Technology Archives - Friends of Socialist China

TikTok and the threat to cultural hegemony

The following article by Carlos Martinez responds to a recent article in The Times complaining about TikTok users not being sufficiently anti-China. The only explanation the Times journalist can muster is that TikTok’s algorithms must be weighted to promote pro-CPC content.

Carlos observes that TikTok users are predominantly young, and posits that young people are less vulnerable to anti-China hysteria than older generations – at least in part due to China’s leading role in the battle against climate breakdown; its concerted efforts to reduce poverty and improve living standards; and its orientation towards peace, which contrasts starkly with the West’s orientation towards war.

Carlos concludes that imperialist cultural hegemony is under threat:

Throughout the Western world, people are learning to question and reject the crass propaganda pumped out by the mainstream media’s State Department stenographers in relation to Palestine, China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Iran, the DPRK and more. This is an entirely welcome development.

A recent article in The Times, entitled Why TikTok ‘makes people more eager to visit China’, worries that “people who spend hours scrolling on TikTok are more likely to want to visit China — possibly because the platform censors material that portrays the country in a negative light”. The article’s author is particularly concerned that TikTok users might “see an airbrushed view of China and its human rights record”.

Researchers found that, horrifyingly, users searching on TikTok for terms such as “Tiananmen” or “Tibet” were exposed to a significant number of results that failed to denounce the Communist Party of China. Indeed, it seems that heavy TikTok users typically rate China’s human rights record as “medium”, whereas non-TikTok users rate it as “poor”.

Lee Jussim, a co-author of the research on which the Times article is based, said: “We did the studies because there was ample reason long before our studies to suspect CCP manipulation of TikTok. It’s one thing to suspect, it’s quite another to find it empirically.” He concludes: “Social media companies should be required to publicly disclose how their algorithms determine what content users can access.”

Imperialist propaganda losing its impact?

Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s classic 1988 work Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media explores the connection between the economic interests of the ruling class and the ideas that are communicated via mass media: “The media serve, and propagandise on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them. The representatives of these interests have important agendas and principles that they want to advance, and they are well positioned to shape and constrain media policy.”

Western media hostility to China has reached fever pitch in recent years. The accusation that China is committing a genocide (or “cultural genocide”) in Xinjiang has been repeated so often as to acquire the force of truth, in spite of the notable absence of any meaningful evidence in its support. Rioters in Hong Kong are presented as saintly defenders of democratic principles. Chinese weather balloons, kettles and smart TVs are all spying on us, and inscrutable Chinese scientists are sending our secrets directly to the People’s Liberation Army.

Fu Manchu is back, and this time he wants to take our freedoms away.

In Britain as in the US, the bourgeoisie is divided on many issues, but there is a clear consensus when it comes to waging a propaganda war on China. And yet it seems that anti-China propaganda is losing its impact, particularly among young people.

The statistical categories presented by the authors of the research are “those who don’t use TikTok” and “those who spent more than three hours a day on the platform”. Age is fairly obviously a confounding variable here: a significant majority of TikTok users are under 30, and only 27 percent are over the age of 45. Young adults (18-24 years) make up over half of TikTok content creators.

So inasmuch as we can derive anything useful from the research, it’s that younger generations are less invested than their grandparents in idiotic Cold War narratives. That may be partly a reflection of the fact that TikTok’s algorithms – in flagrant violation of the well-known and universal rules of social media – don’t actively boost anti-China content and suppress pro-China content. But it also speaks to the genuine concerns and interests of young people.

For example, surveys consistently show that young people are more worried about the prospect of climate breakdown and are more likely to consider the environmental crisis as an existential threat to humanity. As such, they might be expected to welcome the news that China will account for 60 percent of all renewable energy capacity installed worldwide between now and 2030 (according to the International Energy Agency); that China has likely already reached its 2030 goal of peaking carbon emissions; that China is fast phasing out fossil fuel vehicles; that China leads the world in afforestation and biodiversity protection; and that China’s investment in renewables has led to a 80 percent reduction in the cost of solar and wind energy globally.

Furthermore, young people are notorious for having a curious predilection for peace, and perhaps many of them are impressed by the fact that China hasn’t been to war in over four decades; that it has one overseas military base, compared to the US’s 800; that it has a consistent policy of no first use of nuclear weapons, while the US has a consistent policy of nuclear bullying; that it has worked diligently towards peace in Gaza and Ukraine, while the US has been financing, arming and promoting genocide and war.

While TikTok doesn’t actively suppress negative stories about China, what makes it unique among major social media apps is that it also doesn’t suppress positive stories about China. Users are exposed to a variety of voices, including those who highlight China’s extraordinary development, its contributions to climate change solutions, its successes tackling poverty, and its appeal as a travel destination.

Cybernetics with Chinese Characteristics: How big data is eliminating poverty and building socialism

We are pleased to republish below an article by Taylor Dorrell on China’s use of big data and other digital technologies to tackle poverty and improve livelihoods.

Describing the unprecedented successes of China’s Targeted Poverty Alleviation (TPA) program, Taylor notes that the immense human effort associated with the program (involving the deployment of several million cadres to work in impoverished areas and collect raw data on household poverty) has been greatly facilitated by the use of digital technologies. For example, at the Information Center of the State Council Office of Poverty Alleviation, “billions of pieces of data are mobilised like ammunition to wage a decentralised war against poverty”. Meanwhile:

In the province of Guizhou, the government established the “Guizhou Poverty Alleviation Cloud” information system, which connected data from different government departments, sharing housing, education, and medical care data with industrial departments and data from poor households. Guizhou Renhe Zhiyuan Data Service Co., Ltd. collected data from over 20,000 villages to create a customized training program for workers based on skills and employment. It’s just a small example of how cybernetics has been used to address poverty.

Taylor joins the historical dots from the Soviet Union’s early experiments with cybernetics (to improve economic planning), through to the Allende government’s Cybersyn project in Chile, and on to China’s contemporary use of big data to eliminate poverty.

Using big data and modelling, China has been able to track and eradicate absolute poverty, a feat never taken on, not to mention achieved, by any country in history.

This article originally appeared on People’s World.

In China’s countryside, it is common to find elderly farmers moving from their ancient homes to new developments sprouting up across the land. Houses discovered to be in the path of disasters like floods and landslides, or houses that are simply too old, are being left for new condos closer to industrial or post-industrial jobs.

When Peng Lanhua’s 200-year-old home was designated unsafe to live in by the government, she turned down the opportunity to move to a new community an hour away, and instead, despite her age, or perhaps because of it (she’s approaching 90 and has seen China transformed from being a feudal state occupied by Japan to becoming an economic superpower), she chose to stay in the dilapidated structure.

Were Peng born in a crumbling shack in West Virginia, she might find herself with few prospects. Living with Alzheimer’s on a modest pension and low-income insurance, there would be little hope of fixing up her home, securing basic amenities, and improving her material conditions in her final years.

There is no government or party cadre visiting every trailer home in West Virginia villages to learn how the state and private markets can be mobilized to secure a minimum standard of living. There is no team following up to verify the conditions and see who has been raised out of poverty. However, Peng doesn’t live in Appalachia, but rather a remote village in Guizhou Province, a place that has been a part of China’s poverty alleviation program and was the subject of a recent study carried out by the international left-wing institute, Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research.

In 2013, China began the “targeted” phase of its long-running poverty alleviation program. Spending $246 billion to build almost 700,000 miles of rural roads, bringing internet to 98% of the country’s poor villages, renovating homes for more than 26 million people, and building new homes for almost 10 million people, China’s Targeted Poverty Alleviation (TPA) program is not tailored solely towards satisfying strict income requirements and quantitative improvements.

Following the slogan “one income, two assurances, and three guarantees,” the program addresses what’s called Multidimensional Poverty. “One income” refers to raising the daily income above the UN poverty line of $1.90; “two assurances” refers to food and clothing; and “three guarantees” is in reference to access to basic medical services, safe housing with clean drinking water and electricity, and free education.

China’s DeepSeek AI reveals advantages of socialism

The following article by Hugo East, originally published in Workers World, describes the rapid rise of DeepSeek’s R1 model, the corresponding stock devaluation of the US tech giants, and the role played by China’s socialist market economy in fostering innovation.

Hugo writes that “DeepSeek owes its efficacy to the socialist character of the People’s Republic of China… Socialist planning has enabled the PRC’s meteoric rise as a world power rivaling the US, as evidenced by the success of DeepSeek.” He relates the emergence of DeepSeek to the inauguration ten years ago of the Made in China 2025 initiative, which sought to transform China from an exporter of relatively low-cost manufactured goods into a global leader in innovation.

Citing the Critical Technology Tracker (published by the think tank Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)) the article notes that in the period from 2017 to 2023, China was the leading country in 57 of 64 critical technologies. The author writes that Made in China 2025 “fits squarely within China’s socialist economic development as first initiated by the Communist Party of China (CPC) in 1949 under the leadership of its then-leader Chairman Mao Zedong”.

The article also points out that DeepSeek’s success proves the ineffectiveness of US sanctions against China, which have only served to accelerate China’s technological development. “Just like the PRC’s recent ascendency in automotive manufacturing, DeepSeek has found success despite the U.S.’s attempts to starve China’s AI industry of supposedly vital resources through a targeted trade embargo.”

With computing power limited by the US government’s semiconductor war, Chinese researchers have had to rely on “algorithmic innovation” – which has also “had the effect of making DeepSeek much less expensive, both in direct financial cost and in energy consumption”.

Hugo concludes:

DeepSeek is just one of several technological and scientific innovations developed under a socialist economy that challenges capitalist profits while benefiting the whole world.

The Chinese company DeepSeek released its artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot to the U.S. market on Jan. 20. By the following week, it was the most downloaded app on the iOS App Store, surpassing Open AI’s ChatGPT.

The rapid rise of DeepSeek caused an unprecedented crash in the valuation of multiple U.S. tech companies, wiping out close to $1 trillion in combined market value from chip giant Nvidia Corp. and other peers. The loss to Nvidia was by far the largest, fastest devaluation of a U.S. company in history.

