Mainland Expert Blasts the Chinese Communist Party’s Discriminatory Social Security System, Sparking Resonance

These elderly people cannot even afford pork that costs 20 yuan per jin. (Video screenshot)

[People News] During this year’s Chinese Communist Party Two Sessions, a National People’s Congress deputy said that basic pension benefits should be increased for farmers nationwide over the age of 70, once again exposing the bloody gulf in China’s pension system that has long been concealed. An audio recording of economist Xiang Songzuo blasting the authorities for “artificially setting up a discriminatory social security system” has gone viral online, directly pointing to the Chinese Communist Party’s logic of dividing citizens into different classes and ranks, and how this is pushing hundreds of millions of farmers into a survival crisis in old age.

A “humble” proposal from a Chinese Communist Party National People’s Congress deputy

According to The Epoch Times, Lei Maoduan, a deputy to the National People’s Congress of the Chinese Communist Party and Party secretary of Zhuangshang Village, Jiezhou Town, Yanhu District, Yuncheng City, Shanxi Province, proposed a “special rural elderly farmer pension subsidy project” aimed at the rural pension problem. The specific measures include:

For all rural elderly people nationwide aged 70 and above, on top of the existing basic urban and rural resident pension insurance, each person would receive an additional 500 yuan in basic pension per month.

Financial blogger “Tom” believes this proposal is relatively “conservative,” because the subsidy targets are limited to farmers over 70 years old, deliberately excluding those between 60 and 70 who have likewise lost their ability to work but are still forgotten by the system. China’s farming population covers the largest segment of the population, yet receives the lowest level of protection.

This kind of “charity-style” subsidy appears extremely ironic when compared with the cold data on the urban-rural gap.

“Tom” also mentioned that differences in pension distribution in China have long attracted attention. In January 2023, a set of statistics released by a local social security department sparked heated discussion online. The data showed that in one locality, 75,500 retired enterprise workers received a total of 178.85 million yuan in pensions, averaging about 2,368 yuan per month; 13,600 retired government and public institution personnel received 69.09 million yuan, averaging about 5,080 yuan per month; while 137,800 retired urban and rural resident social security recipients received only 28.54 million yuan, averaging about 207 yuan per month.

He said that the overall data show that less than 6% of retired personnel from government organs and public institutions divide up about 25% of the entire society’s pension resources, while urban and rural residents, who make up more than 60%, can obtain only a meager 10%. In some areas, the 200 yuan monthly pension received by farmers cannot even pay for one ordinary publicly funded lunch for a cadre within the system.

“Tom” believes that the extremely low level of pension protection for farmers has already become a structural problem, and therefore raising their pensions “makes sense both legally and morally.”

Economist Xiang Songzuo blasts “social security discrimination” under a hierarchy of power

Recently, in a widely circulated speech on the mainland internet, economist Xiang Songzuo also questioned the issue of social security disparities.

In the speech, he said that some economists have all paid attention to this issue. “The government says the people are the masters of the country, so all citizens of the country should be treated equally, and there should not be divisions into different ranks and classes. Why is there still a distinction between farmers and workers? Why is there still a distinction between officials and non-officials?”

Xiang Songzuo pointed out that social security is paid for by taxpayers — in other words, by the money of ordinary people across the country. “I have also been calling for this all along: after so many years of reform and opening up, there should no longer be such distinctions. Why should the social security and medical insurance of retirees in Beijing and Shanghai be higher than in other places? What is the reason? After doing this for so many years, why has the urban-rural gap still not been resolved?”

He said that what ordinary people call the retirement保障 of officials (civil servants) is extremely high. For example, in cities such as Shenzhen, Guangzhou, and Shanghai, some department-level cadres can receive ten to twenty thousand yuan after retirement, while bureau-level cadres may receive even more.

“Meanwhile, farmers’ pensions are far below this level.” Xiang Songzuo revealed that he once spoke with Morgan’s chief economist, who said that the 200 yuan of social security for farmers should be raised to 1,000 yuan. “Of course I agree, but I think even raising it to 1,000 yuan is still far too low.”

He emphasized that even if the gap cannot be completely eliminated in the short term, it should at least be greatly narrowed, and the disparity should not remain so huge. Raising farmers’ pensions to half or two-thirds of their level is something that should be done. Is this not supposed to be “governing for the people”? It should gradually be raised to two or three thousand yuan per month.”

Xiang Songzuo’s remarks resonated with many mainland netizens.

“The older generation of farmers really have been treated differently their whole lives.” “The generation of farmers born in the 1950s really did devote themselves to the country. Their nature was similar to workers in factories. They ate from the collective pot and did collective labor, dug irrigation projects, handed over state grain quotas, and paid agricultural taxes. Now they are old and can no longer work. Someone should take care of them. Their pension待遇 should not be only this little.”

Some netizens also questioned whether the Chinese Communist Party government “would ever implement such a policy. The people can only entertain themselves, and it is hard to ‘snatch food from a tiger’s mouth.’”

Institutional exploitation and a fiscal budget that “favors one side over another”

For a long time, the Chinese Communist Party’s budget priorities have always tilted toward stability maintenance, military buildup, and welfare for those inside the system, while treating the broad mass of farmers as “human mines” that can be discarded at any time. This model of extraction, which has continued from the era of the price scissors gap down to the present, has become China’s greatest structural evil.

Xiang Songzuo said that China’s state-owned enterprises, whether centrally owned or locally owned, are by nature publicly owned by the whole people. Ownership by the whole people means that they belong to all Chinese citizens. In principle, the profits of state-owned enterprises should be distributed to the people. “Using a certain proportion of the annual profits of state-owned enterprises to supplement social security — I think this is entirely legitimate, and it is something that must be done.”

Blogger “Tom” put forward a plan that would make vested interest groups uneasy: to “set a ceiling” on excessively high pensions inside the system, so that they do not exceed the local average social wage, and to transfer the surplus portion to the poorest farmers. Taking Shanghai as an example, the average social wage in 2025 is about 12,434 yuan. If the excess fat of the privileged class could be cut away, subsidizing rural pensions would not be beyond the fiscal capacity; rather, it is that “the government is unwilling.” △