The Long Game and Its Contradictions
By Leo He Zhao
[dropcap]C[/dropcap]hina has overcome colonial oppression, emerged from “100 years of humiliation”, and is now developing its power on the world stage. Together and along with other formerly colonised nations, through mutually beneficial relationships and a policy of peaceful co-existence, China is building alliances based on strength, to displace Western hegemony, and counter capitalist imperialism, clearing the path toward global communism.
This long term strategy, or at least its first phase, hinges not on orthodox Marxist class struggle, but on quasi-Confucian social harmony, toward the restructuring of global trade.
As this process unfolds, many procedural level contradictions may occur within particular methods and tactics. Some of these are par for the course of being part of a global market dominated by neoliberalism, and of using private entrepreneurship as a tool of development, such as uneven development, wealth inequality, environmental degradation, and labor issues within private business entities. There are also problems which arise from the particular developmental conditions of China: urban coastal areas have experienced faster growth than in-land rural regions, and especially at the unprecedentedly rapid pace: between 1990 and 2018 the number of Chinese people living in extreme poverty was reduced from 750m to less than 10m (Economist).
Business with Assholes: Narendra Modi, Benjamin Netanyahu, King Salman bin Abdulaziz, The Orange Moron
Other contradictions include those which result from the strict non-interference in the affairs of foreign states, which has characterised Chinese foreign policy for thousands of years, and the prioritising of larger international trade relationships over ideological conflicts. One example is unscrupulous business deals with right-wing or even fascist governments, such as Saudi Arabia or Israel. The “live and let live” ethic of this modus operandi even applies to ideological enemies: China also trades with the biggest terrorist organisation in the world, the USA, without even criticising its long list of illegal wars and heinous crimes against humanity. Another is not supporting local leftist struggles in partner nations, such as guerrilla Maoist insurrections in SE Asia, if it might jeopardise trade relations with state entities. If the temporary “ethical net-losses” of these contradictions lead to larger “net-gains” and positive results in the future, they are calculated as worthwhile or unavoidable.
It is a long and treacherous game on a grand global chessboard shaped by layers of devastating historical injustice and the cascading chaos produced by exploitative and oppressive processes, and in order to win, relatively minor contradictions and problematic particularities must not obscure or impede the realisation of larger goals.
[dropcap]I[/dropcap]n 1950, at the birth of modern China and the Communist Party, the average life expectancy was 35. In 1980, at the end of the Maoist era, it had doubled to 70, but the average citizen still lived on less than $1 a day. In every way, the economic program devised by Zhou Enlai, under the leadership of Deng XiaoPing, continued in the direction of Maoist visionary development, while correcting some earlier mistakes. No nation, whether socialist or capitalist, can survive in isolation; and it has been merely 4 decades since the modern reforms which entered China into the international market, embarking China on its present path.
“So, to build socialism it is necessary to develop the productive forces. Poverty is not socialism. To uphold socialism, a socialism that is to be superior to capitalism, it is imperative first and foremost to eliminate poverty. True, we are building socialism, but that doesn’t mean that what we have achieved so far is up to the socialist standard. Not until the middle of the next century, when we have reached the level of the moderately developed countries, shall we be able to say that we have really built socialism and to declare convincingly that it is superior to capitalism. We are advancing towards that goal.” –– Deng XiaoPing
[dropcap]I[/dropcap]f private property, money, abstract value production, class society, and the state, are abolished prematurely, when the cruel logic and vile power of capital still controls the entire world, China would become vulnerable to both external imperialist violence and internal reactionary sabotage (no doubt under the banner of “democracy”). The Communist Party would be immediately compromised by foreign backed elements; the country might be torn apart once again by civil war, and once again subjected to imperialist domination. The Chinese revolution, what so many millions fought, worked tirelessly, and sacrificed their lives for, will have been for nothing.
Marxism is anything but rigid and dogmatic, and has always been about adapting to the ever changing objective conditions of each era, using whatever is available toward revolutionary goals. The opinion of those baizuo who think that China should have chosen the disastrous course of action described above, or at least remained underdeveloped, poor, and weak, in order to satisfy their fundamentalist interpretation of Marxism, should not be indulged. These myopic and short-sighted “left com” or “ultra-left” types love to denounce modern China as a betrayal of the socialism project, without considering that it is the failure of the Western left to do successful revolutions which made it necessary for existing socialist states to adapt to the global conditions of entrenched neo-liberal capitalism.
Those who think that 1.4 billion people, who for 200 years suffered so immensely under vicious colonial rule and brutal capitalist domination, will so quickly forget what their true enemy is, don’t know much about capitalism, colonialism, or people.
The entrenched and pervasive structures of capitalism took 300 years to build, and the propertarian system of which it is an extension, 6000 years. Its dissolution requires strategies on a scale bigger and longer than is easily conceived or understood by any individual without many years of dedication, and will take more than a few decades to unfold.
Western liberals think in terms of quarterly reports and election cycles. Eastern communists think in terms of centuries, if not millennia.
