Britain Archives - Friends of Socialist China

A new McCarthyism on both sides of the Atlantic

Two stories eight days apart, both from London newspapers, both pushing a McCarthyite agenda – one aimed at Britain, one at the United States. The Telegraph announced that “China is funding pro-Palestine marches in UK”. The Times reported that members of the Democratic Socialists of America had signed a public statement of support for Chinese socialism and, worse, had travelled to China.

Neither story alleges a crime. Neither produces a document showing a payment from the Chinese state or an instruction from the Communist Party of China. Both rest on the same syllogism: people hold anti-war positions that are also held in Beijing; therefore they hold them because of Beijing; therefore anti-war campaigners are not citizens exercising their rights but instruments of a foreign power.

The following article takes the two chains apart – four degrees of hedged separation in the British case, and in the American one the discovery that socialists are interested in socialism – and sets them against how Washington and London actually operate, from AIPAC’s congressional junkets and the State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program to the pro-Israel lobbyists who have donated to half of Keir Starmer’s cabinet.

It then places the episode in its proper lineage. Ellen Schrecker’s segregationists blamed “outside agitators”; the NAACP was investigated for communist infiltration; Paul Robeson lost his passport for eight years; W.E.B. Du Bois was indicted as an unregistered foreign agent in his eighties. The purpose was never to prove foreign control, but to deny that the people protesting had minds of their own.

And it examines the machinery now being assembled: 3,061 terrorism-related arrests in Britain in the year to March 2026, 92 percent of them relating to Palestine Action; the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme and the campaign to add China to its enhanced tier; and, in the United States, presidential memorandum NSPM-7, which lists “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity” among the indicators federal agencies are to investigate.

The following article by Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez is an expanded version of a piece that first appeared in the Morning Star.

Two stories, eight days apart, both from London newspapers, pushing a McCarthyite agenda in two different countries. The Telegraph announced that “China is funding pro-Palestine marches in UK”. The Times reported that members of the Democratic Socialists of America – “the left-wing group behind Zohran Mamdani’s rise” – had signed a public statement of support for Chinese socialism and, worse, had travelled to China.

Neither story alleges a crime. Neither produces a document showing a payment from the Chinese state, an instruction from the Communist Party of China, or any kind of broken law. Both rest on the same syllogism: people hold anti-war positions that are also held in Beijing; therefore these positions are taken up because of Beijing; therefore anti-war campaigners are not citizens exercising their basic democratic rights, but instruments of a foreign power.

Britain: four degrees of separation

Take the evidence as presented by the Telegraph. US congressional investigators are examining £250,000 in “alleged” payments to a company “linked to” CodePink in the UK, from firms “connected to” Neville Roy Singham, a US businessman “accused of” financing pro-China content.

Four degrees of separation, with every link in the chain a substantial hedge, from which emerges a headline asserting that the People’s Republic of China is funding the mass movement in Britain against genocide in Gaza. Singham is a US citizen who made his money building a software consultancy and now spends it on causes he believes in. What the allegations amount to, at most, is a US businessman with left-wing opinions funding a US peace group that has a British affiliate.

And what are the recipients of this money charged with doing? Organising protests against Britain’s involvement in genocide. Campaigning for peace with Iran. Calling for the removal of British military bases in Cyprus. Visiting China and saying that it is not our enemy. Every one of those is a lawful (and obviously principled and correct) political position, and several of them are held by most of the British public. Polling by YouGov in July found that 50 percent of Britons believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza against 17 percent who believe it is not, and that 55 percent think Britain should no longer treat Israel as an ally.

Also, consider the sums under discussion. A quarter of a million pounds would barely cover the placards at London’s anti-genocide demonstrations, let alone the portaloos. Spread across the half of the country that has reached the conclusion Beijing supposedly paid for, it comes to less than a penny a head. If that is the price of British public opinion, the Chinese state has driven a remarkable bargain.

The US: socialists found to be interested in socialism

The US version of the story is, remarkably, even thinner. The Times has made the extraordinary discovery that socialists are interested in socialism.

Thirteen members of the DSA, it reports, have signed the Friends of Socialist China statement, declaring that they aim to support the People’s Republic and to promote understanding of Chinese socialism. This is a public statement, published on a public website, which anyone may sign and which has attracted just shy of 1,000 signatories to date from dozens of countries. Thirteen of them turn out to belong to a US socialist organisation. Many readers may struggle to identify a scandal.

Then comes the evidence of sinister coordination: some DSA members went to China. A provincial foreign affairs office in Guizhou helped arrange an itinerary. They attended the parade marking 80 years since the victory over Japanese fascism. According to one of them, they were – gasp – treated well.

From this, the anti-China campaigner Alexander Reid Ross concludes that the trips “exhibit fingerprints of extraordinarily high-level co-ordination by the People’s Republic of China”, and speculates that these individuals’ standing within the DSA “has been improved precisely through the efforts of foreign parties”, raising the question of “who they’re working for”. No offence is alleged and no evidence is offered.

It is probably not a coincidence that the story has surfaced just as Washington is making a concerted effort to revive its Xinjiang campaign. One of the DSA members had visited Xinjiang and reported that he found nothing to support Western accusations of forced labour. To go to Xinjiang and decline to repeat the slanders is evidently the graver offence. Better by far to be one of those who have built entire careers on Xinjiang atrocity claims and who have, for the most part, never set foot in the place.

Set this against how Washington and London actually work

The double standard is easily identified. AIPAC’s affiliate flies members of Congress to Israel as a matter of routine. The State Department’s own International Visitor Leadership Program has hosted more than 230,000 foreign leaders since 1940, over 500 of whom went on to become heads of state or government – a rate of return on hospitality that Guizhou could barely dream of. The National Endowment for Democracy funds journalists, opposition parties and NGOs across the planet and publishes the grant lists in its annual reports.

Meanwhile in London, pro-Israel lobbyists have donated to half of Keir Starmer’s cabinet, a sum considerably higher than the £250,000 that so alarmed the Telegraph.

