Democracy Archives - Friends of Socialist China

Building whole-process people’s democracy in China

In the following detailed and highly informative article, originally published on Progressive International, Paweł Wargan and Jason Hickel use the regeneration of Minzhu Village in Chongqing as a vivid case study of China’s system of whole-process people’s democracy.

Formerly the site of one of China’s most important enterprises – the Chongqing Construction Machine Tool Factory – Minzhu Village began to decline after the factory was relocated in 2009.

Its infrastructure decayed and its population aged and dwindled. Officials considered demolishing the village and relocating its residents. But the community had generational bonds to the area, which itself held historic significance for the country. Instead of demolition, the village underwent a comprehensive program of regeneration. It became a model for the rest of the country — and provided a striking example of participatory processes in China’s development.

Minzhu was revived not through displacement but via a thoroughgoing democratic process involving hundreds of “courtyard meetings”, a digitised mailbox collecting thousands of suggestions, and surveys at multiple levels. The results – “the farmers’ market was modernised, the stream was cleaned up, the canteen was built, and new institutions and infrastructures for leisure, recreation, and community development were constructed around the village” – shine a light on how socialist democracy can bring about people-centred redevelopment, a far cry from the gentrification typically associated with urban redevelopment in the capitalist world.

This participatory method flows from the mass line, with the political leadership at all levels “continuously interpreting, systematising, and realising the ideas of the people”. The authors contrast this with capitalist democracy, a system which allows “the dominant class — the class with the most financial and organisational power — to determine political outcomes in its own interests, capture the state, and prevent any democratic challenges to its rule”.

In the US, for instance, power is passed back and forth between two establishment parties, both of which are explicitly pro-capitalist and committed to the interests of the capitalist class. Third parties — including socialist parties — are effectively frozen out of the national political process; they face serious obstacles when it comes to getting on ballots and securing airtime in official political debates.

By comparison, socialist democracy extends participation beyond ballots into production and planning. “Socialist democracy must be seen as a historic, multi-generational and dialectical process by which conditions that enable increasing parts of society to play an active role in governance are created, nurtured, and defended.”

The article provides an overview of China’s democratic processes, including electoral and consultative mechanisms across five administrative levels, with the CPC – a party with over 100 million members – functioning as a mass organisation practicing democratic centralism. Continuous, extensive consultation and participation are crucial ingredients of the decision-making and lawmaking systems. As Xi Jinping puts it, democracy means extensive deliberation across society; it is not a system where “people are awakened only at voting time and dormant afterward.”

The authors note that survey data consistently shows high public trust and satisfaction with Chinese governance, challenging Western assumptions that China’s legitimacy rests on coercion. They acknowledge debates over the extent of economic democracy, but argue that public control of the “commanding heights” enables planning toward collectively ratified goals.

Ultimately, Minzhu Village exemplifies a model that binds legitimacy to outcomes – poverty eradication, rising wages and life expectancy – rather than to the “periodic and highly ritualised” procedures of so-called liberal democracy. As Victor Gao quips, it is hard to imagine China’s transformation from poverty and backwardness occurring “without democracy… without the Chinese people actively participating in the decision-making process.”

The article concludes that the implications of China’s ongoing experimentation with whole-process people’s democracy extend beyond China’s borders:

In an era when Western liberal democracies face mounting crises of legitimacy — declining voter participation, growing inequality, institutional dysfunction, rising popular alienation from political processes, and the discarding of liberal democratic norms by states increasingly embroiled in wars of imperial expansion — the Chinese model offers alternative ways of conceptualising the relationship between popular sovereignty and effective governance. It suggests that democracy’s ultimate test lies not in conformity to particular institutional arrangements developed in specific historical contexts, but in its capacity to activate the people in shaping the conditions of their lives and societies. Understanding “whole-process people’s democracy” therefore requires moving beyond the constraints imposed by liberal ideology to engage seriously with socialist approaches to political organisation, which offer critical insights for all societies grappling with questions of development and popular sovereignty in the twenty-first century.

Introduction

In Minzhu Village, a small community in the Jiulongpo District of the sprawling metropolis of Chongqing, a remarkable transformation has taken place. Once a maze of crumbling buildings and narrow, muddy roads, Minzhu Village is now a modern community with radiant red-brick walls, landscaped paths, and thriving public services. It has a sustainable farmers’ market built with recycled materials, a public canteen that provides free meals for the elderly, fitness parks, stages for public performances, modern and affordable cafes, and a craft-beer bar housed in stacked shipping containers. On the main square, across from the three-story canteen, the Communist Party of China (CPC) operates a sleek public office, where residents can seek the support of Party cadres on anything from repainting their homes to resolving neighbourly disputes. Just a few years ago, sewage ran through a canal down the length of the main thoroughfare. Children and the elderly now dip their feet in the stream that has taken its place.

Support for government in China: is the data accurate?

A wide range of surveys consistently show that Chinese people express exceptionally high levels of trust and satisfaction with their government and political system—far higher than in most other countries. The World Values Survey (2018) found that 94.6% of Chinese respondents trusted their national government, while the Asian Barometer Survey (2015) reported 86.7%. Harvard’s Ash Center likewise recorded 93% satisfaction with the national government and 82% with provincial authorities. The Alliance for Democracies (2024) found that 91% of respondents in China believed the government serves the interests of most people, with 85% saying all people enjoy equal rights before the law, compared to much lower figures in Western nations.

Nonetheless, writes Jason Hickel on his Substack blog, “skeptics have questioned the data, saying that respondents may overstate support for their government if they live in a system where they are likely to fear repression for expressing political dissent”. To test this, researchers have used “list experiments”, which allow respondents to answer anonymously. These studies found somewhat lower but still very high levels of trust, ranging from 62% to 77%—well above the figures for the US (33%), France (31%) and Britain (29%).

Other methods, such as Implicit Association Tests, show that implicit and explicit trust levels in China are nearly identical, indicating that political fear does not explain the results. As such, the evidence suggests that Chinese people’s reported trust in their government is genuine. Hickel writes:

These studies point to an important reality that we must grapple with: the Chinese people have a much higher regard for their government, and much higher support for their political and economic system, than people in the West tend to assume.

The reasons for this level of popular support is explained in a previous post by Jason Hickel: that “most people in China believe their political system is democratic, fair, and serves the interests of the people”; and that “what matters most when it comes to people’s perceptions of democracy is not whether their country has Western-style elections, but whether they believe their government acts in the interest of most people”.

The full text of Hickel’s article is republished below.

A wide range of public opinion surveys and studies over the past years have demonstrated that people in China tend to express strikingly strong support for their government and their political-economic system, much higher than in most other countries.

For instance, the World Values Survey consistently shows that over 90% of people in China report “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of trust in the national government. In 2018, the most recent wave, trust was at 94.6%, one of the highest levels in the world. This result is supported by the Asian Barometer Survey, which in 2015 found 86.7% of respondents in China had “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of trust in the national government.

Similarly, Harvard’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance has conducted regular surveys on public opinion in China since 2003. It finds that, in the most recent year of data, satisfaction with the national government stood at 93%, having generally increased over time. Satisfaction with provincial governments was also high at 82%.

Next, the Danish NGO Alliance for Democracies publishes data on people’s perceptions of their political systems in over 50 countries. According to the most recent report (2024), people in China have positive views of their political system, with 91% saying that the government serves the interests of most people (rather than a small group), and 85% saying all people enjoy equal rights before the law, much higher than in the US, France and Britain.

Finally, a recent study published in the journal Political Psychology asked people in 42 countries whether they think their system is fair and just. They used the following questions: “In general, I find society to be fair”, “In general my country’s political system operates as it should”, “Everyone in my country has a fair shot at wealth and happiness”, and “My country’s society is set up so that people usually get what they deserve.” The results show that people in China are more likely to agree with these statements than any other country in the set.

These are all remarkable results. But skeptics have questioned the data, saying that respondents may overstate support for their government if they live in a system where they are likely to fear repression for expressing political dissent. In behavioural psychology, this is known as “strategic misreporting”. The Alliance for Democracies study is designed to avoid this bias, but other studies may be more vulnerable.

