In the event that China begins to exert itself...

[Tzadikim]

... where should we non-Chinese Leftists stand?

If in ten year's time it becomes obvious (as I believe it increasingly is all the time) that China will replace the United States at the center of a newly-aligned hegemony, will we be expected to be as beholden to the PRC as so many of us were to the USSR during the Cold War?

Such an approach could prove disastrous, I fear: we would be written off by the Western working class, even more than we are today, as unpatriotic agents of foreign powers. On the other hand, to stand up and publicly criticize the actions of the PRC might be to invite sectarianism and justify China's increasingly neo-liberal stance. It seems to me that such a situation has the potential to transform into the ultimate catch-22 for the Left.

What, then, can we do with regards to this situation? I have no love whatsoever for the PRC, and view it as becoming essentially fused with the United States. What sort of positions might we need to adopt on the subject?

[Spawn of Stalin]

Personally as long as I consider the PRC to be a socialist country I will always defend them, even in the event of a new Cold War, not that I see one as being a possibility. If the working class see people who support China as traitors then it is our job to convince them otherwise. I know my position on China doesn't go down too well here but what I'm really trying to say is that we shouldn't just throw our convictions away because they are unpopular with the working class, they are only unpopular because the ruling class teaches people that capitalism is good, we as socialists know better, and it's important to remember that we are socialists, not populists, or tailists, the working class follows the vanguard, not the other way around.

[Tzadikim]

Personally as long as I consider the PRC to be a socialist country I will always defend them, even in the event of a new Cold War, not that I see one as being a possibility. If the working class see people who support China as traitors then it is our job to convince them otherwise. I know my position on China doesn't go down too well here but what I'm really trying to say is that we shouldn't just throw our convictions away because they are unpopular with the working class, they are only unpopular because the ruling class teaches people that capitalism is good, we as socialists know better, and it's important to remember that we are socialists, not populists, or tailists, the working class follows the vanguard, not the other way around.

But, of course, I don't believe that China is socialist in the slightest. Where have they democratized the workplace? Where have they implemented genuine collectivization of the means of production? For that matter, why do they still have a State?

I think that any support on our part of China is a red herring in more ways than one.

[bailey_187]

The existance of a superpower named Communist has happened before; and the Left was much much stronger back then so your argument is wrong

[Dr Mindbender]

How should leftists regard China when they become the #1 economy?

With the same contempt they presently treat the United States; it is just another bourgeoisie state masquerading behind a red flag that harbours no interest in changing the status quo.

Its pretty tiring to read the nonsense of Mao-tankies and convienient idiots for the right who believe otherwise.

[scarletghoul]

This really depends on how China is by that time. Looking at the PRC's history, I see no reason to think the China will be the same as it is now in a few decades time when they become a match for the US. A Maoist counter-coup, socialist reforms, etc, are all possibilities. So is the complete collapse of any pretence of socialism. Who knows what will happen ? The OP is correctly seeing that huge economic development and change lie ahead for China in the near future, but does not seem to recognise that this means political and ideological change is also inevitable.

Either way, having a self-proclaimed Communist superpower can be a great advantage to us if we play our cards right. Even if we have ideological differances with them, China could be an invaluble source of funding and a rallying point for the world revolution. Of course it would be 10 times better if they went Maoist again. But even if they don't they could still be useful to us.

But yeah my main point is that China will likely be very differant by then, so its impossible to say what our approach should be.

[FreeFocus]

I don't support China even now, so yeah. They are hardly socialist, workers are subjected to brutal conditions, rights are suppressed, China engages in imperialist activity in Tibet, Xinxiang and now Africa and the Pacific, etc. The PRC is no friend of the left, and its a pathetic and terrible mistake to think that they are. At least the Soviet Union had some vestige of socialist principles. The PRC is openly capitalist and flaunts it.

[Dr Mindbender]

The PRC is openly capitalist and flaunts it.

They have nice food though.

[red cat]

This really depends on how China is by that time. Looking at the PRC's history, I see no reason to think the China will be the same as it is now in a few decades time when they become a match for the US. A Maoist counter-coup, socialist reforms, etc, are all possibilities. So is the complete collapse of any pretence of socialism. Who knows what will happen ? The OP is correctly seeing that huge economic development and change lie ahead for China in the near future, but does not seem to recognise that this means political and ideological change is also inevitable.

Either way, having a self-proclaimed Communist superpower can be a great advantage to us if we play our cards right. Even if we have ideological differances with them, China could be an invaluble source of funding and a rallying point for the world revolution. Of course it would be 10 times better if they went Maoist again. But even if they don't they could still be useful to us.