Socialist economic planning behind DeepSeek’s success

DeepSeek owes its efficacy to the socialist character of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), in which it was developed. The PRC’s economic central planning, through which it seeks to combine the advantages of strictly regulated capitalistic markets with state-owned enterprises designed for the benefit of the Chinese people, conforms to socialist methods of planning initiated by its first leader Mao Zedong. Socialist planning has enabled the PRC’s meteoric rise as a world power rivaling the U.S., as evidenced by the success of DeepSeek.

The latest iteration of that socialist planning is a ten-year initiative that began in 2015 called “Made in China 2025” (MIC 2025). In a report issued in 2017, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said of MIC 2025: “Contrary to key elements of the Third Plenum Decision [PRC’s previous central economic plan], in which the Chinese leadership called for markets to play a decisive role in the allocation of resources across the economy, MIC 2025 instead appears to reaffirm the government’s central role in economic planning.”

AI for the people? How China’s AI development challenges US big tech

In the following article for Struggle La Lucha, based on a talk given at our recent webinar DeepSeek and the challenge to US technological hegemony, Gary Wilson makes a number of important points about the US’s tech war on China.

He notes, firstly, that this tech war – part of a broader New Cold War that also involves a significant military component – has been going on for more than a decade. “It really began in 2011 with Barack Obama’s Pivot to Asia, a Cold War-style containment policy. The Pivot to Asia was primarily a military operation but also introduced export controls on advanced technologies… The tech war escalated significantly during Donald Trump’s first presidency with trade restrictions and sanctions on Chinese firms, including Huawei and ZTE. Then, with Joe Biden, even more severe restrictions were imposed.”

Gary goes on to explain that “semiconductors are the foundation of modern technology — enabling the functionality of virtually every device and system we use every day”, and this is the reason the US is so keen to prevent China from becoming a major player in this field. Nevertheless, “despite the restrictions, China has been making significant strides in semiconductor technology. Huawei is developing advanced high-powered chips, and the performance of its new Ascend 910C compares to Nvidia’s H20, the GPU used to build DeepSeek R1. While DeepSeek was trained on the Nvidia H20, it used the Ascend 910C for inference, the process where a trained AI model draws conclusions.”

In general, the West’s attempts to suppress China’s technological rise have been singularly unsuccessful. The author points out that, when the Pivot to Asia began in 2011, the US led in 60 of 64 key technologies globally. By 2022, China had surpassed the US in 52 of those technologies. “China has built entire high-tech industries that now dominate globally: Huawei is the world’s leading 5G telecommunications company. BYD is the world’s top electric vehicle maker. CATL leads in advanced battery technology. Tongwei is tops in solar power. DJI is the world’s largest commercial drone maker.”

The article observes that China’s economic model and political system allow it to dedicate enormous resources to key projects, and to focus on prioritise on meeting human needs. “Unlike the US, which focuses on AI for corporate profits, China sees AI as a driver of economic transformation — a way to modernize its economy.” Furthermore, the Chinese government is dedicated to ensuring that the benefits of AI are shared by the people, rather than being monopolised by a few big corporations. “The potential benefits of treating AI as a public utility are immense. Rather than displacing workers or driving inequality, open-access AI can be used for equitable planning of production and distribution.”

Gary concludes:

Despite US restrictions, China continues to advance in AI, semiconductors, and other high-tech industries. China is shaping the future of global technology, and AI could play a key role in the economic planning of production and services to meet people’s needs.

Let’s start with the U.S. tech war against China. Some call it a New Cold War. A problem with that term is there’s no guarantee it will stay “cold.” There is a major U.S. military buildup around China, with a U.S. Army drone warfare Green Beret unit now stationed in Taiwan, and aircraft carriers from the U.S., France and Japan conducting “war games” in the South China Sea.

Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in 2022, the first high-level U.S. official visit since the 1990s, was a provocation challenging China’s sovereignty, that was backed with an unprecedented escalation in U.S. military activity in the region that came dangerously close to sparking a “hot war.”

Anyway, whatever we call it, a New Cold War, an economic war, trade war or tech war — the U.S. has made China’s science and technology a target. The U.S. has imposed strict limits on technology transfers, restricted access to semiconductors, sanctioned Chinese tech companies, blocked academic and research collaboration, and halted many scientific exchanges.

This tech war didn’t just start. It really began in 2011 with Barack Obama’s Pivot to Asia, a Cold War-style containment policy. The Pivot to Asia was primarily a military operation but also introduced export controls on advanced technologies.

As a military operation, it involved moving 60% of U.S. naval forces into the Asia-Pacific region, militarily surrounding China, and expanding military exercises like RIMPAC, the world’s largest naval war games.

The tech war escalated significantly during Donald Trump’s first presidency with trade restrictions and sanctions on Chinese firms, including Huawei and ZTE.

Then, with Joe Biden, even more severe restrictions were imposed. The U.S. also expanded military and technology alliances against China, like AUKUS – some call it the Asian NATO — and the U.S.-Japan-South Korea trilateral pact.

Webinar explores how China’s progress in AI is undermining Western tech hegemony and building a model of open cooperation

In January, the Chinese tech startup DeepSeek stunned the world with the release of its R1 artificial intelligence model, which outperforms its major US-based competitors, at a fraction of the cost of development, requiring orders of magnitude less energy, and not relying on the latest and greatest semiconductors. The model is fully open source, and has been made available for free worldwide.

The release of DeepSeek R1 led to an unprecedented drop in share price for several US tech giants, most notably chip-maker Nvidia, which has been attracting enormous investment on the premise that the future of AI relies on faster and better semiconductors.

Just a few weeks earlier, the Chinese mobile app RedNote (Xiaohongshu / Little Red Book) unexpectedly gained a substantial user base in the US in the days running up to the Biden administration’s TikTok ban (which has since been suspended by Trump). The sudden appearance of millions of US users on RedNote led to an unprecedented cultural exchange between particularly young people in China and the US – in spite of the best efforts of the US government to prevent such exchanges.

In this rapidly-changing technology landscape, our webinar of 16 February 2025, organised jointly with the International Manifesto Group, addressed questions such as:

Is the release of DeepSeek’s R1 model a “Sputnik moment”, as it has been described?
Are we witnessing the decline of US technological hegemony?
Why has DeepSeek had such a profound impact on the US tech market?
Has Biden’s “chip war” with China been a failure?
Can AI be a public good, or is it destined simply to generate profits for Big Tech?
Is China’s socialist market economy outperforming Western neoliberalism?
In what way is China’s approach to AI different to that of the US?
What is China’s Global AI Initiative?
How are Chinese technologies such as RedNote and DeepSeek impacting perceptions of China?

Speakers were as follows:

Radhika Desai (Convenor, International Manifesto Group, moderator)
Alan Freeman (Economist, co-director of the Geopolitical Economy Research Group)
Li Jingjing (Journalist and broadcaster, CGTN)
Gary Wilson (Author, War and Lenin in the 21st Century)
KJ Noh (journalist, political analyst and peace activist)
Ben Norton (China-based broadcaster and geopolitical analyst)
Michael Roberts (Marxist economist and blogger)
Ali Al-Assam (Managing Director of the NewsSocial Cooperative)

We embed below the full event stream and the individual presentations from YouTube.

Webinar: DeepSeek and the challenge to US technological hegemony

Sunday 16 February 2025, 4pm Britain, 11am US Eastern, 8am US Pacific

In this rapidly-changing technology landscape, our webinar addresses questions such as:

Is the release of DeepSeek’s R1 model a “Sputnik moment”, as it has been described?
Are we witnessing the decline of US technological hegemony?
Why has DeepSeek had such a profound impact on the US tech market?
Has Biden’s “chip war” with China been a failure?
Can AI be a public good, or is it destined simply to generate profits for Big Tech?
Is China’s socialist market economy outperforming Western neoliberalism?
In what way is China’s approach to AI different to that of the US?
What is China’s Global AI Initiative?
How are Chinese technologies such as RedNote and DeepSeek impacting perceptions of China?

Confirmed speakers

Ben Norton (China-based broadcaster and geopolitical analyst)
Li Jingjing (Journalist and broadcaster, CGTN)
KJ Noh (Journalist, political analyst and peace activist)
Michael Roberts (Marxist economist and blogger)
Alan Freeman (Economist, co-director of the Geopolitical Economy Research Group)
Gary Wilson (Author, War and Lenin in the 21st Century)
Ali Al-Assam (Managing Director of the NewsSocial Cooperative)
Radhika Desai (Convenor, International Manifesto Group)

This event is co-organised by Friends of Socialist China and the International Manifesto Group.

Is DeepSeek China’s Sputnik moment?

In the article below, reprinted from People’s World, CJ Atkins examines the geopolitical significance of the success of China’s DeepSeek R1 model, which has been taking the world by storm in recent weeks, and which was responsible for chip manufacturer Nvidia suffering the biggest ever fall in share price in a single day.

Atkins notes that the Biden administration’s export ban on the most sophisticated microchips has clearly backfired. “The export bans simply spurred Chinese developers to get creative, pushing them to come up with cheaper and more efficient ways of using the older chips they already had access to. They discovered means to train and operate AI models using less memory and less computing power. This resulted in a model that was cheaper to build and less damaging for the planet to operate than those developed by the U.S. tech monopolies.”

Importantly, DeepSeek’s developers made their model open source, allowing anyone to use it for free. “That means they showed their work for the world to see and adapt for further development. Other scientists and coders can build on DeepSeek-R1 to create their own AI models.” The article cites Liang Wenfeng, the founder of DeepSeek, as saying that “our starting point is not the opportunity to make a quick profit, but rather to reach the technical frontier and drive the development of the entire ecosystem”.

The stunning success of DeepSeek’s model highlights the fact that China is now a major player in the global tech industry, and is increasingly setting the pace in terms of innovation. This is testament to the effectiveness of China’s economic model, and calls to mind Deng Xiaoping’s 1984 comment that “the superiority of the socialist system is demonstrated, in the final analysis, by faster and greater development of those forces than under the capitalist system”.

Atkins warns that the DeepSeek phenomenon will likely trigger a deepening of the US’s trade war against China, along with an expansion of its campaign of containment and encirclement. “We can expect a ramping up of military tensions over the long term. The weapons dealers and neocon warhawks will seize the moment to beat the drums of a real war against China. There will be a tightening of U.S. imperialism’s military encirclement of China, and a propaganda onslaught warning of the ‘China threat’ will wash over the American people. Anti-Asian racism will figure prominently, just as it did during the pandemic.”

