Understanding Modern Chinese Marxism as Continuity

Since 2012, the Communist Party of China and China in general have undergone tremendous changes. Each Party Congress has seen shifting goals and contradictions, and the country has risen to be the primary target of imperialist ire. What is the historical framework for understanding China’s 1978 choice to open the economy to foreign investment and allow the establishment and relative growth of a socialist market economy? How should we understand rightward and leftward shifts during this long four decades? How has Xi unified and moved the country in a revolutionary direction? These are questions I’ll do my best to answer, in a necessarily brief format.

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, also known as SWCC, is a crystallization of Marxism in China that frequently is adapted to meet current challenges. If the shortened acronym didn’t exist, it would really be seen as:
Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought-Deng Xiaoping Theory-Theory of Three Represents-Scientific Outlook on Development-Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era

That is, however, quite a mouthful. Each of these theories must be seen in dialectical continuity with their previous iterations, consistent adaptions of Marxism to meet China’s growing needs and material conditions. Have there been right deviations and errors? Surely. But the Party and proletariat have remained at the heart of policy, and China’s ability to deliver for its people and world socialism must also be viewed in the light of present global conditions: hegemonic, multi-layered imperialism.

Lenin and Stalin, with the Bolshevik Party, correctly recognized that Marx and Engels were wrong on where revolutions would occur. Marx and Engels had both considered that the most advanced proletariats, most developed nations, would be the pioneers of socialism. This theory was undermined by the reality of imperialism, a global system of capital that allowed capitalists of one nature to extend their markets and reach to other countries, under developing and exploiting them for their own gain. A confluence of industrial and bank capital allowed imperialism to become ‘the final stage of capitalism’, dividing the Earth amongst major powers at the expense of the working class everywhere. The Russian Revolution pierced the armor of imperialism where it was weakest….still, imperialism remained and a second World War materialized. What happened next was not an outcome many could have expected: the reality of fascism was followed by absorption by the imperialist powers, namely the United States, which led a globalized class war against the newly emerged socialist bloc.

This had never happened. Since the end of WWII, and even more so since the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States has acted as the vanguard of the capitalist world, suppressing any and all socialist and liberation movements across the world. It has subordinated the previous colonial empires and taken their place in many ways, using them as vassals for its own policies of filtering capital from the Global South to the Global North. In reality, imperialism today is in its moribund stage, eating the Earth alive and even consuming other capitalists in order to feed the machine. The United States empire is the largest and most powerful in world history, and is upheld by a fascistic and deeply undemocratic web of 800+ military bases. Not only is the United States militarily dominant, it has reserves in the form of client states: Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, to some extent Australia. Each of these opposes liberation movements and allows the United States a longer reach without boots on the ground (at least not officially). The United States also dominates the world economically, and is the leading capitalist power that created the post-war global economy to benefit it. It has immense power and influence over the international neoliberal institutions of the IMF and World Bank, institutions whose sole goal is to pry nations open for foreign exploitation, privatize their natural resources, and nurture relationships of dependence to the West and its allies.

This background of late 20th and 21st century imperialism is an important caveat when discussing China’s successes and perceived shortcomings. For a long time, they were strategically sitting back and biding their time, too weak to oppose the United States directly. Many of our progressive theorists thought that the world would have gone red by now, that imperialism could never have sustained itself for this long, that neoliberalism, which is really what I mean when I say the ‘moribund stage of imperialism’, could not prolong the life of capitalism at the expense of 90% of the world and the environment. Yet here we are. It is with this background and reality that in mind that we look forward to a brighter future, one led by China and other existing socialist nations fighting for existence against US hegemony and capitalism writ large.

