[News] Chinese Revolution at 70: Twists and Turns, to What?
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Mon Oct 21 13:06:09 EDT 2019
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/10/21/chinese-revolution-at-70-twists-and-turns-to-what/
Chinese Revolution at 70: Twists and Turns, to What?
by Horace G. Campbell <https://www.counterpunch.org/author/br8ph/> -
October 21, 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Introduction*
On October 1, 2019 the peoples of China celebrated 70 years of the rule
of China by the Communist Party (CPC). There was much to celebrate in so
far as over the seventy year period the Chinese society had risen from a
poor, underdeveloped society to be the second most important economy in
the world, in the process lifting the living standards and confidence of
hundreds of millions. Central to the transformation of Chinese society
were the sacrifices made by the Chinese people to overcome warlords,
exploitation, economic backwardness and imperial domination. In period
since 1949, the state squeezed more work out of the workers and peasants
in order to accumulate surpluses that could be invested for the
diversification of the economy. The economic and political choices over
this seventy year period produced many twists and turns, ups and downs
in the process of unleashing a great leap forward, a cultural revolution
and then a ‘reform ‘ agenda. It is in this fourth stage after the
‘reforms’ where the challenges of militarism, financialization and
environmental degradation will test the mettle of Chinese socialism.
The choice of the label of socialist to mark the nature of the Republic
was made in October 1949 by the political leadership when they seized
power and announced the formation of the People’s Republic of China at
Tiananmen Square on October 1, 1949. In order to penetrate the social
content of this declaration towards socialist construction, it will
always be necessary to understand the survival of the CPC in relation to
the internal and external contexts. Today, in the midst of a prolonged
capitalist crisis and a collision course with the military management of
the international system, the working peoples of China are now
confronted with a new stage of the struggle for a new order. This
commentary seeks to place the celebration of 70 years of the socialist
revolution in the context of the rise of a social stratum in China whose
intellectual and ideological subservience to neo liberalism is laying
the foundations to the erosion of the positive gains of the Chinese
people since 1949.
*Emerging from the Long March – Coming to Power of the Chinese Communist
Party *
On October 1, 1949, the People’s Republic of China was formally
established, with its national capital at Beijing. Standing before the
people at the gates of the old imperial palace Mao, Chairperson of the
CPC had declared that, ‘the Chinese People have stood up.’ The Chinese
peoples had been humiliated by western imperialists from the middle of
the 19^th century when Britain, France, Germany, the USA and Japan
extracted concessions from the Chinese imperial state and occupied
Chinese territory. The leaders of the decaying Qing ruler ship had to
open the port cities to the monopoly capitalists and also granted them
legal and territorial concessions. It was in the period of the first
Opium War, in 1842, when the Chinese emperor ceded Hong Kong to the
British.^[1] Chinese youths, students and workers opposed imperial
domination and formed organizations imbued with ideas of the
self-determination of China. One such organ was the small party that was
started in Shanghai in 1921 and called itself a Communist Party.
Influenced by the ideas of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin and the victory
of the Bolsheviks in the Great October Revolution of 1917 in the USSR,
the Communist Party of China set about unifying with other anti-colonial
forces. One of these forces was the nationalist elements of the
Guomindang, led by Chiang Kai-shek. Urged on by the Soviet Union to form
an anti-colonial alliance with the Guomindang, the Communist Party had
worked with national capitalists, but by 1927 the stark differences in
objectives were clear with the contradictions between the comprador
classes and the masses. In 1927, the Guomindang massacred hundreds of
Communists in Shanghai and the surviving leaders fled to the rural areas
of China rooting themselves among the peasantry.
After crushing the Communist Party in Shanghai, between 1930 and 1934
Chiang Kai-shek launched a series of military encirclement campaigns
against the Chinese communists in an attempt to annihilate (them
politically and militarily) especially in their base area in
southeastern China. The Communists successfully fought off major
campaigns using tactics of mobile infiltration and guerrilla warfare
developed by Mao. In the fifth campaign, Chiang mustered about 700,000
troops and established a series of cement blockhouses around the
communist positions. The Chinese communist Central Committee, which had
removed Mao from the leadership early in 1934, abandoned his guerrilla
warfare strategy and used regular positional warfare tactics against the
better-armed and more-numerous Nationalist forces. As a result, the
communists suffered heavy losses and were nearly crushed. It was in 1934
when surviving communists now under Mao’s leadership embarked on the
Long March (1934–35). This historic 6,000-mile (10,000-km) trek of the
Chinese freedom fighters, which resulted in the relocation of the
communist revolutionary base from southeastern to northwestern China and
in the emergence of Mao Zedong as the undisputed party leader. Fighting
Nationalist forces under Chiang Kai-shek throughout their journey, the
communist troops crossed 18 mountain ranges and 24 rivers to reach the
northwestern province of Shaanxi. The heroism attributed to the Long
March inspired many young Chinese to join the Chinese Communist Party
during the late 1930s and early 1940s. Mao’s base in Yunan became a
center of resistance to the Nationalists and the Long March decisively
established Mao’s leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. It was
under the leadership of Mao where the Party organized poor farmers and
peasants in the countryside.
