On Saturday 9 October, we held a very successful webinar opposing the propaganda war being waged by the US and its allies against China. The videos from the event are embedded below.
Continue reading Videos: the propaganda war against China
On Saturday 9 October, we held a very successful webinar opposing the propaganda war being waged by the US and its allies against China. The videos from the event are embedded below.
At the Friends of Socialist China webinar on the propaganda war against China, held on Saturday 9 October 2021, the following statement was adopted.
We, the undersigned, are concerned about the escalating propaganda war being waged by the United States and its allies against the People’s Republic of China.
Although China in recent years has recorded some truly remarkable achievements in the realm of human rights – notably, eliminating extreme poverty and successfully containing Covid-19 – it has been subjected in the Western media to the most terrible slanders regarding its human rights record. Unsubstantiated accusations of genocide and forced labour in Xinjiang echo endlessly in Western media and governments, along with conspiracy theories about the origins of the pandemic.
This information warfare accompanies, complements and seeks to build public support for a dangerous New Cold War; it serves to distract from, and justify, the construction of nuclear alliances in the Pacific, the deployment of warships to the South China Sea, the fomenting of a new arms race, and assorted attempts to obstruct China’s economic rise.
We believe that this demonisation campaign is an obstacle to urgently-needed cooperation between the world’s major powers on the questions of climate change, pandemics, nuclear weapons, and economic development. Such cooperation cannot be built in an atmosphere of fear, distrust, enmity and slander.
Therefore we demand that Western governments adopt a principled and responsible approach to improving relations and deepening cooperation with China; and that media outlets cease their vilification campaign and adhere to journalistic principles of honesty and balanced reporting.
Name | Role/organization |
---|---|
Francis Chow | |
Dan Smith | |
Sonya Andermahr | CPB |
Loy Heng Yu | student from Vineyard Services & Resources |
Carrie Hedderwick | Delegate to Sheffield Trades Council/ Sec of South Yorks CPB |
Zefeng Chen | |
Jason Lee | Exporter |
Bijan Sharifi | International high school art Teacher in Shanghai |
Alvin Ja | independent |
Stefania Fusero | |
Guillermo Puyana | China Colombia Friendship Association, President |
Hollis Higgins | Secretary, Veterans For Peace, Spokane Chapter #35 |
Phoebe Tickner | |
Kai Chiang | |
Tyson Harris | The Industrial Workers Of The World |
Suni O Grant | No organizations |
Milad Maier | student |
David Bureš | Writer, journalist, political activist |
Paulius Eidukas | Lithuanian communist & activist, member of the Communist Party of Norway |
Annanya Bhaskar | |
K. Philippe Gendrault | |
William Yukcheung Fung | voccc |
Bethan Blake | Communist Party of Britain |
Bob Oram | Chair Morning Star Management Committee |
Justin Jutzeler | |
D Wilson | |
Jane Akatay | Editor and writer |
Rindang Anggit Wibisono | Chemical Engineering Student |
Octaviane Stefina Enggra G. | Student of Universitas Kristen Petra |
Christian Féard | |
Richard Keenan | |
Richard Leung | Retired bank CEO & consultant |
Raymond Chin Asang | |
Jeffery Hull | Engineer and Activist |
Josephine Angelina Harsoyo | |
Dr Ping Hua | Founder/Director, Chinese Arts Southampton |
Tian Zhao | Product designer at Flinks |
Jorge Ruiz | UC Riverside Transfer Student |
SY | |
Erwin Franzen | retired, fomer journalist |
Dr George Mickhail | Professor of Accounting |
MR STEVEN J HANDFORD | SEN Teacher. Newcastle. |
Robert Gerold | |
Michael Wongsam | Branch Secretary/Labour Party |
Dio Affriza | Worker |
Zuzanna Zak | |
Alexandros Schulman | Socialist and activist |
Seth Goddard | |
Tova Fry | |
Maciej Przylecki | |
David Smokler | League of Revolutionaries for a New America |
JJH van den Broek | |
Zayara | student at MAHE |
Markus Keaney | Chair, Bedfordshire & East Buckinghamshire Communist Party of Britain |
Manuel Iglesias-Guerrero | Médico |
Yunfan Hao | |
Tara May | |
Michael Kramer | President, Veterans For Peace / Chapter 021 (Northern NJ) |
Jeanine Maland retired teacher; activist | |
Gregory Elich | Solidarity Committee for Democracy and Peace in Korea |
Andrew Lin | |
Amodani Gariba | Chairman, The Nkrumahist Circle |
Gabriella Alexander | Freelance ESL tutor and translator |
G Vandervort | |
Camara Starks | |
Joan Mao | |
David Elvar | Author |
Matt Widdowson | |
Tony Kinder | University Professor |
Christian Yahya | |
Mitchell Shore | Policy Analyst |
Ng Kong Hung | VP/ Sun Cheong Pte |
hira singh | |
Doug Nicholls | General Secretary General Federation of Trade Unions, UK. |
Callum Joseph Wilson | Member of Communist Party USA |
Arnold August | Author/Journalist |
Magnar Husby | penionered teacher, stayed in China 6 weeks, studied Chinese history, especiallay the warlord period from 1911 to 1949. |
Robert Svorinich | |
Ed Burley | |
Capitalist countries leaded by us imperialism tried to condemn china | |
Wendy Emmett | Communist Party of Britain |
Brandon Walley | artist/activist |
Joel Wendland-Liu | |
Annamaria Artner | political economist |
Louie Lurati | |
James Darsley | Undergraduate at University of Cambridge |
Sunil Kumar Banerjee | Veteran |
Rabiha Antar | |
Darius Diogenes Logos Xristos | HIM Imperator divi filius aei Augustus |
Anna Chen | Writer and broadcaster |
Stefan Langenborg | |
Eric Struch | Freedom Road Socialist Organization |
Ben Maen | Communist Party of Britain |
Vivek | |
Zhong | |
Joshua Jenkins | Worker |
J B Rimmer | Customer Relations |
Paul Lookman | E4ditor, Geopolitiek in context |
Stephen David | A link in humanity |
Phillip Courneyeur | |
Javier Telletxea | Hunan Normal University |
Ezio Mao | Director, IT industry |
Madeleine Brierley | |
Tomohiro Maeda | |
Dmitri Sotnikov | |
ML Corvidelle | Comrade Birb Podcast, Online Educator |
Nadeem | |
Ben Davis | N.C.P |
Thomas To | Retiree |
Peta Elmes | Horizons Specialized Services |
Ruipeng Li | Student at CUNY |
Dr Stephen Wilkinson | International Institute for the Study of Cuba |
Revd Ray Gaston | Team Vicar, Church of St Chad and St Mark, Parish of Central Wolverhampton |
James Barratt | |
David Müller | |
Magnus kjærgaard | Student |
Emad Gharavi | |
Terry Woo | |