Leo He Zhao Insurrectionary Rhythm, Radical Hedonism, Egalitarian Sexuality: Make Raves Marxist Again
Appendix——••
As expected this enormously important and cogent essay has provoked a fair share of debate among readers. Some people on the left, especially in the West, continue to believe that China’s leadership in effect betrayed the revolution by choosing the “capitalist road,” a choice that eventually spawned a new class of billionaires, a clear degree of class segmentation and polarization, and other serious ills common and inherent in any capitalist society. Further, in their view, the betrayal ofteh Soviet Union and Chenese leaderships not only caused their collapse as socialist nations, but (especially in the wake of the USSR’s implosion) opened a Pandora’s box of calamities and crimes carried out by the American empire in various regions of the world with virtual impunity. While, in the immediate sense, some of these criticisms are true, in the broader, dialectical sense, they fail to incorporate important factors whose examination yields a different and more nuanced judgment specifically on China’s policies and trajectory. China’s policies, necessarily complex, cannot be depicted in black and white terms. Our senior contributing editor Hiroyuki Hamada has patiently studied this topic in detail, carefully weighing all the chief complaints, and produced an excellent summation of the controversy which we regard as fair and comprehensive. We endorse and recommend his statements and hope our readers will help us disseminate this post as both Leo Zhao and Hiroyuki address a subject almost certain to be used by the agents of the Western empire in their hybrid power campaigns against China.—PG
Hiroyuki Hamada
[dropcap]F[/dropcap]or those of us who are learning about global dynamics under the reign of the capitalist hegemony, it is well known that criticisms against China do not only come from the western establishment, which is eager to contain its economic threat, but they also come from western socialists. Their tone against China in engaging in the global market economy, in particular, economic activities with countries known to be inhumane, atrocious, unjust, undemocratic and so on–for example, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Rwanda and so on–is especially harsh. Their anger and despair are so acute that they may sound as if they are more hostile to China than anyone in the US establishment. Considering what those countries do to oppressed people, the sentiment is perhaps understandable.
However, oddly, we don’t hear the sort of pointed criticism against China when it’s engaging in economic activities with the biggest offender of all those monstrosities. The country in focus is of course the United States of America. I guess for those socialists who are not only engaging in economic activities with the US, but are physically residing in the US, paying tax to the murderous empire, being a part of the war economy and benefitting from its dwindling social services, it might be hard to recognize the meaning of dealing with the evil empire.
This article eloquently discusses logic and historical contexts of the Chinese socialist trajectory. Perhaps, those socialists in the US who are most likely can’t even proudly proclaim being socialists to their superiors at their work places, might understand the predicament and necessity of China choosing the long way against imperialism in achieving the Chinese version of communism.
<•••>
Descriptions of the Chinese participation in the market economy [are often] not only not factual, but lacking fundamental understanding of its basic mechanism. The link below describes the characteristics, which certainly differ from the western counterpart in many ways.
https://monthlyreview.org/2018/10/01/on-the-nature-of-the-chinese-economic-system/
Also, the development of the Chinese economy as it stands today is [in] good part a reaction to the western encirclement of Chinese sovereignty. I would not describe it as “China sold out its socialism to capitalism just like Soviet Union did”. Whether you like it or not, the Chinese establishment regards it as a process to achieve stability, peace and economic cooperation among other countries, while dealing with the imperial encirclement. The path is based on their own interpretation of capitalism and socialism, its current necessities, and its history, namely, experiencing multiple attacks by multiple empires. Quite frankly I see the basic argument as solid, practical and constructive in seeking a path beyond the capitalist domination. Its shortcomings, issues to be tackled, and assortments of mistakes and so on can be analyzed and criticized but I don’t find it to be detrimental to their future. I mean, what the western hegemony wants is to divide up China and make it totally open to western corporate interests, as we’ve seen in Russia in 90s, the Middle East, former Yugoslavia and so on.
Moreover, I would like to emphasize that just because a certain country does not follow a certain version of socialism (endorsed by the critics), that really doesn’t mean that that country can be equated with the imperial forces that have been killing 25 to 35 million people with their colonial policies. Especially, when the very country China is facing hundreds of US military bases with their nuclear warheads aiming at it. There is just no evidence that the Chinese participation in the market economy is driven by an aim to build a global imperial hegemony shaped by its economic as well as its military power, as the US hegemony.
Speaking of such a hegemonic power—the western forces—we must be crystal clear that it destroyed the USSR with malicious, undemocratic, unjust, atrocious and inhumane intent. Many countries have perished by such forces of capitalist expansion, aggression and imperialism. People of Soviet Union didn’t wish the federation to be dissolved. Its destruction was a culmination of the aggressive US containment policy against that socialist country. So, again, I wouldn’t describe it as it “sold out its socialism to capitalism”.
And needless to say, the role of alternatives against the imperial hegemony is one of prime interest to many of us who desire a better tomorrow. How we perceive efforts of other countries must be accurate and objective. Otherwise, we can end up supporting the capitalist empire.
—H.H.
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found
In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” -- acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump -- a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all.— Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report