None of that is considered “foreign interference”, but a Chinese provincial foreign affairs office booking a few hotel rooms is a matter of national security.

The New Red Scare

None of this is new.

The historian Ellen Schrecker describes how segregationists in the American South always insisted that the region’s black population was perfectly content with its subordinate status, and that demands for change were “the product of ‘outside agitators’”. Linking those agitators to the Communist Party, she writes, gave the segregationists “new allies as well as a more modern rationale” for their campaign against the civil rights movement. The same device had served US employers for decades before that: strikes were never the product of legitimate grievance but the work of outside agitators, “usually foreign-born”.

The purpose was never to prove foreign control. It was to deny that the people doing the protesting had minds and interests of their own.

So the NAACP (the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, founded in 1909 and considered the US’ oldest civil rights group), by then a decidedly moderate organisation, was investigated for communist infiltration and became, as Gerald Horne records in Black and Red, among the first targets of the red scare. Paul Robeson had his passport confiscated for eight years and was systematically denied concert venues, the object being, in Horne’s phrase, to make him “radioactive”. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was wiretapped and briefed against, with J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI formally designating him “the most dangerous Negro of the future in this Nation from the standpoint of communism”.

And the world-famous scholar Dr. WEB Du Bois, co-founder of the NAACP, then in his eighties, was indicted as an unregistered foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

The damage was not confined to the individuals named. Schrecker’s verdict is that opposition to the Cold War became so completely identified with communism that “it was no longer possible to challenge the basic assumptions of American foreign policy without incurring suspicions of disloyalty”. That is the actual purpose of an exercise like this one: not primarily to convict any particular individual, but to make a set of opinions – against war, against racism, against genocide, against the encirclement of China – too expensive and too dangerous to hold.

The machinery now being built

In Britain, Palestine Action has been proscribed under terrorism legislation, and the consequences show up in the government’s own figures. In the year ending March 2026 there were 3,061 terrorism-related arrests, an increase of 1,186 percent on the previous year, and 2,819 of them – 92 percent – related to alleged support for Palestine Action. Quite an upsurge in “terrorism” – without a single fatality or even injury. Charges under section 12 of the Terrorism Act, which covers support for a proscribed organisation, had run at around five a year between 2019 and 2023; in 2024 there were 17. A counter-terrorism apparatus built to deal with bombers now focuses nine-tenths of its arrests on a protest movement, perhaps a majority of whom are pensioners, and only a small fraction of those arrested are ever charged.

As Sara Vivacqua documents in the Canary, the same powers have been turned on journalists covering the genocide. Asa Winstanley of The Electronic Intifada had his home raided in October 2024 and his devices seized, containing material capable of identifying sources in Palestine, and has never been charged. Kit Klarenberg was stopped at Luton Airport under Schedule 3 of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act, and says the questioning made plain that the object was his journalism rather than terrorism.

The Foreign Influence Registration Scheme went live last year; its enhanced tier, which makes it a criminal offence to act at the direction of a specified foreign power, in areas beyond just political influence, without declaring it, currently applies to Russia and Iran, and there is a sustained campaign to add China to the list. Put that together with a year of newspaper stories linking the Palestine movement to Beijing, and the state acquires a mechanism for treating anti-war protest as a hostile foreign operation.

In the United States the equivalent already exists, and it is the same statute. Presidential memorandum NSPM-7, signed in September 2025, directs federal agencies to investigate nonprofits, activists and their donors, listing “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity” among the indicators to be looked for, and assigning Joint Terrorism Task Forces to pursue violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. An organisation whose members are on record supporting Chinese socialism, and who may have accepted a hotel booking from a Chinese provincial government, is precisely the kind of thing that memorandum was drafted to capture.

What is actually being defended

Ordinary British people did not need the Communist Party of China to make them angry about Gaza. Nearly three years of televised mass killing, British-made components in the aircraft, RAF surveillance flights out of Akrotiri feeding information to an army facing genocide proceedings at the International Court of Justice: millions of people in Britain concluded that their government was complicit and reaching that conclusion required no assistance whatsoever from Beijing. Nor do young Americans need instructions from Guizhou to notice that they cannot afford rent, and that a country which has eliminated extreme poverty and become the world’s first green energy superpower might be worth studying.

Which is what the accusation is for. Not to show that anyone took Chinese money – nobody has shown that anyone did – but to disqualify a position rather than answer it. An argument traced back to a foreign capital need never be met on its merits. So the Times assembles a chain running from rent control in New York through the DSA and a Guizhou hotel booking to Beijing, and the Telegraph assembles one running from a march against genocide through CodePink and a US software millionaire to the same destination. And it has to be China at the end of both chains, because China is the country doing most to prove that socialism works and that a better world is possible.

It’s essential that we see through this cynical manoeuvre, defend those being targeted, and resist the creeping authoritarianism that is being normalised in the name of “security”. The people marching for Palestine are not instruments of a foreign power. They are ordinary human beings who are disgusted with their own government’s complicity in genocide. And on this issue at least they represent the views of the majority.

Hawks dressed as doves: the Guardian’s case for a harder line on China

In the following article, written for the Morning Star, our co-editor Carlos Martinez takes apart a recent Guardian column by Simon Tisdall whose complaint, running through every paragraph, is not that the West has been too aggressive towards China but that it has not been aggressive enough.

Carlos works through the column point by point: the claim of Western “debilitating fatalism” towards a country already facing a tariff war, semiconductor export bans, AUKUS, the Quad, RIMPAC and a chain of US bases from Japan to Australia; Tisdall’s unfortunate choice of Wales as an analogy for language rights; the assertion of “brutal re-education camps” offered without evidence, source or argument, resting on the discredited work of Adrian Zenz and the arms-industry-funded ASPI; and the verdict that Xi is an “unelected autocrat”, delivered without reference to the five levels of People’s Congresses, the consultative apparatus that precedes their votes, or the satisfaction ratings that no Western government has approached in living memory.