David Thomas | Chair Canadian-Cuban Friendship Association (CCFA) of Niagara |
Charles McKelvey | Writer/Substack |
Francoise Hembert | |
Simon | |
Changlin Zhao | College Student |
ADNAN AKFIRAT | Chairman of Turkish Chinese Business Development and Friendship Association |
vic | na |
Andre Sabourin | Anti-Imperialism |
rageh ali | |
COLIN CRAIG | Historian |
Prof. Claudia Chaufan | Associate Professor, York University |
Francis yeung | |
Dee Knight | |
Susan Mah | |
Youri Smouter | host of 1+1 at Yuri Muckraker at youtube |
John Fox-Cameron | |
Alex Southern | London Clarion Cycle Club |
Nigel Green | Retired activist in the PCS Trade Union |
Bill Meyer | Michigan Peace Council |
Gendo Ikari | |
Dean Peters | pensioner |
Joseph Thompson | CPUSA |
Luciana Bohne | Emerita Professor, Edinboro University |
LIZ REMMERSWAAL | World beyond war Aotearoa New Zealand |
Taylar Morrison | Invasive Species Officer |
Kay Strathus | none |
Renate Bridenthal | Retired Professor of History, CUNY |
Wiliam Davis | Attorney/Law Offices of WO Davis |
Michal Nowicki | Polish Worker on emigration in France. Youtube channel Rebirth of communism and Odrodzenie Komunizmu |
Aya Young | Marxist-Leninist |
Mark Andersen | Worker |
Geoff Lee | |
PAUL BRAGAGLIA | INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATOR & WRITER |
Kevin James | Student |
Joseph M. Herosy | Massachusetts Teachers Assicaiation, Boston DSA, PSL |
Stefan Schmid | |
Bernard Harries | Retired concerned citizen |
Roger Annis | writer, Canada |
leanne lindsay | |
Yunfang Yu | Engineer |
May | Anti- imperialist |
michael murray | Labour Party |
Holt, John Paul | Principal, School of Vocation (HK) |
Andreas | |
Helen Whooley | CFMEU Union Teacher |
Al Sargis | Google Group Moderator: China Study Group Boston |
Christer Lundgren | Journalist, Sweden |
David Bracewell | |
Dr. Kim Eng Koo | Member/ Rocky Mount Racial Justice Group |
Mr Michael J M Quinn | |
Christian Shingiro | Show Host/The Socially Radical Guitarist |
Alexander Toufexis | |
Paul S. Graham | Videographer |
Steve Roddy | |
Elia Ansaloni | Chemist and writer |
Harry Targ | Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism |
Arnold Kawano | Attorney; member, National Lawyers Guild (U.S.); Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers (U.K.) |
Jamie Lang | |
David Cooper | Retired community engagement professional |
Jerry Path | |
Simón Sánchez | Student |
Don Mervyn | |
Keith Heywood | |
Michael | |
Julia Defalco | Student |
Kate Lattimore | |
Mark Earp | |
Mia | Social work |
Haoruo Zhang | |
Rachel Pirani | |
RAFAEL QUEIROZ ALVES | Master’s Degree Student – Researcher/Unesp |
Geoff Jones | Long term resident of Hong Kong |
Mark Prenter | geologist |
Ghani Abdul | |
BabaClay Hathor | |
Marco Mucciarelli | Student |
Alexander Stolz | University student |
Connor Spence | |
olivia chu | socialist |
Wei Weng LEONG | Retired |
Romina Beitseen | |
Tyler Theodore Soubie | American concerned citzen |
HH Ng | |
Prof Mobo Gao | University of Adelaide |
Emily | |
meeling wee | |
Yick Foon WONG | |
Jon Harrington | |
Seshadri Srinivas | Anti-war activist |
Peter Purich | Technical Writer, retired |
YF | |
E.E. Tinguely | Writer |
Samuel Alvarez | |
Orlando Campopiano | |
Calvin Ho | Tsinghua University |
Doug Taggart | |
Suzanne Ho | ASEAN citizen |
Grace Ng Listkowski | |
Ian Sun | |
Ange Power | Homemaker |
yewlay Tan | |
Qi Guang | |
Felipe Alvarado Plata | History Student / National University of Colombia |
Cian de Bhaldraithe | |
Kelly Kwon | |
Kwan | |
Lily | Law student |
William Grosh | |
Georg Vavra | |
Wolfgang Masarié | retired Landesmusikschulwerk Upper Austria |
Paolo Cruzalegui | Activst & Writer, Los Ronderos de las Redes |
Rasigan Maharajh | Chief Director, Institute for Economic Research on Innovation |
Matthew Cahn | Consultant Wijja.co |
Scott Goldie | Individual |
Victor Koppe | Lawyer, student History |
KK Wren | |
Camilla Gaia Miotto | PhD. candidate in Political Economy at SWUFE |
Kevan Nelson | Regional Secretary UNISON North West |
Lekx Imers | |
christopher kelly | |
Charles Weston Califf | American Vanguard |
Jodie Martin | |
Peter Karl Fleissner | TU-Wien retired |
Jonathan Smith | None |
JM Considine | |
Daniel Knapp | |
Josefina Arcos | Pensioner |
Garret M Hayes | |
Kevin Patrick McCann | Kevin McCann |
Adi | Activist |
S M Baichoo | AMB Property Lettings |
James De Burghe | Member, Society for Anglo China Understanding, Nanning, China |
Sainte | Student |
Paul Ow | Retiree |
Man Lee | Publisher / wenyahonline.com |
Sami Ghidini | |
Marius Ebener | |
Pete Foley | Member, CPB |
Colin Thomson | |
Adam Staudacher | ANSWER Coalition |
Chris Morosini | |
Thomas Tarrants | Activist |
Keith O’Brien | DKP |
Francis James C. Pagdanganan | NA |
James Lee | Investor |
Dhruv Golani | |
Michael Swartzbeck | a.k.a. “Mike Flugennock”, political cartoonist, Washington DC |
HH | Irish citizen in solidarity with the Chinese people |
Gabriel Rockhill | Professor of Philosophy, Villanova University |
Deniz Kızılçeç | Canut International Publishers |
Jürgen Bürger | – |
Joe Iosbaker | Freedom Road Socialist Organization |
Ian leggat | |
Andy | |
Miguel San Vicente | |
Jean Laplante | Self |
Sutan Jang | |
Shirley Pate | Writer, activist |
Alison Murray | |
Denise Shin | Retiree |
Harbin Humphries | Independent |
Maure Briggs | |
Maxwell Schwarz | CPUSA member, student |
Chun Luong | Fitness Instructor |
Marie Lynam | Labour Party and GMB (personal capacity) |
Ron Brown | Communist Party |
Nick Baker | |
Scott Pimpsner | |
Roberto Torre | Healthcare professional Italy |
Sergio Varela | Student & Software Translator |
Sonia Yang | |
Iris Yau FRSA FHEA | Educator and Curator |
Niels Duus Nielsen | |
Andrew Fung | |
Jeffrey Jin | |
Kwame Appiah Kubi | CEO of Earth Care Ghana |
Kwok Fung | Retired |
Mark Charles Rosenzweig | |
Giacomo Moriconi | Translator, Geopolitical observer |
Tristyn Waterman | worker |
Facundo Coelho | activist from Uruguay |
Xiaoming Guo | Retired |
Sunil Anand | |
sarah scott | |
Jonathan Herrin | Student |
Frank Willems | Co-editor, chinasquare.be |
Raven E. Blake | |
Iain Inglis | Permanent resident, P.R.C.; presenter, Hainan Television; Member, C.P.B. |
Nadeem Lawji | |
David Gamble | |
Mário | |
Adam | Concerned US Citizen from Utah |
Ayden Strunk | PSL (party for socialism and liberation) |
Robert Laffin | US citizen in support of peaceful bilateral international relations. |
Cooper Johnson | Retail Worker |
Reb Z. | |
Angela Rong | Student |