Introduction and Background

The fundamental driving force of politics, Party organization and governance in China is a Sinicized understanding of contradiction that differs slightly from classical European Marxism. Original Marxist tendencies (now known in some parts as orthodox Marxists), see class and societal contradictions as absolute, immutable, irreconcilable outside of direct action by a socialist vanguard. Conversely, Chinese Marxism centers around the identification and direct addressing of primary contradictions, and the management of antagonisms stemming from the auxiliary contradictions. This thought stems from Mao’s writings in On Contradiction and On Contradictions Amongst the People, and also takes some inspiration from traditional Chinese culture, namely Confucianism. This is the ‘Sinification’ I spoke of, adapting Marxism to Chinese conditions and culture. This means that the vanguard party in China does its best to keep class antagonisms from causing undue chaos and strife for the proletariat, while focusing on a primary contradiction. It is not a denial of class struggle, as some might suggest. Each primary contradiction is, in fact, a part of class struggle. In the process of resolving this primary contradiction, another comes to the fore in a dialectical process: new things come to life, others fade away. Everything is always in a process of coming and going, withering and blooming. This is in line with Marxist thought, as outlined by JV Stalin:

Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that nature is not a state of rest and immobility, stagnation and immutability, but a state of continuous movement and change, of continuous renewal and development, where something is always arising and developing, and something always disintegrating and dying away.

There have been several ‘moments’ in recent Chinese history where opposition of leftwing and rightwing flavors has disputed the particular identification of primary contradictions, and the party has been threatened with counter revolution or dysfunctionality, which would lead to its delegitimization in the eyes of the proletariat. I’ll be sure to highlight these moments as we discuss the past four or so decades in this article, but first we’ll need to take a larger view of China, and its relation to the first successful Marxist experiment in the USSR.

Different Starting Points — USSR vs China

The USSR was the first victory of the proletariat the world has ever seen, and it shook up the global status quo for nearly seven decades. Lenin, Stalin, and the Bolsheviks defeated capitalism in the Russian empire, a bedrock of imperialism, having successfully identified Russia as the weakest link in the imperialist chain and bringing together the industrial proletariat and the peasantry.

Mao and the Chinese communists did something similar, but were coming from very different starting points. Whereas the Russian Empire under the Tsars had benefitted from imperialist investment and therefore, development for the benefits of these imperialists (Britain and France primarily), China was defeating colonialism and maldevelopment, having been the labor force and market for said imperialist interests. Most famously, the Opiate Wars and Japan’s invasion and occupation stand as examples of this fight for sovereignty and self determination. This means that the basis for socialist society post-revolution was significantly less developed, and requires a longer period to throw off the shackles of feudalism and capitalism.

In many ways the tasks of these two communist parties were the same: develop rapidly and sustainably, always keeping the living standards of the majority at the heart of policy, and repress the former bourgeoise so as to maintain political power. They also needed to create and maintain harmony between the means of production and the relations of production.

Twice during the USSR’s early decades (prior to Stalin’s death), the socialist party was forced to fundamentally shift production in order to keep the economy stable and growing. The first was after the civil war, where Lenin utilized the NEP (allowing capitalist investment in the USSR under strict supervision of the party). This was short lived but successful and set the country on a positive development path. The reason it was able to stay short, as compared to China’s opening up and reform, had to do with the USSR’s existing industrial base, which by comparison was stronger than Mao’s more peasant-dominant China.

The other large scale production shift came with collectivization of agriculture, which was able to lay the base for Soviet food sovereignty and rapidly improve the Soviet’s ability to fend off fascist invasion soon to come. Without this, much more could have been lost in the Great Patriotic War. We can consider this a more leftward shift in socialist transformation, and it was also largely successful. We must see it on a continuum with the NEP however, not as separate or unrelated. The improved base of production from allowing limited capitalist investment gave way to the revolutionary transformation of agriculture, to answering the peasant question post-revolution in favor of the proletariat and peasantry at once.

Theoretical Basis for SWCC — Why allow capitalism at all?

In the interest of once again placing actions within their historical framework, we cannot begin to talk about Socialism with Chinese Characteristics without first discussing the downturn and instability in the Socialist Bloc. After Stalin’s death in 1953, Nikita Khrushchev’s ‘destalinization’ campaign and Gorbachev’s reforms had conceded much ground to imperialism, to capitalist infiltration of the Communist Party, and laid the groundwork for counter-revolution in 1991. Worse yet, it had largely disintegrated unity between the two socialist powers of the USSR and China. This tragic Sino-Soviet split helps us contextualize the need for reform and opening up, as a large source of investment and aid had been shut off from China.