The article concludes by noting that China’s consistent call is for peaceful coexistence and international cooperation between countries with different social systems. The US and China could and should be working together to push science and technology forward in the service of humanity, but the US ruling class cannot be expected to pursue such a path in the absence of mass pressure. “The tech monopolists will do anything to protect their own profits and power, even if it means keeping the world divided and holding back shared progress.”

In 1978, just months before China initiated the reform and opening up of its economy, Communist Party leader Deng Xiaoping told a meeting of researchers:

“Our science and technology have made enormous progress since the founding of New China…. But we must be clear-sighted and recognize that there is still an enormous gap between our level and that of the most advanced countries and that our scientific and technical forces are still too meager.”

If he were alive to witness the events of the last few days, would Deng be shocked?

The release of the DeepSeek-R1 chatbot, a Chinese-developed large language model (LLM), threw the global artificial intelligence industry into chaos and wiped a trillion dollars off the values of some of the biggest tech corporations on the New York Stock Exchange—overnight.

Is this China’s “Sputnik moment,” comparable in historic significance to the Soviet Union’s inauguration of the space age with the launch of the first artificial satellite in 1957?

Back then, U.S. capitalism made the mistake of assuming that blockading the socialist half of the world via trade walls and embargoes would keep it technologically backward forever. The same error is being made again with China.

No chips for China

Export bans on the most sophisticated microchips that power advanced AI applications, along with chip-making equipment and software, were imposed by the Biden administration in 2022, using “national security” as a justification.

With Trump campaigning last year to go even further, Biden toughened his restrictions in December. The graphics processing units (GPUs) that are the go-to for training AIs like ChatGPT and DeepSeek were put on an export blacklist, forbidden from being shipped to China or companies in third countries that do business with the People’s Republic.

But the U.S.’ economic aggression now appears to have backfired. The export bans simply spurred Chinese developers to get creative, pushing them to come up with cheaper and more efficient ways of using the older chips they already had access to.

They discovered means to train and operate AI models using less memory and less computing power. This resulted in a model that was cheaper to build and less damaging for the planet to operate than those developed by the U.S. tech monopolies.

China’s DeepSeek AI scores important victory against US tech hegemony

We republish below three articles about the recent release of DeepSeek R1, an artificial intelligence (AI) model that performs as well as – or better than – its major US-based competitors, but at a fraction of the cost and using relatively low-grade semiconductors.

The first article, by Marxist economist Michael Roberts, notes that DeepSeek R1 is fully open source, meaning that the code behind it is fully visible to programmers around the world and can be freely used and adapted. “This is a real blow to the ‘proprietary’ secrets that OpenAI or Google’s Gemini lock away in a ‘black box’ in order to maximise profits. The analogy here is with branded and generic pharmaceuticals.” Indeed, the whole orientation of DeepSeek is towards scientific research and the production of social goods, rather than the relentless pursuit of profit at all costs.

Michael observes that DeepSeek has caused unprecedented losses to US technology stocks – “chipmaker Nvidia and so-called ‘hyperscalers’ Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft and Meta Platforms collectively shed almost $750bn of their stock market value in one day” – as it became apparent that the tech giants’ spending of billions of dollars on scaling their computing power is essentially unnecessary. These companies have put all their eggs in the hardware basket, but a small team of researchers in China have shown that the mathematical/algorithmic component is at least as important.

Meanwhile, the DeepSeek phenomenon is a powerful demonstration that the US “chip wars” are not having the desired effect:

What must enrage the tech oligarchs sucking up to Trump is that US sanctions on Chinese companies and bans on chip exports have not stopped China making yet more advances in the tech and chip war with the US. China is managing to make technological leaps in AI despite export controls introduced by the Biden administration intended to deprive it of both the most powerful chips and the advanced tools needed to make them.

Michael further points to the political economy of the situation, noting that “state-led planned investment into technology and tech skills by China works so much better than relying on huge private tech giants led by moguls.” He quotes billionaire tech investor Ray Dalio: “In our system, by and large, we are moving to a more industrial-complex- type of policy in which there is going to be government-mandated and government-influenced activity, because it is so important… Capitalism alone — the profit motive alone — cannot win this battle.”

The second article, by Gary Wilson in Struggle La Lucha, provides a broad overview of the geopolitics of the “chip wars” and the significance of DeepSeek’s success.

DeepSeek’s model outperformed OpenAI’s best, using less data, less computing power, and a fraction of the cost. Even more remarkable, DeepSeek’s model is open-source, meaning anyone can use, modify, and build on it. This stands in stark contrast to OpenAI’s closed, profit-driven approach.

Gary’s article continues to contrast DeepSeek’s business model – and China’s overall approach to AI – with that of the US tech giants:

Corporate rulers want AI to monitor workers, lower wages, bust unions, or shift work to machines altogether, leading to cutbacks and layoffs. The World Economic Forum famously predicted that AI would replace millions of “useless” human workers by 2030. Unlike US tech companies seeking monopoly control, DeepSeek treats AI like electricity or the Internet — a basic tool that should be accessible to everyone… AI, as a public utility, can be used to complement human labor, improve safety, reduce drudgery, and create better-paying jobs rather than eliminate them.

This touches on the broader question of the role of technology in society. Under capitalism, AI is used to maximise profits, which often means replacing human labour with algorithms, thereby deepening unemployment and, ultimately, impacting the long-term viability of the entire system by reducing the rate of profit. Under working class leadership on the other hand, technology can be used to improve the quality of life for all.

An editorial in the Morning Star on 28 January reiterates the blowback effect of US’s tech sanctions on China. “In placing sanctions on microchip exports to China, it forced developers in that country to use their chips more efficiently.”

Furthermore, DeepSeek is indicative of China’s emergence as a technology superpower. “The days are gone when Chinese economic advance largely relied on technical innovations developed elsewhere.” As such, “this week’s events are a landmark in the decline of US hegemony, and in the development of global multipolarity. With all its contradictions and contestations, that can only be welcome.”

AI going DeepSeek

Most readers will know the news by now. DeepSeek, a Chinese AI company, released an AI model called R1 that is comparable in ability to the best models from companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta, but was trained at a radically lower cost and using less than state-of-the art GPU chips. DeepSeek also made public enough of the details of the model that others can run it on their own computers without charge.

DeepSeek is a torpedo that has hit the Magnificent Seven US hi-tech companies below the water line. DeepSeek did not use the latest and best Nvidia’s chips and software; it did not require huge spending on training its AI model unlike its American rivals; and it offers just as many useful applications.

“Nothing like before” — China is out-competing the West on EVs

The following article, written by Paweł Wargan for Progressive International, examines the neverending accusations by Western media and politicians regarding China’s putative ‘overcapacity’ in electric vehicles (EVs). Paweł explores the reasons for these accusations, and comprehensively refutes them.

The article observes that China’s industrial utilisation rates and inventory levels are similar to those of the US, and furthermore Chinese profit margins are soaring. These factors indicate that there is no significant overcapacity in China’s EV sector.

As for the notion that China’s rise has caused the decline of Western industry, Paweł points out that the decline of Western manufacturing predates China’s rise. “In the US, the trade balance has seen a sustained deficit since the late 1970s. As the productive structure of its economy shifted, industrial capital made way for financial capital. The number of manufacturing jobs decreased from around 20 million at their peak in 1979 to under 13 million today — a period in which the US saw its population rise by 100 million.”

Describing some of the extraordinary innovations taking place in China’s EV sector – in particular a ‘road-cloud-vehicle’ integration that improves safety and reduces energy use – Paweł comments that “this degree of integration is only possible through control over the entire EV value chain”. Particularly in the light of US-led sanctions and tariffs, “China began to move quickly towards technological sovereignty in all areas, from chips and artificial intelligence to cars and batteries”. As a result, “it competes not only with the automobile industry — historically the domain of the West. It also now competes with the tech giants of Silicon Valley”. Obviously, this speaks to the superiority of a socialist economy where decision-making lies ultimately with the people, rather than a few billionaires.

Paweł writes that the accusations of overcapacity provide a convenient pretext for the West to embark upon its own program of protectionism – exactly what it accuses China of doing – as well as “allowing the Western leadership to blame China for the structural long-term decline of the global capitalist economy”. Alarmingly, the situation also shows that the West would rather sabotage China’s economy and the global green transition than cooperate sensibly with China on the basis of mutual benefit.

Paweł Wargan is an activist, researcher and organiser. He serves as Political Coordinator at the Progressive International, an international coalition of over 100 popular movements, political parties, and unions. He contributed to our conference marking the 75th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China.

The past year has seen a concerted effort by Western politicians, regime intellectuals, and media stenographers to accuse China of “overcapacity”. The coordinated narrative has accompanied a choreographed escalation in the West’s economic war on China. What is motivating these accusations?

In May 2024, the White House announced a series of new tariffs on Chinese products, including a 100% tax on imports of Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), set to take effect later this year. The European Union followed closely behind. In July, the Commission announced duties ranging from 17.4% to 37.6% on Chinese EV manufacturers. And in August, Canada announced 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs along with 25% tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminium.

The White House insisted that the measures would “protect American manufacturers from China’s unfair trade practices” and ensure that “the future of the auto industry will be made in America by American workers.” The European Commission cited China’s “unfair subsidisation” and Canada warned of the threat of China’s “intentional, state-directed policy of overcapacity”. In this narrative, now choreographed and ritualized across the West, China’s “overcapacity” is to blame for the West’s rising trade deficits and persistent inability to reindustrialize.

China has responded firmly to these accusations. In a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron and the European Commission’s Ursula von der Leyen in May, Chinese President Xi Jinping said that there is no such thing as “China’s overcapacity problem”, and emphasised China’s contribution to the green transition. China’s Foreign Ministry said that the “overcapacity” thesis was a “pretext” to create new restrictions on China’s energy products.