Linda King | Community activitis |
Simon McGuinness | |
Dave P | Worker |
Aster Eckert | Student |
Christopher Murry | Librarian |
Jessica Ryan | Concerned US citizen |
Sasha Gervais | |
Jenny Lam | Artist, Chicago |
Damien Marsic | Principal scientist, Porton Biologics |
Yi Li | Lecturer, The University of Sheffield |
Evan Richards | Young Communist League |
Katherine Cui | concerned Chinese Australian |
Josephine Bau | Strategic Planning Specialist |
Connie Woo | |
John Leehane | |
Daniel J. Brown | Rite of Strings |
David Harris | |
Alex Adisorn | |
Jordan K | |
Zhu Gong | |
June Patterson | Communist Party of Canada – Fredericton Club / 2019, 2021 CPC Candidate for Fredericton |
Christy Franklin | US citizen, activist, socialist, and a friend of China |
Jack Shneidman | |
Handsun Xiao | Family Doctor, Montreal |
Robert Green | Retired |
David Erick Altimari | Revolutionary Marxist Leninist |
John Thompson Parker | Coordinator, Harriet Tubman Center for Social Justice |
Vincent Hui | International Socalist |
Tom Wickham | Film-maker |
Angela Gao | |
Miguel Figueroa | President, Canadian Peace Congress |
Colerain McCardle | PCUSA |
Scott Hegarty | Teacher |
Ron Judd | |
Ted Tripp | Retired. Part-time work with CareerSource Gulf Coast, Florida |
Carlos L Garrido | Editor at Midwestern Marx |
Andre Powell | Socialist Unity Party |
Peter Goselin | Labor Attorney |
RuheForst | TRUE |
John Beard | |
Chris Larsson | Activist and political observer |
Eddie Liger Smith | Midwestern Marx Founder and Editor |
Albano Coelho | IT consultant |
Chin K Seah | Retired Structural Engineer |
Albert Ang Chun | |
Maria Fe Celi | |
Torbjørn Melbye | |
Robert Monks | Clerical worker |
Masao Suzuki | Professor of Economics, Skyline College |
Wong Mun Lai | Engineer |
Wong Mun Lai | |
Dong Long | Legal Professional |
Manuel Kiener | |
Stan Squires | Retired Health Care Worker |
Mario Simeunovic | Journalist |
Betty | |
Z. Sullivan | None |
johntyrrell3@icloud.com | |
Dr Agnes Kory | |
Michael Pollock | |
MIck Kelly | Editor, Fight Back! |
Henrik Niemeyer | |
John Frederick Maryon | New Communist Party |
Elizabeth Burton | Retired Doctor |
Andy Brooks | General Secretary, New Communist Party of Britain |
Patxi Suarez | Txinarekin.com Basque Country |
Winfred Liu | |
Dakota | Canadian citizen |
Ian Furness | |
Ocean Marks | Software Engineer/Musician |
Daniel Sihombing | Kristen Hijau |
Kevin Lindemann | |
Arsenio Panuelos | President/ AP Oriental |
Hassan Abdelhady | |
Laurence Wright | |
Yuxiang Han | Accountant, Australia |
Matt Palmer | Sydney, Australia |
Bhavik Grover | Publisher at The Revoltist |
Shane Short | |
James J Bush | |
Gary Walton | Communist |
Jean Pestieau | Prof.em., UCLouvain, Belgium |
Note: once you sign the statement via Google Forms, your name will appear on this page within a few hours. If you are having difficulty accessing the form, please email your name and organization/role to statement[at]socialistchina.org
This article by Danny Haiphong for CGTN analyzes the latest round of high level talks between the US and China, noting that China has been consistent in its pursuit of a friendly and collaborative relationship, and that it is for the US to reciprocate this approach – in the interests of the peoples of both countries and indeed the world.
On October 6, senior diplomat and member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee Yang Jiechi met National Security Advisor of the United States Jake Sullivan in Zurich, Switzerland. The two sides discussed many issues of common concern in the realms of security, economic relations and diplomacy. Unlike the first meeting between Sullivan and Yang in March in Alaska, both sides on Wednesday engaged in constructive dialogue that could be described as a positive step toward mutual understanding.
During the meeting in Zurich, Yang remained firm on China’s view that bilateral relations can be restored through mutual understanding and a win-win approach to cooperation, but China’s position must be understood and respected for relations to move in the right direction. It remains to be seen whether the U.S. will commit to mending relations in practice.
Continue reading Danny Haiphong: Zurich talks could serve to improve China-US relationsDon’t forget, we have our Propaganda War Against China event coming up on Saturday 9 October 2021, at 2pm Britain / 9am US Eastern / 9pm China.
We will discuss the relationship between this propaganda onslaught and the New Cold War; the reality in Xinjiang and Hong Kong; the participation of sections of the Western left in the propaganda war; and more.
The event is co-sponsored by the Morning Star, the Grayzone, Pivot to Peace, the Geopolitical Economy Research Group, the International Manifesto Group, and Qiao Collective.
Continue reading Reminder: The Propaganda War Against China (Saturday 9 October)We are pleased to reproduce this interesting article by Charles McKelvey, reflecting and elaborating on some of the points made in Carlos Martinez’s essay No Great Wall: on the continuities of the Chinese Revolution.
Many China-watchers have believed that the post-Mao Chinese reform and opening constituted an abandonment of the principles of Marxism, Maoism, and socialism. For all who are proponents of the capitalist system, such an interpretation confirms their belief in the superiority of capitalism over socialism. At the same time, many Western leftist intellectuals also adhere to the interpretation that the Chinese have abandoned socialism, but they consider it a turn in the wrong direction. For leftist intellectuals, such an interpretation of China validates their sub-conscious belief that socialism in the real world is not attainable, but they themselves have a lifetime position as a commentator, sometimes well-rewarded, on the contradictions of capitalism and socialism.
Both perspectives are formulated from outside China or any country seeking to construct socialism. They are formed by assumptions and beliefs beyond the world of actually existing socialisms, without appreciation of the dynamics that shape the concrete decisions that the leaders of socialist projects must make. These perspectives are grounded in the real world of capitalism or by the intellectual world forged by academic and intellectual debates. They do not give serious consideration to the self-interpretations of the socialist projects; how the leaders, academics, and intellectuals of socialist projects interpret their own world.