A fundamental and still present contribution to Marxism that Chinese Marxists have put forth since the Mao days has been that class struggle continued after the revolution. In later Soviet days (after Stalin), this fundamental truth was replaced with formalism and stagnation that ended up in disaster. This is not to say the Soviet project overnight became reactionary or worthless to the international movement…much can and should be learned from the contradictions re-introduced under Gorbachev’s reforms. And the Chinese Marxists are living proof of this continuity and willingess to learn and adapt. Whereas USSR market reforms eventually conceded political power to imperialism, China has so far managed to avoid this fate, even with some close calls in 1989 and, I’d argue, more subtly around 2008–2012, prior to Xi’s corrective measures (more on this later).

The largest conflict within the Communist Party in the 1960s and 1970s, which ultimately led to the correct identification of the primary contradiction in Chinese society (that of underdevelopment), was between two factions of Chinese Marxism: those who thought that the main contradiction was that of underdeveloped productive forces, and those that thought the relations to production were behind the means of production. This led to was the Cultural Revolution.

There is a huge amount to say about the Cultural Revolution, more than I can realistically get through. The main issue many take with it is the instability it caused, the violence and disruption of daily life. From a dialectical standpoint, I would argue this qualitative breach came from a left error, namely attempting to put the relations of production in front of the means of production. The opening up and reform methodology fixed this error and put China back on the path towards development and prosperity, with increased stability. A quote from this 1980 interview with Deng Xiaoping does a good job of summarizing the Chinese stance on Mao and the later years.

At the Congress we will objectively evaluate the merits and the mistakes that characterized the life of Chairman Mao; we will celebrate his merits and recognize that they are of primary importance; and we will admit his mistakes, recognizing that they are of secondary importance. By making public the mistakes that Chairman Mao committed in recent years, we will adopt a realistic attitude. But we will certainly continue to follow Mao Zedong Thought — or, rather, all that which constituted the just part of his life.

In contrast with Khrushchev’s erroneous and deceitful secret speech, this dialectical thinking and continuity in the Communist Party of China enabled its future successes. All the work Mao did to build an industrial base, to revolutionize and develop the Chinese peasantry, to increase productive forces… form the bedrock of modern China. Deng, all the way through Xi continued the mission in differing ways. None of this would have been possible without Mao.

For Deng’s part, we must look at the specific ways in which China actually opened up, and how it differed from the myth of ‘capitalist restoration’ pronounced by today’s ultraleft.

“Deng Xiaoping was extremely adept at resolving practical issues through the application of dialectical materialism. He stressed that we must grasp the principal issues in the primary stage of socialism and uphold economic development as our central task; that we must refine our work through constant trials and adhere to the criteria of “three favorables”(namely determining whether what we do is favorable to growing the productive forces in a socialist society, increasing the overall strength of the socialist state, and raising people’s living standards); and that we must lay equal emphasis on material progress and cultural and ethical progress, “cross the river by feeling for the stones,” and balance the relationships between economic planning and the market and between allowing a few people to prosper first and ensuring that everyone prospers.” — Xi Jinping, 2019

The primary contradiction identified by Chinese Marxists from 1978–2017 was the backwardness of productive forces. China accepted foreign direct investment and capitalist presence in China under strict parameters: technology and scientific transfer is a must, and was written into thousands of contracts (something the West loves to forget about now that China has begun surpassing them in science and technology), and subordination to the Communist Party of China. Not only would the CPC maintain political control over capitalists operating in China, but the source of resource allocation, namely the banks, would remain state owned and operated. What this means practically is that China is able to direct investment and limit the power of capitalists (Lenin stressed that finance capital was the base of imperialism, the merging of bank and industrial capital). Other key ‘commanding heights’ portions of China’s economy would also receive none or severely limited capitalist involvement, such as agriculture and communications infrastructure. SOE’s are to this day given preferential treatment and investment opportunities, and dominate the Chinese economy, even as the private economy drives a large portion of GDP (a truly bourgeoise measurement, as any Marxist would tell you).

Facing the Reality of Imperialism and US Hegemony

On Contradiction(s) — Primary and Auxiliary

As I’ve discussed in the introduction, it is only in the correct identification of the primary contradiction that the productive forces can be unfettered, can experience great growth and development. Coming up to the opening up and reform period, growth was grinding to a halt in key areas of the Chinese economy. Although still respectable, this was correctly identified as a sign things needed to change in some way, much like the NEP or collectivization periods in the USSR.