By 1937 when the Japanese carried out genocide in Nanking and occupied
most of China, the communists led the fight for Chinese sovereignty. Mao
Zedong had emerged as the theoretician of the Chinese path to socialism
by developing new ideas about revolution. Where in the classical Marxist
texts, the vanguard of socialist change was supposed to be the workers,
Mao studied the Chinese reality and set about the building of peasant
soviets. It was from these social forces that Mao and the communists
forged a Red Army that fought a long and brutal battle for power. ^[2]
Emerging from a long march in the late thirties, the Maoists had fought
the Japanese and the Goumindang and emerged victorious in 1949. From
their base at Yunan, the communists grew in strength and eventually
defeated the Nationalists in the struggle to control mainland China.
*There was no blueprint to build socialism.*
When the Communist Party acceded to power in 1949 there was very little
industry left after foreign occupation and Civil War. The new Chinese
state looked to Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union for assistance but
even before there was any agreement, about socialist planning, the
Chinese society was thrust into another war in Korea in June 1950 less
than one year after assuming power. The United States had opposed the
Communists and even after the victory in 1949 had recognized the exiled
Republic of China government in Taipei as the ‘legitimate’ government of
China. Anti- communists in the USA and their allies kept up this farce
from 1949 until 1973 when the nonaligned movement forced the acceptance
of China as the legitimate representative of the Chinese people at the
United Nations. During this period of anticommunist provocations, the
United States aggressively opposed the People’s Republic of China. China
was sucked into the Korean War when the aggressive strategy of the
Eisenhower administration pushed the western forces (fighting under the
flag of the United Nations and the leadership of General Douglas
MacArthur) right up to the border of China. The Communist Party of China
and its leadership mobilized millions of Chinese workers and peasants in
the Chinese People’s Volunteers Force (CPVF) to repel the US occupation
of Korea. After more than a million combat casualties had been suffered
on both sides, the fighting ended and in a stalemate in July 1953.
Negotiations in 1954 produced no further agreement, and the front line
has been accepted ever since as the de facto boundary between North and
South Korea.
It was in the midst of this war situation when the leaders of the CPC
launched the period of the ‘transition to socialism’ with the
announcement of the First Five Year Plan (1953-1957) with the goal of
achieving industrialization, collectivization of agriculture and
political cohesion of the state. In 1949, 89% of China’s population
lived in the countryside, with agriculture accounting for about 60% of
total economic output. The backbone of China’s economy, agriculture and
industry together employed more than 70% of the China’s labor force and
accounted for over 60% of the country’s GDP. By 1956, over 90 per cent
of the land had been collectivized and the government nationalized
banking, industry and trade. Private capitalism was virtually demolished
and the leading capitalists sought refuge in Taiwan, Hong Kong and
Singapore.
*Great Leap Forward - First Major twist*
The next period of the Chinese revolution is one that has been the most
controversial; this was the period when the Party launched the Great
Leap Forward. It was from this era where the state developed planning at
the national level and key to this were measures to keep consumption
down among the producers in order to amass surpluses for investment.
With rising tensions between the Soviet Union and China in the late
fifties, the political leadership had calculated that it would be
optimum to put their large rural population to work to hasten the
transition to socialism. Building on the experiences of the soviet
communes of the period of the Long March, the party undertook a new
campaign called the Great leap Forward between 1958 and early 1960 to
organize its vast population, especially in large-scale rural communes,
to meet China’s industrial and agricultural problems. The plan was to
develop labor-intensive methods of industrialization, which would
emphasize human power rather than machines and capital expenditure. The
Great Leap Forward approach was epitomized by the development of small
backyard steel furnaces in every village and urban neighborhood, which
were intended to accelerate the industrialization process.
Politically, the Great Leap Forward strengthened the Communist Party in
robbing the landlord class of social power in the rural areas and
strengthening the collective ownership of land. Under the commune
system, agricultural and political decisions were decentralized and a
commitment to socialism rather than expertise was emphasized. The
peasants were organized into brigade teams, and communal kitchens were
established so that women could be freed for work. Millions of women
were freed from domestic work and joined agricultural fieldwork,
pasturage, mining, foundry, irrigation, communication, transportation,
all kinds of factories, commerce, shop work, and various other public
services. One other great achievement of this period was the integration
of modern medicine with Chinese traditional medicine (TCM). “Due to the
call by Mao Zedong, as well as the practice of the combination of
Western medicine and TCM by the first group of Western doctors with a
training in TCM, medical circles paid more attention to integrating
Western medicine and TCM. It became more popular among doctors of
Western medicine to study TCM.” ^[3]
From the many scholarly reports from sources that were not influenced
by the Cold War, the program for socialization in the rural areas was
implemented with such haste by overzealous cadres that implements were
often melted to make steel in the backyard furnaces, and discontented
peasants slaughtered many farm animals. The challenges in the
implementation of the Great Leap Forward were compounded by drought,
natural disasters and the withdrawal of Soviet technical support. The
social and economic dislocation led to inefficiency, sabotage and
internal struggles within the party. With the disruption of agriculture
where peasants were exhorted based on moral incentives, diversion of
farm labour into small-scale industry disrupted China’s agriculture
seriously, and three consecutive years of natural calamities added to
what quickly turned into a national disaster. There are diverging
estimates on how many peasants perished during the period of the Great
Leap Forward and one of the tasks of a future socialist regime in China
will be to develop clear records on what happened during these years.
This period coincided with hunger, famine and the deaths of millions.