China’s five-year plans democratic, people-centred and grounded in material reality

In a wide-ranging interview with Global Times, Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez describes China’s Five-Year Plans (FYPs) as democratic, people-centred, and grounded in material reality. He emphasises that China’s success in planning stems from its ability to align governance with popular needs and long-term strategy. “China is known globally for its effective governance and for its record of keeping its promises”, he notes, citing the 13th FYP’s targeted poverty alleviation campaign as a key example of practical planning based on extensive grassroots research.

Carlos stresses that these plans are not top-down decrees but involve widespread consultation, making them highly democratic and responsive to the needs of the people.

China’s five-year plans are well-received by the people because they are based on extensive consultation with the people, and are responsive to the needs, wishes and aspirations of the people. Every plan is based on discussions with, and feedback from, the people. In that sense, the plans are highly democratic, and accord with Chinese emphasis that “the people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history.” The basic methodology of the mass line – from the masses, to the masses – has been well employed by the government and the Party in devising goals and plans.

China’s evolving development strategy, he argues, is responsive to shifting realities. Early plans focused on light industry and technological catch-up; today, priorities include green energy, advanced manufacturing, and digitisation. “Quality, rather than quantity, has become a more important feature of the country’s growth”, he observes.

Carlos credites President Xi Jinping with combining short-, medium-, and long-term planning rooted in the principles of common prosperity and ecological sustainability. Furthermore, Xi’s strategic thinking increasingly has global applicability, as seen in initiatives like the Belt and Road and the Global Development Initiative.

Contrasting China’s approach with the short-termism of Western governments, Carlos points out that, unlike the West’s shareholder-driven model, China’s system prioritises the long-term interests of the people. “Ultimately, the ‘institutional advantage’ is the political power of the working people, and the fact that, in China, people come before profit.”

GT: In China, the scientific formulation and consistent implementation of five-year plans stand as an important piece of experience in the CPC’s approach to governing the country. Why do you think China places significant emphasis on scientific formulation and consistent implementation of five-year plans?

Martinez: China is known globally for its effective governance and for its record of keeping its promises. Its objectives and plans are developed over a long period of time, and are firmly grounded in material reality and the needs and aspirations of the people.

For example, China’s 13th Five-Year Plan (2016-20) codified the central leadership’s poverty-reduction decision into the state will that is operable in practice. The targeted poverty alleviation campaign included sending officials to the countryside to identify the communities, families and individuals living in extreme poverty. Once the “facts on the ground” were established, a comprehensive plan was developed – at national, provincial, county and village levels – to sustainably lift everyone out of extreme poverty, so that they had a steady income, along with guaranteed housing, food, clothing, education, healthcare, modern energy and running water.

China keeps its promises, and it does so by mobilizing enormous resources toward key projects. In 2020, President Xi announced the country’s commitment to peaking its carbon dioxide emissions before 2030. This goal informed the current (14th) five-year plan, and appropriate targets were set at every level, throughout the country.

In summary, China develops plans that are realistic and flexible, that meet both the short-term and long-term needs of the people and that contribute to the country’s overall strategy. Once the blueprint is agreed and established, different parts and levels of the government work closely with the central government, with state-owned enterprises, private businesses, educational institutions, as well as community organizations and NGOs to implement the plan. The whole country works together to realize an agenda that aligns with the collective interest. This embodies the spirit of socialism.

There is growing need in the West to learn from successes of China’s Five-Year Plans

This article by Keith Lamb, originally published in Global Times, explains the role of Five-Year Plans in China’s economic development. These plans “function as comprehensive blueprints for national social and economic development. They outline goals, strategies, and priorities to address evolving historical challenges. In doing so, they align society toward the common good, chart a course for a better future and function as instruments for strengthening China’s democracy.”

Westerners are primed to think of socialist planning as being a highly bureaucratic and top-down affair. In reality, however, “Chinese citizens are invited to share their suggestions, concerns, and aspirations”, and “experts from a wide range of fields are consulted to ensure the plan’s feasibility”.

Keith explains how, for large-scale and long-term projects, directed toward meeting the needs of the population, state-led planning works far better than laissez-faire neoliberal economics. “Recognising China’s long-term planning as a key instrument in building a democratic reality and a sustainable future, it comes as no surprise that China now leads the world in green technology, electric vehicles, high-speed rail, and desert reclamation. Such achievements would not have been possible if capital, driven by short-term profit cycles, dominated the state at the cost of democracy and environmental well-being.”

The article notes that the current (14th) Five-Year Plan, which draws to a close this year, “has propelled China to the forefront of numerous technologies, particularly in green innovation. Consumer choice has expanded dramatically, and the countryside now boasts modern infrastructure, a thriving tourism sector, and advanced agricultural practices.”

As more Westerners begin to see beyond the corporate media narratives that demonize China, there is a growing need to learn from its successes – or risk continued decline. By prioritizing the common good, China’s Five-Year Plans are democratic, delivering material, social, and increasingly cultural improvements for the majority, not just a select elite.

As China’s 14th Five-Year Plan nears completion, the country is already setting its sights on the next plan, which Chinese President Xi Jinping has stated “must focus on the goal of basically realizing socialist modernization, with a view to building a great country and advancing national rejuvenation” at a Wednesday symposium on China’s economic and social development in the 15th Five-Year Plan period (2026-2030).

China’s Five-Year Plans function as comprehensive blueprints for national social and economic development. They outline goals, strategies, and priorities to address evolving historical challenges. In doing so, they align society toward the common good, chart a course for a better future and function as instruments for strengthening China’s democracy.

Studies show strong public support for China’s political system

The following article by prominent author, ecologist and anthropologist Jason Hickel addresses the trope, often heard in the West, that China’s political system is “authoritarian” and undemocratic. Hickel looks at the evidence from the “two main studies on this question – both conducted by established Western institutions”, indicating that “the government in China enjoys strong popular support, and that most people in China believe their political system is democratic, fair, and serves the interests of the people”.

According to the most recent study by the Alliance of Democracies, “people in China have overwhelmingly positive views of their political system. 92% of people say that democracy is important to them, 79% say that their country is democratic, 91% say that the government serves the interests of most people (rather than a small group), and 85% say all people have equal rights before the law.” Indeed, Hickel notes that China outperforms Western countries on all these metrics.

The author observes that, while China does not have a Western-style liberal democracy, “it does have its own system of democracy, which it refers to as a whole-process people’s democracy, with principles of democratic centralism and a unique party system. This system seeks to institutionalise popular engagement in the policy-making process to ensure responsiveness to people’s needs.” It turns out that “what matters most when it comes to people’s perceptions of democracy is not whether their country has Western-style elections, but whether they believe their government acts in the interest of most people”.

Readers interested in understanding more about China’s socialist democracy may wish to read articles on the topic by Roland Boer and Jenny Clegg.

Conventional narratives in the West claim that the government in China lacks popular legitimacy and only retains power through coercion. But existing evidence from the two main studies on this question – both conducted by established Western institutions – shows the opposite. These studies demonstrate that the government in China enjoys strong popular support, and that most people in China believe their political system is democratic, fair, and serves the interests of the people.

The first study is published by Harvard’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation. The Ash Center operates what they describe as “the longest-running independent effort to track Chinese citizen satisfaction with government performance”. Regular surveys have been conducted since 2003. The most recent results were published in 2020, in a report titled “Understanding CCP Resilience: Surveying Chinese Public Opinion Through Time”.

This is not a pro-China publication. In fact, the Ash Center starts with the assumption that China is an authoritarian system dependent on coercion, and is therefore likely to face a crisis of public legitimacy. But the study’s actual results establish very different conclusions.

The authors summarize their results as follows. “We find that, since the start of the survey in 2003, Chinese citizen satisfaction with government has increased virtually across the board. From the impact of broad national policies to the conduct of local town officials, Chinese citizens rate the government 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. Second, the attitudes of Chinese citizens appear to respond (both positively and negatively) to real changes in their material well-being.”