After opening up for foreign capital influx, China began the largest and most sustained growth period in human history, only coming under significant risk in two periods : 1989 near counter-revolution after over-liberalization of education and culture, and around 2010 in the face of global recession and rightward ‘drift’ in the party (formalism and corruption). This was reversed by the appointment of Xi to the General Secretary/Presidency. Xi would re-revolutionize the Party and country and spur on another tremendous boost in living conditions that culminated in the abolition of extreme poverty in 2019-2020. Although most economic indicators do not show a significant slowdown in Chinese growth in the two previously mentioned danger-zones, internally the Communist Party was at its most tenuous, most unstable points in the last four decades. If political power had been conceded in the favor of the capitalist class that has accumulated in power and numbers since 1978, all would have been lost.

In 2017, at the 19th Party Congress, Xi indicated that China was seeing a revolutionary and dialectical shift in primary contradiction: the productive forces were now to take a auxiliary position of great importance, to be superseded by the need to equalize development and fight against inequality in China. Development had been steady but uneven, and China needed to fix many of the issues that come from capitalism’s inherent contradictions.

Bourgeoise Report Card: China's GDP

When we look at bourgeoisie statistics related to GDP, it’s easy to be fooled. GDP has nothing in common with socialist goals of wealth redistribution and prosperity for all…however it can be an indictor of an overall growth in the economy. A Marxist must ask, growth for who? Well, we can say confidently that SWCC has resulted in growth for both the proletariat/peasantry, and the private sector, which is contrary to the natural outcomes of the capitalist mode of production. The cause of this is control of the commanding heights of the economy by the CPC, and their state planning of production. Although not completely centrally planned, each five year plan sets parameters to be met by industry, in accordance with the goals of the Party and country. The CPC frequently has subordinated capitalists to state goals, even redistributing the surplus value extracted from Chinese workers back into the economy. Here’s bourgeoisie journalists admitting the difference in a Guardian article from a few years back.

GDP can only be seen as a means to achieve other aims. If one focuses solely on GDP, then any negative impact to working conditions, environment, and humanity can be masked by rising private sector wealth and therefore GDP. Look no further than the United States for an example of growth that never seems to reach the people. A main focus of the 19th Party Congress in 2017 was criticizing this very tendency in the Communist Party, as part of Xi’s wildly successful anti-corruption campaign, and re-centering the people as the motive for development.

There is one key difference in China’s GDP vs the West’s, however: China limits economic ‘overhead’, or unproductive capital. This includes land rent (China has a largely socialized land ownership model), debt payments (the United States includes payments on interest and debt as part of its GDP), and other financialized thievery from the common coffers. This has been key to growing GDP along with, instead of in spite of the people’s wellbeing.

Metrics that Matter

Before we discuss Xi’s contributions to Marxism in China, let’s take a look at some metrics of more relevance to 21st century Marxists.

Life Expectancy in China

The period from 1949–1978 is considered the greatest life expectancy increase of all time relative to the starting point and development level, only rivaled by subsequent periods of growth in China! So even while China built up necessary industrial base during the intital stage of socialism post-revolution, the wellbeing of the people was always center stage. If capitalism had been re-introduced in an anarchic, chaotic fashion that gave capitalists state power, there is absolutely no way China would have been able to continue improving on this metric. This year, they surpassed the US in life expectancy, due in some part to their incredibly kind and humanitarian handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. If one wishes to say that China is a capitalist country, you’ll have a hard time explaining how China was able to handle this pandemic at the expense of the private sector.

Wages by Sector — Most Growth Where it Matters

Wages during Reform and Opening Up

Although inequality has worsened since 1978, average wages has increased rather steadily. How is a Marxist to understand this? Uneven development, one of capitalism’s many traits, causes inequality to increase. Only a centrally planned economy led by a Marxist Party can mitigate and subordinate these tendencies to a plan of improvement for the majority. China has done so admirably, if not perfectly. One of the major challenges going forward will be to begin to close this gap approaching the 2049 centenary goal of a modernized, prosperous China for all. Judging off past performance and the identification in 2017 of inequality as China’s primary contradiction, I have high confidence.