But yeah my main point is that China will likely be very differant by then, so its impossible to say what our approach should be.

I don't think this is likely to happen. China has already murdered Nepali Maoist revolutionaries apprehended there and openly denounced the Indian Maoist movement. It has also started spreading its imperialist tentacles in South Asia, Latin America and Africa. Its internal condition is somewhat of a soft-fascist nature.

As of now, the big five CPs consider China to be capitalist.

Once the NDRs are completed in south Asia, due to geographical reasons, tactical alliances with imperialist powers other than China will be much more practical.

[Spawn of Stalin]

But, of course, I don't believe that China is socialist in the slightest. Where have they democratized the workplace? Where have they implemented genuine collectivization of the means of production? For that matter, why do they still have a State?

I think that any support on our part of China is a red herring in more ways than one.
Hey, you can call the Chinese system whatever you want; socialist, capitalist, totalitarian, authoritarian, I still think it's worth supporting regardless of what label you want to attach to it. I do think that the PRC is socialist but I also see that it is moving away from socialism, that wasn't my point, my point was that when you denounce a country which you would otherwise support, solely because they are unpopular in your own country, you lose any ideological legitimacy you may or may not have had previously. We support countries based on their social systems, their forms of government and economy, not on how popular they are. During the McCarthy era Communists were persecuted in the United States and Britain because they supported the Soviet Union, it is true that these people were viewed as traitors but it is also true that these people were right to support the Soviet Union, they simply stood their ground, the correct thing to do, and it is exactly what I will do if I still deem the PRC to be socialist in 10-20-30 years time.

[bailey_187]

Its pretty tiring to read the nonsense of Mao-tankies and convienient idiots for the right who believe otherwise.

Tiring because it does not exist?

[Tzadikim]

Hey, you can call the Chinese system whatever you want; socialist, capitalist, totalitarian, authoritarian, I still think it's worth supporting regardless of what label you want to attach to it. I do think that the PRC is socialist but I also see that it is moving away from socialism, that wasn't my point, my point was that when you denounce a country which you would otherwise support, solely because they are unpopular in your own country, you lose any ideological legitimacy you may or may not have had previously. We support countries based on their social systems, their forms of government and economy, not on how popular they are. During the McCarthy era Communists were persecuted in the United States and Britain because they supported the Soviet Union, it is true that these people were viewed as traitors but it is also true that these people were right to support the Soviet Union, they simply stood their ground, the correct thing to do, and it is exactly what I will do if I still deem the PRC to be socialist in 10-20-30 years time.

What causes you to lose ideological legitimacy is giving lip-service to a system that you do not support merely because it bears the superficial label of one that you do. If the working class thinks that we are communists and socialists because we support the PRC - that is, if they believe that the PRC is synonymous with socialism and communism - then we cannot ever expect to win their support, and we will be smeared as supporters of actions on the part of the PRC that we never supported.

Support China if you must, but, if you must, let your support always be critical. I for instance do support Chávez in Venezuela, but not to the point that I believe he represents the be-all, end-all of socialism. It's always critical support.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Of course my support is critical, didn't I just say that I think they are moving away from socialism? I just happen to believe there are still a lot of good folks in the Party, the recent 60th anniversary celebration in Beijing was no accident, it wasn't just a trip down memory lane, I happen to think that it was a serious political statement. Calling themselves the Communist Party does them no favours on the world stage, the reason they are called the Communist Party is because they are still the Communist Party, they are not just bearing that so-called superficial label to appease socialists around the world, the name actually means something, China is a colossus, soon it will be at the same stage as the United States, the stage where they can do basically whatever they want and get away with it, China doesn't need the approval of a few white commies.

[Tzadikim]

Of course my support is critical, didn't I just say that I think they are moving away from socialism? I just happen to believe there are still a lot of good folks in the Party, the recent 60th anniversary celebration in Beijing was no accident, it wasn't just a trip down memory lane, I happen to think that it was a serious political statement.

Then good. We have no grievances with one another.

[RedStarOverChina]

Long story short, it is not socialist, it probably won't be a hegemonic power, and it won't aid Communist freedom fighters, but it is the sole alternative to the Western hegemony since the fall of the Soviet Union.

And that alone brings a lot of good things with it. African countries can finally find alternative and competitive sources of loan so that it can finally develop itself. And that's terrific.

Five or six years ago I had largely given up hope for the continent---And pretty much did everyone else. Especially if one considers how optimistic people were about Africa during the de-colonization process.