The report finds that public satisfaction with the central government is extremely high. In 2016, the final year of data, it stood at 93%, having generally increased over time. Satisfaction with lower levels of government is somewhat lower but still very strong; for instance, provincial governments enjoyed 82% support in the final year of data.

Reflections on Western and Chinese Approaches to Operate Local Government

The following article by Douglas Rooney, originally published on Li Jingjing’s China Up Close blog, contrasts Western and Chinese approaches to local governance through two key examples. In Britain, the author’s hometown faces the closure of its local Partnership Centre, a community hub, due to funding cuts. Despite the decision being framed as a local choice, the community council lacks the resources to keep it running, effectively outsourcing blame for austerity to local residents. This reflects a broader trend in Western localism, where decentralisation is championed as empowering communities but often leaves them under-resourced.

In contrast, Douglas highlights China’s 12345 Hotline – the Beijing headquarters of which was included in the itinerary of the Friends of Socialist China delegation to China in April 2024 – as a model of effective local governance. Established in 1987, the hotline allows citizens to report issues directly to the government, from minor nuisances to significant problems. With millions of calls annually and a 97 percent satisfaction rate, it provides a streamlined way for residents to communicate with authorities. The hotline, alongside other mechanisms like WeChat groups and focus groups, integrates local concerns into a centralised decision-making process, ensuring problems are addressed without overburdening local communities.

The article argues that while Western localism often devolves responsibility without adequate support, China’s approach emphasises collaboration and problem-solving. Chinese local governance is part of a broader system of whole-process people’s democracy, in which citizens are actively consulted and solutions are pursued collectively.

Douglas concludes:

While Western politics is often about parceling out responsibility (and blame) for a problem, Chinese politics is about trying to find a solution to a problem. The 12345 Hotline is probably the most representative example of this solution-orientated approach to local governance. And judging by the positive response of Chinese citizens, it is an approach to local governance that resonates with everyday people.

Douglas Rooney is a Scottish Christian Socialist, currently working in Beijing.

In my hometown, my mum serves on the local community council (the lowest tier of representative government in the UK). Community councils are usually given a minuscule budget by the larger county or city government to spend on projects in their community: host a local gala, re-paint the park benches, maintain a local news board – that sort of thing. In my hometown, these duties also include managing the local Partnership Centre. This is a large building in the center of the town where you can find the local library, a community cafe, and a dance hall – basically a one-stop shop for community activities.

At the start of this winter the community council got bad news – the county government is no longer going to cover the running costs of the Partnership Centre. However, the county hasn’t made a decision to close the Partnership Centre. Instead, they have told the community council that it is their decision if they want to keep the Centre running after the county pulls funding in the summer.

But this isn’t much of a choice: without help from the county, the local community council will have to find an extra £8000 a month for upkeep costs. In the working-class town where I grew up, it is inconceivable the community will find this kind of money. Next year, the Partnership Centre will close because the government has slashed local budgets, but, on paper at least, the decision will have been made by the local community, and this will probably be enough to ensure the lion’s share of the blame is laid at the feet of the community council.

I was thinking about this story recently when I attended the Beijing Forum on Swift Response to Public Complaints. This Forum was primarily to discuss the progress made on the 12345 Hotline (more on this later), but experts from North America and Europe were also in attendance to share their thoughts on local governance.

The key concepts put forward by Western contributors were those of a responsible citizenry and localism. We heard about how difficult it was for central or municipal government in the West to coordinate with local communities: for example, about how, during the pandemic, New York City government initially found it difficult to establish adequate local testing centres because the municipal government simply didn’t have a good idea of where in the local community had the capacity to host them.

Developing Whole-Process People’s Democracy and ensuring the people run the country

The following article, which we reprint from the English language July/August 2023 edition of Qiushi, the theoretical journal of the Communist Party of China (CPC), outlines how, since the CPC’s 18th National Congress in 2012, President Xi Jinping has put forward a key concept of whole-process people’s democracy. This concept has further enriched Marxist democratic theory and represents a historic achievement and landmark in the development of democracy in China in the new era.

This, the article states, has not only advanced China’s socialist democracy, but also offered Chinese insights and solutions for other countries as they explore and develop paths of democracy suited to their own conditions.

The article notes that: “President Xi has also creatively put forward a framework for judging whether a country is democratic or not: ‘The key factor in deciding whether a country is democratic or not is whether the people truly run the country. We must evaluate whether the people have the right to vote, and more importantly, the right to participate; what promises they are given during elections, and more importantly, how many of these promises are delivered after elections; what kind of political procedures and rules are set through state systems and laws, and more importantly, whether these systems and laws are truly enforced; and whether the rules and procedures for the exercise of power are democratic, and more importantly, whether the exercise of power is genuinely subject to public oversight and checks.’”

It further explains that:

President Xi has summarised the CPC’s adherence to and development of people’s democracy in five basic points.

First, people’s democracy is the life of socialism; without democracy, there would be no socialism, socialist modernisation, or national rejuvenation.

Second, the running of the country by the people is the essence and heart of socialist democracy. The very purpose of developing socialist democracy is to give full expression to the will of the people, protect their rights and interests, spark their creativity, and provide a system of institutions to ensure that it is they who run the country.

Third, the Chinese socialist path of political advancement is the right path, as it conforms to China’s national conditions and guarantees the position of the people as the masters of the country. It is the logical outcome of history, theory, and practice based on the endeavours of the Chinese people in modern times. It is a requisite for maintaining the nature of the Party and fulfilling its fundamental purpose.

Fourth, China’s socialist democracy takes two important forms: one in which the people exercise their rights by means of elections and voting, and another in which people from all walks of life are consulted extensively in order to reach the widest possible consensus on matters of common concern before major decisions are made. Together these make up the institutional features and strengths of China’s socialist democracy.

Fifth, the key to developing China’s socialist democracy is to fully leverage its features and strengths. As we continue to advance socialist democracy with well-defined institutions, standards, and procedures, we can provide better institutional safeguards for our Party and country’s prosperity and long-term stability.

These five basic points systematically encapsulate the essence of socialist democracy. They enrich and expand the political, theoretical, and practical significance of socialist democracy and set the goals, direction, and approach for developing whole-process people’s democracy.

Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) held in 2012, President Xi Jinping has comprehensively reviewed achievements and experiences in building China’s socialist democracy, deepened understanding of the laws governing the development of democracy, and put forward a key concept of whole-process people’s democracy. This concept has further enriched Marxist democratic theory and represents a historic achievement and landmark in the development of democracy in China in the new era.

I. President Xi Jinping’s original theoretical achievement in the area of socialist democracy

Whole-process people’s democracy is a new form of political advancement developed by the people under the leadership of the Party. Its essence is the principle of the people running the country. In November 2019, during his visit to Hongqiao Subdistrict in Shanghai, President Xi first proposed that “people’s democracy is whole-process democracy.” In July 2021, at the ceremony marking the CPC’s centenary, he declared that the Party would “practice a people-centered philosophy of development and promote whole-process people’s democracy.” In October 2021, at a central conference on work related to people’s congresses, President Xi provided a comprehensive and systematic elucidation of whole-process people’s democracy. In November 2021, the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee adopted the third resolution concerning the Party’s history, which listed “developing whole-process people’s democracy” as an important element of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. At its 20th National Congress in October 2022, the Party set forth overarching plans for “developing whole-process people’s democracy and ensuring the people run the country.”

The efforts to propose, implement, and develop whole-process people’s democracy have clearly illustrated the CPC’s firm commitment to the position of people’s democracy and the principle of the people running the country and provided sound guidance for promoting socialist political advancement in the new era. Furthermore, they have offered Chinese insights and solutions for other countries as they explore and develop paths of democracy suited to their own conditions.

President Xi has repeatedly emphasized that there are eight criteria to evaluate whether a country’s political system is democratic and effective, specifically, “We must observe whether the succession of its leaders is orderly and law-based, whether the people can participate in the management of state, social, economic, and cultural affairs in accordance with the law, whether the public can express their needs through open channels, whether all sectors of society can effectively participate in the country’s political affairs, whether the country’s decision-making can be conducted in a rational and democratic manner, whether people of all fields can join state leadership and administrative systems by way of fair competition, whether the governing party can lead state affairs in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and whether the exercise of power is subject to effective checks and oversight.”