Extreme Poverty Elimination

It is likely difficult for most Westerners to really understand and put into perspective this particular victory of the proletariat. Extreme poverty is, as indicated by this recent study, something specific to the era of imperialism, imposed more from without than a natural tendency of humanity.

China was not immune to this, as they had integrated with the world economy, largely for the better but in this case for the worse. It is okay to be critical of this byproduct, while also recognizing that the CPC has waged a one sided battle against this trend to a victorious end. In fact, the poverty reduction created by the CPC accounts for a significant portion (estimated at around 70–75%) of global poverty reduction over the same period, something bourgeoise economists sometimes try to take credit for. 800 million people is astronomical, the single greatest achievement in economic development of the 21st century, possibly all of history.

Explosive 2010s and Shifting Priorities

In the 1960–1978 intra-party struggle in China, the victors correctly analyzed the realities of the Chinese socialist project, claiming that China was in the primary stage of socialist construction, as opposed to certain ultraleftist ideas that China was ready for and capable of maintaining full socialization of production, 100% central planning, and complete dissolution of the state within a short time period.

Deng criticized this in many ways, and laid out the reasoning for the opening up to world economy succinctly:

Of course, we do not want capitalism, but neither do we want to be poor under socialism. What we want is socialism in which the productive forces are developed and the country is prosperous and powerful. We believe that socialism is superior to capitalism. This superiority should be demonstrated in that socialism provides more favourable conditions for expanding the productive forces than capitalism does. This superiority should have become evident, but owing to our differing understanding of it, the development of the productive forces has been delayed, especially during the past ten-year period up to 1976. In the early 1960s, China was behind the developed countries, but the gap was not as wide as it is now. Over the past 11 or 12 years, from the end of the 1960s through the 1970s, the gap has widened because other countries have been vigorously developing their economies, science and technology, with the rate of development no longer being calculated in terms of years, not even in terms of months, but in terms of days. For a fairly long period of time since the founding of the People’s Republic, we have been isolated from the rest of the world. For many years this isolation was not attributable to us; on the contrary, the international anti-Chinese and anti-socialist forces confined us to a state of isolation. However, in the 1960s when opportunities to increase contact and cooperation with other countries presented themselves to us, we isolated ourselves. At last, we have learned to make use of favorable international conditions.

This is in accordance with Chinese Marxism’s slogan of ‘seeking truth from facts’, while also in line with Marx’s thought on primary stage socialism, as well as Lenin’s in State and Revolution.

“ Although a socialist market economy is similar to a capitalist one in method, there are also differences between them. The socialist market economy mainly regulates interrelations between state-owned enterprises, between collectively owned enterprises and even between foreign capitalist enterprises. But in the final analysis, this is all done under socialism in a socialist society. We cannot say that market economy exists only under capitalism. Market economy was in its embryonic stages as early as feudalist society. We can surely develop it under socialism. Similarly, taking advantage of the useful aspects of capitalist countries, including their methods of operation and management, does not mean that we will adopt capitalism. Instead, we use those methods in order to develop the productive forces under socialism. As long as learning from capitalism is regarded as no more than a means to an end, it will not change the structure of socialism or bring China back to capitalism.” — Deng Xiaoping on Market Economies and key differences under socialism

This brings us relatively close to present day, and we must analyze Xi’s first two, and upcoming third term in light of the Chinese Marxist tradition of creative application in the primary stage of socialism.

Xi Jinping Thought — Revisionist or Revolutionary?

What has changed since the 18th Party Congress and Xi’s first term? Although largely successful in maintaining harmony and stability, this period has been quite revolutionary, and continues to be today.

In a sentence, Xi’s time as General Secretary has seen the CPC resolve the primary contradiction of improving the productive forces, and identify a new one: “the contradiction between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life”.

This was agreed upon by the 2017 19th Congress, and has been more or less the driving force even since 2012, in a dialectical process of rising and falling.

