On Chinese Global Policy....possible hope for struggles?

[RadioRaheem84]

Thank you for your email and comments on my book.

With regard to your question, I think China is mainly focussed on ensuring a peaceful environment for development - its own modernisation and a more favourable climate for other developing countries, making sure to keep the US engaged in multilateral negotiations and avoid further unilateral action, for example against Iran or North Korea.

For the time being at least I see China using its growing international strength to limit US efforts to impose a 'one size fits all' pattern on the developing countries, i.e. supporting the compradore bourgeiosies. China's aim is to create more international space to allow developing countries to chose their own development paths and political systems. The situation now is very different from the world revolutionary struggles on the 1960s. So I think, although China may give some more sympathetic reporting to these kinds of struggles, it will not intervene or politically interfere in other countries but leave it to the people to win their own victories.

with best wishes,

Jenny Clegg


I emailed the author of a good book on Chinese global policy and she replied back with a rather uplifting email.

Now, I do not think that the Chinese state is at all looking to really finance or meddle into national liberation movements but I think that it's a good thing that the PRC is at least acting as a deterrent to US power and unilateral action. She says that China will also aid developmental policies in the third world that will not simply benefit the local oligarch. So that is a plus.

It seems that China itself is looking to modernize and take a developmental Keynesian approach. So we may have an emerging social democratic country on our hands that may help developmental struggles and look favorably among national liberation movements.

This may be wishful thinking but at least it's something to look forward to if it turns out to be true.


Your analysis.

[Queercommie Girl]

A revolutionary saying keynesianism is more "progressive" than neoliberalism is like an atheist saying eastern religions are more "scientific" than western religions.

"Uplifting" perhaps, but perhaps in a rather utopian sense.

Don't forget a famous ancient Chinese saying:

Good medicines taste bitter to one's mouth, but they're good for one's illness;
Loyal words sound harsh to one's ear, but they're good for one's conduct.

Sometimes what revolutionaries need is bad news not good news, lest we become complacent.

Personally, obviously a multi-polar world of US, China and others is objectively better than an unipolar world dominated by US imperialism. But as for supporting national liberation struggles, I can't really see China sincerely doing any of that now. They are not even supporting the Maoists in Nepal, even though Maoism is one of the cornerstones of China's own socialist constitution.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well of course I never meant to say that our hopes rested in China at all, but that they can serve as a deterrent to US global power as national liberation movements gain momentum. I doubt China will support the Maoists too but I was assuming that they would at least veto any US plans to unilaterally intervene in the developing world.

A multi=polar world, especially one where the US has the least advantage would be better than an imperial brute casting it's shadow over the world and denying the third world to develop.

The hope wasn't in China but in their power to halt the US while national liberation movements gained strength. I still think, though, that China will sort of not lambaste Maoist and national liberation movements.

[NGNM85]

I think if we're waiting for China to lead us into a more free and democratic future, we're totally fucked.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think if we're waiting for China to lead us into a more free and democratic future, we're totally fucked.

I would've assumed you of all people would understand NGN, considering you think that merely changing US policies would aid class struggle by allowing to be less destitute. Why do you think that about an imperial neo-liberal nation but not one that seeks more a developmental approach?

I was merely saying that a multi-polar world would benefit class struggle and especially national liberation movements in the third world if a nation like China would act as a deterrent to US global hegemony.

[Queercommie Girl]

I would've assumed you of all people would understand NGN, considering you think that merely changing US policies would aid class struggle by allowing to be less destitute. Why do you think that about an imperial neo-liberal nation but not one that seeks more a developmental approach?

I was merely saying that a multi-polar world would benefit class struggle and especially national liberation movements in the third world if a nation like China would act as a deterrent to US global hegemony.

If we go by the ideas of leftist analysts in mainland China today, it is not in a good shape at all. I doubt in practice China would ever embark on a relatively healthy developmental path if the system remains as it is like now, without some kind of radical change.

People may wish for a better future, doesn't mean it will come if certain things are not fundamentally changed.

In fact, many leftists in China today feel that China itself might even slide back to a semi-neo-colonial country under indirect US financial domination.

It's not that subjectively the Chinese doesn't wish to create a more equal world, it's that short of radical change, objectively China will not get to the stage where it can effectively do this.

[NGNM85]

I would've assumed you of all people would understand NGN, considering you think that merely changing US policies would aid class struggle by allowing to be less destitute. Why do you think that about an imperial neo-liberal nation but not one that seeks more a developmental approach?

I was merely saying that a multi-polar world would benefit class struggle and especially national liberation movements in the third world if a nation like China would act as a deterrent to US global hegemony.