But today not only there is hope, but things are moving up over there.

[ls]

Hey, you can call the Chinese system whatever you want; socialist, capitalist, totalitarian, authoritarian, I still think it's worth supporting regardless of what label you want to attach to it. I do think that the PRC is socialist but I also see that it is moving away from socialism

Do you honestly believe that "socialism with chinese characteristics" is in any way whatsoever socialist? I certainly hope bailey and your party do not think that either.

That really is quite hard to swallow.

[RedStarOverChina]

I don't think it's worth supporting unless the Western powers threaten it with war or economic sanctions. We should treat each issue individually and remember that our solidarity is with the Chinese people, not the state.

[robbo203]

Jeezus, It shouldnt even be an issue for socialist! PRC is a capitalist state . Its got sod all to do with socialism or communism. Same goes for the pseudo "communist" party. Our attitude as revolutionary socialists to this state capitalist dictatorship should be the same as towards any other capitalist state - uncompromising hostility

[RadioRaheem84]

Jeezus, It shouldnt even be an issue for socialist! PRC is a capitalist state . Its got sod all to do with socialism or communism. Same goes for the pseudo "communist" party. Our attitude as revolutionary socialists to this state capitalist dictatorship should be the same as towards any other capitalist state - uncompromising hostility

Agreed. I don't even think it can be compared to the USSR in that will lend a hand to any workers revolt around the world. The PRC and the CPC are thoroughly entrenched and heavily invested in neo-liberalism. They didn't even use any of their new found wealth to build a welfare state, they just went right ahead with creating an oligarch.

[the last donut of the night]

Long story short, it is not socialist, it probably won't be a hegemonic power, and it won't aid Communist freedom fighters, but it is the sole alternative to the Western hegemony since the fall of the Soviet Union.

And that alone brings a lot of good things with it. African countries can finally find alternative and competitive sources of loan so that it can finally develop itself. And that's terrific.

Five or six years ago I had largely given up hope for the continent---And pretty much did everyone else. Especially if one considers how optimistic people were about Africa during the de-colonization process.

But today not only there is hope, but things are moving up over there.

Can you realize that socialists don't support specific factions of the bourgeoisie?

It's a capitalist state. Period.

Supporting it is as non-sensical as supporting a blue guillotine over a green one. They both kill, regardless of their outside characteristics.

[RedStarOverChina]

Can you realize that socialists don't support specific factions of the bourgeoisie?

It's a capitalist state. Period.

Supporting it is as non-sensical as supporting a blue guillotine over a green one. They both kill, regardless of their outside characteristics.
When did I say we should support any state?

In fact, I said the exact opposite thing in the post that follows.

I was merely expressing the opinion that China's rise as a political power brings many opportunities for African and to a lesser extent, Latin American countries that needs to lessen their dependence on Western bourgeoisie.

I was by no means singing praises for the Chinese state or its capitalists.

[Nolan]

My father remains convinced that the return to capitalism in China was a ploy to destroy capitalism all over the globe. He thinks there will be a sudden nationalization of the means of production and return to Socialism to force capitalism to finally give out. I can see why he would think that since China is the cheap labor capital of the world and the western economy is completely dependent on it for most of the consumer shit made there and loans. But it goes both ways, doesn't it? And I think the obvious neoliberal sentiment within the CPC rules this out.

At any rate, there is always the chance of a Maoist coup, and the instability in the capitalist system worldwide and China itself would make that more likely. :)

[the last donut of the night]

When did I say we should support any state?

In fact, I said the exact opposite thing in the post that follows.

I was merely expressing the opinion that China's rise as a political power brings many opportunities for African and to a lesser extent, Latin American countries that needs to lessen their dependence on Western bourgeoisie.

I was by no means singing praises for the Chinese state or its capitalists.

By arguing these points you were supporting this particular capitalist state over the other. Capitalist dependence is the same, regardless of who's it belonging to.

[RedStarOverChina]

By arguing these points you were supporting this particular capitalist state over the other. Capitalist dependence is the same, regardless of who's it belonging to.
No, it's common knowledge that monopolistic capitalism is way worse than capitalism in a competitive environment.

So far African countries are forced to depend on Western loan-sharks for loans---With predictable results: crushing debt, service fees and worsening poverty.

Nigeria, for example, had to pay back in interests 3 times the original amount of money they borrowed from the West---Just in interests! They haven't even began to pay the principal money.

Because they didn't have a choice. Now they do.

Who could be against that?