China’s “overcapacity” and the West’s industrial decline

Overcapacity can be measured in three ways. First, we can look at the “capacity utilization rate”, or the degree to which available industrial capacity is being used. Second, we can look at inventory levels; a high number of unsold goods gathering dust in warehouses might suggest that production exceeds demand. Third, we can look at profit margins, which would have to fall to help empty the brimming warehouses and make way for new goods.

As French economics commentator Arnaud Bertrand found, China does not show signs of “overcapacity” across any of these measures. On the contrary, its industrial utilization rates and inventory levels are similar to those of the United States, and Chinese profit margins are soaring.

Imperialism fails to quash China’s EV revolution

The following article by Chris Fry, a retired autoworker who worked as an assembler at Chrysler’s Lynch Road Assembly in Detroit until the company closed the plant in 1980, addresses the crisis facing the car manufacturing industry in the US and Europe, noting that many of the largest car manufacturers are shedding thousands of jobs and closing plants.

Chris notes that car manufacturers in the West have failed to invest seriously in electric vehicles, and industrial policy has been shaped to a significant degree by the interests of the fossil fuel industry. Meanwhile, “China, due in large part to its socialist economic and social system and its social ownership of much of its production and its scientific planning, has developed the infrastructure of EV production in a vast scale capable of producing emission-free vehicles of high quality at an affordable price for working class consumers”.

Rather than develop a coherent industrial policy, successive administrations in the US have turned to protectionism, imposing tariffs on Chinese EVs “designed to deny workers in the U.S. affordable emissions-free vehicles, notwithstanding all the supposed ‘concern’ from Washington over global warming”.

Chris concludes: “The accomplishments by the Chinese workers and their workers’ government represent a pathway to victory for ourselves and our families for an empowered and prosperous future.”

This article was originally published in Fighting Words.

On October 18 tens of thousands of Italian auto workers held a nationwide strike and marched through the streets of Rome. Organized by three unions, this action was led by workers from the Italian-based conglomerate Stellantis, composed also by the French company Peugeot as well as the U.S. Chrysler Corporation.

Stellantis is the world’s fourth largest automaker. It is projected to end the year with a loss of $11.2 billion.

The worker’s militant action not only targeted the company, but also was against the right-wing Italian government. The unions are demanding incentives to allow workers to be able to afford electric cars.

This was the first such militant worker action in Rome in 20 years.

UAW lines up to confront Stellantis

On October 3, the UAW, led by President Shawn Fain, held a rally and march to the Michigan Sterling Heights Stellantis Stamping plant:

Outside the UAW Local 1264, about 400 UAW members listened to speeches from UAW leadership, including UAW President Shawn Fain, and chanted, “Keep the promise” and “Fire Tavares” (Carlos Tavares is the CEO of Stellantis, the automaker that owns the Jeep, Ram, Chrysler, Dodge and Fiat brands). They then marched about a half mile to Stellantis’ Sterling Stamping Plant.

“Are you ready to do whatever we have to do to save American jobs,” Fain asked the crowd. “This is our generation’s defining moment. Over this last year, we moved a lot of mountains, but we’ve got more mountains to move.”

The union is demanding that the company live up to the 2023 contract and reopen the Belvidere Assembly Plant, converted to an EV battery plant in Illinois and keep Dodge Durango production in Detroit.

The week before the company had announced plans for indefinite layoffs “across its footprint” and the firing of its “supplemental workers” but refused to give specifics.

It has already laid off 1,100 workers at its Warren Assembly plant.

The UAW action comes after an announcement by the union that it would hold a company-wide strike vote by Stellantis workers demanding that the company abide by the contract won last year after a six-week strike.

Of course, the auto company executives and their government minions blame Socialist China and its so-called “over capacity” for these massive job losses and broken promises.

EV crisis at capitalist auto companies.

It’s not just Stellantis that is facing this deepening crisis.

In September, the German company Volkswagen announced plans to lay off 30,000 of its 300,000 workers. VW’s software subsidiary is laying off 2,000 workers over the next two years.

Mercedes Benz is laying off workers in Seattle, Washington and London. ZF Friedrichshafen, a major parts supplier to 55 auto brands, announced it would lay off 12,000 of its workers, while another supplier, Bosch, announced that it was cutting 1,200 jobs.

China using AI in support of peace, progress and human rights

On 7 July 2024, the Chinese Permanent Mission to the United Nations office at Geneva, along with several other international organisations, held an event on the theme of “science and technology enabling human rights protection” at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. Nearly a hundred experts from around the world attended.

Ali Al-Assam, representing Friends of Socialist China, contributed to the event at the invitation of the Chinese Association for International Understanding (CAFIU). In his presentation, Ali highlighted the potential benefits and risks of artificial intelligence (AI) for human rights protection, and the importance of international cooperation in the field of AI development. He also introduced China’s practices and approaches in the field of AI development and regulation, and drew attention to the Global AI Governance Initiative proposed by China, which seeks to foster international collaboration on AI development, to ensure that AI technologies respect and promote human rights, and to leverage AI to address global challenges.

Embedded below is a video of Ali’s speech, followed by the detailed notes of his presentation.

The event was reported in the China News Service website.

Thank you for inviting me to this meeting dealing with such a key topic: how to make AI work for the people

I am Ali Al-Assam, member of Friends of Socialist China, and also founder of the tech cooperative NewsSocial, that is engaged now in extensive use of AI for community wealth building and Inter-cooperation for the cooperative movement.

AI and Human Rights: A Double-Edged Sword

Promises of AI

• Generative AI is part of the fourth industrial revolution, synthetic biology mobility and energy
• AI is used in B2B and B2C, fuelling huge demand for wafers and connectivity.
• AI is not like other breaking-ground technology such as the steam engine revolution. It is rather a meta-technology that is driving many other technological revolutions and will change modes of production in fundamental ways.
• Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is the point at which an AI can perform all human cognitive skills better than the smartest humans.
• The human brain is said to contain around 100 billion neurons with 100 trillion connections between them. China’s Alibaba announced that they have reached 30 trillion connections in their AI system, so things are developing very quickly.
• AI has the potential to create new economies and lift millions out of poverty by driving innovation and efficiency. It offers solutions to some of society’s most challenging problems, such as advancements in healthcare and education.
• It can help people, organizations and countries to deliberate in a rational manner and solve problems peacefully. It is capable of rational thoughts.

Risks of AI

• However, AI can also pose risks to human rights, such as enabling aggression and war – one clear example is what’s happening in Gaza, where the Israelis are using AI-powered systems to enable their genocide.
• Ethical concerns include privacy issues and the lack of transparency and accountability in AI systems.
• Expanding the gap between the rich and the poor.
• The main danger of AI is that it is being driven by uncontrolled interests of financial capital in Western countries where extreme wealth for the few is the norm.

China’s Approach

• China is actively developing AI technologies to drive economic growth and societal benefits. According to China’s State Council dated 6 April, ‘China aims to become the world’s major AI innovation center by 2030, with the scale of its AI core industry exceeding 1 trillion yuan (about 140.9 billion U.S. dollars), and the scale of related industries exceeding 10 trillion yuan.”
• In China, these emerging technologies are subjected to far more regulation than in the West.
• According to the MacroPolo thinktank, nearly half of the world’s top AI researchers come from China, up from about 33 percent three years ago, while only around 18 percent come from US.
• The government supports AI innovation through comprehensive policies and strategic frameworks.
• China has also established ethical guidelines to ensure responsible AI development and usage.
• Initiated the Global AI Governance Initiative was announced last year by President Xi Jinping with a view to fostering international collaboration on AI development and promote inclusivity in AI.

Global AI Initiative – AI for the People

• On October 18 2023, the Global AI Governance Initiative was announced at the opening ceremony of the third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation. The proposal put forward an open, fair and efficient approach to the development, security and governance of AI, intending to harness the transformative technologies for the benefit of humanity.

Objectives

• The Global AI Governance Initiative aims to foster international collaboration on AI development.
• It seeks to ensure that AI technologies respect and promote human rights.
• The initiative addresses global challenges by leveraging AI innovation.

Implementation

• Implementation involves multilateral agreements and partnerships among various countries.
• Ethical AI standards and regulations are established to guide AI development.
• The initiative promotes inclusive AI development to avoid biases and discrimination.

Conclusion

• Embrace and implement ethical guidelines and international cooperation in AI development.
• Focus on inclusive AI practices to ensure benefits reach all sectors of society.
• Promote the responsible use of AI technologies to uphold and advance human rights.
• Perhaps cooperate to build multi-lingual Humanity Generative AI engine used a global resource for aid with problem solving and peaceful path for humanity development.

EU tariffs on China: a script written in Washington

The following article by Carlos Martinez, first published in the Morning Star, comments on the European Union’s recent decision to impose tariffs of up to 38 percent on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs). The only enthusiastic supporter (and presumably instigator) of these tariffs is the US, which is embarked on an escalating New Cold War against China.

Carlos describes the negative reaction to the tariffs not just in China but within much of the European business community and among environmentalists. Ultimately, aside from likely inspiring reciprocal tariffs from China, the move will have the effect of “making the EU’s transition slower and more expensive” – in the words of a Chatham House article.

Carlos further notes that “imposing tariffs on the basis of Chinese public investment creates a precedent that any such central investment in sustainable development is unacceptable”, and as such, “would render any sort of green new deal out of the question”.

The article concludes: “For the sake of peace, development and the habitability of the planet, Europe must change course.”

Last week the EU notified Beijing that, following a nine-month investigation into alleged unfair state subsidies, it will impose new tariffs of up to 38 per cent on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs).

Given the existing 10 per cent tariff on car imports, this will mean Chinese EVs will be hit with tariffs of up to 48 per cent. These new tariffs are due to kick in on July 4.

Germany, Sweden and Hungary have been vocal in opposing the move, with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz stating the obvious: “Isolation and illegal customs barriers ultimately just makes everything more expensive, and everyone poorer.”

Of course, this reflects the importance of the Chinese market for German car manufacturers, who will be hoping beyond hope that the authorities in Beijing haven’t been studying the Book of Exodus and thus are not minded to apply the principle of “an eye for an eye.”

BMW CEO Oliver Zipse commented: “The decision for additional import duties is the wrong way to go. The EU Commission is thus harming European companies and European interests.”