President Xi has also creatively put forward a framework for judging whether a country is democratic or not: “The key factor in deciding whether a country is democratic or not is whether the people truly run the country. We must evaluate whether the people have the right to vote, and more importantly, the right to participate; what promises they are given during elections, and more importantly, how many of these promises are delivered after elections; what kind of political procedures and rules are set through state systems and laws, and more importantly, whether these systems and laws are truly enforced; and whether the rules and procedures for the exercise of power are democratic, and more importantly, whether the exercise of power is genuinely subject to public oversight and checks.”

Dee Knight: Traveling to prove China is not our enemy

This fascinating article by Dee Knight describes a recent peace tour to China by a small group of activists from the US, and includes Dee’s reflections on his visit and a number of topics related to China and the New Cold War.

The report includes mention of the group’s brief stopover in Taipei, and Dee briefly discusses the US’s recent undermining of the One China policy:

“Visiting Taiwan enroute to mainland China reveals something nearly everyone agrees on: Taiwan is very much part of China. Both Chinese governments agree, and the US government has shared this view since at least 1972, when US President Nixon and Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping signed a treaty to that effect. It makes you wonder why the US is pushing for Taiwan to be ‘independent’ of the mainland, spending billions to arm it to the teeth, and sending war ships through the Taiwan Strait, thus violating China’s territorial waters, at the risk of triggering a flareup to war at any moment.”

Describing the group’s trip to Shanghai, Dee contrasts the relative affluence and modernity of the city today with the poverty and backwardness imposed upon it in the early part of the 20th century, when it was a playground for Western imperialists – a time when “the colonial powers forced China’s weak government to cede control of trade in both Shanghai and Beijing” and the streets of Shanghai’s ‘International Settlement’ concessions “had signs saying ‘No Chinese or Dogs Allowed.'”

Comparing Shanghai’s transport infrastructure with that of the US, Dee writes:

Underground, the metro hums along: more than 20 lines rival the extent of New York’s MTA, and humble it for cleanliness, courteous service and safety. All the stations I saw have escalators, elevators, and super-clean floors. They also have moving barriers between the passenger platforms and incoming trains, to protect riders.

On China’s network of high-speed rail, Dee observes: “These bullet trains now connect all of China’s major cities, following the gigantic infrastructure projects of recent decades. The US has no bullet trains, and can’t seem to find the financing for them, especially since the profit potential in military production is so much higher.”

Dee also includes some reflections on China’s system of governance, describing the mechanics of its whole-process people’s democracy and countering the Western media’s tropes about China as an authoritarian tyranny and police state.

We didn’t see homeless people anywhere in China. We also didn’t see any signs of repression or oppression anywhere – including Xinjiang. The Chinese people we encountered seemed both calm and content. Tension, conflict and stress are low.

Dee writes powerfully that “visiting China made me believe peace is possible”, that the Chinese people very much do not want war or confrontation with the US, and opining that the US’s policy of trade war and military brinkmanship is a dead-end for humanity.

Cooperation, common prosperity and a shared future make much more sense. That formula has found warm welcomes across the globe. It even includes major initiatives in green development, where again China is leading the way. It has more solar and wind energy generation than the rest of the world combined. And while it still uses more fossil fuel for energy than non-polluting sources, Xi Jinping has pledged that by mid-century fossil fuels will be phased out. That would be an accomplishment worth emulating. It’s much better to save the world from burning up than continue with the current US craze of military brinksmanship!

Dee Knight is a veteran of the US peace and socialist movements, and is a member of the International Committee of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and of the Friends of Socialist China advisory group.

“China Is Not Our Enemy” was the theme of a ten-day visit to China in early November. The visit was designed to find and highlight a path to common prosperity and a shared future between China, the United States, and the rest of the world. Visiting China made me believe peace is possible.

We flew from JFK to Taipei to Shanghai. Then we took a “bullet train” to Beijing. From there we flew to Urumqi and Kashgar, Xinjiang. Then back to Urumqi to Changsha, Hunan, and from Changsha to Shanghai. Then back to Taipei and from there to JFK.

1. Taiwan is part of China.

Getting to China from the USA is easier now than it was centuries ago for Marco Polo when he traveled from Venice by camel over the old Silk Road. We boarded a jumbo jet at 1am November 1 at Kennedy Airport in New York – actually 1pm in Taiwan and China, which are 12 hours ahead of New York. The flight was a mere 17 hours, so we landed at about 6am November 2. We flew nonstop through northern Canada, then down past Japan and Korea to reach Taiwan. Service on the China Airlines jumbo jet was impeccable – two main meals, enjoyable movies, and plentiful snacks with beverage service.

Visiting Taiwan enroute to mainland China reveals something nearly everyone agrees on: Taiwan is very much part of China. Both Chinese governments agree, and the US government has shared this view since at least 1979, when US President Nixon and Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping signed a treaty to that effect. It makes you wonder why the US is pushing for Taiwan to be “independent” of the mainland, spending billions to arm it to the teeth, and sending war ships through the Taiwan Strait, thus violating China’s territorial waters, at the risk of triggering a flareup to war at any moment.

Before landing in Taipei we spoke with a Chinese couple who were part of the original post-WW2 migration from the Mainland to Taiwan after the Red Army defeated Chiang Kai Shek’s Kuomintang (KMT). Chiang transferred what was left of his army, plus thousands of camp followers and businesspeople across the strait, and took over the Taiwan government with US backing. There was no pretense of democracy – Chiang staged a military takeover and set up a dictatorship that lasted till his death in 1975, always with lavish US support. It was much the same in the southern half of Korea following Japan’s surrender at the end of WW2. There the US backed one dictator after another until the 1990s, when massive popular protests led to brief periods of democratic government – in each case ultimately suppressed by military takeovers backed by the US. Recently Biden held a summit with the leaders of Japan and South Korea to forge an alliance against China and North Korea.

Whole Process People’s Democracy is a significant contribution to human rights

The 2023 China-Europe Seminar on Human Rights was held in the Italian capital Rome on September 20, with the theme, “Modernisation and the diversity of human rights among civilisations”.

Organised by the Human Rights Institute of the South West University of Political Science and Law (SWUPL) in Chongqing, China, and the Roma 9 China-Italy Economic and Cultural Exchange Centre, and hosted by the China Society for Human Rights Studies and the Faculty of Law at Sapienza University of Rome, it was attended by distinguished academics and prominent political and social activists from China, Italy, Austria, Britain, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, Spain and Switzerland.

In his paper, entitled ‘Whole Process People’s Democracy is a significant contribution to Human Rights’, our co-editor, Keith Bennett noted that:

“To frame international relations as being characterised by a supposed struggle between democracy and autocracy, and to stigmatise, sanction and even commit acts of war against other countries on such a basis, is itself the grossest violation of the most fundamental human rights of many millions of people and potentially of the majority of humanity.”

Drawing on The German Ideology, an 1846 work by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Keith noted that, “it is on the basis of this materialist Marxist principle that socialist countries like China, and many developing countries more generally, have placed such emphasis on the liberation and development of the productive forces. This has not been to negate or to violate human rights. On the contrary, it has been the prerequisite for their development and their guarantee.

“In this way, socialist countries, both historically and today, have paved, and are paving, the way for the elaboration of a human rights paradigm that is actually focused on people’s right and ability to manage the affairs of the state, economy and society as a whole.”

Xi Jinping’s concept of whole process people’s democracy, he explained, has its roots in Marxist theory, the historical experience of the Chinese revolution and in China’s fine traditional culture and civilisational experience.

According to this concept, politics, and therefore social relations, are not characterised by an adversarial division into contending and hostile camps, but rather by a search for consensus, harmony and inclusivity, whereby the achievement of the rights of all becomes the prerequisite for the achievement of the rights of one.

The necessary prerequisite, and material basis, to fully embody such inclusive and non-adversarial democracy is the establishment of a socialist system, where exploitation and oppression are no longer the defining characteristics of society, although they may persist to a certain extent in a primary phase of socialism.