Now that there are more than one player in Africa, Africa doesn't need to be dependent on either one of them. In fact, Africa can, and is already beginning to play one against the other.

That's what I'm cheering for.

[Dr Mindbender]

No, it's common knowledge that monopolistic capitalism is way worse than capitalism in a competitive environment.

So far African countries are forced to depend on Western loan-sharks for loans---With predictable results: crushing debt, service fees and worsening poverty.

Nigeria, for example, had to pay back in interests 3 times the original amount of money they borrowed from the West---Just in interests! They haven't even began to pay the principal money.

Because they didn't have a choice. Now they do.

Who could be against that?


Now that there are more than one player in Africa, Africa doesn't need to be dependent on either one of them. In fact, Africa can, and is already beginning to play one against the other.

That's what I'm cheering for.

...but isnt it a vicious cycle if the chinese loans only end up paying off western debt and they find themselves indebited to the chinese instead albeit at a smaller rate of interest?

Its hardly a solution.

India is riding China's coat-tails to superpower status. It will be interesting to see once they also become a big player.

[Raúl Duke]

... where should we non-Chinese Leftists stand?

If in ten year's time it becomes obvious (as I believe it increasingly is all the time) that China will replace the United States at the center of a newly-aligned hegemony, will we be expected to be as beholden to the PRC as so many of us were to the USSR during the Cold War?

Such an approach could prove disastrous, I fear: we would be written off by the Western working class, even more than we are today, as unpatriotic agents of foreign powers. On the other hand, to stand up and publicly criticize the actions of the PRC might be to invite sectarianism and justify China's increasingly neo-liberal stance. It seems to me that such a situation has the potential to transform into the ultimate catch-22 for the Left.

What, then, can we do with regards to this situation? I have no love whatsoever for the PRC, and view it as becoming essentially fused with the United States. What sort of positions might we need to adopt on the subject?

We shouldn't become cheerleaders of China.
In the case that China is invaded or something in relation to imperialism there's 2 stances.
One can see it as a conflict between an imperialist power and a non-imperialist power and thus support that no imperialism is extended to China. However, at this point, China can also be considered to becoming an "imperialist" power in itself and thus such a war can be seen as an inter-imperialist war (like WWI or so) and the position is to denounce the war as such and tell people that we shouldn't waste our time fighting a "rich man's imperialist war." It depends on the circumstances though, if both nations have clear imperialist aims against one another than it's an inter-imperialist war.

In the case China is invading...well it depends on circumstance but we might criticize is as an act of imperialism. If you're in a country that the Chinese is invading than I guess one option a leftist should consider is to resist Chinese imperialism (independently at best, like partisans/militias, so as not to be tied to the national bourgeois state of your invaded country).

[bailey_187]

I certainly hope bailey and your party do not think that either.

Nah i dont think it is. I used to, but i been doing some thinking and study recently and i dont think it is anymore. However, there are still remnants of Socialism (such as semi-economic planning, state ownership of commanding heights) that have contributed to its economic success and are things to be defended from destruction by some in the CCP who would like to see it all gone.

The CPGB-ML holds that China is Socialist.

@Radio Raheem, China is not neo-liberal. Its capitalist, but certainly not neo-liberal.

[rednordman]

The existance of a superpower named Communist has happened before; and the Left was much much stronger back then so your argument is wrongThis may be a painfull fact for some on here, but its dead correct. Where is the left now?

I will add regardless of whether or not China is socialist, another cold war would look extremely strange.

Technically, If it is true that China is like an authoritarian state that allows any foreign industry to take the piss out of the workers there, than who are the capitalists in the west going to support? I have heard some ardent free-market supporters defend the current state of China (as they see it).

On the otherhand, If China is simply opening up to supply a modern foundation and society for a oncoming cultural revolution, this technically could be more to what Marx himself suggested. And there is some logic in this.

I think any support would be wavered over whether or not there is a second cultural revolution, that hands the foreign factories and warehouses to the workers who then own them, because at the current moment, as far as i see it (and I am not very knowledgable on China of today) it does look more like there is too much state power compared to workers power.

I do still support China, but I will say that it does look too much like a capitalists playground. Fortuanetly, as there isnt a multi-party democracy there, there still is the chance of things changing for the better (marxist not capitalist).

[RadioRaheem84]

Technically, If it is true that China is like an authoritarian state that allows any foreign industry to take the piss out of the workers there, than who are the capitalists in the west going to support? I have heard some ardent free-market supporters defend the current state of China (as they see it).

