Mao Zedong vs RLA. scanned for Economic Royalism Supply Side Extractive Resource Leverage Asymmetry.

Mao Zedong vs RLA.

The Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party from 1943–1976 scanned for Economic Royalism Supply Side Extractive Resource Leverage Asymmetry.

7/24: Mao Zedong vs RLA.

Mao presided over a revolutionary state that abolished much of the old landlord and private-capitalist elite while constructing a more encompassing concentration system: Communist Party control over land, employment, food, information, mobility, law, and organized labor.

This distinction is decisive under the RLA framework.

Mao-ist China was not principally governed for private shareholders or hereditary wealth holders; instead its effective elite was the senior party-state political class, with Mao occupying the commanding position. State ownership therefore did not automatically create resource symmetry. It frequently transferred leverage from private owners to an unaccountable political hierarchy that could direct production, seize agricultural surpluses, assign work, ration necessities, and punish resistance.

So the question is:

Was it Communism or was it Economic Royalism Supply Side Extractive Resource Leverage Asymmetry?

Here is Mao Zedong, undressed 50 years after his death ...finally.

Parameter 1 — Government Policies Favoring Elites or Concentrated Power

Mao’s government destroyed the economic position of landlords, major private industrialists, and many established urban elites, which initially redistributed important forms of material leverage. Nevertheless, the resources removed from private elites were increasingly placed under Communist Party institutions that the public could not independently supervise.

Score: 8/10

Parameter 2 — Weak or Closed Democracy Without Guardrails

Maoist China was a one-party state without competitive national elections, an independent opposition, or institutions capable of peacefully removing Mao from power. Internal party deliberation also failed as a durable guardrail because officials who challenged Mao’s major initiatives risked demotion, denunciation, or purge.

Score: 10/10

Parameter 3 — Regulatory Capture or Monopolization

Mao did not deregulate the economy in the conventional pro-corporate sense; he effectively fused regulator, producer, employer, planner, and political sovereign into one party-state structure. The absence of independent technical review, legal appeal, press investigation, and organized worker resistance allowed policy errors to become compulsory nationwide practices.

Score: 10/10

Parameter 4 — Public Goods Treated as Commodities Rather Than Rights

The state expanded basic education, public-health campaigns, rural medical provision, and forms of employment-linked welfare in a country that had entered 1949 with immense poverty and limited service coverage. Urban work units also supplied housing, health care, food access, pensions, and other benefits outside an ordinary commercial market. Yet these goods were not universal rights enforceable against the state; they were distributed through communes, workplaces, residence classifications, and political-administrative channels controlled from above.

Score: 7/10

Parameter 5 — Regressive Taxation or Unaccountable Direct Extraction

Conventional progressive income taxation is not the correct measure for Maoist China because the state had largely replaced private capital accumulation with direct administrative extraction. Agricultural procurement, collective production, compulsory deliveries, controlled prices, and state allocation allowed the political center to appropriate resources without requiring transparent taxation approved by accountable representatives.

Score: 10/10

Parameter 6 — Captured and Concentrated Media

The Communist Party monopolized the principal channels of mass communication and treated journalism as an organ of political education and mobilization. Journalists could not safely expose procurement failures, famine conditions, cadre abuses, or leadership disputes when those findings contradicted the approved political line.

Score: 10/10

Parameter 7 — Suppressed Labor Power and Wages

Mao’s regime governed in the name of workers but did not permit workers to create autonomous unions capable of bargaining against the state as employer. Because the state controlled major employment, wage structures, housing, ration access, and workplace welfare, workers confronted a fused employer-government apparatus. Rural labor had still less bargaining power after collectivization, particularly when communes could redirect labor into agricultural, industrial, or infrastructure campaigns.