This sentiment was echoed by a spokesperson for Volkswagen: “The negative effects of this decision outweigh any potential benefits for the European and especially the German automotive industry.”

Indeed there seems to be little enthusiasm for these tariffs anywhere outside the White House. The Bloomberg editorial board argues that “tariffs won’t bring the EU prosperity” and that the increased price of EVs will decelerate Europe’s green transition.

Similarly, an article for Chatham House — titled “Imposing tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles will make the EU’s transition slower and more expensive” — notes that the EU has a legally binding target of reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Meanwhile “decarbonisation technologies like solar panels, wind turbines and electric vehicles share a characteristic that sets them apart from other traded goods: when swapped for fossil fuel alternatives, they reduce the quantity of planet-warming gases being pumped into the atmosphere.” Such technologies “are needed in vast quantities, and in very short order, to give any chance of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.”

It is noteworthy — and presumably not entirely coincidental — that the EU’s announcement came just a month after the Biden administration announced tariffs on Chinese EVs of 100 per cent.

In the case of the US, the material impact of these tariffs is virtually non-existent, given that Chinese-made models constitute just 2 per cent of all EV sales; and this in a market where EVs only make up 8 per cent of all car registrations (compared with almost 50 per cent in China).

The US tariff increase is simply an attempt by Biden to appear “tough on China” in the run-up to the presidential election. Donald Trump, not to be outdone on such matters, has promised tariffs of 200 per cent. As such, what we’re talking about is yet another component in the US-led new cold war on China, for which there is bipartisan consensus.

So it would appear the EU is acting in accordance with the strong recommendations (instructions) of Washington.

This certainly wouldn’t be the first time Europe has compromised its climate commitments and economic stability in order to participate in the US’s pursuit of 21st century hegemony.

In 2022, in order to punish Russia and to generate profits for the US’s domestic fossil fuel industry, the Biden administration heavily promoted sanctions on Russian natural gas. The result has been a major increase in US exports of fracked shale gas to Europe.

To get this gas from North America to Europe, it has to be liquified, stored at minus 70°C, and transported by ship. This whole process is extremely costly in both financial and ecological terms, certainly much more so than using existing pipelines running from Russia through Europe.

The European working class and progressive movement should oppose these tariffs on Chinese EVs and should resist the ongoing attempts by sections of the bourgeoisie to align Europe with Washington’s reckless foreign policy.

As noted in these pages in August last year, “major problems facing humanity require international co-operation — and China’s leading position in green technology makes co-operation in this field essential.”

China has raced ahead in renewable energy and electric transport because it has identified those sectors as being absolutely crucial for the future of not only China but the world.

As such, it has built environmental considerations into the core of its planning system and has targeted public investment accordingly. Rather than complaining about China’s investment in new productive forces, Europe should be following its example.

Imposing tariffs on the basis of Chinese public investment creates a precedent that any such central investment in sustainable development is unacceptable. This precedent would render any sort of green new deal out of the question.

Even the Economist acknowledges that “the potential gains to the West from a ready supply of cheap, green vehicles are simply enormous.” And, momentarily overcoming its Eurocentric instincts, it admits that Chinese cars “are not only cheap; they are better-quality, particularly with respect to the smart features in EVs that are made possible by internet connectivity.”

The article concludes that “if China wants to spend taxpayers’ money subsidising global consumers and speeding up the energy transition, the best response is to welcome it.”

Inasmuch as there’s such a thing as a sane bourgeois perspective, this is what it looks like.

In the words of former undersecretary-general of the UN and former executive director of the UN Environment Programme Erik Solheim: “China is now the indispensable country for everything green … And all historical experiences show that if you create closed-down markets and separate markets from different parts of the world, we will all be poorer.”

For the sake of peace, development and the habitability of the planet, Europe must change course.

China, Latin American and Caribbean states deepen their space cooperation

In a significant step to enhance the unity and solidarity of the Global South and to promote economic, scientific and technological cooperation and development, China hosted the first China-Latin American and Caribbean States Space Cooperation Forum in the city of Wuhan, capital of the central province of Hubei, in the last week of April.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping sent a congratulatory letter to the forum in which he said that China and the Latin American and Caribbean countries have achieved fruitful results in space cooperation in recent years, including new progress in the fields of remote sensing satellites, communication satellites and the deep space station network, which have played an important role in promoting scientific and technological progress, strengthening regional connectivity and improving people’s wellbeing.

China is ready to work with the Latin American and Caribbean countries to build a high-level space cooperation partnership, promote space technology to better benefit both peoples, and continue to promote the building of a community of China and the Latin American and Caribbean countries with a shared future.

Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Guoqing read out Xi’s letter at the opening ceremony on April 24. In his own speech, Zhang added that China stands ready to work with the Latin American and Caribbean countries to strengthen the synergy of development strategies in the field of space, deepen scientific and technological innovation cooperation, create more application scenarios, promote industrial complementarity and mutual enhancement, and intensify talent exchanges, so as to push biliteral space cooperation to a higher level and bring tangible benefits to the people of both sides.

Luther Castillo Harry, Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation of Honduras, read out the congratulatory letter from President Xiomara Castro. She said that China has been committed to carrying out space cooperation with developing countries, which can help both sides to overcome common challenges, achieve sustainable development and mitigate climate change and natural disasters.

Gabriela Jimenez, Venezuelan Minister of Science and Technology, read out the congratulatory letter from Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. He said China and Venezuela have close cooperation and profound friendship in the aerospace sector, which is of great significance for promoting space cooperation between China and Latin America.

The forum reviewed and highlighted examples of China’s space cooperation with Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela in particular.

Yue Yunxia, director of the economic research office of the Institute of Latin American Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said space cooperation between China and Latin American countries is not an empty slogan, but covers a wide range of fields.

“China-Latin America space cooperation has helped Latin American countries build their aerospace systems, train high-quality space technology personnel and achieve new breakthroughs in the aerospace field. China-Latin America cooperation on remote-sensing satellites, communication satellites and in the commercial field has promoted connections among Latin American countries and improved people’s well-being.”

The following articles were originally published by the Xinhua News Agency.

Xi sends congratulatory letter to forum on space cooperation with LatAm, Caribbean countries

BEIJING, April 24 (Xinhua) — Chinese President Xi Jinping on Wednesday sent a congratulatory letter to the first China-Latin American and Caribbean States Space Cooperation Forum.

Noting that this year marks the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the China-CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) Forum jointly announced by the leaders of the two sides, Xi said that China and the Latin American and Caribbean countries have seen prosperous development over the past decade in their cooperation in various fields within the framework of the China-CELAC Forum to usher in a new era featuring equality, mutual benefit, innovation, openness and tangible benefits for the people.

Xi said China and the Latin American and Caribbean countries have yielded fruitful results in space cooperation in recent years, including new progresses in the fields of remote sensing satellites, communication satellites and the deep space station network, which has played an important role in promoting scientific and technological progress, strengthening regional connectivity and improving people’s wellbeing.

The space cooperation forum, co-hosted by the China National Space Administration and the Hubei provincial government, started on Wednesday in Wuhan, capital of central China’s Hubei Province.

The latest danger from China: too much clean energy?

This brief article by Friends of Socialist China advisory group member Stefania Fusero, originally published in Italian in Futura Società, brings some much-needed clarity to the question of US allegations concerning China’s “over-capacity”, particularly in green technologies such as renewable energy, electric vehicles and lithium-ion batteries.

Stefania rightly points out that, by demanding that China curtail its production of materials that are essential for a global green transition, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen “implicitly admits that the priority for the US government is not to join in the global fight against climate breakdown, but instead to sustain the profits of US corporations and financial elites.” This in turn serves to reiterate that “Western governments serve the interests of small oligarchic minorities, not the masses of their populations.”

Stefania notes that the diverging priorities of China and the US are amply evidenced by the fact that, while China directs enormous resources towards development, infrastructure, sustainable energy, and the fight against poverty, the US devotes enormous resources to war, domination, hegemonism, and the pursuit of a ‘rules-based international order’ where the rules are written in Washington and serve the exclusive interests of the US ruling class.

The article concludes by predicting failure for the US’s tactic, citing Radhika Desai’s recent article in CGTN: China “will not roll over and play dead when asked to harm its own economy, its own workers and the possibility of dealing with climate change, all only so that the interests of unproductive inefficient and financialised US corporations may be advanced.”

The article was translated into English by the author.

Giuseppe Masala gave an exhaustive explanation in l’Antidiplomatico of the real reasons which brought US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen back to China.

Among other things, after quoting from a statement by Yellen – ”we now see the development of excess capacity in ‘new’ industries such as solar panels, lithium-ion batteries and electric vehicles” – Masala rightly states that, translated into simple language, Yellen is saying that the US productive system cannot cope with Chinese competition.

Simplicius the Thinker gets to the same conclusion in his post Yellen Dispatched to Beg China for Face-Saving Slowdown: “The fact of the matter is, China is simply leaping ahead of the decrepit, deteriorating U.S. by every measure and the panicked elites have sent Yellen to beg China to ‘slow down’ and not embarrass them on the world stage.”

There’s more to it, though. When Yellen denounces and laments China’s “overcapacity of clean energy” – specifically mentioning solar panels, electric vehicles and lithium-ion batteries – she gets straight to the issue of the global climate breakdown.

In this context, contrary to incessant Western smearing campaigns, China has acted consistently with the commitment to defend the environment Xi Jinping announced in 2014, and has translated it into a climate strategy the extent of which has never been seen before, as acknowledged by the president of the Environmental Defense Fund: “the world has never before seen a climate program on this scale.”

In solar energy alone, the International Energy Agency noted that China’s PV-focused industrial policies have contributed to more than 80 percent cost reductions, helping the sector become the most cost-effective electricity generation technology in many parts of the world – an important contribution to global decarbonisation.

Complaining about what she calls “clean energy overcapacity”, Yellen implicitly admits that the priority for the US government is not to join in the global fight against climate breakdown, but instead to sustain the profits of US corporations and financial elites. She lays bare the fact that Western governments serve the interests of small oligarchic minorities, not the masses of their populations.