Your characterization of my views is less than perfect. Something tends to get lost in translation.

Much about China's internal policy leads me to be highly skeptical about them having any ambitions or interest in a more free and democratic world, to say the least.

I'm not sure that China would be any better as a global hyperpower than the United States, it might even be worse.

I'm similarly cautious about the idea of a bipolar arrangement. The relevent historical example, the height of the Cold War, does not inspire confidence.

I think anyone inquiring as to which country should run the world is probably asking the wrong question.

[RadioRaheem84]

Your characterization of my views is less than perfect. Something tends to get lost in translation.You've posed the same argument I am posing now, only you do it with the United States and it's steps toward things like nuclear disarmament and other stuff.


Much about China's internal policy leads me to be highly skeptical about them having any ambitions or interest in a more free and democratic world, to say the least. This isn't about China's internal policy. The only thing that could change would be the Chinese workers themselves. And I do not harbor any illusions about China, just like I hope you do not harbor any illusions about the US. The point is not that they desire a more free and democratic society, even if they went Keynesian that still wouldn't be the case, but that their position in halls of power as of now (more so if new 'left' reformers moved in) could serve as a deterrent to the Washington Consensus.


I'm not sure that China would be any better as a global hyperpower than the United States, it might even be worse. I am just going by what I have read from people such as the author listed above and a pamphlet by the PSL. The point is not that China itself would be a better substitute to US power but that having China in the mix would steer US policy away from crazed unilateral approach.


I'm similarly cautious about the idea of a bipolar arrangement. The relevent historical example, the height of the Cold War, does not inspire confidence.Why? The historical record indicates that the presence of the USSR and other socialist nations was far better for the working class than today where a unilateral world dominated by the US has allowed for neo-liberalism to ravage the working class.

Even the Anarchist FAQ agrees that the world was better off before the fall of Communism.


I think anyone inquiring as to which country should run the world is probably asking the wrong question. I think you're looking at this too much from a reformist p.o.v., which says more about you than me, NGN. The point, and I cannot stress this enough is , if the analysis is correct, then it would be far better for movements across the world to gain strength under a multi-polar world than one dominated by the US and it's interests.

[Queercommie Girl]

I think if we're waiting for China to lead us into a more free and democratic future, we're totally fucked.

As China stands now, yes, you are right.

However, if there is radical change in China and the Chinese working class take power, we may yet see a socialist China playing a relatively leading role. After all, it is the biggest working class in the world.

[RadioRaheem84]

As China stands now, yes, you are right.

However, if there is radical change in China and the Chinese working class take power, we may yet see a socialist China playing a relatively leading role. After all, it is the biggest working class in the world.

If this were to happen, then it would be almost checkmate for US imperial power.

I mean I was just going on the assumption that if China would at least take a developmental route and adopt some Keynesianism and act a deterrent against the Washington Consensus, that it would it would aid class struggle abroad.

But if there was an actual revolution in China and the working class steered the direction of the country, then that would dwarf my expectation for the future of revolution worldwide.

[Queercommie Girl]

If this were to happen, then it would be almost checkmate for US imperial power.

I mean I was just going on the assumption that if China would at least take a developmental route and adopt some Keynesianism and act a deterrent against the Washington Consensus, that it would it would aid class struggle abroad.

But if there was an actual revolution in China and the working class steered the direction of the country, then that would dwarf my expectation for the future of revolution worldwide.

Thing is though, as things stand now, it is actually more likely for there to be radical change in China than a gradual reformist developmental path, because the Chinese situation today is too volatile for the latter option.

Would China become an aggressive imperialist super-power in its own right? Or would it break apart like the FSU and Yugoslavia and sink back to the status of a semi-colonial nation under indirect Western domination? Or would there be a successful radical transformation in China in the socialist direction?

Many things could potentially happen in the future, but you can bet that whatever path China takes, it will not be a moderate one.

[RadioRaheem84]

Excellent stuff on China, Iseul. Do you recommend any links to read on the matter?

What makes you think the situation is that volatile?

[Queercommie Girl]

Here are a few Chinese articles, maybe you can use a translator?

I might translate a few articles myself, but not now.

http://www.wyzxsx.com/Article/Class17/201008/175114.html

http://www.wyzxsx.com/Article/Class22/201009/177700.html

http://www.wyzxsx.com/Article/Class10/201007/168035.html

[Queercommie Girl]

What makes you think the situation is that volatile?

Objective: Large number of "mass incidents" every year, increasing frequency of strikes, rising inter-ethnic tension, increasing international antagonisms;

Also due to the lack of political democracy and any kind of supervisory system, corruption in the Chinese government at the moment, especially at the regional level, is completely out of control. Economic inequality is also continuously increasing. The way the Chinese political system is structured virtually rules out any kind of "negative feedback" mechanism to restore political and socio-economic stability.