Since that time, the debates have not been able to separate the truth
from the anticommunist claims that Mao oversaw the death of millions of
Chinese peasants. ^[4]
Joseph Ball and Samir Amin in separate commentaries have been able to
locate the challenges of the Chinese society at that period within the
context of the agrarian question in semi colonial societies. Both have
been able to analyze the goals of achieving the economic and technical
transformation of the society. Both acknowledged the successes and
setbacks of the process of transformation underlining the reality that
transformation in a society never proceeds in a linear process, or in
liberal terms, clear ‘progress.’^[5] Joseph Ball’s essay in Monthly
Review on “Did Mao Really Kill Millions in the Great Leap Forward” has
added to the debates on the complexities of this bold attempt by the
Chinese Communist Party. He had noted that,
‘the approach of modern writers to the Great Leap Forward is absurdly
one-sided. They are unable to grasp the relationship between its
failures and successes. They can only grasp that serious problems
occurred during the years 1959-1961. They cannot grasp that the work
that was done in these years also laid the groundwork for the continuing
overall success of Chinese socialism in improving the lives of its
people. They fail to seriously consider evidence that indicates that
most of the deaths that occurred in the Great Leap Forward were due to
natural disasters not policy errors. Besides, the deaths that occurred
in the Great Leap Forward have to be set against the Chinese people’s
success in preventing many other deaths throughout the Maoist period.
Improvements in life expectancy saved the lives of many millions. ^[6]
*The Great Cultural Revolution and the Left Turn*
The struggles within the Communist Party of China in the first twenty
years of the revolution were compounded by imperial encirclement and
differences with the USSR over the paths to socialist reconstruction.
Inner party struggles had led to Mao stepping down in 1959, but by 1966,
Mao had recovered his position within the party by launching a movement
to rejuvenate the party. Identifying himself with the ‘left’ trend
within the Communist Party, Mao launched the Great Proletarian Cultural
Revolution in May 1966, soon calling on young people called the Red
Guards to ‘bombard the headquarters’ and proclaiming ‘to rebel is
justified.’ Mao charged that bourgeois elements had infiltrated the
government and society and that they aimed to restore capitalism. The
Red Guards were directed to root out those among the country’s
population who were not ‘sufficiently revolutionary’ and those suspected
of being ‘bourgeois.’ In the process of this revolutionary upsurge there
was the humiliation and shaming of those leaders in the Party who had
been designated as ‘rightists’ and capitalist roaders.
The Cultural Revolution in China had coincided with the international
left wave of 1968 when youths in all parts of the globe were protesting
for better conditions. In the case of France and Germany, the
convergence of the cultural revolution and worker protests had been a
high point in anti-capitalist activities with demonstrations, major
general strikes, and occupations of universities and factories. In the
USA, the struggles for Black liberation had reached a new high and in
response even nonviolent leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was
killed. In China Mao had proclaimed, that, ‘revolution is not a dinner
party. Revolution means rebellion. It means violent action with one
class overthrowing another.’ The Maoist faction of the Communist Party
compared the Cultural Revolution armed struggles to war between the
Chinese Communist Party and the Goumindang.
The Red Guards had little oversight, and their actions led to anarchy
and terror, as ‘suspect’ individuals—traditionalists, educators, and
intellectuals, for example—were persecuted and killed. The Red Guards
were soon reined in by officials, although the brutality of the
revolution continued. In a sympathetic assessment of the Cultural
Revolution, Amin noted,
‘while the Cultural Revolution met Mao’s expectations during the first
two years of its existence, it subsequently deviated into anarchy,
linked to the loss of control by Mao and the left in the party over the
sequence of events. This deviation led to the state and party taking
things in hand again, which gave the right its opportunity. Since then,
the right has remained a strong part of all leadership bodies. Yet the
left is present on the ground, restricting the supreme leadership to
compromises of the “center”—but is that center right or center left? ^[7]
Within China, the limited summing up of the twists and turns of the
revolution has led to the formulation that the Great Cultural Revolution
and the Greta Leap Forward were mistakes of Mao. Yet, the same analysis
that designated Mao’s mistakes have not yet acknowledged the reversal
for progressive politics in the Sino Soviet rift during this period.
*Errors of analysis of Soviet Social Imperialism*
The Chinese peoples were alert to imperial provocations from 1949. At
the end of the Korean War, the skirmishes between Beijing and Taiwan
over the Quemoy and Matsu islands had seen the threats of the United
States that it was considering using nuclear weapons to defend the
Nationalist government of Chiang Kai-shek. After negotiations that
threat receded, but provocations in Tibet were only compounded by the
Sino Indian War of 1959 and the withdrawal of Soviet Advisors in 1960.
For the Chinese revolutionaries, Nikita Khrushchev and the leaders of
the USSR had embarked on a ‘capitalist road’ and the radicals in China
designated the USSR as a social imperial state. In this analysis, the
Maoists declared that social imperialism was a bigger threat to
socialism than US imperialism and in the process; Moscow replaced
Washington as China’s biggest threat.