Just take a simple look at the composition of the US public debt, which has reached the stratospheric figure of $34 trillion, of which 14 trillion has gone to military spending since the start of the war in Afghanistan. While the US has been throwing money into the bottomless pit of its endless wars ‘on terror’, China has been investing in the development of its economy, its infrastructure, as well as the fight against poverty, demonstrating that the priority of the PRC is development, whereas the priority of the US is war.

It is thus unsurprising that the foreign policies of the two countries are poles apart, both in the guiding principles and the parlance set out in their respective official documents, and in the posture adopted towards other countries.

China uses the language of diplomacy, rejects the logic of opposing blocs, is not part to any military alliances, and engages with partners for its various international projects, the Belt and Road Initiative first and foremost, in ways which are beneficial both to itself and to them. The US, on the other hand, does not want partners, but vassals from whom it demands exclusive allegiance to the point of agreeing to sacrifice their own interests, and does not hesitate to use the weapons of military and economic threat, in line with a purported ‘international rules based order’, which the US bends to its own will and convenience.

Will China bow to the requests and more-or-less veiled threats coming from the USA and its satellites?

As Radhika Desai writes in a recent article: “Sadly, for Yellen, China is neither Japan nor Europe but a socialist economy whose government is oriented towards advancing egalitarian development for its people. Yellen will find it willing to cooperate for the benefit of people and the planet. But it will not roll over and play dead when asked to harm its own economy, its own workers and the possibility of dealing with climate change, all only so that the interests of unproductive inefficient and financialized US corporations may be advanced.”

China’s ‘12345’ government service hotline – serving the people

The first exclusive Friends of Socialist China delegation took place from 14 to 24 April 2024. The delegation’s first site visit was to the was to the Beijing headquarters of the ‘12345’ government service hotline, where 1,500 employees – mostly CPC members – work in shifts over 24 hours to provide a single point of access for any and all problems and queries – for example, rubbish being left on the street, heating not working, older people not receiving food deliveries. In the article below, Morning Star international editor Roger McKenzie – one of the delegates – notes that some people even called the hotline “because they were concerned about the unequal distribution of bamboo shoots to the world-famous pandas at the zoo.”

Roger writes: “All calls are answered within 15 seconds and a guarantee is given that your concern, question or complaint, will be addressed within seven days. Calls are passed on to local authorities as appropriate to deal with the issue. Anyone who calls will get a call back to tell them what has been done and be given the opportunity to confirm whether the issues have been resolved to their satisfaction.”

The 12345 service, which has been rolled out across China, is tremendously popular with its users. Its efficiency connecting problems to solutions is aided by extensive use of artificial intelligence.

The article compares the 12345 hotline with the near-impossibility of contacting public services in Britain. “Sometimes we just need a bit of advice but get the runaround and passed to people whose main job appears to be not to add unnecessarily to their already hefty workload. A workload increasing by the year as they do the job that used to be done by two or three others before the cutbacks.”

The 12345 hotline is a great example of the Chinese government’s commitment to serving the people and demonstrates the practical application of the CPC’s founding ethos in a modern setting.

This article was first published in the Morning Star on 23 April 2024.

Public service cuts are sweeping across Britain. Essential services are being cut to the bone and, in many areas, have disappeared altogether.

A number of councils, including the largest, Birmingham, have even had to declare bankruptcy.

In Britain, if there is no budget to meet the people’s needs then the services have to go.

Meanwhile, in China, responding to the needs of the people rather than the needs of the budget is the priority.

Some people will read what I have just said and shout: “That it’s just Chinese propaganda!” Not so. Unlike many of those quick to disparage “socialism with Chinese characteristics” as some kind of sloganising nonsense, I have bothered to go and see it for myself.

As many of you will know, I worked for many years in the leadership of the country’s largest public services union. Even though I left the organisation, I am still interested in how public services are delivered, and make a point on any working visit to investigate this for myself.

One thing that I have always been interested in is how public service organisations respond to requests or complaints about their services.

Many of us have been hanging on the telephone for a public service either waiting for someone to answer or left in that hell-hole of canned, plastic, easy-listening music otherwise known as “the queue.” We are often left frustrated and wondering whether to complain about the service or lack thereof.

Sometimes we just need a bit of advice but get the runaround and passed to people whose main job appears to be not to add unnecessarily to their already hefty workload. A workload increasing by the year as they do the job that used to be done by two or three others before the cutbacks.

The Chinese dealt with all of these problems by setting up the 12345 helpline in 1987. The helpline is a phone and online system that anyone in China, including visitors, can use to ask questions or make complaints.

Businesses can also use the helpline to get advice on things such as relocation, name changes, etc. In fact it seems to me you can use the hotline to ask about pretty much anything.

At the 12345 centre, one of our Friends of Socialist China delegation was asked to call the number and ask a question.

Francisco Dominguez said he was at our hotel and needed to get a taxi to take him into central Beijing.

The operator patiently advised him what to do. The call was logged and went into a system that would follow any trends.

Dominguez said: “The response was very quick although they were surprised by the request.

“They spoke in English which was helpful. Within seconds they got back with a number and an alternative to call.”

He added: “It was a very efficient service.”

It was clear that most calls were about far more serious things than the need for a taxi.

Calls covered issues ranging from rubbish collection, getting a lift fitted or repaired and enquiries about official papers.

Some people did call in because they were concerned about the unequal distribution of bamboo shoots to the world-famous pandas at the zoo.

All calls are answered within 15 seconds and a guarantee is given that your concern, question or complaint, will be addressed within seven days. Calls are passed on to local authorities as appropriate to deal with the issue.

Anyone who calls will get a call back to tell them what has been done and be given the opportunity to confirm whether the issues have been resolved to their satisfaction.

Around 1,500 staff work in shifts over 24 hours. The numbers on duty can be varied to take into account predicted hotspots such as major sporting events.

All members of staff are part of the nearly 100 million members of the Communist Party of China — putting the party at the service of the people in a very practical way. Each call is recorded and keywords are used to help identify trends which are fed through to national and local authorities to address.

Delegation member Russel Harland is a public service worker in Surrey. He said: “When I saw the hotline in action I was overwhelmed because I’ve worked in a similar job for a number of years to give advice on social care among other issues but also as someone who has worked for the Alzheimer’s society as a dementia adviser.

“We saw something in action which was about resolving issues by getting to the crux of the problems that people were having.

“The intention was to solve these issues rather than avoid them but also to carry out an evaluation so the issues don’t happen again.”

Harland said public service workers in Britain were overwhelmed by endless budget cuts and said he couldn’t help thinking as a public servant, “How can we get our politicians and planners to start looking more closely at schemes like this?”

Rashida Islam, a delegation member from Halifax, said: “I was particularly struck by 12345’s dedication to serving people and was also very interested by how this platform is used to shape some of the nation’s policies.”

Co-founder of the Black Liberation Alliance Fiona Sim said: “I was really impressed with how the people are being connected with the government and the Communist Party.

“I just had to think about all the elderly people, disabled people people who are vulnerable and might not have been able to reach out for help or reach out for support in any other ways.

“So I feel the 12345 hotline really provides a crucial lifeline to the world not just for material needs but also for emotional and psychological wellbeing.”

There is little doubt that this nationwide service available to the 1.4 billion population and anyone who visits is about being people-centred rather than budget-centred.

It is also about making sure that the CPC does not lose sight of its mission to put itself at the service of the people.

This fits entirely with the view of Chinese revolutionary Qu Qubai who said in 1927 that the theory of revolution can never be divorced from the practice of revolution and that the “work of applying Marxism to China’s national conditions cannot be delayed for a day.”

Applied today this must mean making sure that the people have the best possible services in place to enable them to get by every day. The 12345 hotline is an important and very popular part of building the Chinese revolution.

What the US really means by overcapacity

In the article below, prominent Marxist economist and International Manifesto Group convenor Radhika Desai responds to the media hype about China’s putative “overcapacity” in renewable energy production – a story that gathered steam during US energy secretary Janet Yellen’s recent visit to China, in which she accused China of “flooding” the world’s energy markets with cheap green energy.

Radhika starts off with the very reasonable point that, given the number of climate records that were broken in 2023, “one might think everyone would welcome China’s plentiful and cheap clean energy equipment”. China’s unparalleled investment in solar and wind energy have resulted in a dramatic fall in the cost of these technologies worldwide, thereby providing a powerful boost to humanity’s efforts to avoid climate catastrophe.

Furthermore, when it comes to “distorting markets” via subsidies, “the US offers billions in industrial subsidies and talks of reviving industrial policy. Moreover, it denies the simple fact that no country has industrialized without protecting itself, and using myriad forms of state direction, including subsidies.” Indeed China’s subsidies are perfectly consistent with WTO rules.

The article notes that declining conditions of the US working class are caused not by Chinese “overcapacity” but by “pro-corporate and pro-financialization neoliberal US policies” which have “deindustrialized the US, stagnated working class wages and, by shifting income and wealth from the ordinary people towards a tiny elite, generated vast inequality”.

Radhika concludes by observing that, as a socialist government committed to the welfare of its people, China “will not roll over and play dead when asked to harm its own economy, its own workers and the possibility of dealing with climate change, all only so that the interests of unproductive inefficient and financialized US corporations may be advanced”.

This article first appeared on CGTN.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was recently in China to talk about its “clean energy overcapacity.” What can that possibly mean? At a time when the world needs more and cheaper clean energy equipment to deal with climate change, isn’t China helping the world by making this equipment more widely available at prices more of the world can afford? Surely, that is just what the world needs in 2024.

After all, 2023 broke so many climate records. It was the warmest year on record. There were record-breaking forest fires and floods. It was the hottest northern hemisphere summer. July 2023 was the hottest month on record. Considering these facts, one might think everyone would welcome China’s plentiful and cheap clean energy equipment.

Evidently, not. The U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen accused China of flooding the world with cheap clean energy exports, distorting global markets and harming workers. What explains this perversity?

The crux of the problem is the U.S.’s stance on climate change. It would be understandable if it supported solutions that were beneficial to it and its people. However, not only does the U.S. seek benefits not for its people but its corporations, it seeks solutions that not only benefit them but also put them in a dominant position.