Score: 10/10

Parameter 8 — Government Entanglement With Concentrated Economic Power

There was no conventional corporate-government revolving door because major economic power was embedded inside government itself. Party officials supervised state enterprises, communes, planning agencies, procurement systems, banks, distribution networks, and personnel appointments. This institutional fusion eliminated many forms of private monopoly while creating a comprehensive political monopoly over economic opportunity. The resulting structure was not corporate capture but party-state capture of nearly the entire organized economy, with Mao able to intervene above normal administrative channels.

Score: 9/10

Parameter 9 — Pro-Cyclical Austerity and Weak Social Insurance During Downturns

Maoist China established collective and work-unit welfare systems, so the period was not characterized by a simple ideological rejection of social insurance. The decisive failure occurred when the state itself generated or intensified a downturn and then continued extraction rather than automatically protecting household consumption.

Score: 9/10

Parameter 10 — Elite Exemption and Unequal Justice

Law in Maoist China was subordinated to the political purposes of the Communist Party rather than standing above the governing elite. Mao himself was not subject to an enforceable constitutional process through which the public or courts could investigate, sanction, or remove him for policy catastrophes.

Score: 9/10

--------

Primary Drivers of Scoring:

The strongest concentration triangle was unmistakable:

Parameter 4 — Public goods: Welfare, food, housing, employment, education, and health services were substantially decommodified, but access was routed through state-controlled institutions that created dependency rather than enforceable citizenship rights.

Parameter 5 — Extraction: The party-state could obtain agricultural surplus, direct investment, determine prices, allocate necessities, and mobilize labor without democratic approval or effective bargaining by those supplying the resources.

Parameter 7 — Labor: Workers and peasants possessed no autonomous organizational structure capable of resisting the state as employer, planner, distributor, and sovereign.

Final Total

92/100

Final Classification:

Extreme Economic Royalism / Supply Side Extractive Resource Leverage Asymmetric Concentrated Resource Ruler.

An Economic Royalist.

Diagnostic Summary:

Mao’s rule was economically egalitarian in stated purpose and destroyed several traditional sources of private resource leverage. Those actions prevent the analysis from treating Maoism as merely another form of private plutocracy. But Mao did not disperse decisive leverage into democratically protected public institutions. He concentrated it inside a party-state hierarchy that controlled production, employment, grain, mobility, communication, welfare access, and legal status.

He is in the extreme range because the political-command elite controlled virtually every decisive resource channel and because Mao personally possessed exceptional capacity to override even that elite’s limited internal restraints.

RLA Mechanism Assessment:

Resource and their abilities controlled: Land, grain, industrial capital, jobs, housing, welfare provision, media, and organized political activity were brought under party-state direction.

Leverage he used: The state could determine who worked, what was produced, what was surrendered, where investment flowed, and who received scarce necessities.

Asymmetry he received:

Citizens depended on communes, work units, cadre evaluations, ration systems, and political classifications, while those institutions were not reciprocally accountable to citizens.

Pressure he caused: Production campaigns, procurement targets, ideological tests, and fear of political punishment pushed officials and communities toward compliance and false reporting.

Concentration he used:

Accumulated the capacity to initiate nationwide transformations without independent verification or lawful public veto.

RLA 10 Parameter manifestation: direct extraction, captive labor organization, monopolized information, closed democracy, fused economic administration, and unequal law.

The Mao-ist RLA pattern can therefore be summarized as:

Collectivized resources abilities → party-state command leverage → citizen dependence → compulsory mobilization → informational failure → supreme political concentration.

Conclusion:

Mao’s system was communist in name, but its operational structure was Economic Royalism Supply-Side Extractive Resource Leverage Asymmetry. The state eliminated private ownership only to concentrate control of land, labor, food, media, law, and public goods inside an unaccountable political hierarchy. Workers and peasants did not gain independent leverage over the resources they produced; the party-state gained that leverage over them.

THE END.

---------------

Thanks for reading everyone. Like and subscribe and hit the ALL notification bell. I got a scan for every "person of name" in the history of the world living and dead. You don't want to miss em!!

The THEORY of Everything sees ALL even fake communism.💯📢

Fin,

The KR/DDT and The Economic Hammer