This line of the Chinese leadership proved disastrous for those fighting
wars of national liberation. There were many liberation movements in
Asia, Africa and Latin America that came to adopt the tactics and
strategies of peoples war as advocated by the thoughts of Mao. From
Nepal to India (Naxalites) and from Peru to Zimbabwe, freedom fighters
adopted the ideas of Mao. In practice, the Chinese leaders decided that
any liberation movement that received assistance from the USSR or
COMECON countries was a lackey of social imperialism. The Sino Soviet
spilt fostered opportunism among Third World Leaders who were anti
communist. A leader such as Mobutu Sese Seko of the Congo who had been
complicit in the assassination of Patrice Lumumba was received with pomp
by the Chinese leadership. Similarly, opportunists such as Jonas Savimbi
of Angola represented himself as a Maoist fighting against Soviet
imperialism and her ’Cuban’ lackeys. This position of China was
manipulated by the United States and Henry Kissinger openly boasted of
the intrigue involved in this manipulation in his book, */On China/*.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security advisor of President Jimmy
Carter, went one better and mobilized over 80,000 tons of weapons for
the apartheid regime via Jonas Savimbi in this period of the rhetoric of
Soviet Social imperialism. This period is so shameful in the annals of
the Chinese revolution that in 2013, when Nelson Mandela joined the
ancestors, the leader of China was the only significant head of state
absent at the celebration. The Chinese Leaders had erroneously branded
the African National Congress of South Africa as a puppet of the Soviet
Union.
One of the continuing mysteries of the Chinese revolution is the extent
to which many Chinese intellectuals and communist party leaders view
Henry Kissinger as a friend of the revolution. In the past, the Chinese
had been astute in working with sections of the US state machinery to
end political isolation. In July of 1971, Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger had made a secret trip to China. With pressures from the
nonaligned movement for the USA and the UN to recognize the government
in Beijing as the legitimate representative of over a billion people,
the US opened diplomatic relations after President Nixon traveled to
China in 1972. Nixon who had been a staunch opponent of China spent
eight days in China in February 1972, during which he met with Chairman
Mao Zedong and signed the Shanghai Communiqué with Premier Zhou Enlai.
The communiqué had set the stage for improved U.S.-Sino relations by
allowing China and the United States to normalize relations.
This normalization of state-to-state relations confused the political
leadership in China and has become a consistent source of contradictions
within China’s leadership class. For example, after the brutal assault
against the Chilean peoples in 1973 and the massive bombing of the
Vietnamese peoples, the leadership embraced Henry Kissinger as a friend.
This embrace was to reach its most obscene position when under the
banner of combating social imperialism, China fought a brief war with
Vietnam in 1979. In the brief border war fought between China and
Vietnam in early 1979. China launched a punitive expedition in response
to Vietnam’s invasion and occupation of Cambodia in 1978 (which ended
the rule of the Khmer Rouge). Similarly, the initial inability of
China’s political and economic leadership to deal with President Trump
was a result of their failure to fully understand the shift which had
taken place in how America’s political, economic and defense elites
viewed China, from a strategic competitor to a strategic national
security threat. This failure was partially a product of China’s gradual
adoption of neo-liberal financial liberalization reforms in the early
2000’s and the strong friendships between China’s capitalists and
government with the leaders of Wall Street (Black Stone, Goldman Sachs,
JP Morgan, etc.) and subsequent over reliance on their views and
lobbying influence over the USG’s economic policies towards China. But
this is to anticipate.
*The Reform Period and pragmatism in China*
After the death of Mao in September 1976, the Cultural Revolution was
brought to an end by the removal of the allies of Mao from the
leadership of the Party. The faction of the Communist Party led by Deng
Xiaoping emerged as the driving force of the Chinese revolution. It was
in this period after 1978 when China embarked on the era of ‘reforms.’
The first stage of this process involved the relaxation of the state
centered approach to agriculture with the de-collectivization of
agriculture, the opening up of the country to foreign investment, and
permission for unleashing the capitalists who had been underground
inside China since 1949. These reforms did not minimize the central role
of the state in the economy. In the late 1980s and 1990s, the reform
twist involved the privatization and contracting out of much state-owned
industry and the lifting of price controls, protectionist policies, and
regulations, although state monopolies in sectors such as banking and
petroleum remained. The private sector grew remarkably, accounting for
as much as 70 percent of China’s gross domestic product by 2005. From
1978 until 2013, unprecedented growth occurred, with the economy
increasing by 9.5% a year.
Western social scientists, international financial institutions and
pundits attributed the phenomenal growth in China to the opening to the
West and adoption of “free market forces.” For no society which has been
universally acknowledged for lifting more human beings out of poverty in
human history and which helped sustain the global economy following the
last two capitalist financial crises, could have done so via socialism.
However, Samir Amin noted that one cannot understand the massive growth
in the economy without grasping the transition and changes that were
laid in the period of the Great Leap Forward. In short, ‘lifting 600
million human beings out of poverty cannot be attributed to the market
but to socialization of the society’ and the fact that the commanding
heights of the economy were still in the hands of the state. In Amin’s
words,
“The results of this choice are, once again, simply amazing. In a
few decades, China has built a productive, industrial urbanization
that brings together 600 million human beings, two-thirds of whom
were urbanized over the last two decades (almost equal to Europe’s
population!). This is due to the Plan and not to the market. China
now has a truly sovereign productive system. No other country in the
South (except for Korea and Taiwan) has succeeded in doing this. In
India and Brazil there are only a few disparate elements of a
sovereign project of the same kind, nothing more.