Yellen kicked off her campaign against Chinese overcapacity at a solar energy plant in Georgia just days before she set foot in Beijing. She alleged that China had previously inflicted overcapacity in steel and aluminium and was now doing this in the clean energy sector, particular in solar panels, lithium-ion batteries and electric vehicles. “China’s overcapacity distorts global prices and production patterns and hurts American firms and workers,” she stated.

Capacity can only be excessive in relation to demand. When the problem is labelled overcapacity the ‘solution’ is to cut (other nations’) capacity. One could always see it as a problem of restricted demand, to be solved by expanding it. U.S. elites have long approached the crisis of the 1970s as one of over-capacity and sought to deal with the problem by restricting or even reducing industrial capacity in its rivals. It did this to Japan starting in the 1990s. It is currently doing this to Europe, forcing it to deindustrialize, allegedly in order to fight the hyped-up danger that Russia poses. And now, Yellen has brought this effort to China.

If China’s industrial capacity is deemed excessive, it must be restricted so that, when such equipment becomes scarce, U.S. products of lesser quality and higher cost will find markets. It also amounts to saying that the U.S. absolutely does not wish to increase the rest of the world’s capacity to demand more by increasing development and therefore demand there.

In speaking of China distorting markets, Yellen is saying that China captures markets through subsidies. This is, of course, particularly rich when the U.S. offers billions in industrial subsidies and talks of reviving industrial policy. Moreover, it denies the simple fact that no country has industrialized without protecting itself, and using myriad forms of state direction, including subsidies. This understanding defined the terms on which China entered the World Trade Organization in 2000. The U.S. was willing to grant these terms only because it assumed that China would be no more successful than other developing countries in using such provisions to industrialize and become a technological leader. It was wrong.

Finally, Yellen speaks of China harming U.S. workers. The sad, even macabre, reality is that U.S. workers have been harmed over all these neoliberal decades not by China but by the pro-corporate and pro-financialization neoliberal U.S. policies. They have deindustrialized the U.S., stagnated working class wages and, by shifting income and wealth from the ordinary people towards a tiny elite, generating vast inequality.

Sadly, for Yellen, China is neither Japan nor Europe but a socialist economy whose government is oriented towards advancing egalitarian development for its people. Yellen will find it willing to cooperate for the benefit of people and the planet. But it will not roll over and play dead when asked to harm its own economy, its own workers and the possibility of dealing with climate change, all only so that the interests of unproductive inefficient and financialized U.S. corporations may be advanced.

What’s really behind the campaign to ban TikTok?

The following article by Chris Garaffa, originally published in Liberation News, provides valuable insight into the US government’s campaign to ban TikTok.

Chris notes that, while some in the US are concerned about TikTok’s data collection, such concerns “play into racist tropes about surveillance in China”. In reality, US social media apps such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram “collect as much or more information than TikTok and use it to create profiles on users in order to target advertisements”. Furthermore, “these companies willingly hand over information to US law enforcement and surveillance agencies.” Data privacy is an important consideration in general, but it can only be addressed by regulation of the entire industry, not by singling out Chinese companies.

The attempt to ban TikTok must be considered in the context of “the ongoing effort by the US government to stop China’s ascendance on the global stage as part of its new Cold War efforts”, writes Garaffa. This broader campaign also incorporates the US government’s efforts to block Chinese technology companies such as Huawei from participating in the development of 5G networks, and the ongoing (and hapless) ‘semiconductor war’.

The author makes an important connection between the campaign against TikTok and the US-based genocide taking place in Gaza:

The renewed focus on TikTok also comes at a time when millions of people have continuously mobilized in defense of the Palestinian people since Oct 7. The genocide in Palestine is being livestreamed for the world to see on TikTok, and young people increasingly get their news from short-form videos on the platform…

Banning TikTok, or forcing it to be sold to a company based in the United States to continue operating, would have a chilling effect on the ability for people to see what Israel is doing to Palestinians with U.S. political, diplomatic, military and financial support. Such a ban would only be beneficial for U.S. tech giants and their investors, and would serve as a stepping stone in the growing confrontation that the United States is building towards with China.

On March 13, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 7521. This bill, called the “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” but more commonly known as the TikTok ban, was passed just eight days after its introduction in the House. If the bill passes the Senate, President Joe Biden has said he will sign it.

The bill explicitly targets ByteDance, the owner of popular social media app TikTok, both in its introduction and in its text. If passed, the legislation would force the sale of the app so long as it’s owned by ByteDance, a Beijing-based company. It would also allow for the blocking of applications and websites with more than 1 million monthly active users if the company that makes the app is based in one of four “foreign adversary countries” defined by U.S. law: North Korea, China, Russia and Iran. App stores run by companies like Apple and Google would be prevented from allowing users to download TikTok and other covered apps to users in the United States.

Not a win for data privacy

Some privacy advocates claim this bill is a win for privacy rights, citing concerns about data collection by TIkTok. While some of these concerns may come from a well-intentioned place, they play into racist tropes about surveillance in China. U.S.-based social media apps collect as much or more information than TikTok and use it to create profiles on users in order to target advertisements. These companies also willingly hand over information to U.S. law enforcement and surveillance agencies.

Apple’s App Store added privacy labels to apps in 2020. Facebook’s app lists a massive 17 categories of information under the “Data Used to Track You” and “Data Linked to You” sections, including ominous and vague Sensitive Info and Other Data items.

Data Used to Track You includes information that may be shared directly with other companies including data brokers, while Data Linked to You includes information that is tied to your identity on the app. By comparison, TikTok lists 13 categories of data under these sections, and doesn’t include Sensitive Info, Health & Fitness or Other Data. X, formerly Twitter, similarly has 17 items under the two sections, with many more items listed directly as “Data Used to Track You” than either Facebook or TikTok.

Data privacy is not the real concern of those pushing for a TikTok ban. If it were, they would be focusing on the multi-trillion dollar data collection industry that seeks to monetize every video view, every tap, every reaction GIF, and every message we send as users of these apps. If the U.S. government had real data protection regulations, all apps — including TikTok — would be required to follow them in order to do business in the country.

TikTok is already banned on the work devices of federal employees and of state employees in a majority of states. Donald Trump similarly tried to force the sale of TikTok to U.S. companies in 2020, giving retailer Walmart and enterprise software company Oracle a combined 20% stake in the company. Austin, Texas-based Oracle got its start in 1977 with the Central Intelligence Agency as its first customer, and heavily relies on government contracts for its business. Oracle co-founder and multi-billionaire Larry Ellison called for “a national security database combined with biometrics, thumb prints, hand prints, iris scans or whatever is best…” that could be “built in a few months” in a New York Times opinion piece months after the 9/11 attacks.

Cyberattack allegations: smoke and mirrors instead of truth

In the following brief article for the Morning Star, Carlos Martinez scrutinises the British government’s recent claim that China is engaged in “malicious” cyber activities directed against the UK.

While these allegations are being led by fanatically anti-China Tory MPs such as Iain Duncan Smith, the article notes that Starmer’s Labour Party has also been quick to jump on the bandwagon, with shadow foreign secretary David Lammy promising that a Labour government would put a stop to Chinese cyberattacks by “working with Nato allies to develop new measures designed to protect our democratic values, institutions and open societies”. Carlos comments: “Lammy perhaps missed the irony of lauding Nato’s ‘democratic values’ on the 25th anniversary of that organisation’s criminal bombing campaign against Yugoslavia.”

The slanders about Chinese cyberattacks “contribute to anti-China hysteria, thereby building public support for Britain’s role in a reckless US-led new cold war.” Carlos concludes:

There is no benefit to the British working class of joining in with the new cold war. China does not pose a threat to us. China’s proposal is for mutual respect and non-interference; an economic relationship based on mutual benefit; and for close co-operation on the central issues of our era: climate change, pandemics, peace and development. This is a vision worthy of our support.

On Monday March 25 2024, in an obviously co-ordinated move, the US, UK, New Zealand and Australia accused the Chinese government of backing cyberattacks in order to gather data and undermine Western democracy. On top of their unproven allegations, these countries announced the introduction of new sanctions against China.

Claiming that China was engaged in “malicious” cyber campaigns against MPs, and that it was responsible for a cyberattack on the UK Electoral Commission between August 2021 and October 2022, Deputy PM Oliver Dowden announced: “The UK will not tolerate malicious cyber activity. It is an absolute priority for the UK government to protect our democratic system and values.”

The accusations were led by members of the viscerally anti-China Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), the ostensible purpose of which is to “counter the threats posed by the Chinese Communist Party to democratic principles.”

IPAC lists its funding sources as the Open Society Foundations, the National Endowment for Democracy and the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, which should give readers some idea as to its ideological orientation.

Its most prominent British member is Tory MP Iain Duncan Smith, a notoriously fanatical China hawk, who talks often about the “terrible genocide in Xinjiang,” while simultaneously defending Israel’s actual genocide in Gaza. In short, he is an utter reactionary, albeit not a terribly bright one — his rambling utterances bring to mind Marx’s quip about the “British Parliament, which no one will reproach with being excessively endowed with genius.”

His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition was eager to show the ruling class that its foreign policy is every bit as absurd as that of the Tories. Writing in the Mirror on Monday, shadow foreign secretary David Lammy stated: “The wave of cyber-attacks against British politicians and the hack of 40 million voters’ data is chilling. One country, China, is responsible.”

He promised that, if elected, “Labour will work with Nato allies to develop new measures designed to protect our democratic values, institutions and open societies.”

Lammy perhaps missed the irony of lauding Nato’s “democratic values” on the 25th anniversary of that organisation’s criminal bombing campaign against Yugoslavia.

Needless to say, the government singularly failed to back up its accusations with meaningful evidence. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian commented quite reasonably that “there should be comprehensive and objective evidence, rather than slandering other countries without any factual support.”

He added: “China firmly opposes and combats all kinds of cyberattacks, and is committed to working with all countries, on the basis of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit, to strengthen co-operation and jointly deal with the threats of cybersecurity through channels such as bilateral dialogue or judicial assistance.”

He further affirmed that “the evidence provided by the British side was inadequate and relevant conclusions lack professionalism,” and noted that the US, Britain and their allies themselves have a long history of cyberattacks and espionage against China.

He called on the US and Britain to “stop politicising cybersecurity issues, stop smearing China and imposing unilateral sanctions on China, and stop cyberattacks against China.”