The article’s conclusion is that this is liberal hawkishness in its purest form – deploring Trump in one paragraph and demanding his policy in the next – and that it is more dangerous than the honest belligerence of the right, because it recruits people of genuine conscience to a war they would otherwise oppose.

Chinese ambassador calls for UK and China to cooperate on AI

Chinese Ambassador to the UK Zheng Zeguang recently contributed an article to the Guardian newspaper calling for the two countries to cooperate on AI. He begins by noting that: “Like the steam engine, the harnessing of electricity and the internet before it, it has the potential to transform how we work, live and interact.

“But every technological revolution brings challenges as well as opportunities. As AI systems become more capable, people are asking legitimate questions. How can AI remain safe, accountable and under human control? How should its development be governed? How can its benefits be shared more widely?”

He adds: “These questions were at the heart of the 2026 World AI Conference, held… [recently] in Shanghai.”

Keeping the main focus on the Global South he notes that China will develop international AI-application cooperation centres with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the League of Arab States, the African Union, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and its fellow BRICS countries.

But that does mean there is not ample space and opportunities for China-UK collaboration:

“China and the UK have much to gain from working together. The UK has a competitive edge in frontier research, life sciences, financial services and AI innovation… In healthcare, combining British strengths in biomedical research with China’s capacity to deploy AI at scale can accelerate drug discovery, improve medical imaging and enhance healthcare delivery… Policymakers, researchers and business leaders from China and the UK need to increase exchanges and translate dialogue into joint research, commercial partnerships and closer cooperation on AI governance.”

British Steel or British Steal?

In July, the British government completed the full nationalisation of British Steel – a move welcomed by the country’s trade unions, and one socialists have no reason to oppose in principle. But as Carlos Martinez argues in the following article, what took place was not simply the homecoming of a strategic industry. It was the expropriation of the Chinese firm that Britain itself invited in to rescue that industry six years ago, and which invested upwards of £1.2 billion doing so.

Comparing the treatment of Jingye Group with the £500 million subsidy handed to India’s Tata Steel for an almost identical transition at Port Talbot, he argues that this is a story about China rather than about steel – part of a wider pattern that takes in the seizure of Nexperia in the Netherlands, the forced sale of TikTok in the United States and the blocking of Chinese rare-earth investment in Australia. Nationalisation, he concludes, need not be reversed; it needs to be completed honestly, with prompt and adequate compensation, and with China engaged as the obvious partner for the green transformation Scunthorpe needs.

Wham! – Musical icebreakers in 1985 China

Keith Bennett finds a new documentary film on the first western pop group to perform in the People’s Republic to be a warm, touching and entertaining depiction of a moment in history.

Wham! 10 Days in China, a documentary film with much contemporary footage which went on general release in the UK on July 28, records the extraordinary story of the duo’s 1985 visit, when they became the first western pop group to perform in China, with concerts in Beijing and Guangzhou.

For some of us, the film is a vivid reminder of how China looked at that time. George Michael, then 21, and Andrew Ridgeley, then 22, were true icebreakers. China was still in the relatively early stage of reform and opening up and was very much, in Deng Xiaoping’s words, “crossing the river by feeling the stones”. Although living standards were rising, we were still some way away from the subsequent Chinese economic miracle. However, people’s expectations were definitely rising and with it their eagerness to embrace the outside world (and not without a whole range of misconceptions and naïve expectations) and to experience new things. As others have already noted, in reviews of the film and of course elsewhere, China was a country and a society on the cusp of great change – a change that has in turn profoundly altered the whole course of global development in the twenty-first century in ways that could not reasonably have been envisaged 40 years ago. It is actually extraordinary that these two young men played a modest but very real part in making this happen – in icebreaking and in inventing the future.

According to the film, becoming the first western pop group ever to be invited to perform in the People’s Republic was conceived as just a smart way of making it in the United States. That’s as maybe, but they still had to be prepared to make that leap and take that chance – something that might be seen as a rare moment of real insight on the part of the band’s cynical and manipulative manager. It also necessitated patient and protracted negotiations, something that would be all too familiar to anyone involved in similar work at the time. The art curator James Birch provides a vivid account of what it took to secure the first British contemporary art exhibition in Beijing and Shanghai a few years later in his Gilbert and George and the Communists.

Using China as the gateway to the USA might appear to have been counterintuitive but it showed that there was great interest in and fascination with China in the country at that time, albeit for very different reasons on the part of different sections of the population. As we have previously noted, today’s is not the first iteration of ‘Chinamaxxing’.

Wang Yi meets Britain’s new foreign secretary Ed Miliband

Following his appointment on July 20 as Britain’s foreign secretary by new prime minister Andy Burnham, Ed Miliband attended meetings around the ASEAN Regional Forum, held this year in the Philippines’ capital Manila, later in the week.

Among Miliband’s bilateral meetings was that with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, held on the morning of July 23.

Wang Yi congratulated Ed Miliband on assuming his new post and noted that as major countries in the world and permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, China and the UK have a relationship that goes beyond the bilateral scope and carries global significance. He further expressed the hope that the UK will abide by the one-China principle, safeguard the political foundation of bilateral relations, provide a fair, just and non-discriminatory business environment for Chinese enterprises in the UK, and avoid securitising economic and trade issues.

Wang added that the vision of building a community with a shared future for humanity and the four major global initiatives put forward by President Xi Jinping address the deficits in peace, development, security and governance facing the international community, articulate the vision and goals of China’s diplomacy, and provide important public goods for the world. China and the UK need to work together to transcend differences, jointly uphold multilateralism, support the revitalisation of the core role of the United Nations, oppose unilateral bullying and protectionism, and make greater contributions to world peace and development.

Ed Miliband stated that the new UK government attaches great importance to its relations with China. As major countries with significant influence in the world, the UK and China should continue to strengthen cooperation on global security, health and development issues. The UK is ready to strengthen exchanges at all levels with China, expand cooperation in areas such as climate change, and enhance multilateral communication and coordination.