I have discussed this phenomenon in a previous commentary with respect to Cuba, in which I observe that there is a tendency to dismiss explanations by Cuban leaders, academics, and intellectuals as “official” discourses not worthy of serious consideration. This tendency functions to silence the voice of the Cuban Revolution and to deny the Cuban Revolution its right to explain itself. Thus, there emerge public debates about the revolution conducted by persons who are not of the revolution, and citizens of the countries of the North are denied their right to know the revolution’s understanding of itself. This epistemological method is functional for capitalism, because it contributes to the confusion and division of the people; it is dysfunctional for the advance of human understanding and the forging of socialist movements in the world.
An article by Carlos Martínez in the Invent the Future Website, “No Great Wall: on the continuities of the Chinese Revolution,” seems to utilize an alternative method, different from the Western pro-capitalist and “socialist” methodology. He appears to take seriously the insights of revolutionary leaders, such that his criticisms of defects of the revolution are intertwined with his developing understanding of their understandings and formulations. In effect, drawing upon Chinese sources, he facilitates the dissemination to Western readers of the Chinese Revolution’s interpretation and defense of itself.
Listening to and taking seriously the formulations of Chinese leaders, Martínez arrives to appreciate the continuity between the radical socialist project of Mao and the reform project of Deng, an interpretation that dovetails with the understanding of the Chinese revolution itself. Western intellectuals, trapped in a Eurocentric method, no doubt would view his approach as circular, for in listening, he has set himself up to the possibly of finding credibility. But the Western intellectuals cannot answer the question, how can any revolutionary process be understood without taking into account the understanding that the revolution has of itself? How can criticism of defects be put forth, before the revolutionary understanding of itself has been understood?
“No Great Wall: on the continuities of the Chinese Revolution” by Carlos Martínez
Martinez begins the article with the declaration:
The Communist Party of China (CPC) was formed in July 1921. From that time up to the present day, it has led the Chinese Revolution – a revolution to eliminate feudalism, to regain China’s national sovereignty, to end foreign domination of China, to build socialism, to create a better life for the Chinese people, and to contribute to a peaceful and prosperous future for humanity.
Some of these goals have already been achieved; others are ongoing. Thus the Chinese Revolution is a continuing process, and its basic political orientation remains the same.
China in the epoch of Mao
Martínez summarizes the emergence of the Communist Party of China (CPC) from the post-World War I Chinese anti-imperialist and nationalist protests by students, workers, and intellectuals; who were reacting to the Treaty of Versailles, which had offended Chinese national pride by ignoring Chinese demands. In accordance with its anti-imperialist and nationalist orientation, the CPC participated in the early 1920s in a united Front with the nationalist party of Sun Yat-sen, with the intention of constructing an anti-imperialist alliance of workers, peasants, intellectuals, and patriotic elements of the capitalist class. Later, in the period 1937 to 1945, the CPC joined a Second United Front with the nationalists, now under the control of the Chiang Kai-shek, in spite of the fact that Chiang’s nationalist party in political power had unleashed a brutal repression of the communists from 1927 to 1937.
During the period of the Second United Front, the CPC implemented a program for the improvement of the lives of the population in the territory under its control. Its base in Yan’an attracted revolutionary and progressive youth from throughout the country as well as foreign visitors. There were extensive debates concerning the types of society that they were trying to build, which Mao synthesized in his 1940 pamphlet, On New Democracy. Here Mao described the revolution as having two stages, first new democracy, and then socialism. In the first stage, the goal is to defeat imperialism and establish independence from foreign rule, thus providing an essential foundation for the later stage of constructing socialism. During the first stage, political power ought to be shared among all the anti-imperialist classes: the working class, the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie, and those elements of the national bourgeoisie that were against foreign domination.
The stage of New Democracy would combine components of both socialism and capitalism. Martínez quotes the text of Mao’s On New Democracy:
The state enterprises will be of a socialist character and will constitute the leading force in the whole national economy, but the republic will neither confiscate capitalist private property in general nor forbid the development of such capitalist production as does not ‘dominate the livelihood of the people’, for China’s economy is still very backward.
Such private capital, however, would be subject to extensive state regulation.
Following the defeat of Japan in 1945 and the bitter four-year civil war between Chiang’s nationalists and Mao’s communists, the People’s Republic of China was declared on October 1, 1949. The new government was a united front government led by the CPC. It attempted to construct the type of society envisioned in On New Democracy. It accomplished the dismantling of feudalism and the elimination of the rural class structure through the distribution of land to the peasants. These reforms generated an agricultural surplus which, along with the support of the Soviet Union, enabled infrastructure construction and a program of rapid state-led industrialization.
By 1954, the government was moving beyond New Democracy and toward the collectivization of peasant lands and the shifting of private industrial production into state hands. With the Cold War and U.S. hostility intensified, and with the Soviet Union moving toward “peaceful coexistence” with the West, the Chinese Revolution saw the need to accelerate production on basis of China’s own resources. Accordingly, the Great Leap Forward, launched in 1958, sought to attain rapid industrialization and collectivization, a fast-track to the construction of socialism.
The Great Leap Forward was overly ambitious, causing disruptions in established productive processes, leading to a fall in production. The withdrawal of Soviet technicians as well as draughts and floods also contributed to the failure of the project. In 1960, Mao ordered decreasing the pace of the Great Leap Forward.
Reasonable estimates are that the Great Leap Forward is responsible for 11.5 million deaths, a fact utilized by opponents to discredit the Chinese Revolution. Martínez points out, however, that the death rate in India in 1960 was similar, and that China previously had terrible famines in 1907, 1928, and 1942. Pro-capitalist academics use the failure of the Great Leap Forward (GLF) to denigrate the entire history of the Chinese Revolution, but “the GLF was not some outrageous crime against humanity; it was a legitimate attempt to accelerate the building of a prosperous and advanced socialist society. It turned out not to be successful and was therefore dropped.”
As a result of the failure of the Great Leap Forward, Mao and the radical wing lost influence in the highest levels of the Party. Leading Party members with a more pragmatic approach that stressed social stability and economic growth arrived to positions of power in the Party, including Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping, Chen Yun and Zhou Enlai. They put forth the concept of the Four Modernizations in agriculture, industry, defense, and science and technology.
Mao and a group of close comrades began to believe that the pragmatic approach was an anti-revolutionary revisionist trend that could ultimately lead to capitalist restoration. Mao was concerned that the new orientation meant greater reliance on teachers and academics who came from non-working-class backgrounds, who would promote capitalist and feudal values among young people. Mao maintained that it was necessary to “exterminate the roots of revisionism” and “struggle against those in power in the party who were taking the capitalist road.”
In 1966, university students, responding to Mao’s call to “thoroughly criticize and repudiate the reactionary bourgeois ideas in the sphere of academic work, education, journalism, literature and art,” formed a mass movement of university and school students, calling themselves “Red Guards.” Initially supported by Mao and by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution sought to eliminate persons in authority who were taking a supposedly revisionist and capitalist road. Its objective was to forge a new socialist, collective, and modern culture.
In August 1966, the Cultural Revolution exploded into widespread disruption and violence, resulting in the closing of universities. Many people were attacked and humiliated. Liu Shaoqi, previously considered to be Mao’s successor, was arrested and tortured; he died in prison. A similar fate awaited Peng Dehuai, former Defense Minister and the leader of the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army’s operations in the Korean War.