Yes this is very true. Surprisingly, the most ardent supporters of the new China are young urban professionals all over the world. The first time I've ever heard China defended as a great innovative nation was from an American engineer who visited Shanghai. The other was from a Chinese national who was on loan for some IT company. Apparently, Chinese cities are a hub for the yuppie world.

China is defended in Time, the Economist, Business Week, NewsWeek, etc. The only times that it's criticized it's for its authoritarian political rule which they attribute to "Communism" or the old vestige of "communism". Every time there is a demonstration against the CPC it's never mentioned that most of the times those protests are against the economic reform, instead it's always portrayed as a march against the CPC for being Communist and un-democratic (which it is, but thats not the whole story).

[RedStarOverChina]

...but isnt it a vicious cycle if the chinese loans only end up paying off western debt and they find themselves indebited to the chinese instead albeit at a smaller rate of interest?

Its hardly a solution.

India is riding China's coat-tails to superpower status. It will be interesting to see once they also become a big player.
No, being indebted to a different debtor is not the solution. The point to African countries borrowing money is in developing the infrastructure in Africa in order for it to take off.

One of the main reason Africa, especially sub-Saharan Africa (minus S. Africa) failed to take off is because they end up paying all the money in service fees, and have no money left to invest in education and infrastructures. Their Western debtors are by and large, profit-seeking private financial institutions that uses debt as a weapon to plunder Africa's wealth.

The Chinese state is no angel. But the Chinese lending institutions are all state-dominated that uses loans as a diplomatic tool instead of a profit-seeking mechanism. China has provided many African countries with 0% interest loans. That has given Africa the opportunity to develop itself.

Chinese capitalists investing in Africa exploit workers, both African and Chinese ones, no doubt. I never sought to defend them in that aspect. But there is a difference between capitalists who help to industrialize countries and those who don't.


It's important to remember that, early Marxists, including Marx himself thought that imperialistic capitalism could help to industrialize third-world countries. By the time Lenin started studying Imperialism, it already became clear that Imperialism simply didn't, and didn't want to develop the third-world.

So, could China turn out to be just like the West in screwing over Africa in the end, despite the apparent development effort already invested in the continent? Yes, that is a distinct possibility.

However, I think that would only happen if China develops an imperialist, dominating presence in Africa. That's something neither African countries nor the West would like to see. Right now, it doesn't have that presence, and I think it probably won't. China has less clout in Africa than Britain or France, never mind the US. But that is already rattling the Western ruling elites, because we know how much they hate competition in terms of influence.

Like you mentioned, it's not just China in Africa now. India is competing for influence, and Brazil will no doubt join in. There is very little chance China will be the sole dominant player in Africa, the way the West had been in the past.


Tanzania after de-colonization launched a heroic and revolutionary effort at achieving economic autonomy (It's something worth reading about). It was the closest thing Africa ever had to a socialist revolution.

However, it was largely abandoned because, IMO, the infrastructure needed for higher-standards of living was not present.

It only confirmed Karl Marx's suspicion that Capitalism is a necessary stage in development, as Euro-centric as his view may be. States borrowing money has been a essential part of every capitalist industrialization process, from Britain and the US to the Soviet Union and China. It's essential in building up infrastructure in Africa.

The issue at hand is, whether the loan suffocates the indebted with high interest: the ills of usury is known to all. Moreover, it's also about how African states should seize the opportunities brought by China's rise, and manage their debt.

[Raúl Duke]

The existance of a superpower named Communist has happened before; and the Left was much much stronger back then so your argument is wrongYes, but the first time was a tragedy for the left movement...if we do it again it'll be a farce.

No one will take us serious if we kiss China's ass.


Fortuanetly, as there isnt a multi-party democracy there, there still is the chance of things changing for the better (marxist not capitalist).

Same for the old USSR, didn't stop the fact that it changed for the worst...

[RadioRaheem84]

With India battling a Maoist insurgency, China evolving as the next big super power, left wing democratic movements in Latin America and Socialist/Social Democratic parties in Europe swinging back to their roots, it seems like we've been given another chance to right the wrongs.

Lets not screw this up by supporting China, the bastion of capitalism and sweat shop labor. I am weary enough supporting a Maoist movement in India worrying what that will do to help the socialist cause in the eyes of the working class around the world; especially the developed world.

I am hoping that Chavez, Morales and any other Latin American progressive socialist will not turn to total corruption and create another Cuba.

So China is out of the question and it will not support any working class movement that wishes for liberation. Why would it? Some of the PRC members are probably invested in some of the companies exploiting workers.