Jean-Pierre Page is a veteran of the French labour movement: a former Air France worker, a member of the Confederal Executive Committee of the CGT (General Confederation of Labour) and head of its international department. He co-authored Masters of the World on the war in Yugoslavia with Samir Amin, Noam Chomsky and Georges Labica, and China Without Blinders with Maxime Vivas, and has edited the journal La Pensée Libre since 2004.
In this wide-ranging interview conducted by Xinhua, Page discusses the Communist Party of China’s conception of “self-revolution”, and what it means for communist parties elsewhere. A communist party, he argues, is a living, militant body rather than an electoral machine, and criticism and self-criticism are fundamental practices for every communist regardless of rank – so self-revolution amounts to the requirement that every member hold themselves accountable and make their daily conduct exemplary.
He is blunt about the contrast with Europe. Bureaucratisation, careerism, the professionalisation of political and trade union life, and a drift from the concerns of working people have afflicted communist parties too, and in most European countries their decline – through strategic errors and the abandonment of communist principles – has deprived the people of the means to defend their interests. He notes “a very alarming level of mediocrity and political illiteracy” among politicians, a symptom of capitalism’s systemic crisis, and observes that in France barely half the population now votes, with many of the rest turning to the far right.
On corruption, Page draws a pointed historical lesson: the abuses of the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe estranged those parties from the people and were “not unrelated to the collapse of the Soviet Union” – while under capitalism the same tendencies have worsened, sustained by a culture of impunity, two-tier justice and more than a thousand lobby groups operating at European level alone.
He also addresses China’s National Action Plan on Human Rights 2026–2030 and the Forum on Global Human Rights Governance held in Beijing, arguing that human rights are inseparable from the right to development: there is little point discussing rights with people deprived of an income, a job or a roof over their heads. Against the Western claim to define human rights universally, he sets China’s record on poverty eradication, and concludes that while China may not be a model, it is an example. “Socialism works, and China is living proof of it.”
This interview first appeared in Workers World.
On the CPC’s self-revolution
CPC General Secretary Xi Jinping has defined “self-revolution” as a way for the CPC to break free from the historical cycle of decline. In your view, what insights does this “self-revolution” offer to political parties around the world?
In an article published in late 2024, President Xi Jinping discussed the concept of self-revolution, as he often does, in a concrete, clear, and compelling manner. Indeed, this is a major issue — I would even say an existential one — for any communist party, both for its credibility and for the substance of its commitment and that of its members. It is about winning over the broad masses and giving meaning and substance to their historic struggles.
From the Taiping Rebellion to the Long March, the history of the Chinese people’s struggle against feudalism and imperialism and for their liberation is rich and profound. President Xi Jinping takes this into account. This is therefore linked to his own conception of the party’s role. The party must define itself clearly through its function, its purpose — I would even say its utility — and its history.
A Communist Party, more than any other party, is a living, militant body, organized according to principles and centered on a vision grounded in the role of the working class as a revolutionary class. Its objective is to unite the people by breaking with the old capitalist order and with the ambition of building a new order: a socialist and communist society. Not one without the other.
To achieve this, it must rely on the capacity of each of its members — who share common values centered on an ideal and an ambition — to build upon a program and concrete objectives that take into account the history of the entire people, their class struggles, their victories as well as their failures, and the values that are their own. That is why the party and its members must be directly engaged with a concrete analysis of the concrete situation, be capable of taking initiative, assume their responsibilities as communists wherever they find themselves, be attentive, listen to and learn from the masses, be creative, take into account reality — and thus the balance of power, life, and the needs of the people as a whole — and therefore take into account history, diversity, culture, differences, and contradictions within it.
This living organism that the Party must be has to take into account both the strengths and weaknesses of each and every one of its members — their successes as well as their mistakes — and how these must be corrected through patient and rigorous collective work. Criticism and self-criticism are fundamental practices for every communist, regardless of their level of responsibility.
I believe that this is precisely what President Xi Jinping means by “self-revolution” — that is, the guidance given to every member of the Chinese Communist Party, without exception, so that they may hold themselves accountable with the aim of improving their political practice through concrete actions and daily conduct that must be exemplary. In this way, they will help strengthen the party’s cohesion and unity. This requires a great deal of personal effort, particularly in the constant study and practical application of Marxism, Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, and Xi Jinping Thought.