He continued
To say, as one hears ad nauseam, that China’s success should be
attributed to the abandonment of Maoism (whose “failure” was
obvious), the opening to the outside, and the entry of foreign
capital is quite simply idiotic. The Maoist construction put in
place the foundations without which the opening would not have
achieved its well-known success. A comparison with India, which has
not made a comparable revolution, demonstrates this. To say that
China’s success is mainly (even “completely”) attributable to the
initiatives of foreign capital is no less idiotic. It is not
multinational capital that built the Chinese industrial system and
achieved the objectives of urbanization and the construction of
infrastructure. The success is 90 percent attributable to the
sovereign Chinese project. Certainly, the opening to foreign capital
has fulfilled useful functions: it has increased the import of
modern technologies. However, because of its partnership methods,
China absorbed these technologies and has now mastered their
development. There is nothing similar elsewhere, even in India or
Brazil, a fortiori in Thailand, Malaysia, South Africa, and other
places.^[8]
Lin Chun’s work on the changes in Chinese society since 1978 takes the
same position as Amin. In the book, */the Transformation of Chinese
Socialism/*, the question was posed thus, Were the seeds of the present
planted long ago, only germinating so slowly that at the time it was
difficult to see or imagine the shape of things to come? ^[9] The answer
of Lin Chun was that in order to understand what is happening in China
forty years after the ‘reform’ period it is necessary to go further back
in history than 1978 and the pragmatism of Deng Xiaoping. In 1949, the
decision had been made that the political leadership of the CPC would
rationally coordinate the planning of an entire national economy of
China in such a way as to transform the major economic choices of the
society into political choices, responsive to the will of the people.
Central to this process were the sacrifices made by the Chinese people
to overcome economic backwardness. In that period the state squeezed
more work out of the workers and peasants in order to accumulate a
surplus that could be reinvested for the diversification of the economy.
*Future of socialist transformation or the recomposition of capitalism
in China*
One of the outcomes of the emphasis on the ‘development of the
productive forces’ has been the massive increase in the
industrialization without regard to the health and well being of the
population. The levels of ecological degradation in China as a result of
a form of industrialization without regard for the population has led to
China having one of the worst air qualities in the world. In all major
industrial areas of China, the quality of the lives of the peoples have
been impaired by pollution. Beijing and industrial areas of northern
China have the worst levels of Sulphur dioxide pollution on the planet
earth. China is home to 16 of the world’s 20 cities with the worst air
pollution. The drive to urbanize and industrialize had been so intense
that in the three-year period 2011 to 2014, China poured more concrete
in three years than the US did in the entire 20^th century. ^[10]
Research by the Chinese Academy on Environmental Planning, revealed that
100 million people live in cities where the pollution reaches “very
dangerous” levels.
This level of pollution is most extreme is a city such as Shijianzhuang,
in Hebei province where the coal barons have a base in the Communist
party. The environmental crisis in China is also an expression of the
alliance of capitalists in China with international capitalists. Since
1978, the leaders of China marketed the society as a space of cheap
labor and a society where environmental standards were ignored. There is
enough scholarship on the environmental crisis in China that outlined
how western capitalists located polluting industries in China. ^[11]
Many of the polluting factories sell their cheap goods to richer
nations. Throughout the reform period (1978 to present), local officials
have been evaluated and promoted primarily based on their ability to
meet economic development and family planning.^[12] In 2011, the Party
launched National “12^th Five-Year Plan” for Environmental Protection
with ambitious targets to reverse environmental degradation. That plan
has been caught in the class struggles in the party between the coal
barons and other sections of Chinese capital and by 2016 the Party
announced th13th Five year plan announcing that the old forms of
industrialization had run its course..
The leadership in China launched another plan to transcend the old
polluting industries with the China 2025 project. Labelled as */Made in
China 2025/*, this new turn seeks to engineer a shift for China from
being a low-end manufacturer to becoming a high-end producer of goods.
To centralize this vision, the government’s Ministry of Industry and
Information Technology released a Made in China (MIC) 2025 document in
2015 – pushing for leadership in robotics, information technology, and
clean energy, among other sectors. These sectors are central to the
so-called next generation technologies (nexgen), which refers to the
integration of big data, cloud computing, and other emerging
technologies into global manufacturing supply chains. “Chief among these
are electric cars and other new energy vehicles, next-generation
information technology (IT) and telecommunications, and advanced
robotics and artificial intelligence. Other major sectors include
agricultural technology; aerospace engineering; new synthetic materials;
advanced electrical equipment; emerging bio-medicine; high-end rail
infrastructure; and high-tech maritime engineering.”^[13] The
foundations for this pace of scientific transformation had been laid in
the seventies when there was the project of science walking on two
legs.^[14] In terms of science policy, it referred mainly to the balance
China has sought to achieve between “pure” science and applied technology.
The China 2025 program has since become a bone of contention for US
capitalist’s administration, and has partly been responsible for the
increased competition between the US and China. The US policy leaders
have been alarmed by this new turn in China and the current tensions in
the trade war is linked to the threats that sections of the US military
industrial complex sees from this new direction of China. Presenting
this new direction of China as a threat to global trade, the Council of
Foreign Relations (CFR) of the USA and other think tanks have been
effusive in outlining the dangers to US hegemony from this new direction
in China. Anticommunist scholars of the USA such as Peter Navarro who
made a name out of China bashing rose to the position of being an
adviser to President Trump on trade. His coauthored book */Death by
China: Confronting the Dragon – A Global Call to Action/*, had been a
staple among those in the US policy circles who carried forth the old
anti-communism of the Cold War era. His assessment on China is that
“China is basically trying to steal the future of Japan, the U.S. and
Europe, by going after our technology.” Of course such a paradigm also
conveniently obscures the myriad of political, social, and economic
impacts causing a decline in the structural competitiveness of the US in
numerous ‘nexgen’ industries and sectors which is being produced by the
increasing financialization of capitalism in the US.