A statement issued by the Chinese embassy in London branded Britain’s accusations “completely unfounded and malicious slander,” adding that “China has always adhered to the principle of non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.”

The embassy statement observed drily that: “whether the British government is good or bad, the British people will come to a conclusion sooner or later.”

Of course, the key purpose of these latest slanders is to contribute to anti-China hysteria, thereby building public support for Britain’s role in a reckless US-led new cold war.

An editorial in the Global Times pointed out that Britain’s shift away from a “golden era” of relations with China towards a position of hostility coincides with an increased economic and political dependence on the US in the aftermath of Brexit.

“It seems that the only way for Britain to secure its position in the ‘co-pilot’ seat is by closely aligning with the US and causing trouble for China.” Issuing slanders against China is simply an example of “deliberately stoking fear to advance their political agendas and achieve their political goals.”

An additional incentive for Britain in painting China as a security threat is to promote protectionism, for example in relation to Chinese-made electric vehicles — which are well known to be both cheaper and better than their European and North American counterparts, and could help meet Britain’s stated environmental objectives.

There is no benefit to the British working class of joining in with the new cold war. China does not pose a threat to us. China’s proposal is for mutual respect and non-interference; an economic relationship based on mutual benefit; and for close co-operation on the central issues of our era: climate change, pandemics, peace and development.

This is a vision worthy of our support.

Britain issues malicious and groundless accusations about Chinese cyberattacks

On Monday 25 March 2024, in an obviously coordinated move, the US, UK, New Zealand and Australia expressed concerns over Chinese cyber-hacking, which they claim is being leveraged by the PRC government to gather data and undermine Western democracy. On top of their unproven allegations, these countries announced the introduction of new unilateral sanctions against China.

In Britain, the charges were led by members of the viscerally anti-China Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), the ostensible purpose of which is to “counter the threats posed by the Chinese Communist Party to democratic principles”. IPAC lists its funding sources as the Open Society Foundations, the National Endowment for Democracy and the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, which should give readers some idea as to its ideological orientation.

Unfortunately the two major British political parties are equally enthusiastic about waging a propaganda war against China. Writing in the Mirror of 25 March 2024, shadow foreign secretary David Lammy stated: “The wave of cyber-attacks against British politicians and the hack of 40 million voters’ data is chilling. One country, China, is responsible.” He promised that, if elected, “Labour will work with NATO allies to develop new measures designed to protect our democratic values, institutions and open societies.”

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian responded that “China firmly opposes and combats all kinds of cyberattacks, and is committed to working with all countries, on the basis of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit, to strengthen cooperation and jointly deal with the threats of cybersecurity through channels such as bilateral dialogue or judicial assistance.”

He further affirmed that “the evidence provided by the British side was inadequate and relevant conclusions lack professionalism”, and noted that the US, Britain and their allies have a long history of cyberattacks and espionage against China. He called on the US and Britain to “stop politicising cybersecurity issues, stop smearing China and imposing unilateral sanctions on China, and stop cyberattacks against China.”

A statement issued by the Chinese Embassy in the UK noted that “China has always adhered to the principle of non-interference in each other’s internal affairs”, adding drily that “whether the British government is good or bad, the British people will come to a conclusion sooner or later.”

An editorial in the Global Times pointed out that Britain’s shift away from a ‘golden era’ of relations with China towards a position of hostility coincides with a post-Brexit economic decline and corresponding increased dependence on the US. “It seems that the only way for Britain to secure its position in the ‘co-pilot’ seat is by closely aligning with the US and causing trouble for China.” Issuing slanders against China is simply an example of “deliberately stoking fear to advance their political agendas and achieve their political goals.”

A further Global Times report points to another incentive for Britain in painting China as a security threat: it paves the way for protectionism, for example in relation to Chinese-made electric vehicles and telecommunications infrastructure.

The Chinese Embassy statement and the two Global Times reports are reproduced below.

The Chinese Embassy in the UK issues statement to strongly condemn the UK side’s groundless accusation

On 25 March, the UK government made the groundless accusation that China had carried out cyberattacks against the UK, and announced sanctions on two Chinese individuals and one Chinese entity. In response to this, the Chinese Embassy in the UK issued a statement, strongly condemning the UK’s sinister action. The statement reads as follows:

The UK’s claim that China was responsible for malicious cyber campaigns targeting the UK is completely unfounded and constitutes malicious slander. We firmly oppose and strongly condemn this and have made a serious démarche to the UK side.

China is a major victim of cyberattacks. We have firmly fought and stopped all kinds of malicious cyber activities in accordance with the law, and have never encouraged, supported or condoned cyberattacks. The UK’s hype-up of the so-called “Chinese cyber attacks” without basis and the announcement of sanctions is outright political manipulation and malicious slander.

China has always adhered to the principle of non-interference in each other’s internal affairs. We have no interest or need to meddle in the UK’s internal affairs. Whether the British government is good or bad, the British people will come to a conclusion sooner or later.

The UK falsely accused China of attempting to interfere with UK democracy. This is nothing more than a publicity stunt. This is also a typical example of a thief crying “catch thief”.

China has always stood against illegal unilateral sanctions and will make a justified and necessary response to this.

We strongly urge the UK to immediately stop spreading false information about China, stop such self-staged, anti-China farces, and refrain from going further down the wrong path that leads only to failure.

US targets TikTok in escalating economic war against China

The following article by Gary Wilson addresses the US government’s latest attempt to ban TikTok, the hugely popular social media app owned by Chinese company ByteDance.

Gary points out that “there isn’t even a sliver of evidence” for politicians’ claims that TikTok poses a national security threat or that ByteDance is working with the Chinese military. Meanwhile, Facebook’s well-documented history of working with the Pentagon provides ample proof of the US government’s hypocrisy.

The true reason for the attack on TikTok is that “the US government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, has been escalating its economic war against China by imposing sanctions and restrictions on Chinese tech companies. The goal is to eradicate socialist China’s entire system of advanced technology.” This is part of a wider New Cold War strategy to contain China’s rise, in a geopolitical context where “US imperialism considers socialist China’s economic rise as its most significant contemporary challenge.”

This article was originally published in Struggle/La Lucha on 15 March 2024.

TikTok has emerged as a dominant force in social media, reshaping not just online culture but also extending its influence beyond the digital realm. Since its launch in 2016, TikTok has become one of the most popular social media platforms in the world, surpassing Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and YouTube in terms of downloads and engagement.

Through its unique format of short, audio-driven videos curated through algorithms, TikTok has propelled numerous artists, like Lil Nas X and Noah Kahan, into the mainstream spotlight. Music from Africa has gained a global audience. Even the Biden campaign is on TikTok with “BidenHQ,” hoping to appeal to a younger audience than its base of retirees and Wall Street bankers.

Facebook is considered to be TikTok’s biggest competitor.

“Meta clearly sees itself in a battle against TikTok for the hearts, minds, and attention spans of millennials, a significant chunk of the social media market. TikTok has experienced a staggering growth of users since the onset of the global pandemic, taking over a huge chunk of its competitor’s audience,” the Guardian reported.

So why do the Biden administration and Congress want to ban TikTok?

Are they all just fans of Mark Zuckerberg? Or in Zuckerberg’s pocket? For sure, they’ve all probably had a few clubhouse dinners with Meta.

But this goes beyond Facebook. The target, and they clearly say this, is China. The ban passed by the House of Representatives is called the “ Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.” China is the “foreign adversary.”

A day after the House passed the bill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin (under Donald Trump) announced he is putting together an investor group to take over TikTok. “This should be owned by U.S. businesses,” he said.

TikTok’s only “crime” is beating out Facebook and the others. They claim TikTok is somehow working with the Chinese military, but there isn’t even a sliver of evidence of that.

Facebook has ties to the Pentagon (google “Fake Facebook and Instagram accounts promoting U.S. interests had ties to U.S. military” or “Big Tech Has Made Billions Off the 20-Year War on Terror”). Maybe we should ban Facebook. But that’s another discussion.

Trump, Biden both target China

The U.S. government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, has been escalating its economic war against China by imposing sanctions and restrictions on Chinese tech companies. The goal is to eradicate socialist China’s entire system of advanced technology.

Reuters just reported on March 14 that while he was president, “Trump launched CIA covert influence operation against China.” Reuters says that Trump had also given the CIA greater powers to launch offensive cyber operations against China and Russia. “Sources described the 2019 authorization uncovered by Reuters as a more ambitious operation.”

The anti-TikTok propaganda is part of what Reuters calls a “covert messaging” operation.

“Covert propaganda campaigns were common during the Cold War,” Reuters adds.

Some call it the New Cold War. However, the New Cold War cannot reproduce the old Cold War. China has emerged as a major manufacturing power, including in advanced technology, and is the largest trade partner for 70% of the world’s countries. The U.S. no longer has the same dominant position in the global market.

The global landscape has changed dramatically since the Cold War era, but capitalism’s fundamental contradictions persist today, mirroring those of the 1960s during the Vietnam War.

Financially and militarily, the U.S. empire is dangerously overextended.

Before the genocidal invasion of Gaza, the Biden administration was seeking to consolidate its dominance in the region by brokering Saudi Arabia’s recognition of Israel. Now, the U.S. is spending billions of dollars on bombs and weapons systems for the Zionist regime’s war on the Palestinian people.

For two years, the U.S. has engaged in the largest arms transfer in history, sending to Ukraine some $113.4 billion in “emergency funding” over and above the regular Pentagon budget. Growing war fatigue, however, has now reduced the funds.

The New York Times puts it this way:

“American support has sharply declined. House Republicans have blocked additional aid to Ukraine, and the Biden administration cannot send many more weapons. (The $300 million package announced this week will likely help Ukraine for only a few weeks.)”

In fact, the Times almost says, it is only U.S. weapons and ammunition that started this war and have kept it going. “It falls on the U.S. to supply Ukraine,” the Times says. “The war is at a stalemate.” The funds have run out.

U.S. imperialism considers socialist China’s economic rise as its most significant contemporary challenge. It is resolute in thwarting Chinese industry from dominating the global markets. This ongoing “New Cold War” raises the specter of a potential war in the Pacific.