Consequently, in my view, this approach — or, one might say, this concept — applies to every communist party in the world. Of course, it is up to each party to decide how it operates, taking its own history into account. There is no single model, but it is always important to draw on the experience of others. For the parties of the oligarchy that represent the interests of capital and the bourgeoisie, the situation is different. Their political goal is quite distinct. Serving a handful of parasites is not the same as serving the entire people.
Chairman Mao Zedong, in his famous essay “Serving the People,” liked to say, “All men must die, but the weight of death can vary.” The ancient Chinese writer Sima Qian said, ‘Although death befalls all men alike, it can be heavier than Mount Tai or lighter than a feather.’ To die for the people is a death heavier than Mount Tai, but to work for the fascists and die for the exploiters and oppressors is a death lighter than a feather.
If we have shortcomings, we are not afraid of having them pointed out or criticized, for we serve the people. Anyone, no matter who they are, may point out our shortcomings. If they are right, we will correct them. If what they propose benefits the people, we will implement it.
On strict Party governance
In many countries, ruling parties have long been plagued by bureaucratization, the ossification of interests, and a disconnect from the people. Do you believe that the CPC’s efforts to promote strict and comprehensive Party governance offer new approaches for political parties worldwide to resolve this dilemma of long-term power?
That observation is accurate! In France or elsewhere, no organized political or social force is immune to this trend, which is obviously dangerous — especially when it comes to democracy. This therefore applies to communist parties as well; no one is safe from these destructive tendencies. We recall the words of the German playwright and writer Bertolt Brecht: “The people do not understand party politics, so we must change the people.”
This troubling evolution in political practices is synonymous with bureaucratization, a disconnect from reality, corruption, ambition, careerism, institutionalization, and the professionalization of political and union life alike. It affects all parties and unions without distinction, including communist parties, within which some are more concerned with fighting for positions than with the class struggle.
Thus, for a communist party, renouncing or distancing itself from the principles of class struggle always has consequences — not only in terms of its influence through its relationship with workers and their families in workplaces and neighborhoods, but also in the very way it functions. Distancing oneself from the concerns and needs of the people almost always comes at a very heavy price. This is the case in most European countries, with a few exceptions, where the decline of certain communist parties — due to strategic errors, the abandonment of communist principles, and operations influenced by bourgeois ideas — deprives the people of the means to defend their interests.
As a general rule, we must add — and this is a new phenomenon — a very alarming level of mediocrity and political illiteracy among political figures in the broad sense of the term. For my part, I believe that this is yet another manifestation of capitalism’s systemic crisis. Especially since no Western country is spared; we are witnessing an unprecedented deterioration of political life, where principles and rules are disappearing and anything goes. This is very alarming! In his fable “The Animals Stricken by the Plague,” our great 18th century fabulist La Fontaine wrote: “They would not all die, but all were stricken.” It’s a bit like that.
On another level, we do not attach the same meanings to the same words — such as the word “governance.” In developed capitalist countries, governance is an abstract concept in its formulation but highly one-sided in its definition and application. For Western governments and states, there is supposedly only one conception of governance — one that is universal — and that is their own. There is therefore no concern here with democratically taking into account the experience of other states.
Yet we all have much to learn from one another. No one can dictate their vision and methods of government to another. There is no doubt that many political parties around the world would benefit from learning from and drawing on the long political experience accumulated by the rich Chinese civilization. Unfortunately, we are not there yet, for what still prevails in many Western countries is arrogance, self-satisfaction, and the conviction that their actions are divinely ordained and must be imposed on the rest of the world. The President of the United States is the perfect illustration of this — with added vulgarity.
This alarming trend is leading to widespread disengagement from political life across Europe. This approach to politics provokes such rejection that many citizens resort to abstaining from elections or supporting racist, extremist, and fascist parties. This is the case in France, where only slightly more than 50% of the population participates in elections.
On a people-centred philosophy of development
In many parts of the world, the policies of political parties are easily hijacked by capital, factions, or interest groups. In your view, what is the significance of the CPC’s commitment to a people-centered development philosophy in reshaping the value systems of political parties?