Xi’s main contributions in the New Era and leading up to it are as follows:

1. Poverty Alleviation (shifting more of the benefits from productive forces to people centered ‘common prosperity’). This is the period where we saw China’s extreme poverty accelerate towards zero, officially being defeated in 2019–2020.
2. Self-revolution in the Party: Xi vowed to crack down on “tigers and flies”, that is, high-ranking officials and petty civil servants alike. He also warned his colleagues on the Politburo that corruption would “doom the party and state.” This shows continuity with the final speech of the previous General Secretary, Hu Jintao, who finished up his term with a chilling warning to the Party: “If we fail to handle this issue [corruption] well, it could prove fatal to the party, and even cause the collapse of the party and the fall of the state.” Xi has taken this very seriously, ushering in a period of higher public trust and party unity. Xi has said repeatedly that the fight against corruption will never end, implying that the complacency and lack of attention to this issue prior to his terms was a right error.
3. Educational Reform: Xi brought Marxism * back to Chinese education since 2012, setting the stage for fresh and new Party leadership. This was done to fight the ossification of the Party, keep them more in touch with the people, a main them of Xi Jinping Thought for the New Era. The Party has also adapted unofficial age limits, with many officials retiring around 70 years old. This might become more formal as time goes on.

*Even RFA, a CIA propaganda network, is admitting it, but be warned of bias. I try to use Western sources in a mix with Chinese sources, since one can often glean the truth even through Western lies. Seek truth from facts.

4. PLA Reforms: “We must implement the Party’s idea of ​​strengthening the army in the new era, implement the military strategic policy in the new era, adhere to the party’s absolute leadership over the people’s army, and insist on building the army politically, reforming the army, science and technology, talent strengthening the army, and governing the army according to law. Modernization, the modernization of the military organization, the modernization of military personnel, and the modernization of weapons and equipment, improve the strategic capability of defending national sovereignty, security, and development interests, and effectively fulfill the mission and tasks of the people’s army in the new era.” This quote from the 20th Party Congress earlier this month clearly outlines the progress and path forward in this regard. Most of the reforms centered around combatting/preparing for imperialism’s looming threats, as well as ensuring the military’s allegiances still aligned with China’s goals and trajectory.

5. Ecological Civilization: Xi promised in 2012 that socialist modernization would not take place at the expense of the environment. This was actually a shift in the relative ‘ranking’ of contradictions, and if inequality is the primary contradiction facing Chinese society at the moment, ecological harmony is in the top 3 and closely related. But Xi’s words are backed by concrete action:

• China is the world’s largest polluter by absolute volume. This fact is opportunistically twisted into a condemnation for 15% of the world’s population, an eco-imperialist line of thinking that aims to slow, halt or reverse China’s progress in the name of the environment. However, much of these emissions is devoted to producing products to be consumed in the West, while China’s historic carbon emissions are still far exceeded by the United States and Europe, with the United States responsible for seven times as much per capita of the carbon dioxide concentrated in the atmosphere as China. In terms of per capita carbon dioxide emissions, China today produces less than half the U.S. level.
• China is the world leader in reforestation: coverage since 1978 has nearly doubled from 12% to 22%.
• China adopted and centered an Ecological Conservation Redline from 2011–2017, which aims to constrain human activities in areas important to biodiversity, ecological prosperity and national interests. ECR currently protects around 25% of China’s landmass
• War on Pollution: China has reduced air pollution nearly as much in seven years as the US did in three decades, helping to bring down average global smog levels in the process (2013–2020)
• Green Development: China is the world’s largest producer of renewable energy and plans to peak its carbon emissions by 2030, and achieve neutrality by 2060. The country is singlehandedly doing more than the G7 combined. It is largest domestic and outbound investor in renewable energy. Four of the world’s five biggest renewable energy deals were made by Chinese companies in 2016. As of early 2017, China owns five of the world’s six largest solar-module manufacturing companies and the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturer. If China achieves its 2030 emissions peak, it will have made an absolutely selfless contribution to the fight against climate change, and yet it gets nothing but flak from Western ideologues.