As indicated in Wang’s above remarks, China is adopting a positive attitude towards relations with the new British government. However, Burnham’s government will need to responsibly address a serious problem it has inherited from the previous administration of Keir Starmer, namely the expropriation of the Scunthorpe steel plant hitherto owned by China’s Jingye company. The importance China places on this can be discerned from the headline given by the Xinhua News Agency to its report on the meeting, ‘Chinese FM urges Britain to avoid imposing security implications on economic, trade issues’.

Speaking at a reception held at his embassy that evening to mark the 99th anniversary of the founding of China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA), Chinese ambassador to the UK Zheng Zeguang described his foreign minister’s meeting with Miliband earlier in the day as having been “very productive”.

On his X social media account, Miliband wrote: “Our relationship with China matters – for security, the economy and climate.

“Glad to discuss Ukraine and the Middle East with Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

“We are taking a consistent, long term and strategic approach to relations with China, rooted in UK and global interests.”

Miliband last visited China in March 2025 as Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.

On July 20, Chinese Premier Li Qiang had congratulated Andy Burnham on his assuming office as British prime minister.

Li said China and Britain are both permanent members of the UN Security Council and major global economies. Stronger dialogue and cooperation will not only advance the development of both countries but also contribute to greater stability and global peace.

Li further expressed his readiness to work with Burnham to strengthen engagement, deepen mutual trust, expand exchanges and cooperation, and advance the long-term and stable comprehensive strategic partnership, bringing greater benefits to both countries and their peoples.

Andy Burnham previously led a trade mission to China in September 2018 as Mayor of Greater Manchester.

Young British communist visits Xinjiang: “Not at all what Western media says”

Amar, a 22-year-old activist from London, visited Xinjiang in April 2026, wanting to see the region for himself after years of Western media coverage alleging genocide there. In this interview with Xinjiang Today, recorded in a coffee shop in Urumqi, he describes what he found.

He talks about the ordinariness of daily life in Urumqi, and the surprise of local people that a visitor would think to ask whether their lives are normal at all. He recounts a conversation with a barista about how the region has changed since his childhood – the journey from Urumqi to Kashgar cut from around 40 hours by rail to roughly 11, and the four-day bus trip across the Tianshan Mountains reduced to a few hours by the 22-kilometre Tianshan Shengli Tunnel, the longest expressway tunnel in the world, which opened in December 2025. Infrastructure on that scale, Amar argues, is built because it improves people’s lives rather than because it returns a profit, and would never be undertaken in a society run by a capitalist class.

He also discusses the very different relationship between the public and the police in China compared with Britain, why his family came to see China as a beacon of hope, and what worries and encourages him as a young person facing the prospect of imperialist war.

Chinese Embassy in London holds symposium on the CPC and the world

On the morning of July 6, 2026, the Chinese Embassy in the UK held a symposium entitled “The Communist Party of China and the World”, marking the CPC’s 105th founding anniversary.

The event was chaired by Minister Zhao Fei and Ambassador Zheng Zeguang delivered a keynote speech entitled ‘Reviewing the Glorious Journey, Creating New Historic Success, and Jointly Promoting the Building of a Community with a Shared Future for Humanity’.

In his presentation, Ambassador Zheng elaborated on General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important speech at the rally celebrating the 105th anniversary of the founding of the CPC, held in Beijing on July 1.

He described the speech as a political declaration for Chinese Communists to uphold and develop socialism with Chinese characteristics and continuously achieve new victories in Chinese modernisation on the new journey in the new era. It also serves as an important window through which friends from around the world can better understand the CPC.

He said that on the journey ahead, China will study and implement Xi Jinping Thought on Party Building, uphold a correct view of governance performance, persist in exercising full and rigorous self-governance of the Party, and carry forward the Party’s outstanding qualities, thus ensuring that the Party always maintains strong creativity, cohesion and combat effectiveness. Although the road ahead is full of risks and challenges, requiring constant readiness to withstand high winds, strong waves, and even turbulent storms, the CPC has strong confidence and firm resolve, and will remain steadfast and forge ahead with courage to create new historic successes.

Ambassador Zheng noted that while the CPC is committed to seeking happiness for the Chinese people and rejuvenation for the Chinese nation, it is also dedicated to advancing human progress and promoting harmony for the world.

He stressed the CPC’s readiness to engage in dialogue and exchanges and strengthen mutual learning with political parties and governments of all countries on the basis of mutual respect and equality and also briefed the participants on the development of China-UK relations since the beginning of this year.

Following the ambassador’s keynote report, contributions to the discussion were made by the following guests:

Alex Gordon, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Britain (CPB)
Andy Brooks, General Secretary of the New Communist Party of Britain (NCP)
Daniel O’Brien, Vice Chair of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) (CPGBML)
Stephen Perry, Honorary President of the 48 Group
The Right Honourable Lord (Neil) Davidson KC, Baron of Glen Cova, Labour Member of the House of Lords
Sir Mark Hendrick, Labour Member of Parliament and Vice Chair of the China All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG)
Professor Kerry Brown, Director of the Lau China Institute, King’s College London
Keith Bennett, Co-editor of Friends of Socialist China
Kevan Nelson, International Secretary of the CPB
Dr Ali Al Assam, Committee member of Friends of Socialist China
Dr Francisco Dominguez, Committee member of Friends of Socialist China
George Korkovelos, Culture Secretary of the CPGBML

Diane Abbott: The US plan is for global domination – we have to be determined in the campaign for peace

Nearly 3,000 delegates from across Britain, Europe and further afield packed London’s Westminster Central Hall on Saturday June 20 for a conference against war and militarism hosted by Britain’s Stop the War Coalition. It was the second conference of its kind, the first having been held in Paris in October 2025.

In a day noted for numerous rousing and militant speeches, special mention should be made of that made by Diane Abbott, which, despite its brevity, was unique in its providing an insightful overview of the international situation as a whole, the various struggles against imperialism and war and the significance of China.