In a situation characterised variously by frequent changes of prime ministers, unstable coalition governments, and the crisis and implosion of the traditional political party system, with once almost hegemonic political forces reduced to insignificance or even extinction, whilst new party formations prove to be nebulous and ephemeral, it surely behoves those of us in Europe to look without prejudice at alternative experiences and experiments and not least at China’s evolving whole process people’s democracy.

The full text of Keith’s paper is printed below.

We also reproduce a news report on the conference originally published by the Chinese newspaper, Global Times. Reporting the presentation made by Lord (Neil) Davidson, a member of the British House of Lords from the Labour Party and former minister, it notes his observation that certain sections in the UK’s political parties have been particularly vocal in their use of human rights criticisms to attack other states’ parties, adding:

“In the case of the UK, one does not require to be steeped in history to reflect that the history of the British Empire reveals case after case of the destruction of the human rights of peoples across the world.”

He noted that discussions on human rights with the objective of mutual understanding between countries can only serve to improve relations. Differing ideologies and differing cultures are a given in today’s world but an acceptance that mutual understanding makes for a safer world for all is hardly a controversial proposition.

Whole Process People’s Democracy is a significant contribution to human rights

Thank you very much for your invitation to participate in the 2023 China-Europe Seminar on Human Rights and for giving me an opportunity to say a few words.

Dialogue of this type is extremely relevant and timely. Human rights are the universal aspiration and entitlement of humanity. But each country and each people have to find their own way to realise them. No country can genuinely claim that its human rights situation is perfect. They remain a work in progress. To frame international relations as being characterised by a supposed struggle between democracy and autocracy, and to stigmatise, sanction and even commit acts of war against other countries on such a basis, is itself the grossest violation of the most fundamental human rights of many millions of people and potentially of the majority of humanity.

Biden’s ‘Democracy Summit’ offers no anchor to a sinking US hegemony

In this article for Beijing Review, Friends of Socialist China co-editor Danny Haiphong assesses the recent ‘Summit for Democracy’. From the attendees and content of the event, which was dominated by the US and a few of its close allies in the West, Danny concludes that when the organizers use the term democracy, what they mean is “whatever policies and governance decisions serve US interests.”

Increasingly, the countries of the Global South cannot be duped by the West’s claims to democratic greatness. After all, “no one in the US, or the world, votes for or participates in the American policy of invading, sanctioning and destabilizing nations across the globe.” People are coming to understand the truth that US democracy is “a democracy for the few, a democracy of a tiny number of corporations and their political representatives; a democracy that serves the most destructive force on the planet: US hegemony.”

What the US has is “a system that weaponizes democracy for the sake of hegemony and economic domination.” This is not the democracy the world needs. It is China and the other socialist, progressive and anti-imperialist countries that are moving towards a genuinely democratic world order, based on peace, equality, sovereignty, non-interference, mutual learning and mutual benefit. The West needs to stop lecturing others on the topic of democracy, and instead learn some lessons.

U.S. President Joe Biden hosted the second “Summit for Democracy” from March 28 to 30. In the lead-up to the event, which first took place virtually in December 2021, the U.S. Department of State had promoted the three-day meeting as “a multilateral collaboration” between the U.S. and cohosts spanning four continents—Zambia, the Republic of Korea, Costa Rica and the Netherlands. But nothing could be further from the truth. The gathering proved an exercise in unilateralism that sought to reestablish the American monopoly on democracy, and a failed one at that.

The troubles for the meeting had already begun well before it got underway. Mainstream U.S. media as well as many in the U.S. foreign policy establishment questioned Biden’s decision to host the event during such a delicate period for his country’s global reputation. Chair of the Council on Foreign Relations and former Department of State official Richard Hass referred to it as “a bad idea that won’t go away.” The Washington Post called it “inconsequential” while outlets such as The New Yorker retorted that U.S. democracy is currently in “a worse state than ever before.”

British daily business newspaper Financial Times alternatively labeled the gathering “awkward” in its approach and lamented how the U.S. lacked an effective strategy toward developing stable relations with the Global South.

Counter-Summit for Democracy: where the truth was told

This article by Dee Knight – member of the DSA International Committee’s Anti-War Subcommittee and of the Friends of Socialist China advisory group – provides a valuable summary of the Counter-Summit for Democracy we hosted on 2 April 2023.

A key theme running throughout the speeches is that there was nothing democratic whatsoever about Joe Biden’s Summit for Democracy, held a few days before our counter-summit. Prominent invitees to the Summit included Israel, where mass protests are currently taking place against Netanyahu’s authoritarianism; Ukraine, which has banned all communist and socialist parties; France, where millions are protesting Macron’s anti-democratic ramming through of pension changes; and Taiwan, a province of China which was invited specifically in order to undermine the One China Principle and escalate tensions across the Taiwan Strait. Meanwhile the host country – the US – has an entirely dubious democratic record, given its disastrous racism and inequality, not to mention its habit of spreading ‘democracy’ around the world via bombs, coups, sanctions and coercion.

Several speakers noted that the socialist countries are leading the way in terms of developing new forms of popular democracy that are responsive to the needs and aspirations of ordinary people. Meanwhile, US hegemony is dying and a multipolar world is emerging – a system of international relations based on equality, respect for sovereignty, and adherence to the UN Charter. As Calla Walsh commented, “Biden’s summit for democracy would better have been called a summit against a democratic world.”

This article first appeared in LA Progressive.

Speakers at the April 2 “Counter-Summit for Democracy” showed a rogues’ gallery of the “stars of democracy” at Joe Biden’s official summit: authoritarian right-wing leaders Netanyahu of Israel, Duda of Poland, Modi of India, Zelensky of Ukraine and Meloni of Italy. “Even Western officials, corporate media outlets, and mainstream human rights organizations have admitted [they] are authoritarian,” Ben Norton of the GeoPolitical Economy report observed. He said Italy’s far-right Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni “is a defender of former fascist dictator Benito Mussolini… Her far-right political party Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy) still uses the same symbols and colors of Mussolini’s fascist movement.”

Netanyahu spoke at Biden’s summit while mass protests were going on in Israel against his authoritarian regime. Israel’s most influential newspaper Haaretz warns that “‘Israel’s Government Has neo-Nazi Ministers. It Really Does Recall Germany in 1933′.”

The US pressured all invitees to sign a joint statement denouncing Russia over the proxy war in Ukraine, Norton said. Poland is virulently anti-Russia, so it was welcomed; Hungary has tried to balance good relations with both the West and Russia, so it was the only EU member not invited.

The governments of Lula Da Silva in Brazil and Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) of Mexico refused to support Washington’s denunciation of Moscow. Norton said “the US government exposed its cynical political designs by inviting Ukraine and Taiwan to participate in the summit, despite the fact that Taiwan island is not a country, but rather a province of the People’s Republic of China.”

Volodymyr Zelensky spoke at the conference in spite of his attacks on democracy at home, Norton said. “Zelensky’s regime has banned all communist and socialist parties, while imposing some of the most aggressive anti-worker legislation in the world, suspending collective bargaining rights and essentially making it illegal to form a union. Even the New York Times… acknowledged that Zelensky’s regime has imposed authoritarian control over the media. Meanwhile, Ukrainian opposition politicians and critics have been arbitrarily arrested.”

Videos: The Counter-Summit for Democracy

On 2 April 2023, Friends of Socialist China and the International Manifesto Group co-hosted a powerful and successful Counter-Summit for Democracy, a response to the US-sponsored so-called Summit for Democracy held a few days earlier.

The participants at this counter-summit exposed the hegemonic reality behind the US’s talk of a ‘rules-based world order’; explored alternative models of democracy; denounced US-led attempts at ‘decoupling’ and incitement of division; promoted an emerging multipolar, multilateral model of international relations; and called for for global cooperation to solve the vast problems collectively faced by humanity.

The videos from the event are embedded below.