Subjective: Many people in China think the situation is volatile and unstable, including both leftists and rightists; both rich and poor; and people from every background. The Chinese internet is full of radical voices these days, across the entire ideological spectrum, ranging from radical communism to Han nationalism.

[Soviet dude]

They are not even supporting the Maoists in Nepal, even though Maoism is one of the cornerstones of China's own socialist constitution.


http://www.telegraphnepal.com/uploaded/others/hujintao.jpg

[Queercommie Girl]

http://www.telegraphnepal.com/uploaded/others/hujintao.jpg

Yes, that photo says everything. Everything is fine in socialist China and it is still embarking on the progressive road towards communism without any major problems, as well as supporting genuine socialist movements everywhere on the globe...:rolleyes:

Seriously though, despite the fact that Hu is slightly more to the left than his predecessor and there are still many genuine socialists and leftists among the grassroots layers of the CCP, anyone who claims to be a socialist and still think the PRC today is not at least highly deformed and in urgent need of a real socialist mass movement is clearly detached from reality.

[Queercommie Girl]

Hu Jintao is to the Dengist CCP what Ed Miliband is to New Labour. Both claim to be "socialists" but you really wonder how deep the claim goes...

[Obs]

I think that, unless the Chinese working class begins to grow conscious and takes power, China would, were it to become a superpower to rival the U.S., be at risk of shifting towards an imperialist policy. This would, quite frankly, crush any hope for socialism to spread.

So, China - for the sake of humanity, wake up! We're counting on you.

[Soviet dude]

So you don't want to actually defend your claim China does nothing to help Nepal, I take it? Or maybe the Nepalese aren't leading a real revolution (or some other Troskyist nonsense)?


Yes, that photo says everything.

It says everything it needs to say about your claim China does nothing for the Nepalese Maoists.


Everything is fine in socialist China and it is still embarking on the progressive road towards communism without any major problems, as well as supporting genuine socialist movements everywhere on the globe...

China is supporting all kinds of good stuff all over the globe. Here are some more photos:

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/china-zimbabwe.jpg

http://www.korea-is-one.org/IMG/Kim_Jong_Il_Hu_Jintao_airport-291005.jpg

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-11/19/content_10378183.htm

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200608/25/images/082501.jpg

http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/56334952.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921F7C3FC3F69D929FD3D6E8E24F8AD364C 648F3938AC340AF89669A244502D4AE580D5697B907F1B93

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200601/10/images/0109_E05.jpg

Seems like most of the people the Left upholds doesn't mind being friends with China.


Seriously though, despite the fact that Hu is slightly more to the left than his predecessor and there are still many genuine socialists and leftists among the grassroots layers of the CCP, anyone who claims to be a socialist and still think the PRC today is not at least highly deformed and in urgent need of a real socialist mass movement is clearly detached from reality

The people on the Left doing anything in the world worth talking about seem to have a completely different view than some random, anonymous British Trot.

[Obs]

Seems like most of the people the Left upholds doesn't mind being friends with China.
There are a number of reasons for this, one of which being that if you oppose the U.S., you'd damn well better align yourself with their main creditor.

[Queercommie Girl]

So you don't want to actually defend your claim China does nothing to help Nepal, I take it? Or maybe the Nepalese aren't leading a real revolution (or some other Troskyist nonsense)?



It says everything it needs to say about your claim China does nothing for the Nepalese Maoists.



China is supporting all kinds of good stuff all over the globe. Here are some more photos:

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/china-zimbabwe.jpg

http://www.korea-is-one.org/IMG/Kim_Jong_Il_Hu_Jintao_airport-291005.jpg

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-11/19/content_10378183.htm

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200608/25/images/082501.jpg

http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/56334952.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921F7C3FC3F69D929FD3D6E8E24F8AD364C 648F3938AC340AF89669A244502D4AE580D5697B907F1B93

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200601/10/images/0109_E05.jpg

Seems like most of the people the Left upholds doesn't mind being friends with China.



The people on the Left doing anything in the world worth talking about seem to have a completely different view than some random, anonymous British Trot.

God...you are naive. You think just "shaking hands" means giving a lot of real support? It's called diplomacy, stupid. I could find you old photographs of Mao and Zhou Enlai shaking hands with US presidents, does this mean the US is socialist? :rolleyes:

Talking about the people on the left doing stuff in the world, are you turning a blind eye to the plight of Chinese workers in China itself? The series of worker suicides at Foxconn? The fact that workers no longer have any social security or welfare support? The fact that much of the Chinese state-owned economy has been privatised? The fact that capitalists now pretty much run the CCP? How the hell is a state which can't even take care of its own workers properly going to export socialist revolution overseas?