After referring to the situations in Venezuela, Cuba, Nigeria, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon, Diane continued:

“There is a military build-up against China, especially through AUKUS. And of course, there is the war and blockade of Iran. Finally, there is the prolonged war in Ukraine, the largest war in Europe since the Second World War, much bigger even than the NATO campaign to destroy Yugoslavia.”

All these have one thing in common, she explained. “The United States is central to them all and initiated most of them.”

Referring to the latest US National Security Strategy, she noted that some people have argued that this means that the United States is now restricting its attention to the western hemisphere. But “none of that is true… It is a plan for global domination.”

Economically, the US is on the retreat and has lost its dominance. It has “lost out to the Global South in general and China in particular.” But it is attempting to recover its position primarily through a combination of trade wars, sanctions, and military methods. In this it relies on the overwhelming dominance of the US military, the global role of the US dollar and its network of allies.

However, not everything is going to plan. The US lost the first few rounds of the trade war with China.

She concludes: “It seems clear that we are in for a prolonged fight… We have to be determined in the campaign for peace, and unite with all those governments, movements and peoples who oppose this US rampage.”

Diane Abbott is the member of parliament for Hackney North and Stoke Newington in northeast London. She was first elected in 1987, becoming Britain’s first ever black woman parliamentarian. She is now the ‘Mother of the House’ – the longest currently serving woman member of the House of Commons. Having served as Shadow Home Secretary during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party, she is currently suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party, due to the discredited regime of Keir Starmer’s war against the left and to her steadfast opposition to austerity, racism and imperialist war.

Carlos Martinez: What would Rajani Palme Dutt have made of contemporary China?

The following is the text of a lecture delivered by Carlos Martinez, author of The East is Still Red: Chinese Socialism in the 21st Century and a co-editor of Friends of Socialist China, marking the 130th anniversary of the birth of Rajani Palme Dutt – theoretician, organiser and, for half a century, one of the foremost Marxist minds in the British movement.

Taking as its starting point Palme Dutt’s 1967 pamphlet Whither China?, written at the height of the Sino-Soviet split and a year into the Cultural Revolution, the lecture asks what this towering figure of British Marxism – who died in 1974 – would have made of the People’s Republic today. Carlos tests Palme Dutt’s critique against the verdict of history: on the Cultural Revolution, on the Theory of the Three Worlds, and on the rival conceptions of peaceful coexistence – finding some of it vindicated, and some of it a product of a European Marxism that struggled to fully grasp a peasant-driven revolution.

Confronted with two stubborn facts – that the People’s Republic still exists while the Soviet Union does not – Palme Dutt, who even in 1967 refused to write China out of the socialist camp, would, Carlos argues, have recognised China as the largest and most developed socialist society in history. He would have recognised that in China it is the state that disciplines capital, not the other way round. The lecture closes with a call to carry forward Palme Dutt’s enduring principle: solidarity with a socialist country under imperialist siege, “irrespective of any differences”.

Revolutionary traditions and rural revitalisation – A young communist’s impressions of China

In the following article, which we are pleased to reprint from the Morning Star, Maisie Riley, Chair of the Young Communist League (YCL) of Britain, reports on her impressions of China, having led a recent delegation of young communist cadres from Europe and North America, invited by the Communist Party of China International Department (IDCPC).

Maisie recounts how, at a meeting in Hubei, she compared the decline of rural Britain with the rural revitalisation programmes the delegation had witnessed in China:

“We heard testimony from local community members about their rural revitalisation work. Zhang Hua, a domestic service worker, had taken an upskilling programme enabling her to earn her own income. She said she was so happy when she got her first pay packet, it inspired her to help other women obtain education, qualifications and references through the programme.”

Maisie writes that: “As part of our CPC history study we visited revolutionary memorials, including the Xibaipo Memorial Hall where comrades in our delegation sang The Internationale in their own languages with their party flags to commemorate Victory over Fascism Day on May 9.

“The People’s Daily media reported this, and a video of our visit went viral on Chinese social media. From then on, we were stopped in museums, at monuments and regularly on the street for photos!

“We also visited Nanniwan, site of the Red Army’s [food] self-sufficiency campaign [during the period when the CPC was based in nearby Yan’an following the conclusion of the epic Long March], where a gigantic, red hammer and sickle monument is inscribed in [the original] German with the [text of the] Communist Manifesto.”

“Our arrival caused quite a stir and after many photos with visiting Chinese aunties, we danced with them in the square, ending with them joining us in a conga in front of the monument!

“This was just one example of the warm welcome we received from ordinary people in China.”

Maisie also notes that: “The differences in approach to traditional cultures between China and Britain is stark. Whereas China cultivates and supports traditional cultures and rural peoples in the context of socialist modernisation, in Britain we see a decline in the number of people able to afford to learn and practice traditional crafts, with many at risk of becoming extinct.

“Rural revitalisation is an issue about which we can learn much from China. In Britain, rural communities struggle to access education, jobs, healthcare and public transport. While in China the age of rural communities is [also] increasing as younger people move to cities for better economic opportunities, China is bringing better job opportunities to villages and providing equal access to education and healthcare as part of its plan for full-basic, socialist modernisation by 2035.”

Nissan, Chery and the case for cooperation with China

In early June 2026, the Financial Times reported that Nissan’s Sunderland plant – the UK’s largest car factory, employing 6,000 people – has secured its long-term future through a deal to manufacture vehicles for the Chinese carmaker Chery from 2027. In the following article, Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez argues that the agreement offers a concrete glimpse of a different economic path for Britain.

With Nissan’s global restructuring threatening thousands of jobs, and the motor industry’s own trade body admitting that Britain’s 2035 production targets are unreachable without Chinese manufacturers, Chinese industry is offering British workers what no British government has for forty years: high-quality jobs in a globally competitive, future-facing sector.