In 1967, Mao recognized that the situation was out of control, and he and high members of the Party ordered the army to establish order and reorganize production. However, the Cultural Revolution flared up again with the ascendancy of a radical wing, the so-called “Gang of Four,” beginning in 1972.
To the enemies of the Chinese Revolution, the Cultural Revolution is an example of Mao’s tendency toward violence and power or an illustration of communist authoritarianism. In contrast to this view, Martínez writes of the idealism that was at the foundation of the Cultural Revolution.
The Cultural Revolution was a radical mass movement; millions of young people were inspired by the idea of moving faster towards socialism, of putting an end to feudal traditions, of creating a more egalitarian society, of fighting bureaucracy, of preventing the emergence of a capitalist class, of empowering workers and peasants, of making their contribution to a global socialist revolution, of building a proud socialist culture unfettered by thousands of years of Confucian tradition. They wanted a fast track to a socialist future. They were inspired by Mao and his allies, who were in turn inspired by them.
Today in China, Martínez observes, the Cultural Revolution is understood as misguided. But Mao remains a revered figure. His errors are understood as errors of excessive revolutionary fervor, and they do not negate his achievements.
Reform and Opening
Beginning in 1978, two years after Mao’s death, the post-Mao leadership embarked on a process of “reform and opening,” which expanded space for private property and permitted foreign investment. “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” is characterized by a “socialist market economy,” an economy that is directed by the state but utilizes the profit motive to contribute the development of the productive forces.
The need to develop the productive forces in the construction of socialism is a Marxist concept. As expressed by Deng Xiaoping,
Marxism attaches utmost importance to developing the productive forces… [The advance towards communism] calls for highly developed productive forces and an overwhelming abundance of material wealth. Therefore, the fundamental task for the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces. The superiority of the socialist system is demonstrated, in the final analysis, by faster and greater development of those forces than under the capitalist system. As they develop, the people’s material and cultural life will constantly improve… Socialism means eliminating poverty. Pauperism is not socialism, still less communism.
This view, that the construction of socialism involves the development of the productive forces in order to satisfy the needs of the people, is the prevailing thought in China today. Martínez writes that “the consensus view within the CPC is that socialism with Chinese characteristics is a strategy aimed at strengthening socialism, improving the lives of the Chinese people, and consolidating China’s sovereignty.”
The 1978 turn to reform and opening was made necessary by objective economic and social conditions in China. On the one hand, the achievements from 1949 to 1978 were enormous. China had been unified and liberated from foreign rule. Land had been distributed to peasants; and rural class relations had been transformed, which was accompanied by extensive irrigation of land. Women had been liberated from archaic, feudal cultural constraints. The literacy rate, which had been twenty percent prior to the revolution, had risen to ninety-three percent. And universal health care had been established; life expectancy increased by thirty-one years during the period. The poor in China had secure access to land and housing, so they were much better off than their counterparts in the developing world.
But on the other hand, China in 1978 was still a backward country in many ways. Approximately thirty percent of the rural population lived below the poverty line, dependent on small loans for production and state grants for food. Many did not have access to modern energy and potable water. The per capita income gap between China and the developed world was not narrowing. Although the ascent of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan could be explained by geopolitical factors, and the relative wealth of Hong Kong and Macao can be explained by global economic dynamics, the contrasting socioeconomic situation of China with respect to its East Asian neighbors was undermining the legitimacy of the revolution in the eyes of the Chinese people.
In this situation, the leadership of the Party decided for policies designed to increase the productive forces and elevate the standard of living, drawing upon the theoretical formulations of Marx and Mao in their policy reformulation. Their “socialism with Chinese characteristics” was unorthodox in relation to Western Marxism; it was forged on the basis of reflection on the experience of Chinese socialism and the objective conditions of China. As expressed by Deng:
When a backward country is trying to build socialism, it is natural that during the long initial period its productive forces will not be up to the level of those in developed capitalist countries and that it will not be able to eliminate poverty completely. Accordingly, in building socialism we must do all we can to develop the productive forces and gradually eliminate poverty, constantly raising the people’s living standards… If we don’t do everything possible to increase production, how can we expand the economy? How can we demonstrate the superiority of socialism and communism? We have been making revolution for several decades and have been building socialism for more than three. Nevertheless, by 1978 the average monthly salary for our workers was still only 45 yuan, and most of our rural areas were still mired in poverty. Can this be called the superiority of socialism?
Martínez maintains that Deng is echoing Mao, who in 1949 warned that the revolution would lose the support of the people if it cannot improve the standard of living of the people. “If we are ignorant in production, cannot grasp production work quickly … so as to improve the livelihood of workers first and then that of other ordinary people, we shall certainly not be able to maintain our political power: we shall lose our position and we shall fail.”
International developments also favored the 1978 turn to reform and opening. The international environment was less hostile to China, as indicated by the restoration of China’s seat in the United Nations and by the rapprochement between China and the USA. There now existed greater real possibilities for the sale of Chinese goods in the world market and for the entrance into China of foreign capital, technology, and expertise. Moreover, as Zhou Enlai observed, “new developments in science are bringing humanity to a new technological and industrial revolution… we must conquer these new heights in science to reach advanced world standards.” In 1975, Zhou called for the nation to take advantage of the more favorable international environment to “accomplish the comprehensive modernization of agriculture, industry, national defense and science and technology before the end of the century, so that our national economy will be advancing in the front ranks of the world.”
The new policies were intelligently designed. As Martínez notes, the opening toward foreign investment and international commerce enabled China to accumulate capital and technology, thereby facilitating the development of the productive forces. The post-1978 policies were effective in increasing China’s productive capacity.
In a capitalist system, an increased productive capacity does not necessarily lead to an elevation of the standard of living of the majority. But when the working class and the peasantry control the state, it can give priority to satisfying the needs of the people. And this is precisely the situation in China. Martínez writes that “there are some extremely wealthy individuals and companies controlling vast sums of capital. And yet their political status is essentially the same as it was in the early days of the PRC; their existence as a class is predicated on their acceptance of the overall socialist programme and trajectory of the country.”
As a result, the per capita income in China has doubled since 1980. And the combination of state direction and increasing productivity has led to a massive program in the construction of roads, railways, ports, airports, dams, housing, and systems of energy, telecommunications, water, and sewage. With the New Reform since 2012, under the leadership of Xi Jinping, China has eliminated absolute poverty. The New Reform seeks to eliminate negative consequences of the spectacular economic growth of 1978 to 2012, addressing such problems as poverty, inequality, corruption, and environmental degradation.
The principles of the Chinese Communist Party, therefore, have not changed since its founding in 1923. As succinctly expressed by Xi Jinping, “Both history and reality have shown us that only socialism can save China and only socialism with Chinese characteristics can bring development to China.”
Conclusion
Western intellectuals, both pro-capitalist and “socialist,” have not experienced a revolutionary transformation, in which exceptional leaders with keen understanding of historical and political-economic dynamics, and with unbounded commitment to the sovereignty of the nation and the people, guide the people on the correct road, explaining to the people as the process moves forward. Western intellectuals, therefore, do not believe that a better world is possible, and they do not know that an alternative, more just world is under construction in the Third World plus China. They frame their observations with the cynical assumption that the discourse of leaders is a politically motivated deception; they cannot see an explanation rooted in critical reflection on revolutionary practice, thus advancing human understanding.