Full event stream

Carlos Martinez: the ‘democracies vs autocracies’ narrative is part of an imperialist propaganda war

Margaret Kimberley: democracy and imperialism are antithetical

Lowkey: the West’s record of genocidal war speaks to its commitment to human rights

Luna Oi: the US working class and oppressed groups suffer systematic abuse of their human rights

Carlos Ron: Latin Americans understand very well that the US has no respect for our sovereignty

Pawel Wargan: the antidote to this brutal capitalist democracy is popular, socialist democracy

Calla Walsh: the ‘democratic’ US is suffocating Cuba because of its socialist democracy

Ju-Hyun Park: Build solidarity with Korea’s anti-imperialist struggle

Mohammad Marandi: The West is a declining empire

Ben Norton: participant list shows that the Summit for Democracy is really a Summit for Hypocrisy

Interview: The US system is plutocratic rather than democratic

In this interview for Xinhua, carried out against the backdrop of President Biden’s so-called Summit for Democracy 2023, Carlos Martinez rejects the US ruling class’s claim to be the arbiter of which countries are democratic and which aren’t. The US is in fact “a democracy for the capitalist class – the ruling class, the group of people that own and deploy capital.” Such a democracy “prioritizes fossil fuel profits over preventing climate breakdown; it prioritizes private medical companies and pharmaceutical industry profits over saving lives; it prioritizes the military-industrial complex over preserving peace.” Noting the disastrous and escalating levels of systemic racism in the US, Carlos asks: “Does anybody seriously think this represents the pinnacle of democracy?”

Carlos contrasts the actions of the US government with those of China: “The Chinese government is prioritizing common prosperity, developing clean energy systems in order to protect the planet, rolling out infrastructure throughout the country, tackling corruption, building peaceful and mutually beneficial relations with the peoples of the world.” The alignment between the government’s actions and the needs and aspirations of ordinary people is a strong indicator that China is far more democratic than its detractors in the West.

The United States is portraying itself as the universal model of democracy, but in fact its system is “plutocratic rather than democratic,” British political commentator Carlos Martinez has said.

“As a capitalist democracy, the U.S. is a democracy for the capitalist class — the ruling class, the group of people that own and deploy capital. As many people have pointed out, it is a money democracy, and the government meets the interests primarily of the wealthy,” Martinez told Xinhua in a recent written interview.

“In England we say that ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating.’ Similarly, you can tell the nature of a government by its actions; by its economic, political and social priorities,” he wrote.

In Martinez’s view, the U.S. government “prioritizes fossil fuel profits over preventing climate breakdown; it prioritizes private medical companies and pharmaceutical industry profits over saving lives; it prioritizes the military-industrial complex over preserving peace. These priorities match those of the elite, not the people, not the vast majority of people that work for a living.”

Despite being one of the richest countries in the world, the United States sees an increasing number of homeless people each year and declining life expectancy, he said.

“The scourge of racism is getting worse in the U.S. This structural racism is evident throughout society: in health indicators, in educational outcomes, in economic outcomes,” Martinez noted.

“Black people, Latinos and indigenous Americans are far more likely to suffer chronic poverty, to live in crowded housing, and to lack access to healthcare. This is the continuing unaddressed legacy of slavery, genocide, colonization and apartheid. Does anybody seriously think this represents the pinnacle of democracy?” he asked.

“Given the state of U.S. democracy, it’s nothing short of farcical that the (Joe) Biden administration persists with organizing the so-called Summit for Democracy,” Martinez said.

He further said that the U.S. government is failing to improve people’s lives, and so “it uses nice words about democracy to attract voters.”

On geopolitics, the Biden administration is using the summit to consolidate an alliance that seeks to protect U.S. hegemony and impede humanity’s movement towards multipolarity, noted Martinez, who also closely watched the first episode of the summit in 2021.

“The Summit for Democracy is, in reality, a summit for hegemony,” he said.

Speaking of China’s democratic practices, he said that the Chinese government is “prioritizing common prosperity, developing clean energy systems in order to protect the planet, rolling out infrastructure throughout the country, tackling corruption, building peaceful and mutually beneficial relations with the peoples of the world.”

“These priorities are entirely consistent with the needs and aspirations of the Chinese people,” he wrote.

Citing challenges such as climate change, nuclear proliferation and poverty, Martinez said what the world needs is genuine democracy in international relations.

“Cooperation, mutual respect, non-interference and a win-win approach are absolutely necessary to secure a safe future for humanity,” he said.

Summit for Democracy 2023 – “a bad idea that won’t go away”

This article by Dee Knight – member of the DSA International Committee’s Anti-War Subcommittee and the Friends of Socialist China advisory group – casts light on the stunning hypocrisy involved in Biden’s so-called Summit for Democracy, held in the last week of March 2023. Dee points out that, even among friends of the US ruling class, there are very few positive opinions about the Summit, and an increasingly generalized sense that US democracy is going in the losing influence. Dee cites Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador telling the hard truth at the Summit itself: “Many of the great crimes against humanity have been committed… in the name of democracy… In some countries, the oligarchy reigns with the façade of democracy.”

Dee also references a series of documents released by China in the days preceding the Summit, incuding State of Democracy in US: 2022 and the Report on US Human Rights Violations in 2022. These documents highlight the systematic abuse of democracy and the manifold human rights violations committed by the US administration, including the tight correlation between wealth and power; the loss of abortion rights; the extensive use of military force and unilateral sanctions; mass incarceration; the cruel treatment of migrants; and the alarming rise in hate crimes. In such a situation, Dee writes, “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”

The author encourages readers to tune in to our Counter-Summit for Democracy.

This article was first carried in LA Progressive.

Positive descriptive terms for this year’s US-sponsored “Summit for Democracy” are scarce. A State Department press release quoted Joe Biden that “we have to prove democracy still works and can improve people’s lives in tangible ways.” That’s “a tough hill to climb,” according to the Washington Post’s March 29 “Today’s Worldview.”

“Critics see the event as an inconsequential talk shop,” the Post said, “or an unwelcome showcase into the inconsistency of US foreign policy on the world stage, as Washington goes to bat for human rights in some contexts and looks the other way in others.”

Some critics were harsher. Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said “the summit for democracy is a bad idea that [won’t] go away,” adding that “American democracy is hardly a model for others.”

Le Monde, the French newspaper, wrote recently that 2022 was “a year of doubt for US democracy.” Sweden’s International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance added the US to its “list of regressive democracies.” US democracy is “in a worse state than ever before,” according to The New Yorker, Washington Post, and the Brookings Institution. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reports that American democracy is “declining faster as the inherent ills of American capitalism worsen.”

So much for those who usually defend the US viewpoint. Stronger views are easy to find. Organizers of a Counter-Summit for Democracy say “Biden’s attempts to consolidate a ‘democratic’ alliance are part of the escalating US-led New Cold War. Labelling socialist and anti-imperialist states as ‘authoritarian,’ the US ruling elite seeks to consolidate a military, economic and political bloc on the basis of its own narrow interests, and to build popular support for its rising hostility towards China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Syria, Eritrea, Zimbabwe and other countries in the crosshairs of imperialism.”

Organizers – Pivot To Peace, Veterans For Peace, Popular Resistance, Friends of Socialist China, and a dozen other groups – say the Counter-Summit “will expose the hegemonic reality behind the US talk of a ‘rules-based world order;’ explore alternative models of democracy; promote an emerging multipolar, multilateral model of international relations; and call for global cooperation to solve the vast problems faced by humanity.”

Participants include Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Report, Vijay Prashad of India’s Tricontinental Institute, Pawel Wargan of the Progressive International, and Venezuela’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Carlos Ron, among others. There will also be voices from China, Cuba, Vietnam, Iran, Korea and Nicaragua.

Mexican President AMLO: ‘Crimes in the name of democracy’

President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) of Mexico shook up the summit March 29, declaring “Many of the great crimes against humanity have been committed… in the name of democracy.” He added that “in some countries, the oligarchy reigns with the façade of democracy.” He asked, “How can we talk about democracy if there is no separation of economic power and political power?” In many countries he said there is “a mixture of oligarchy and democracy, or a simulated and mediated democracy,” adding that “We must search for greater equality to have more democracy.”