The predictable cries of ‘national security’ and ‘Chinese influence’, Martinez writes, are merely a manifestation of empire nostalgia. The real choice facing Britain is between embracing the multipolar transition or managing further decline in the service of a declining United States.

Two railways, two systems: HS2 and the case for socialism

In the following article, originally published in the Morning Star, our co-editor Carlos Martinez uses the unfolding HS2 fiasco to illustrate the stark difference between the British and Chinese political economies, and to make the case for socialism.

On May 19, it was announced that Britain’s high-speed rail project will cost some £103 billion and will not carry passengers for at least another decade. Carlos sets these figures against China’s record: at roughly £736 million per mile, HS2 track is around 25 times more expensive than Chinese high-speed rail, and is being built at a fraction of the pace. China laid 31,000 miles of high-speed rail in 22 years; Britain may manage 140 miles in 19.

The explanation, Carlos argues, is not technical but political. Where China builds through vertically integrated state-owned enterprises under coordinated national planning, Britain’s project has been handed to a fragmented patchwork of private contractors, each adding its margin – the predictable result of four decades of privatisation and deindustrialisation.

The HS2 fiasco is not just a story about one botched railway project. It is a story, ultimately, about the fallacy of neoliberalism, about the consequences of four decades of deindustrialisation and privatisation, about the consequences of treating public infrastructure as an opportunity for private extraction rather than as a public good.

And it is a story about how, as Deng Xiaoping put it in 1984 (at the start of capitalism’s neoliberal era), “the superiority of the socialist system is demonstrated, in the final analysis, by faster and greater development of the productive forces than under the capitalist system.”

It was announced on May 19 that Britain’s ill-fated HS2 high-speed rail project is set to cost three times more than originally budgeted, and will not start running for at least another decade.

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander stated that, following a review of the project, the estimated final cost will be £103 billion. What’s more, this only covers the first phase, between Old Oak Common (in west London) and Birmingham Curzon Street — a distance of 140 miles.

To put the figures in perspective: £103bn divided by 140 miles works out at around £736 million per mile. By comparison, the average cost of a mile of high-speed rail in China is in the region of £30m. HS2 track is therefore around 25 times more expensive than Chinese HSR.

The contrast in pace is if anything even more striking. Construction on HS2 began in 2017. If we see a train running in 2036, the pace of construction will have been a smidgen north of seven miles per year.

Chinese Ambassador to UK condemns political farce of arresting and convicting Chinese citizens and warns of firm countermeasures

On May 7, two Chinese citizens, Chung Biu Yuen, 65, a former Hong Kong police officer now employed at the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office (HKETO) in London, and Chi Leung Wai, 40, an ex-UK Border Force officer and special constable at City of London Police, were both convicted under the draconian National Security Act 2023 on charges of “assisting a foreign intelligence service by conducting unauthorised information‑gathering and unlawful surveillance in the UK to benefit China”, following a trial at the Old Bailey in London. They have been remanded in custody and are due to be sentenced at a date yet to be confirmed.

The next day, Chinese Ambassador to the UK Zheng Zeguang requested a meeting with a Foreign Commonwealth and Development (FCDO) official, during which he made further representations with the UK side on the so-called verdict by a UK court on two Chinese, refuted the unfounded accusations of the UK side and urged the UK side to correct its mistake, stop the anti-China political manipulation, stop wantonly arresting and convicting Chinese citizens in the UK, and stop emboldening anti-China elements.

Ambassador Zheng pointed out that the UK side used trumped-up crimes to arrest and indict Chinese citizens in the UK. The so-called conviction was the outcome of abusing the law and manipulating the judicial process by the UK side. It is nothing but a political farce.

The UK side, he continued, harbours wanted criminals and wantonly arrested and convicted Chinese citizens in the UK. This act disrespects the rule of law and seriously violated basic norms of international relations. It has gravely undermined China-UK relations. This is totally intolerable to the Chinese side.

The Ambassador urged the UK side to correct its mistake, stop the anti-China political manipulation, stop wantonly arresting and convicting Chinese citizens in the UK, and stop backing and emboldening those anti-China elements. The UK side must know that any acts aimed at jeopardising China’s interests will be met with firm countermeasures.

The previous day, a spokesperson for the embassy stated: “The Chinese side has made clear its principled position on the relevant case many times. The facts of this case clearly show that this is nothing but a political move of abusing the law and manipulating the judicial process by the UK side. Its sole purpose is to embolden those anti-China elements who are hiding in the UK and bent on destablising Hong Kong, and to smear the Chinese government and the Hong Kong SAR [Special Administrative Region] government.”

Chinamaxxing in the 1960s and 1970s

The following is the full text of the presentation prepared by our co-editor Keith Bennett for our April 12 webinar on the subject of ‘Socialist Chinamaxxing: How China’s achievements are a product of socialism’. Due to time constraints, Keith previously delivered an abbreviated version of his remarks. The livestream of the webinar and videos of all the speeches as delivered can be viewed here. The video of Keith’s speech is embedded below the text.

We’ve heard some excellent speakers on the present trend of Chinamaxxing.

For my part, I’m going to attempt to give a certain historical and comparative perspective. Going back to the 1960s and 70s. And therefore, if you like, making a case that what we see today is at least Chinamaxxing 2.0, even if the term itself didn’t previously exist.

My focus here is on the cultural and intellectual rather than the party political. Although the background and context are inevitably political.

The late 1960s and 70s were a time of great change in China. Political life was still in tumult, but the mass mobilisations of the Cultural Revolution abated and were curtailed. A stridently revolutionary foreign policy gave way to handshakes between Chairman Mao and President Nixon. And a procession of other western political leaders generally from the right of the political spectrum, such as Britain’s Edward Heath.

But what remained at the time was a sense that China was a remote and somewhat mysterious place. Literally a world away from the West. Few people went there. Besides political considerations on both sides there were also objective factors. Social media and mobile telephony simply did not exist. As late as the mid-1980s, the London-Beijing flight with BA was London-Rome-Bahrain-Hong Kong-Beijing.