The 2026 Forum on Global Human Rights Governance was recently held in Beijing; I attended and spoke there. Nearly 300 participants from 91 countries were in attendance.
The event also marked the 40th anniversary of the United Nations’ landmark documents on the Declaration on the Right to Development. For my part, and taking the compelling example of China, I would say that poverty eradication and human rights are inseparable from the legitimacy and effectiveness of the socialism being built in China.
This historic mission echoes the story of how Yukong moved the mountains — a legend that Chairman Mao Zedong liked to cite when speaking to the Chinese people about the two obstacles of feudalism and imperialism that they had to face. Nearly eighty years later, the Chinese people have risen, and the concrete results stemming from the choice of socialism are helping to transform the status quo in this five-millennia-old continental nation, where Confucianism remains a point of reference that Communist leader Xi Jinping likes to cite.
Your country’s success can also be appreciated on the international stage, as, on the one hand, capitalist countries are turning to China for aid and assistance — as is the case with France and Germany, among others — and, on the other hand, the rest of the world seeks to free itself from the stifling control of the West and its institutions, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU, or NATO. While China may not be a model, it is an example with undeniable values for peoples seeking alternatives for development.
Through its achievements, China lends indisputable credibility to socialism and encourages a renewed reflection on it. Its contribution — all the more so with a Communist Party at its helm, boasting nearly 100 million members, for whom the “dictatorship of the proletariat” remains one of the ideological cornerstones — is, in many respects, instructive. Consequently, we can state without fear of contradiction: socialism works, and China is living proof of it! Between rising powers and declining powers, “the Thucydides Trap” [the risk of a conflict expanding out of control] is therefore not a figment of the imagination. It can be viewed as either a risk or an opportunity.
On the relationship between Party building and state governance
How do you assess General Secretary Xi Jinping’s assertion that “Party building must advance in step with the development of the Party’s and the people’s cause”? Does this demonstrate that Party building is not merely a partisan matter, but a crucial aspect of the state’s capacity for governance?
In building socialism with Chinese characteristics, President Xi Jinping emphasizes the practical nature of the pace of development and consistently stresses Party building. Aligning these two approaches into a single effort requires strong political will on the part of leaders, particularly the leader at the top. President Xi Jinping has no shortage of such will. This is a core conviction of his. We must move forward with the people, helping to guide their actions at their own pace, rather than marching kilometers ahead of them.
This choice and this approach have greatly contributed to China’s political stability, which is, moreover, one of the strengths underpinning its development, the cohesion of its multi-ethnic people, and its continued adherence to the principles of socialism. Take human rights, for example: they are not some “extra” aspect of the soul, a mere formula, or a slogan, nor should they be a political weapon in the service of hegemony, as is the case in Western countries and in the United States in particular.
As for their implementation, the credibility of the Communist Party’s actions, its influence, and its organized strength are at stake — both at the state and government levels and at the local level in villages, neighborhoods, enterprises, and rural areas. Everywhere, the Party’s presence is decisive. The results achieved are further proof of the strength of socialism with Chinese characteristics, led by a Communist Party worthy of the name.
On the fight against corruption and political leadership
General Secretary Xi Jinping has led the fight against corruption with a sense of responsibility summed up by the saying: “I would rather offend thousands of people than disappoint a population of 1.4 billion.” What kind of leadership does this approach reflect? What lessons does the CPC’s track record in the fight against corruption offer political parties around the world in their quest for stable governance?
Self-reform and the fight against corruption go hand in hand. President Xi Jinping has rightly made this one of the priorities of his administration. To allow corruption to persist is to allow inequalities to grow, to let a life of ease and personal enrichment take root for a select few at the expense of the vast majority of the people, and to increase tensions and the risks of destabilization. There can be no corrupt individuals without those who corrupt them.
We must therefore address both the causes and the consequences — this is the responsibility of every communist. Refusing to do so leads the country into a dead end. The countries of Eastern Europe and the USSR itself experienced such abuses, which led to an estrangement from the people and their interests; this was not unrelated to the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, we have since seen how these trends, far from being resolved, rapidly worsened under capitalism. The example of Ukraine — arguably the most corrupt country in the world — is proof of this. Above all, this is profoundly contrary to the concept of socialism and to what should be the ethics of communists, whose behavior and work must be exemplary.