We intellectuals of the North who are committed to social justice for humanity must, in the first place, listen to Third World revolutionary voices, arriving to discern their insights and to appreciate that they are constructing a more just and sustainable world. Secondly, we must learn to communicate this important news to our peoples, so that they too can believe that the taking of political power by the people and the subsequent redirection of state policies is possible. And high on the agenda of the revolutionary popular movement in the North is the abolition of imperialist policies toward other nations.
Countries around the world that are in the forefront of building socialism and struggling against imperialism sent warm greetings to the People’s Republic of China on the 72nd anniversary of its founding on 1 October. We are pleased to present some highlights below.
The leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) Comrade Kim Jong Un congratulated his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping as follows:
“On behalf of the Workers’ Party of Korea, the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Korean people, and on my own behalf, I extend warm congratulations to you, Comrade General Secretary, and to the Communist Party of China, the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the fraternal Chinese people on the occasion of the 72nd founding anniversary of the PRC.
“For 72 years after the founding of the PRC, the Chinese people have achieved great successes in the struggle to carve out the destiny of the nation and bring prosperity under the leadership of the CPC, braving all sorts of challenges and difficulties of history.
Continue reading Socialist and progressive countries greet China’s 72nd National DayThis infographic from China Daily provides a powerful summary of the impressive progress that has been made over the last eight years as part of the Belt and Road Initiative. Alongside the many infrastructure projects, the graphic also notes the emergence of a ‘green silk road’ and a ‘health silk road’, the latter including multiple joint vaccine production arrangements.
We are republishing this insightful article in LA Progressive by Dee Knight (member of the DSA International Committee) comparing human and democratic rights in the US and China, and challenging the lazy, eurocentric assumptions that China is ‘authoritarian’ and that the only valid system of governance is Western capitalist democracy.
The leaders of the USA and China faced off at the United Nations General Assembly in late September, in a dramatic verbal conflict over peace, democracy, and human values. Biden said “The authoritarians of the world, they seek to proclaim the end of the age of democracy, but they’re wrong.” He added that the U.S. will “oppose attempts by stronger countries to dominate weaker ones, whether through changes to territory by force, economic coercion, technological exploitation or disinformation… But we’re not seeking a new Cold War or a separation of the world into rigid blocs…”
The UN delegates listened as Biden proclaimed the United States “is not at war” for the first time in two decades – weeks after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. He did not mention continued U.S. military occupations in Iraq, Syria, and Somalia – all of which have been deemed failures – or U.S. military presence in at least thirteen other African countries and hundreds of bases across the globe.
Biden also offered no explanation for the recent agreement with Australia and the United Kingdom to develop and deploy nuclear submarines in the Indo-Pacific region, or the “Quad” alliance with Japan, South Korea and India to threaten China with war ships and nuclear missiles. The question of U.S. sanctions against targeted enemies across the globe also was not mentioned. Neither were the activities of the National Endowment for Democracy and the Alliance for Progress to try to control internal affairs in numerous countries, including China.
Xi Jinping responded that “China has never and will never invade or bully others to seek hegemony… A world of peace and development should embrace civilizations of various forms and must accommodate diverse paths to modernization. One country’s success does not have to mean another country’s failure,” Xi continued. “The world is big enough to accommodate common development progress of all countries.”
Xi emphasized that “Democracy is not a special right reserved for any individual country but a right for the people of all countries to enjoy.”
The U.S. president did not mention his difficulties getting bills through Congress to upgrade the country’s infrastructure and provide improved basic services to people – services like health care, child care, housing and education, which are guaranteed in China, often free or at minimal cost. The “Build Back Better” bills are supported by a decisive majority of the U.S. population, but are fiercely opposed by recalcitrant right-wingers in Congress, along with “moderate” Democrats beholden to big oil and big pharma. These bills – dubbed “enormous” and unaffordable by Congressional opponents – pale in cost when compared with the military budget. At $743 billion for one year, while the infrastructure and budget reconciliation bills are for ten years, the military budget is nearly double their total for each year. (This doesn’t include military-related items, such as intelligence and veterans’ services, which bring the annual military total up above a trillion.)
An effort to pare off just ten percent of the military budget was crushed in Congress in September: a sign of the political power of the military-industrial complex, which combines with big oil, big pharma, big banks and insurance companies to dominate the U.S. political process. These same forces are helping right-wingers in both Congress and many states to quash voting rights, reversing the historic gains of the mid-century Civil Rights movement.
While the U.S. economy struggles to recover, levels of inequality reach historic proportions, and the political system is ever more polarized, Xi could point to China’s success in helping 800 million people lift themselves out of extreme poverty. A recent report noted that “In 2019, as China entered the last stages of its poverty eradication scheme, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said, ‘Every time I visit China, I am stunned by the speed of change and progress. You have created one of the most dynamic economies in the world, while helping more than 800 million people to lift themselves out of poverty – the greatest anti-poverty achievement in history’.”
Average wages for urban workers in China doubled between 2010 and 2020.”>China’s economic success – growing at an average rate of 9.5 percent per year, growing in size by almost 35 times (according to China’s Great Road, by John Ross), building railroads, highways, subways, even entire cities, to become the second largest economy in the world – didn’t happen without strain. Inequality increased, and some worried that the new “market socialism” was a lot like capitalism. The poverty eradication campaign was essential, just as efforts to restrain big capitalists were as well. These efforts were possible in large part due to the Chinese approach to democracy. As Xi said:
What we now face is the contradiction between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life… The needs to be met for the people to live better lives are increasingly broad. Not only have their material and cultural needs grown; their demands for democracy, rule of law, fairness and justice, security, and a better environment are increasing.
How China’s leaders intervened is an illustration of China’s democratic path. A report from Harvard University’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation finds over 90% of the Chinese people like their government, and “rate it as more capable and effective than ever before. Interestingly, more marginalized groups in poorer, inland regions are actually comparatively more likely to report increases in satisfaction.” It says Chinese people’s attitudes “appear to respond to real changes in their material well-being.”
This contrasts with people’s attitudes in the United States, which are polarized politically, racially, and economically. Public trust in the U.S. government is in crisis. There are very real human rights concerns, with police killings, homelessness and mass incarceration at pandemic proportions. A new report says police killings in the U.S. have been undercounted by more than half during the past four decades. Of nearly 31,000 people killed by police during that period, more than 17,000 were unaccounted for in official statistics. Black people were 3.5 times as likely to be killed by the police as white people. Latinx and indigenous people also suffered higher rates of fatal police violence than white people.
The Chinese revolution itself was fundamentally democratic – abolishing feudalistic hierarchy and privilege, equalizing gender differences, and enabling poor workers and farmers to be involved in national administration. The Ash Center study includes an important essay, “Democracy in China: Challenge or Opportunity?” by Yu Keping, director of the China Center for Comparative Politics and Economics. Yu Keping says “Western scholars use their democratic standards, such as a multi-party system, universal suffrage, and checks and balances, to evaluate Chinese political development,… and conclude that Chinese reform is more economic than political.” This, he says, is an unnecessary bias and misunderstanding.