Yet the fascination for China in important sectors of western societies belied and overcame the physical and mental remoteness.

The political seeped into the cultural and each impacted on the other.

Barely two months after France had been shaken by the events of May 1968, and four months after demonstrators protesting the American war in Vietnam had clashed with police outside the US embassy in London, the Beatles recorded a track entitled Revolution, composed by John Lennon. Initially released as the B side to the single Hey Jude, it includes the lines:

But if you go carryin’ pictures of Chairman Mao

You ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow

Apparently, this was a late addition to the words, being added in the studio, but Lennon said in a promotional clip that he regarded them as the song’s most important lyrics.

They may have been meant to express disapproval, but he had certainly noticed the phenomenon. Moreover, they encountered a backlash.

New Left Review dismissed the song as “a lamentable petty bourgeois cry of fear.” But by January 1971, in a conversation with Tariq Ali, Lennon said of the song: “I made a mistake, you know. The mistake was that it was anti-revolution.” The following year, he remarked: “I should have never said that about Chairman Mao.”

See China’s achievements for yourself – Britain’s visa-free travel to China explained

Friends of Socialist China Britain Committee Secretary David Peat recently attended a London event organised by the Chinese National Tourism Office (CNTO) and industry partners celebrating and raising awareness of the Chinese government’s recent policy change allowing British passport holders to visit the People’s Republic of China for tourism or business purposes visa-free for up to 30 days. In the article below David explains how the policy works and how China’s tourism strategy is a fitting and effective way for the country to celebrate its successes and show the world how its system is working to improve its citizens’ lives—a living and vibrant contrast to the increasing chaos and declining living standards in the Western world.

The recent viral phenomenon of “Chinamaxxing”—in which Westerners, increasingly exposed to less biased content highlighting the reality of everyday life in China, are expressing their excitement and admiration of aspects of Chinese culture (see the upcoming online seminar on the topic, organised by Friends of Socialist China)—is set to receive a further boost in Britain as it has just recently joined the group of countries whose citizens can visit the People’s Republic of China (PRC) without requiring a visa, allowing more and more people to conveniently see the country’s achievements for themselves.

The new policy came into effect on February 17 and allows UK passport holders to visit the country for the purposes of “business, tourism, family/friends visit, exchange and transit purposes.” Britain joins around 50 other countries, including most of Europe, Canada, Japan, and many others, to which China has offered a unilateral visa-free policy,^[1] alongside around 30 countries with which China has bilateral agreements. All part of the Communist Party of China’s strategy to facilitate people-people connection and show the world a “more open, accessible China.”^[2]

Stop the War Coalition reaffirms campaigning priorities and highlights heightened danger of war in the Pacific

Several hundred people packed central London’s Hamilton House on Saturday March 14 for the annual conference of Britain’s Stop the War Coalition (StW).

Amidst the most dangerous international situation in the lifetime of most if not all of the delegates, the day’s proceedings represented a powerful, united and militant expression of determination to do everything possible both to end the brutal imperialist wars currently being waged against Iran, Palestine, Lebanon and elsewhere and to prevent the outbreak of a third world war that would threaten the very existence of humanity.

Stop the War’s website reports that during the opening session, Mustafa Barghouti, the renowned Palestinian figure, thanked StW for its solidarity with the Palestinian and Iranian people and drew attention to the devastating attacks Israel is currently conducting against Lebanon.

Jeremy Corbyn MP spoke of StW as a voice for peace, and of UK complicity in the destruction of Gaza, noting how the UK continues to send weapons to Israel.

Maryam Eslamdoust, railworkers’ union TSSA general secretary, who has family in Iran, reminded conference of the human tragedy of war. Maryam said Trump’s attacks were designed to strike fear and terror into civilians to achieve an uprising, fast victory and regime change. However, she believed Iran would not crumble as the imperialists hoped, and that the US would face a Vietnam-style defeat.

A motion on opposition to British foreign policy, moved by Stop the War deputy president and founding chair Andrew Murray, in an exceptionally fiery and impassioned speech, notes that:

The Trump administration has embarked on a rampage of aggression that is imperilling the entire world.

It has launched a barbaric and illegal attack with Israel on Iran (including murdering its leader) and Lebanon, kidnapped the President of Venezuela, bombed Yemen and Nigeria and is trying to bring down the government in Cuba. It has also threatened Panama, Colombia and Greenland. It has embarked on an intensification of the nuclear arms race.

All this is aimed at reversing the relative decline of US imperialism, particularly in the face of China’s growing strength, and securing a new redivision of power and profit in the world to its advantage. It threatens a third world war.

Keir Starmer has committed the British government to support for this reckless and bloody policy. All his professed support for international law disappears in the face of Washington’s illegalities. He is craven in his appeasement of Trump when he is not actually joining in with his wars.

Instead of aligning with most of the world in condemning this war drive, Britain backs the aggressors. This policy also threatens to beggar the British people with entirely unsustainable and unnecessary increases in military spending, on a scale which will make urgent social improvements all-but impossible.

The government also works to prolong the dangerous conflict in Ukraine and to engage in military provocations directed towards China in the Far East.

This is all accompanied by a war psychosis designed to condition the population to the inevitability of an impending great power war.

Conference resolved:

Deal diplomacy: Starmer’s China trip bets on business over ideology

In the following analysis for Beijing Review, Carlos Martinez assesses British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s January visit to China as a significant moment in the recalibration of Britain-China relations amid accelerating geopolitical changes. The trip – the first by a British prime minister in eight years – signals a cautious thaw after a prolonged diplomatic “ice age” marked by security rhetoric, sanctions, and absurd propaganda.

Carlos contextualises the visit within Britain’s domestic economic pressures and the wider strain on the US-led international order. Accompanied by senior politicians and a broad business delegation, Starmer’s meetings with Xi Jinping and other senior Chinese leaders produced tangible outcomes, including visa-free entry, tariff reductions and new cooperation frameworks across trade, climate and education. The breadth of agreements reflects Britain’s urgent need for growth and investment in a stagnant economy.