In Western countries, corruption at all levels of government, political parties, and labor unions is wreaking havoc; it has worsened exponentially and involves institutions and businesses as much as it does individuals. There is no shortage of examples, and scandals are most often the manifestations of this problem. Furthermore, there is a culture of impunity that provokes legitimate anger among the people, especially when the state practices a lenient and permissive form of justice toward the powerful — a two-tiered justice system — and here again, there is no shortage of examples.
Lobby groups play a significant role in influencing institutions; at the European level, there are more than a thousand of them, and corruption is one of their methods. This alarming situation continues to worsen and undermines the credibility of those institutions and individuals who speak at length about democracy and respect for human rights but who, in practice, consider themselves above the law.
On the synergy between Party building and socioeconomic development
From poverty reduction to rural revitalization, including green development, the CPC integrates its leadership throughout the entire process of national governance. In your view, what does this reveal about the relationship between “Party building” and a country’s socioeconomic development?
From this perspective, China has just published its National Action Plan on Human Rights 2026–2030. This is, of course, a political event of the utmost importance for China, but more fundamentally, it is a concrete response to those in the West who claim to define human rights. As the CPC demonstrates, human rights and the right to development must have a concrete definition, and this vision must contribute to the substance of the Party’s actions. What would be the point of talking about human rights to peoples, to men, women, children, and the elderly who are deprived of an income, a job, or a roof over their heads — things that would allow them to live, receive an education, and receive medical care with dignity?
Similarly, what good would it do to glorify the CPC if these same people are unable to appreciate the usefulness and effectiveness of its actions? Defending the promotion of human rights means fighting against inequalities — all inequalities. This therefore calls for a concrete definition linked to the right to development. This is a major objective of socialism and, consequently, the responsibility of a communist party. There is thus a profound coherence in China’s vision and its definition of human rights — through its precise approach to economic, social, and cultural rights as well as civil, political, and environmental rights — just as there is in its conception of the role of a communist party.
On theoretical innovation and cultural roots
Xi Jinping’s thinking on Party building is both rooted in Marxist theory and nourished by the wisdom of traditional Chinese culture. What insights does this approach to theoretical innovation offer to parties in other countries to strengthen their own Party building in line with their history and culture?
President Xi Jinping has established himself internationally as a head of state of undeniable political stature. I would say he is a man of vision, principles, reconciliation, and concrete alternatives. He is also a man of great culture and open-mindedness. His passion for reading is well known, particularly for French literature. The two cannot be separated. We might add — and this stems from his youth and the years he spent living among poor farmers — that, as he says, he learned a great deal and came to appreciate the richness of Chinese civilization.
Chinese thought, the place it occupies in universal culture, and the ideas of certain philosophers such as Confucius and Laozi have profoundly shaped and influenced not only China but all of humanity. Moreover, President Xi Jinping received a gift from France to which he is particularly attached: a book titled Confucius and the Science of Princes, published in France in 1688.
As communists, we must take this dimension of history and thought into account — not to reject it in an artificial and sometimes violent manner, but to acknowledge it because it is an integral part of the people’s way of thinking. It is, moreover, a valuable contribution to the development of civilizations in all their diversity. This, I believe, is the meaning that President Xi Jinping intends to give to the actions and thought of the CCP, which is an important and stimulating contribution to Marxist thought. Above all, I note that he is not only a man of reflection but also a man of action; not a man of rhetoric but of concrete achievements — one who takes reality into account as it is, not as we imagine it to be.
When he speaks of a “community with a shared future” and “win-win outcomes,” he is addressing the world and its nations, taking into account the tremendous upheavals we are witnessing on the international stage. If we consider the New Silk Roads (BRI), in which nearly 150 countries are involved and which are now concrete infrastructure projects around the world, I believe this is a compelling illustration of how Xi Jinping’s ideas translate into real life and the needs of the people.
The French writer Victor Hugo once said, “We need a mind vaster than the sky.” I believe this captures quite well what should be a political and intellectual challenge for many countries around the world — for their leaders, as well as for all political, economic, and social forces. We do not choose the era in which we live; we must know how to rise to the level of what it demands. President Xi Jinping is a prime example of this; he has this ambition for China as well as for all of humanity.