*The so called Thucydides Trap.*
Realist scholars in the USA have also been raising the ‘alarm’ about the
rise of China. John Mearsheimer in his 2014 book, */The Tragedy of the
Great Power Politics/*, argued in the last chapter, ‘Great Power
Politics in the twenty first century,’ that, if the China continues
growing rapidly, the US will once again face a potential peer
competitor, and great-power politics will return in full force. Trapped
by the history of realism, and visions of hegemony, Mearsheimer argued
China cannot rise peacefully. In this understanding, there can only be
one major power and the emergence of alternative centers of economic and
political power will inevitably lead to warfare. Professor Graham
Allison of Harvard University has added to this militaristic
understanding of history with the study, */Destined for War: Can America
and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?^[15] /*In this book, Allison argued
that in 12 of 16 past cases in which a rising power has confronted a
ruling power, the result has been bloodshed. This kind of rhetoric has
been backed up by a new direction of the planning for war against China.
The 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States has been
explicit that the US needs to be prepared for war with China. ^[16]
Mainstream scholars of International Relations have not yet fully
grasped the */Meaning of the Second World War/* and the argument made
that capitalist competition will lead to war. The more developed the
capitalist state, the more deadly the competition. Historical
materialism and an understanding of imperialism will reveal the impulse
of capital to seek to resolve economic challenges by military means.
Since the end of the Cold War the western leaders have attempted a
military management of the international system with implications for
West Asia in the invasion of Iraq and war drums against Iran, and in
Africa in the creation of the US Africa Command. In Asia, this
militarism over the past decade has been manifested under President
Obama’s ‘pivot to Asia’ and currently under President Trump’s ‘Free and
Open Indo-Pacific Strategy’.^[17]
When Thucydides was writing about the Peloponnesian War, he was writing
about small societies that were not enmeshed in global value chains.
Moreover, these wars were limited in geographical scope and did not
arise out of competition between capitalist powers. Nuclear power, the
rise of the Global South and the tremendous importance of the rising
states renders the kind of analysis that refer back to 19^th century
imperial rivalries, out of date. The political leader of China
communicated this reality to the leaders of the USA in 2015 when he noted,
“There is no such thing as the so-called Thucydides Trap in the
world. But should major countries time and again make the mistakes
of strategic miscalculation, they might create such traps for
themselves.”
*Imperial Two Track Strategy on the Chinese Revolution*
While one section of the US bourgeois is planning for war with China,
the other section is working hard to strengthen the capitalist classes
in China so that they can become fully compliant and subservient allies
of international capital. Since the ‘reform’ era, thousands of western
corporations have invested in China to profit from the cheap labor and
absence of environmental regulation. Whether it is companies (such as
Walmart and Apple) who profit from the cheap labor conditions or General
Motors, Boeing, Microsoft and Google, western capitalists operating in
China have developed a strong alliance with Chinese capitalists. The
leaders of the US-Chinese business Council have been most aggressive in
strengthening the Chinese capitalist class. The Officers and Directors
of the US-China business Council reads like a who’s who of corporate
America. ^[18]
While one faction of international capital complain of theft of
intellectual property and piracy of Chinese state corporations, another
faction has set about strengthening neo liberal capitalist ideas among
the Chinese intelligentsia. This has become most evident with the
activities of private capitalists such as Stephen A. Schwarzman, CEO and
Co-Founder of Blackstone group of Wall Street. In 2013, Schwarzman
founded an international scholarship program, “Schwarzman Scholars,” at
Tsinghua University in Beijing to educate future leaders about China.
The US$350 million program is modeled on the Rhodes scholarship that had
been started by Cecil Rhodes at the start of the twentieth century to
train loyal servants of empire. It is one indication on the ideological
subservience of the top intellectuals in China as to the operations of
the world system that they would agree to work with known international
capitalists in their premier university such as Henry Paulson and
Stephen Schwarzman. It means that the Chinese do not care that they will
be training their future leaders to be imperialists such as Cecil Rhodes.
*Chinese education and imperialism*
J P Morgan and Blackstone are the ones with the money they will finance
institutions to promote individualism and the accumulation of capital
for a few. These Wall Street magnates invest in University education in
all parts of the world to reproduce the most conservative ideas about
society. The current Chinese political leadership at all levels see the
training of their children in the USA and capitalist Europe as the basis
of the future ideological and intellectual development of China. Very
rich Chinese donate to keep top Ivy League colleges in North America as
thriving centers of capitalist scholarship at precisely the moment when
a generation of youth are looking for resources to redirect education
and social planning.
From the most recent reports in the financial papers, there are close
to 300,000 Chinese students in higher education in the USA, this does
not include Community colleges. In the spirit of internationalism, it
will be important for Chinese students to study in all parts of the
world, but the question, is, what do they study? Which Professors do
they gravitate towards? Do they study imperialism, contemporary class
struggles, reparative justice, environmental science to support
environmental repair in China or the physics of the future to alleviate
the suffering of workers everywhere?
