cattle to feed one’s own cannot be merely egalitarianism. If everyone is starving, people will lack the motivation and ability to raise calves. Therefore, the Chinese government attaches great importance to secondary distribution, from the Third Front construction during the Mao era to Premier Zhu Rongji’s “Western Development” strategy, and then to China’s comprehensive poverty alleviation by 2020. Only by putting slogans into practice can a further leap in productivity be stimulated.
Adhering to traditional manufacturing methods may be a valuable sentiment, but in the face of the realities driven by economic laws, low cost and high-tech alternatives will always prevail. To avoid becoming the downward stroke of a K-shaped curve, what is needed is to defeat the opponent in their own backyard, not to cling to ideals or act like Don Quixote. Europe’s current predicament stems from the latter, while America’s predicament arises from more thorough deindustrialization, making it impossible for “AI to be applied to manufacturing.” Generation Z socialists need to learn to master AI tools for political struggle and future social production, rather than simply resisting them, in order to withstand the formidable fortress of global capitalism.
Without addressing the root causes, simply indulging in anger might one day lead to a rebellion by “Generation Z socialists,” but once the dust settles, will it merely be a case of “the throne changing hands repeatedly, but the essence remaining the same,” returning to the uncompetitive old system and falling into an ultra-stable cycle of dynasties? If they truly desire complete success, to shake up the capitalist system, and to gamble on a glimmer of hope for their future, they might need to examine the revolutionary and construction experience of the Chinese Communist Party.
Editor: Gu Shengze