AMLO’s sharp comments follow his March 18 speech condemning US politicians who called for a military invasion of Mexico “to combat drug trafficking.” Speaking to a throng of hundreds of thousands in Mexico City’s “Zócalo” (central plaza), AMLO said “We remind those hypocritical and irresponsible politicians that Mexico is an independent and free country, not a colony or a protectorate of the United States!” He had convened the event to commemorate the 85th anniversary of the 1938 oil nationalization by revolutionary former President Lázaro Cárdenas. He mentioned that he recently re-nationalized Mexico’s oil resources, and its lithium reserves, which may have been a factor in recent US politicians’ invasion threats.

China’s English-language newspaper Global Times editorialized March 28 that the summit is being “used by the Biden administration as a tool to reaffirm US leadership in so-called democracy and human rights. Its ambition to pull more countries into its interest camp to contain its rivals, especially China and Russia.”

Economist Michael Hudson, speaking on Danny Haiphong’s Left Lens video show March 30, called the summit “a charade” that is “pushing the world away.” He pointed to Secretary of State Blinken’s insistence that participants “deplore Russia’s aggression against Ukraine,” ignoring the US-backed coup in 2014 that brought fascists to power and ignited a war against Russian speakers in eastern and southern Ukraine.

Last year’s Summit of the Americas hit many sour notes: “Official ‘Americas Summit’ Sags While People’s Summit Surges” (June 3, 2022); “Is the Failure of Biden’s Summit of the Americas a Welcome Event?” (June 8, 2022); “Storms at the Summit of the Americas” (June 12, 2022); “‘Summit of Exclusion’ Backfires on Biden” (June 15, 2022); “Summit of the Americas Flops” (June 22, 2022) – and on and on.

In “Storms at the Summit of the Americas,” Rosa Miriam Elizalde wrote “hypocrisy seems to be the glue of this summit, and mainstream U.S. media and analysts declared the June 6-10 meeting a failure before it even started.”

Online event: The Counter-Summit for Democracy

Our next online event takes place on Sunday 2 April 2023, 11am (US Eastern) / 8am (US Pacific) / 4pm (Britain) / 11pm (China).

Biden‘s attempts to consolidate a ‘democratic’ alliance are part of the escalating US-led New Cold War. Labelling socialist and anti-imperialist states as ‘authoritarian’, the US ruling elite seeks to consolidate a military, economic and political bloc on the basis of its own narrow interests, and to build popular support for its rising hostility towards China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, the DPRK, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Syria, Eritrea, Zimbabwe and other countries in the crosshairs of imperialism.

The US and its allies are seeking to universalize the Western model of so-called liberal democracy. This narrative provides valuable cover for the fundamentally plutocratic nature of neoliberal capitalism, whilst simultaneously asserting that all other models of democracy – such as China‘s whole-process people’s democracy – lack legitimacy.

Held to coincide with Biden‘s Summit for Democracy 2023, this counter-summit will: expose the hegemonic reality behind the US’s talk of a ‘rules-based world order’; explore alternative models of democracy; denounce US-led attempts at ‘decoupling’ and incitement of division; promote an emerging multipolar, multilateral model of international relations; and call for global cooperation to solve the vast problems collectively faced by humanity.

Confirmed speakers

Vijay Prashad (Executive Director, Tricontinental Institute)
Seyed Mohammad Marandi (Professor, University of Tehran)
Luna Oi (Vietnamese blogger and broadcaster)
Victor Gao (Chair Professor, Soochow University)
Margaret Kimberley (Executive Editor, Black Agenda Report)
Lowkey (Musician and activist / Journalist with MintPress News)
Carlos Ron (Venezuelan vice-minister / President of the Instituto Simón Bolívar)
Ben Norton (Editor, Geopolitical Economy Report)
Pawel Wargan (Coordinator of the International Secretariat, Progressive International)
Ju-Hyun Park (Organizer and writer with the Nodutdol collective)
Calla Walsh (Co-Chair of the National Network on Cuba)

Organizers

This webinar is jointly organised by Friends of Socialist China and the International Manifesto Group, and is co-sponsored by the following groups:

Please register and spread the word!

The Summit for Democracy is really a summit for hegemony

In this opinion piece for China Daily, Carlos Martinez exposes the hypocrisy and cynicism of Joe Biden’s second Summit for Democracy, which takes place 28-30 March 2023. Carlos writes that the goals of this Summit are: firstly, to buttress Biden’s 2024 presidential campaign, diverting attention from the startling lack of progress his administration has made thus far in improving people’s lives; and secondly, to consolidate a global military and economic alliance built around the specific interests of the US ruling class and its ‘Project for a New American Century’. This is a Cold War alliance aimed at the containment and encirclement of China, the undermining of Russia, and escalated hostilities against Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Iran, Syria, Belarus, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and other countries.

Carlos writes that “Biden’s Summit for Democracy is part of an elaborate marketing campaign that places an equal sign between hegemonism and democracy and, conversely, between sovereign development and authoritarianism.” Such division is reckless and dangerous, particularly at a time when humanity faces collective existential threats of the magnitude of climate change and nuclear war.

The article notes that Friends of Socialist China and the International Manifesto Group are organizing a Counter-Summit for Democracy on Sunday 2 April, in order to expose the hegemonic reality behind US talk of a “rules-based world order”.

Embedded below the article is a short video, produced by China Daily, in which Carlos Martinez and David Castrillon-Kerrigan, a professor and researcher at Externado University of Colombia, share their views on the Summit for Democracy.

With his second so-called Summit for Democracy, US President Joe Biden is seeking to achieve two goals, one domestic and one international.

On the domestic front, he is still struggling to define a political identity that can appeal to voters in next year’s presidential election. Consistently polling about 40 percent in approval ratings, Biden has delivered very little for the American people in over two years in office.

The Biden administration’s handling of the novel coronavirus pandemic has been abysmal. There has been precious little action on the social justice issues that are supposed to be the hallmark of a Democratic leadership. Real GDP growth is projected to be almost zero this year. And the United States is failing in its climate action responsibilities.

Worse, it has been sending tens of billions of dollars worth of heavy weaponry to Ukraine to fight a proxy war against Russia, while its infrastructure crumbles and tens of millions are denied access to healthcare.

In the face of his administration’s failure to actually improve people’s lives, Biden is campaigning on the basis of liberal democratic ideology — a very specific vision of democracy based on the political and economic needs of the capitalist class. His strategists have calculated that this narrative will help create some distance between him and his likely competitor for the presidency — which could be Donald Trump, who is not known for adhering to any sort of democratic thinking, bourgeois or otherwise.

CPC enjoys close, unbreakable bond with people

In the following article, which was originally published by China Daily to coincide with the Communist Party of China’s 20th National Congress last October, Zheng Qi, a Professor at the Party School of the CPC Central Committee, provides a vivid and moving historical and contemporary exposition of the relationship between the CPC and the Chinese people. Replete with vivid and truthful examples, the article sheds profound light on a key to the party’s success and to the strength and durability of the Chinese revolution.

He begins with a true story from the epic Long March (1934-35) when a Red Army squad decided to spend the night at a small village. Three women soldiers took shelter under the eaves of a house belonging to a woman named Xu Jiexiu to escape the rain. Seeing their condition, Xu invited them to spend the night in her home.

The three women along with Xu and her child slept together under a worn-out cotton sheet and the quilt of the soldiers. Leaving the house the next day, the three women soldiers cut their only quilt in two, leaving one half with Xu. In those days of starvation and suffering, a quilt was a valuable asset for many Chinese people. Many years later, Xu recalled: “What is the CPC? It is a group of people that will cut and share their quilt with the poor even if they only have one.”

Explaining the nature of such a bond, Professor Zheng says that, “the CPC is a Marxist party whose members are part of the working people.” It was established in the summer of 1921 by 13 young people representing just over 50 communists. With an average age of 28, and predominantly students and intellectuals, they embodied a new force in Chinese society, determined to become a party of the people and not simply, “a Marxist society for men of letters”.