The basics of Chinese democracy are people’s congresses at local, provincial and national levels. A Global Times report says “according to the State Council, ‘Deputies to the people’s congresses of cities not divided into districts, municipal districts, counties, autonomous counties, townships, ethnic minority townships and towns are elected directly by their constituencies. Deputies to the NPC [National People’s Congress] and the people’s congresses of the provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities directly under the Central Government, cities divided into districts, and autonomous prefectures are elected by the people’s congresses at the next lower level.’ These elections are all competitive.”
There are also regular consultations between government officials and the people at all levels. Key principles are “people-oriented government, human rights, private property, rule of law, civil society, harmonious society, government innovation, and good governance,” Yu Keping wrote.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is at the core of all this. Its 95 million members make it a preponderant factor in Chinese society. There are eight non-communist political parties, with which the CCP consults regularly. But CCP members lead society. The guiding slogan is “serve the people.” The story of the poverty eradication campaign provides a good example:
The targeted phase of poverty alleviation required building relationships and trust between the Party and the people in the countryside as well as strengthening Party organization at the grassroots level. Party secretaries [were] assigned to oversee the task of poverty alleviation across five levels of government, from the province, city, county, and township, down to the village… Three million carefully selected cadres were dispatched to poor villages, forming 255,000 teams that reside there. Living in humble conditions for generally one to three years at a time, the teams worked alongside poor peasants, local officials, and volunteers until each household was lifted out of poverty. In this process, many cadres were unable to return home to visit families for long stretches of time; some fell ill in the harsh natural conditions of rural areas and more than 1,800 Party members and officials lost their lives in the fight against poverty. The first teams were dispatched in 2013; by 2015, all poor villages had a resident team, and every poor household had an assigned cadre to help in the process of being lifted, and more importantly, of lifting themselves out of poverty. At the end of 2020, the goal of eliminating extreme poverty was reached.
The study says the “cadres and officials who have mobilized in the countryside have been essential in building public support for and confidence in the Party and the government.”
The government’s effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic continued to build public support. Shortly after Wuhan emerged from the COVID-19 lockdown, York University Professor Cary Woo led a survey of 19,816 people across 31 provinces and administrative regions. Published in the Washington Post, the study found that 49 percent of respondents became more trusting of the government following its response to the pandemic, and overall trust increased to 98 percent at the national level and 91 percent at the township level.
“The Chinese way of political development,” Yu Keping says, “is extremely different from the Western democratic tradition… Consequently, it is almost dead-end to explain the Chinese way of democratic politics through using existing Western democratic theories.” Democracy means “government by the people,” the professor says. So “the fundamental criteria to judge whether a country is a ‘democracy’ or not is government’s responsiveness to its citizens… As long as a country has formal institutions to guarantee that government policies can effectively reflect the public’s opinions, that citizens can participate in political life, and the incumbent political regime has to respond to people’s interests, it can be considered democratic regardless of the particular party systems, election procedures, or power separation mechanisms.”
Former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo admitted in 2019 that “We lied, we cheated, we stole… It’s part of the glory of the American experiment.” Pompeo’s claims that the Chinese Communist Party is “the greatest danger” to democracy in the world, and that China’s to blame for the COVID-19 pandemic have served to discredit the U.S. position rather than strengthen it. Biden, Secretary of State Blinken and most in Congress, to their shame, are continuing Pompeo’s infamous campaign. Despite hundreds of millions of U.S. funds to support protests in Hong Kong, that effort has fizzled. Hong Kong ranks in the top three on the Fraser Human Freedoms Index, while the U.S. is in 17th place. (An earlier LA Progressive article provides additional information.)
Regarding claims of “genocide” in Xinjiang, Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs, a special advisor to the UN Secretary General, says “The US government has offered no proof, and unless it can, the State Department should withdraw the charge.” Code Pink webinars have demolished U.S. anti-China claims. Using these lies and false accusations, the U.S. has imposed sanctions and launched an international boycott of products made in Xinjiang. The main result has been to hurt the people of Xinjiang. But the smear campaign has also confused many progressives and so-called “leftists” in the U.S., who have fallen victim to the continued repetition of these lies in the mainstream media.
China has answered the U.S. slander campaign with claims of its own. In late September it called on the UN Human Rights Council to “work to eliminate the negative impacts of colonialism on people around the world.” The statement, issued with 21 other countries, said “Economic exploitation, inequality, racism, violations of indigenous peoples’ rights, modern slavery, armed conflicts and damage to cultural heritage are among the legacies of colonial repression.” In a separate statement, China “called for nations that have conducted illegal military interventions to pay reparations. Without naming any states, he pointed out that such action had severe consequences for social and economic development.”
“A democratic system is a marriage of universality and particularity,” Professor Keping says. “We cannot make arbitrary conclusions that democracy has only one model merely based on the assumption that democracy is a universal value and has common features… The nature of democracy is government by the people or ‘people become their own masters,’ which is reflected in a series of institutions and mechanisms that guarantee the citizens’ democratic rights… Chinese democracy, growing out of Chinese tradition and society, will not only bring good fortune to the Chinese people, but also contribute greatly to the advancement of democratic theory and practice for all mankind.”
On Thursday 30 September, Carlos Martinez was interviewed by Rania Khalek and Eugene Puryear on BreakThrough News. They discuss the global significance of Meng Wanzhou’s release, parallels with the kidnappings of Venezuelan diplomat Alex Saab and North Korean entrepreneur Mun Chol-myong, Taiwan, the militarisation of the Pacific, and the need for multipolarity.
This article by Robert Griffiths, general secretary of the Communist Party of Britain, comprehensively exposes the mendacity and cynical motivations of the conspiracy theory that the Covid-19 pandemic was caused by a ‘lab leak’ from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It is republished from the Morning Star.
On January 24 last year, the Washington Times reported: “The deadly animal virus epidemic spreading globally may have originated in a Wuhan laboratory linked to China’s covert biological weapons program, according to an Israeli biological warfare expert.”
Reporter Bill Gertz based his story on a five-year-old broadcast on Radio Free Asia about the Wuhan virology institute and his interview with Dany Shoham, “a former Israeli military intelligence officer who has studied Chinese bio warfare.”
Continue reading Robert Griffiths: The origins of the Chinese ‘lab leak’ theoryWe are pleased to republish this interesting piece by Charles McKelvey which explores the parallel trajectories – and recent convergence – of the projects for Third World liberation and Chinese socialist construction. The article, rich in historical detail, concludes that the continuing and deepening coordination between China and the rest of the developing world is crucial to the emergence of a more rational, prosperous and democratic world system.