6. Full Process Democracy: China, under Xi Jinping Thought, has deepened and expanded democracy for the proletariat, while maintaining a firm hand over capitalist elements. This is an area that is newer and extremely exciting. China is more democratic than most countries on earth, especially liberal/Western style democracies. Their democracy is both representative, as seen by the complicated electoral process for representatives, as well as consultative, where 8 other parties are given consultative positions in relation to the CPC. Here in the US, we have a single capitalist party with a right and center right faction.

7. Internationalism/Anti-Colonialism through the BRI: Xi’s terms have seen the introduction of anti-hegemonic measures in China’s foreign affairs. The most important has been offering a development alternative for the Global South through the BRI. Often hypocritically critiqued as ‘debt trap diplomacy’, these deals have had the opposite effect. The IMF and World Bank imposed austerity of the neoliberal era of world politics now has its contender: win-win cooperation between China and the outside world, often complete with debt forgiveness in the face of overbearing debt peonage imposed by the imperialists themselves. China has also aided the world in beginning to develop a ‘way out’ from US dollar hegemony, allowing some countries to begin de-dollarizing, including China itself. This is an important and subtle step in counteracting US hegemonic imperialism in the 21st Century. Although different and at times contradictory, this is a noticeable form of proletarian internationalism that does not require militarism and/or conflict (thus far) and has increased under Xi.

Greatest Challenges are Yet to Come

Well, that was certainly a lot of positivity in this article. Let’s finish with some well rounded, left critique. Here are some very worrying areas of China’s economy that desperately need to be addressed for this momentum to continue past the next five years and in this New Era from 2020–2035:

1. Housing Costs/Market: In direct contradiction with the people’s needs for a greater life, China’s house prices are too high for many at the moment. This is one area China is very likely to handle in just the next five years.
2. Aging Population: by 2035 China will be considered a severely aging population, if trends hold. This will make modernization and industry harder. However, China has been utilizing its AI research to lessen the overall workload of its society, and there is sure to be much more direct action in this area in the New Era.
3. Declining Birth Rates: China will need to find a way to rectify historical baggage of the One Child Policy (now repealed). One reason this is likely to be less of an issue than it is projected as is the humanitarian handling of the pandemic, which should allow Chinese citizens to achieve better outcomes in this regard and others. China may also see large influxes of immigration as a product of their higher level of stability compared to the West.
4. Zero-COVID: with millions and millions in the US facing COVID and Long-COVID related issues, China has upheld and will continue its zero COVID rationale. Short term, this may cause further economic disruption. Longer term, however, it is likely China’s workforce will be more productive than the tragically hindered Western workers, subjected to multiple infections a year at the expense of the ruling class and their profits.
5. US War Drive: Not a whole lot to be said here. The United States has made it clear that China’s model, which puts people first and constricts capitalist investment to productive sectors (as compared to unproductive overhead like economic rent and debt) at the forefront. The US has even adjusted its nuclear policy this week to reflect this acceleration in aggression.

Final Thoughts on Bias and the Role of the Western Left

It is my fundamental belief that the Western left should not be throwing left criticism at the Party that is advantageous to the US ruling class. There is so much to learn from the Chinese Marxist project, and much we could gain from normalization of relations with the Party. If a US left group hopes to be successful, in should not cave to Western pressure and jump on the ship of anti-China narratives. When it comes to platforms such as Twitter for example, it’s important to be cognizant of the natural Western bias these platforms have after years of censorship. China has its own social media platforms and alternatives to Twitter, and frequently has banned or censored Chinese accounts. Even if we do find users active in China, that speak English, our ‘sample’ is going to be necessarily biased in a certain direction. Twitter is, with notable exceptions, a anti-China bastion from right to left. This means that those heavily criticizing the CPC from the West are likely to be see advantages in the algorithms, extended reach and even, in the extreme, state funded. The United States government has massive influencer networks and bot campaigns dedicated to shaping public opinion via these platforms. The best antidote is to translate and read more official Chinese media. I promise, it’ll surprise you in its objectiveness and consistency.

Reading Suggestions on SWCC:

1. Basics of the Theoretical System of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics by Zhihong Xu

2. China’s Great Road by Jon Ross

3. Selected Works of Deng Xioping

4. Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners by Roland Borr

5. The Destiny of Civilization: Finance Capitalism, Industrial Capitalism Or Socialism by Michael Hudson