The reality is that many Chinese students overseas see themselves as
being apolitical, while the 70 per cent that study economics, business,
entrepreneurship or the other offerings of schools funded by the
bankers, they study and internalize the most conservative brand of
neo-liberal capitalism. This training of neo conservatives for China has
been supported by the new foreign policy of China based on ‘harmony’
that promotes Confucius Institutes in all parts of the world. The
Confucius Institutes are the embryo of the 21st century Chinese imperial
project that stands against the rights of workers, women and oppressed
nationalities. Ironically, conservative elements of the USG are leading
efforts to close these institutes in the United States, along with
prohibiting investments into the United States by Chinese private
capitalists, because both have been labeled as new threats to America’s
national security.
Side by side with these Confucius institutes, the current Chinese state
has unleashed hundreds of thousands of rapacious capitalists (and would
be capitalists) to Third World societies. The very negative social
impact of these ‘investors’ has led some western commentators to label
China as the new imperialist state.^[19] Some in the left have offered a
specious thesis of China as a ‘sub imperial state’ ^[20] while some
former Marxists pontificate /When China Rules the World: The End of the
Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order./ ^[21]
*Whither the Chinese Revolution*?
The capitalists from North America have used their military power to
dominate the global trading, currency and financial system. In the last
capitalist depression and subsequent war 1929-1945, one of the triggers
of war was the competitive devaluations. Today the devaluations and
currency wars have been accompanied by trade wars, information warfare
and cyberwarfare. The Chinese peoples are trapped in the old
international trading system and currently the state of China holds more
that US3 trillion outside China, mostly in US Treasury. Paul Craig
Roberts suggested that China simply pull out their money from western
securities. This is not a realistic alternative in the short run. The
alternatives must be internationalist and rooted in what is good for
everyone, especially in the Global South. Unfortunately, projects of the
political leadership in China to diversify their holdings of US Treasury
point to building /One Belt One Road/ to Europe.
In the throes of the financial crisis, the leadership pivoted to the
Global South with the initiative called Brazil, Russia, India China and
South Africa (BRICS). However, the underdevelopment of the study of
capitalism influenced the thinkers behind the BRICS bank to accept
neo-liberal principles of economics while US imperialists sought to
suborn Brazil and India out of the new initiative for South -South
Cooperation. It is in the spirit of 1949 where there is now another
opportunity for Chinese society to come up with real alternatives that
are protracted and will avoid outright warfare. In this delicate
balancing, the Chinese leadership can either be socialist and
internationalist or based on strategic planning and alliances for China
to be the co imperialists with the USA in the so called G2 as proposed
by Zbigniew Brzezinski among others. In the short run, the ASEAN plan
for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is proposing
a form of economic partnership that can neutralize the plans of the US
capitalists for war in Asia. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
(AIIB) and the BRICS bank can carry out aggressive swap arrangements to
support Iran, Russia and Venezuela in this current geo-political and
economic war.
*Socialist reconstruction and transformation*
It was within the womb of capitalism in Britain and Germany where Karl
Marx developed a critique of capital. Vladimir Lenin of Russia deepened
this initial study of capital with his grasp of the changes from
industrial capital to monopoly capital or the era of imperialism. The
important contribution of Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg was to grasp the
centrality of militarism in modern imperialism. The attempt to build
socialism in the USSR imploded after 74 years. Western triumphalism
after the fall of the Soviet model proclaimed that there was no
alternative to capitalism. However, workers and poor people in all parts
of the world are revolting against the oppressive conditions of
Financialization, the new era of imperialism. Three hundred million
workers in China trapped by the Hukou system want freedom of movement
and the ‘right to the city.’ From Egypt to Ecuador and from Wukan in
China to Iraq, workers, students, poor farmers, oppressed women and
unemployed are in combat against capitalism. Many Chinese youth agree
with the global youth movement for a clean environment.
Capitalism is a global system and we know that the transition to a new
system will be long. However, while those opposed to capital are on this
road, they will have to clean up the environment. This is the number one
task so that the workers and small farmers can have a good quality of
life. We have to have clean water and food that does not kill children.
These are basic rights of humans in all parts of the world. Those who
believe in the linear conception of socialist transformation argue that
China will have to industrialize and urbanize further in order to move
to a true socialist path. Linearity in thought in China from the
‘reformers’ merge with the plans of those who promote the silencing of
the workers and peasants.
Imperial intellectual cultures serviced by corporations provide
information and organization for the capitalist classes using the
moribund Breton Woods Institutions to enforce onerous conditionalities
on working peoples. World Bank and western concepts of democracy, human
rights and governance reinforce western liberalism and cannot serve the
interests of Chinese peoples. It is for this reason why many progressive
scholars are confounded when they hear the formulation of ‘socialism
with Chinese characteristics.’ When one conceptualize 21st century
socialism, the progressive forces of the world are excited by the
prospects for socialist reconstruction and a new science that supports
research to strengthen the organization of workers and to build a new
internationalism.
We are in the midst of a very exciting future. New technologies in
solar, biotechnology, robotics and information technology opens up vast
opportunities for the socialist project. Instead of promoting Henry
Paulson, Henry Kissinger, Stephen Schwarzman and titans of empire,
Chinese communists should be energized by the anti-capitalist project in
a way that inspires the Chinese youth to be self-confident and be
internationalists. The project of western capital in Taiwan, Singapore
and Hong Kong is to propagandize the Chinese youth to strengthen
international forces and the local real estate capitalists who are
called ‘developers.’