If you recognise all of this yet still call China now "genuinely socialist", then you are a revisionist scum. I'd much rather ally with Trotskyists for the interest of the working class than with an apologist of revisionism like you.

[Soviet dude]

God...you are naive.In fact, the exact opposite is the case. You swallow Western bullshit like candy.


You think just "shaking hands" means giving a lot of real support?In each and every one of those cases, it goes far beyond shaking hands. If you knew anything about China, you'd know that.


I could find you old photographs of Mao and Zhou Enlai shaking hands with US presidents, does this mean the US is socialist?The context of the photos would imply there were meeting with Nixon and such about ending the Vietnam war. The context of these photos is that China is allying itself with pretty much all the forces most demonized by US imperialism.


Talking about the people on the left doing stuff in the world, are you turning a blind eye to the plight of Chinese workers in China itself?I think Chinese workers are doing a pretty damn good job handling their own plight, largely in part because they have a government which objectively represents their interests.


The series of worker suicides at Foxconn?What of it? How do this have anything to do with the CCP? Did they encourage people to kill themselves? No, of course not.


The fact that workers no longer have any social security or welfare support?This isn't a "fact" at all, so there is not much to respond to here.


The fact that much of the Chinese state-owned economy has been privatised?This is not a "fact" either.


The fact that capitalists now pretty much run the CCP?This is not a "fact" either. In 'fact,' the CCP has been shooting capitalists at a pretty steady rate for a long time now.


How the hell is a state which can't even take care of its own workers properly going to export socialist revolution overseas?It's not the job of socialist countries to "export socialist revolution." It can happen, but this isn't an obligation.


If you recognise all of this yet still call China now "genuinely socialist", then you are a revisionist scum.I'm not too concerned when a Trotskyite calls me a revisionist.


I'd much rather ally with Trotskyists for the interest of the working class than with an apologist of revisionism like you.That's fine. I'll ally myself with Chavez, Mugabe, Morales, Lukashenko, Cuba, the Nepalese Maoists, the Worker's Party of Korea, the KKE, the FARC-EP, basically everyone in the world doing anything worth talking about, and who have a positive view of China, and you can ally yourself with insignificant Western Trotskyite cults. Let's see which side starts the revolution first, eh comrade?

[Queercommie Girl]

I think Chinese workers are doing a pretty damn good job handling their own plight, largely in part because they have a government which objectively represents their interests.


How the fuck is the Chinese government representing the workers' interests? By having "trade unions" that care more about the rights of the capitalists than that of the workers? Is that why the workers are fighting against the government now and calling for independent democratic grassroots trade unions to form?



What of it? How do this have anything to do with the CCP? Did they encourage people to kill themselves? No, of course not.
You are a total dumbass. Or perhaps a Chinese internet agent. Why would people wish to kill themselves in this case if it wasn't because the working conditions for them are completely hellish? And you tell me, who is to blame for those working conditions, who is deliberately driving down the cost of Chinese labour in order to attract more foreign investment? The Chinese government of course.



This isn't a "fact" at all, so there is not much to respond to here.
Yes, it is a fact and if you know anything about China, you would know this.



This is not a "fact" either. In 'fact,' the CCP has been shooting capitalists at a pretty steady rate for a long time now.
So why is it there are thousands of big capitalists in the CCP now, while not a single capitalist was in the CCP in Mao's days? Care to explain the rationale of letting capitalists into the party from a Marxist perspective?



It's not the job of socialist countries to "export socialist revolution." It can happen, but this isn't an obligation.
It is you who is trying to show that China is supporting global socialist/revolutionary movements, I'm simply pointing out that such is not really possible since China isn't socialist itself anymore.

Why don't you first explain to me how China today is still socialist in any genuine sense. How a country with an economic inequality greater than that of the US is "socialist".



I'm not too concerned when a Trotskyite calls me a revisionist.

That's fine. I'll ally myself with Chavez, Mugabe, Morales, Lukashenko, Cuba, the Nepalese Maoists, the Worker's Party of Korea, the KKE, the FARC-EP, basically everyone in the world doing anything worth talking about, and who have a positive view of China, and you can ally yourself with insignificant Western Trotskyite cults. Let's see which side starts the revolution first, eh comrade?That's because you are a total delusional dumbass. If you can't see the fundamental difference between say Chavez's Venezeula and China today, you are not qualified to call yourself a leftist.

As for the revolution, what China needs now is a revolutionary mass movement to remove the bureaucratic capitalist revisionists in power.