Two projects of importance to the future of humanity have sustained themselves for the last seven decades, namely, the Third World project of national and social liberation, and the Chinese project of socialist construction. They evolved in a parallel form, with occasional points of contact and coincidence. But for the past ten years, they have moved toward significant cooperation, and in the process, they are constructing an alternative more just and less conflictive world-system. And they are doing so precisely in a historic moment in which the capitalist world-economy is falling into parasitic decadence. The project of the Third World plus China is laying the foundation for a sustainable future for humanity; whereas the neocolonial world-system is demonstrating its unsustainability.
Continue reading Charles McKelvey: China and the Third WorldWe are republishing this excellent article by Stephen Millies in Struggle for Socialism. The article gives an overview of China’s extraordinary achievements since the founding of the People’s Republic on 1 October 1949, and highlights its continuing significance to working class and oppressed peoples worldwide.
Seventy-two years ago, on Oct. 1, 1949, Mao Zedong declared “China has stood up!” The socialist People’s Republic of China was born after decades of struggle.
Chinese women stepped forward with unbound feet. No longer could U.S. and British warships prowl the Yangtze River. Peasants, workers and progressive intellectuals knew their liberation had come.
Continue reading Happy birthday socialist China!On 25 September, Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez was interviewed on the Rebirth of Communism YouTube channel about China: what is the nature of the propaganda war being waged against it? What’s really happening in Xinjiang? Why does much of the Western left support this propaganda war? What are the reasons for the different levels of economic and social progress in India and China since the late 1940s? Will China suffer the fate of the Soviet Union? What does China’s project of being a ‘great modern socialist country’ by 2049 entail?
We are pleased to publish this important article from the latest English language edition of Qiushi, the main theoretical journal of the Communist Party of China. It presents a comprehensive and detailed outline of China’s new development dynamic, focused on the domestic economy. It draws attention to China’s decreased reliance on foreign trade, which peaked in 2006. The article deals frankly with the challenges faced and the problems needing to be tackled on both the domestic and international fronts, but also explains how these can be overcome on the basis of the growing prosperity of China and the inherent strengths of the socialist system. It deserves careful reading.
While addressing a seminar for principal provincial- and ministerial-level leaders on the guiding principles of the Fifth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee on January 11, 2021, General Secretary Xi Jinping stressed that moving faster to foster a new development dynamic dominated by the flows of the domestic economy but in which domestic and international flows are mutually reinforcing is a major strategic task proposed by the CPC Central Committee in its Recommendations for the 14th Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development that concerns the overall development interests of the country. We must acquire an accurate understanding of this task from an overall perspective and actively promote its advancement.
Continue reading Fully implementing the new development philosophy and accelerating efforts to foster a new development dynamicAn infographic for China’s National Day – the 72nd anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China – celebrating and reflecting on China’s extraordinary progress since its liberation in 1949.
Friends of Socialist China are pleased to offer a rare opportunity to watch the film 1921.
‘1921’ is a full length feature film produced to mark this year’s centenary of the Communist Party of China. It is set against the background of the intense class struggle waged by the young Chinese working class in Shanghai in particular. The action also takes us to Moscow, Paris and elsewhere. Key early Chinese communists like Li Dazhao, Chen Duxiu, Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping all feature in this not to be missed film. As gripping as any Hollywood blockbuster, it is also an education and an inspiration.
A review by Friends of Socialist China co-editor Keith Bennett can be read online.
Please note the film is in Mandarin Chinese with English subtitles.
This event is organised by Friends of Socialist China, in coordination with Trinity Cine Asia. It is co-sponsored by the Society for Anglo-Chinese Understanding, the Morning Star, the Geopolitical Economy Research Group, the International Manifesto Group, and Qiao Collective.
At the start time (7pm Britain, 2pm US Eastern, 11am US Pacific), registered users will receive (by email) a link to stream the film. They will then have a three-hour window in which to watch it.
Please note that Friends of Socialist China are not making any money from the showing; our purpose in arranging it is to ensure that its important political and cultural content reaches a wider audience. However, Trinity Cine Asia, with whom we are partnering to organise the screening, have paid the costs of distribution and marketing; therefore all proceeds go to them.
Republished from CGTN
The United Nations’ Human Rights Council should work to eliminate the negative impacts of colonialism on people around the world, a group of 21 countries and regions has urged.
Economic exploitation, inequality, racism, violations of indigenous peoples’ rights, modern slavery, armed conflicts and damage to cultural heritage are among the legacies of colonial repression, according to a statement read by China’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva Chen Xu.
The signatories to the statement come from across the globe including Russia, Egypt, Syria, Argentina, Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Iran, Sri Lanka, Armenia and Myanmar.
“We call on the Human Rights Council, the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights and relevant Special Procedures to pay continued attention to the negative impact of legacies of colonialism on the enjoyment of human rights,” the statement read.
Nicaragua, Palestine, Comoros, Tajikistan, Laos, Belarus, DPRK, Burundi, Venezuela and Cuba also put their names to the statement.
The period 2021-2030 marks the fourth decade the UN has dedicated to the eradication of colonialism. The first being 30 years after the pioneering 1960 Declaration on Decolonization.
A separate statement delivered by Jiang Duan, a minister in the Chinese delegation also on behalf of a group of UN members, called for nations that have conducted illegal military interventions to pay reparations. Without naming any states, he pointed out that such action had severe consequences for social and economic development.
Crimes committed during such interventions need to be fully investigated, he added.
A powerful quote from Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Hua Chunying about the US use of economic warfare against developing countries.
For a long time, the US has been engaged in unilateral bullying practices, imposing long-term sanctions on Cuba, the DPRK, Iran, Venezuela, among other countries. Washington DC is the birthplace and headquarters of economic coercion. The US, through its policies and actions, has provided the world with textbook examples of coercive diplomacy, which means achieving one’s strategic goals with military threats, political isolation, economic sanctions and technical blockade.
Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying’s Regular Press Conference on September 29, 2021
On 25 September, Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez was interviewed on the Rebirth of Communism YouTube channel about China. Topics discussed include: what is the nature of the propaganda war being waged against it? What’s really happening in Xinjiang? Why does much of the Western left support this propaganda war? What are the reasons for the different levels of economic and social progress in India and China since the late 1940s? Will China suffer the fate of the Soviet Union? What does China’s project of being a ‘great modern socialist country’ by 2049 entail?
This clip addresses the question of whether China can withstand the external and internal pressures to change its class character, or is it destined to suffer the same fate as the Soviet Union, abandoning socialism and adopting capitalism.
This article by Radhika Desai, reposted from CGTN, shines a light on the geopolitical motivations and the illegality of Meng Wanzhou’s detention, and situates it within the US’s ongoing attempts to preserve a “rules-based international order” based on unilateralism and hegemonism.
The release of Meng Wanzhou, chief financial officer of Huawei, from her detention in Vancouver and her immediate return to China end a complex saga that would fill multiple volumes.
They would concern the U.S.’s underhand moves to meet the technological and competitive challenge of Huawei, particularly on 5G technologies. They would detail the U.S.’s mixed and ambiguous motivations concerning China. It would further involve Canada’s own entanglement in tense relations between its two biggest economic partners. All this before we even got to the details of the case against Meng. Here we can only make a few limited but critically important points.
Continue reading Radhika Desai: Release of Meng Wanzhou ends a contemptible mess of illegality