The task of building internationalism in the social sciences is also
linked to building an anti-racist curriculum in China. This will have to
be carefully thought out to avoid the excesses of the past. Intellectual
and ideological struggles are deadly and those with power will not give
up power easily.
In the celebration of the 70 years after coming to power, China can be
constructive by working directly with Cuba to halt the counter
revolutionary forces in Venezuela. This will entail an even bigger
social investment in education and social questions in a place such as
Venezuela. The future cooperation between Venezuela, Cuba, Argentina and
Bolivia will give the socialist forces internationally the intellectual,
financial and political leverage in a moment when imperial intervention
will get desperate.
Internationalism will require solidarity with the most oppressed. I will
again draw from Samir Amin’s analysis when he noted,
“My central question is this: is China evolving toward a stabilized
form of capitalism? Or is China’s perspective still one of a
possible transition to socialism? I am not asking this question in
terms of the most likely “prediction.” I am asking it in altogether
different terms: what inconsistencies and struggles have emerged in
China today? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the approach
adapted (to a large extent capitalist in fact)? What advantages do
the (at least potentially socialist) anticapitalist forces have?
Under what conditions can the capitalist approach triumph and what
form of more or less stabilized capitalism could it produce? Under
what conditions could the current moment be deflected in directions
that would become a (long) stage in the (even longer) transition to
socialism?
The fact that the Chinese project is not capitalist does not mean
that it “is” socialist, only that it makes it possible to advance on
the long road to socialism. Nevertheless, it is also still
threatened with a drift that moves it off that road and ends up with
a return, pure and simple, to capitalism.”
*Notes.*
1. Orville Schell and John Delury, /Wealth and Power: China’s Long March
to the Twenty-first Century/, Random House , New York 2013 ↑
2. One of the most sympathetic noncommunist account of the Long march is
in the book, by Edgar Snow, /Red Star over China: The Classic Account of
the Birth of Chinese Communism,/ Grove Press, New York 1994 ↑
3. H E N K E J I a n d XU HAO, “The integration of traditional Chinese
medicine and Western medicine,” /European Review;/ Cambridge Vol. 11,
Iss. 2, (May 2003): 225-235 ↑
4. Joseph Ball, “Did Mao Really Kill Millions in the Great Leap
Forward?” /Monthly Review/, September 21, 2006
5.
https://monthlyreview.org/commentary/did-mao-really-kill-millions-in-the-great-leap-forward/#en10
↑
6. Samir Amin, “China 2013,” /Monthly Review/,
https://monthlyreview.org/2013/03/01/china-2013/ ↑
7. Ball ibid. See also the analysis of Lin Chun, The Transformation of
Chinese Socialism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1996). ↑
8. Samir Amin, /Theory is History/, Springer, 2013, page 126 ↑
9. Samir Amin, China 2013,
https://monthlyreview.org/2013/03/01/china-2013/ ↑
10. Lin Chun, The Transformation of Chinese Socialism (Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 1996). ↑
11. Figures are to be found in the article by Bill Gates, “Have You
Hugged a Concrete Pillar Today?” Gates Notes, June 12, 2014
https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Making-the-Modern-World ↑
12. Jim Watson and Tao Wang, “Who Owns China’s Carbon Emissions,”
(Sussex: Tyndall Centre, 2007) ↑
13. Darrin Mage, “China is my Backyard: China’s environmental
degradation in a global context, /Georgetown Journal of International
Affairs/, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Summer/Fall 2011),pp. 120-128 ↑
14. James McBride and Andrew Chatzky, “Is ‘Made in China 2025’ a Threat
to Global Trade?” Council on Foreign Relations, May 2019
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/made-china-2025-threat-global-trade ↑
15. Dan Connell and Dan Gover , eds, /China: Science Walk on two legs/
Avon Books, 1974 ↑
16. Graham Allison, /Destined for War: Can America and China Escape
Thucydides’s Trap?/ Mariner Books, New York 2018 ↑
16. National Defense Strategy of the United States, 2018,
https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf
↑
17. Kurt Campbell and Brian Andrews, Explaining the US “Pivot to Asia,”
Chatham House, London, 2013,
http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/public/Research/Americas/0813pp_pivottoasia.pdf
↑
18. US- Chinese Business Council,
https://www.uschina.org/about/board-of-directors ↑
19. Howard French, /China’s Second Continent: How a Million Migrants Are
Building a New Empire in Africa/, Random House, New York, 2015 ↑
20. Patrick Bond, ‘The Rise of Sub imperialism,’ Counterpunch, 2012,
https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/11/23/the-rise-of-sub-imperialism/ ↑
21. Martin Jacques, /When China Rules the World: The End of the Western
World and the Birth of a New Global Order,/ Penguin Books, London, 2012 ↑
/*Horace Campbell* is Professor of African American Studies and
Political Science, Syracuse University. He is the author of Global NATO
and the Catastrophic Failure in Libya
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1583674128/counterpunchmaga>,
Monthly Review Press, 2013. / */Notes./*
--
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415
863.9977 https://freedomarchives.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20191021/4149bbf2/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list