The article explains how, as the ruling party, the CPC is aware of the increased risk of becoming divorced from the people. Taking an example from Chongqing, a major city in western China, Zheng notes that the party committee might lose touch even with a community of just a few thousand people, hence party groups were formed for every residential building or cluster of buildings, with some party members putting signs on their doors so residents could easily approach them if they needed help at any time.

As Professor Zheng puts it: “There is no conflict between carrying out the instructions of higher authorities and addressing the needs of the people, because the Party has always represented the fundamental interests of the people. As CPC Central Committee General Secretary Xi Jinping said, ‘The people’s aspiration for a better life is what we are striving for.'”

And just as Marx and Engels wrote in 1847, in The Manifesto of the Communist Party, that the communists, “have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement,” so Professor Zheng echoes the words of Xi Jinping when he writes: “Aside from the fundamental interests of the people, the Party has no special interests of its own.”

Let me first explain the bond between the Communist Party of China and the Chinese people through a true story. A Red Army squad passing through Hunan province during the Long March decided to spend the night at a small village. Three women soldiers took shelter under the eaves of a house belonging to a woman named Xu Jiexiu to escape the rain. Seeing their condition, Xu invited them to spend the night in her home.

The three women along with Xu and her child slept together under a worn-out cotton sheet and the quilt of the soldiers. Leaving the house the next day, the three women soldiers cut their only quilt in two, leaving one half with Xu. In those days of starvation and suffering, a quilt was a valuable asset for many Chinese people.

A force that works for betterment of people

Many years later, Xu recalled: “What is the CPC? It is a group of people that will cut and share their quilt with the poor even if they only have one.” This ideally describes the bond between the Party and the Chinese people.

Why does the CPC enjoy such a close bond with the people?

The CPC is a Marxist party whose members are part of the working people. In the summer of 1921, 13 young people representing 50-plus communists founded the CPC. While their average age was 28 and many were still students, they embodied a new force in Chinese society. And despite many of its members being intellectuals, the Party declared its goal was to deeply engage with ordinary people and build a party of the people, instead of establishing a “Marxist society for men of letters”.

To this end, Mao Zedong who was then 28 visited Anyuan, a coal-mining town on the border of Hunan and Jiangxi provinces, to explore the revolutionary prospects there. During the first few days, Mao went down the pit wearing decent, if not expensive, clothes and shoes. No miner talked to him.

This prompted him to change into shabby clothes and shoes. Soon, Mao was talking with workers in their sheds and sharing revolutionary ideas. Later, the miners in Anyuan formed the backbone of the Autumn Harvest Uprising led by Mao. About 5,000 miners joined the revolution and followed Mao in establishing the revolutionary base in Jinggangshan.

Xi Jinping’s ‘authoritarian turn’: the CPC’s 20th Congress maintains internal stability at a time of multiple global crises

This article by Jenny Clegg, author of China’s Global Strategy: towards a multipolar world, addresses the question of China’s putative ‘authoritarianism’, and in particular the issue of Xi Jinping’s election for a third five-year term as General Secretary of the CPC, which marks a break with the two-term limit introduced in the 1980s.

The author opines that China is opting for continuity and stability, in the face of “complex, unpredictable and fast changing international currents” – in particular the escalating US-led New Cold War – and a crucial shift in the emphasis of China’s economic strategy towards common prosperity and sustainable development.

Jenny writes that Xi’s supposed ‘authoritarian turn’ is “keeping China on a steady course, united in purpose”, whilst continuing to encourage vibrant inner-party democracy and exhaustive debate on key policies. “At a time of growing political chaos as the world’s dominant ruling classes flail about amidst multiple crises, the 20th CPC Congress stands out as an example of orderliness and clarity of direction.”

The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) has made headlines in the mainstream media, but hardly because China’s future is of great consequence for the future of the world – rather, all eyes are on Xi Jinping’s continuing into a third 5-year term as Party General Secretary. What an opportunity, so the pundits think, to hype up the New Cold War by contrasting China’s ‘autocratic’ methods of leadership succession against the virtues of the West’s democratic ways.

Xi is being ‘anointed,’ we are told, or ‘crowned’, as China’s leader.

When, from the 1990s, the CPC introduced collective leadership, two-term limits on key posts, and other mechanisms institutionalising leadership selection in order to guard against the re-emergence of personality cults and political upheaval, this was widely welcomed both within China and beyond as a step forward in modernising and democratising the Party. In 2018 however, under Xi’s leadership, the two-term limit was abolished – a major factor in causing Western political elites to give up hope of integrating China into the existing global system under their dominance.

Of course, China’s centralised system has cultural and historical roots going back millennia. However, these traditions were profoundly transformed after 1949 by the CPC’s practice of democratic centralism – of ‘top-down, ‘bottom up’ processes of decision-making. Throughout its history the CPC has nevertheless gone through phases of relative tightening and relaxing of central control.

It is important then to understand why the CPC is once again strengthening its leadership, seeking to consolidate authority under a single leadership figure, at this time. A number of factors are at play.

External conditions

In the first place there are the external conditions to consider. Since 2011 when Obama announced his Asian pivot, the US has increasingly squeezed China using both military and economic pressure not only to block China’s growing global influence – which has extended peacefully through for example the Belt and Road Initiative – but also, going beyond containment, to aggressively enforce technological and economic decoupling. The US has now effectively pledged to do all it can to obstruct China’s further development whilst mobilising all possible global forces and resources in preparation for a war, with Taiwan as the most likely pretext.

Amidst complex, unpredictable and fast changing international currents, the CPC must stay both firm and flexible in order to respond effectively at a time when China is also undergoing huge structural changes.

The CPC: the most successful political party in history

The following article, written for China Today by Carlos Martinez, describes the historic progress China has made over the last decade, and seeks to understand the political framework in which this progress has been made. “Why China? Why is it China and not another country that has carried out the most comprehensive poverty elimination in history? How has China been able to leap from a state of intense poverty, underdevelopment and backwardness just 73 years ago to becoming a country with the second-largest economy in the world, with the average life expectancy of its citizens surpassing that of people in the United States?” Carlos concludes that the answer lies in “China’s political system, its revolutionary history, and the leadership of the CPC”. He opines that China’s socialist system privileges the interests of the masses, unlike the capitalist countries, in which the capitalist class is the ruling class and the interests of the people are subjugated to those of profit. Carlos concludes by noting that China’s successes are a source of inspiration to progressive people the world over.

The 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC), which commenced on October 16, 2022, is seen as a milestone event in the history of the CPC.

In the Report delivered by Xi Jinping, general secretary of the CPC Central Committee, to the Congress, major achievements that the country has accomplished over the past 10 years were summarized.

A decade ago, Xi Jinping put forward the Two Centenary goals: to achieve a “moderately prosperous society in all respects” by the centenary of the CPC in 2021, and a “great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious and beautiful” by the centenary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 2049.

The core component of achieving a “moderately prosperous society in all respects” was the campaign to alleviate extreme poverty. This goal was achieved in late 2020 – remarkably, whilst China was concurrently battling the COVID-19 pandemic (a pandemic which has sadly resulted in a dramatic rise in poverty in many countries around the world). At the start of the targeted poverty alleviation program in 2014, just under 100 million people were identified as living below the poverty line; seven years later, the number was zero.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stated that China had carried out “the greatest anti-poverty achievement in history.” To eradicate extreme poverty in a developing country of 1.4 billion people – which at the time of the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 was one of the poorest countries in the world – is without a doubt an extraordinary accomplishment.

Video: Whose democracy? Beijing, New York show vast contrast

The video embedded below is the last in a three-part series on democracy made by China Daily, based on an interview with Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez. In this segment, Carlos talks about visiting both New York City and Beijing for the first time in 2019, and the stark contrast between the two cities. New York, in spite of being a major centre of wealth, contains terrible levels of poverty, inequality, homelessness and discrimination, and its infrastructure is collapsing. Beijing on the other hand is modern, efficient, clean and well-organised, and the fundamental human rights of all its citizens are guaranteed. What this small example reflects is the difference between Western democracy – a democracy for the elite – and Chinese socialist democracy, which works for the masses of the people.

You can also see part 1 and part 2 of the series.