The article argues that London’s previous hardening stance toward Beijing was driven largely by alignment with Washington’s containment strategy. However, as US pressure intensifies and transatlantic relations grow more volatile, the US’s traditional allies are starting to gradually reassess the extent to which their interests are served by subjugating themselves to Washington. China, by contrast, has proven itself to be a reliable advocate of multilateralism and mutually beneficial cooperation.

While resistance from US officials, British “China hawks” and sections of the media remains strong, the article contends that full Atlanticist alignment is increasingly untenable. Starmer’s visit, while bearing relatively modest fruit, reflects a broader shift toward multipolarity. Britain now faces a strategic choice: continue subordinating its interests to Washington, or adapt pragmatically to a world in which engagement with China is economically and politically unavoidable.

The Starmer visit is further explored in articles we posted on 4 February: Breaking the ice: Starmer’s pragmatic turn to China and Keir Starmer’s small-stick diplomacy.

British Premier Keir Starmer’s visit to China on January 28-31 was the first trip by a British prime minister to Beijing in eight years. It came at a time of uncertainty in both British domestic politics and international relations, reflecting wider geopolitical shifts.

China says: Hong Kong has long returned to China and British colonial rule over Hong Kong has long ended

On February 9, the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of China sentenced Jimmy Lai, an instigator of anti-China riots in Hong Kong, to 20 years in prison.

Lai was found guilty in December by the High Court of the HKSAR on two charges of conspiring to collude with external forces and a charge of conspiracy to publish seditious materials. Mitigation hearing for Lai’s case began on January 12 and concluded on January 13.

The Xinhua News Agency quoted a spokesperson for the Office for Safeguarding National Security of the Central People’s Government in the HKSAR as noting that the 156-day public trial, which involved the examination of 2,220 exhibits, over 80,000 pages of case files and testimonies of 14 prosecution witnesses, had established that Lai colluded with external forces to endanger national security.

A commentary published by the news agency asserted that: “Disguised as a media man while acting as an agent for external anti-China forces, Lai was the principal mastermind and perpetrator of a series of riots that shook Hong Kong and undermined the fundamental interests of both the country and the HKSAR. The reality of Lai’s crimes is clear, backed by conclusive evidence. The traitor has received the penalty he deserves… The days when external forces and anti-China destabilising elements could act with impunity are obviously over.”

An article posted on the social media account of the Hong Kong and Macao Work Office of the Communist Party of China Central Committee noted:

“People have realised that Jimmy Lai has never been the so-called ‘fighter for freedom, democracy and human rights,’ but rather the chief culprit and a traitor to the nation who has harmed the country’s fundamental interests and the well-being of Hong Kong residents. Lai’s sentencing has once again proved that justice may be late, but it will come in the end.”

Hong Kong’s Chief Executive John Lee said that Lai had long used the now-defunct Apple Daily to poison the minds of Hong Kong people, by inciting hatred, distorting facts, deliberately stirring up social antagonism and glorifying violence. Lai had openly begged for external forces to impose sanctions against China and the HKSAR, sacrificing the well-being of the people of China and the HKSAR.

Lai betrayed the country and harmed the HKSAR. His conviction is supported by overwhelming evidence and he for sure deserves his punishment after all the harm he has done.

The sentence passed on Lai has led to renewed outbursts on the part of international anti-China, anti-socialist forces, not least the British government and media.

British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said in a statement: “We stand with the people of Hong Kong, and will always honour the historical commitments made under the legally binding Sino-British Joint Declaration. China must do the same.”

A joint statement by Cooper and Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced an “expanded Hong Kong British National (Overseas) route” whereby, “Thousands more Hong Kongers will be able to build new lives in Britain as the government strengthens safe and legal routes to the UK… It is estimated 26,000 people will arrive in the UK over the next 5 years.”

This from a government that is engaged in a relentlessly wicked, cruel and blatantly racist crusade against the most oppressed sections of the working class, particularly refugees and asylum seekers, the overwhelming majority of whom are fleeing from the devastation caused to their homelands by centuries-long and continuing wars, poverty and climate disasters directly resulting from colonial and imperialist super exploitation and oppression.

Keir Starmer’s small-stick diplomacy

In the article below, published in the Morning Star on 4 February, Andrew Murray argues that Keir Starmer’s visit to China marks a rare moment of realism in British foreign policy after years of hopelessly counterproductive hostility shaped by the demands of Washington. Starmer’s pragmatism reflects an overdue recognition that rebuilding relations with China is in Britain’s material interest.

Andrew dismisses the loud and oft-repeated fears about Chinese spying and influence as hypocritical, noting Britain’s own intelligence operations and aggressive military posture in the Asia-Pacific alongside the US and its allies.

China is not parking aircraft carriers off our coast, nor entering into an Aukus-like bloc to help encircle Britain and drag it into an escalating arms race. Nor even did it hold the Isle of Wight as a colony for a century. And the considerable place it has secured in our markets was achieved without recourse to gunboats. Imagine!

The article underlines the importance of engagement in terms of the British government’s much-vaunted growth agenda: China has grown at roughly 7.5 per cent annually over the last decade, while Britain has stagnated at around 1.2 per cent.

Starmer’s willingness to proceed with the visit despite pressure from Donald Trump is praised, though Andrew notes Britain’s continued aggression in East Asia: “Britain continues to indulge in various military provocations in the Far East directed at China, alongside the US, Japan and Australia, all in service of the imperial vanity project ‘global Britain’”.

Ultimately, no major British constituency benefits from confrontation with China. The British government appears to be slowing getting to grips with this fact.

One cheer for Keir Starmer. The hapless Prime Minister has finally found a problem bequeathed by the Tories that he is addressing with some sense of purpose.

His visit to Beijing is the moment when the monkey at No 10, furiously pounding at the typewriter of governance for the last 19 months has finally produced, if not Shakespeare, at least a line or two of coherent prose.