Technology Archives - Friends of Socialist China

Chinese medical team helps Zimbabwe complete country’s first neuromodulation surgeries

A Chinese medical team has helped Zimbabwe carry out its first Deep Brain Stimulation and first Spinal Cord Stimulation surgeries – major neuromodulation procedures used to treat Parkinson’s, drug-resistant epilepsy, post-stroke rehabilitation and chronic pain. The Zimbabwean side led the operations, with Chinese surgeons providing technical support. The technology, developed by Tsinghua University and commercialised by Beijing PINS Medical, meets internationally advanced standards but is significantly cheaper than the US equivalents, making it genuinely deployable in African health systems.

The lead Zimbabwean neurosurgeon, Dr Nathaniel Zimani, captured its significance: “If China wasn’t there, we may get this technology 20 years from now. Because of this collaboration, we’ve advanced such medical technologies by 20 years in our country… It’s teaching us how to fish, than giving us fish.”

The work is being carried out with the help of the 23rd Chinese medical team sent to Zimbabwe since 1985, representing four decades of continuous medical cooperation, now part of the China-Zimbabwe “all-weather community with a shared future”, under which China has pledged to support Zimbabwe’s development and to oppose external interference and illegal sanctions.

It is worth setting this beside the West’s engagement with Zimbabwe over the decades. Britain ruled the country – then Rhodesia – through nearly a century of brutal settler-colonialism, dispossessing the Black majority and fighting a vicious war to prevent independence. When Zimbabwe finally won its liberation in 1980, and in the early 2000s reclaimed its land, the West responded with an illegal sanctions regime that inflicted enormous suffering. Two models of engagement, side by side: one built on plunder, white supremacy, colonialism and neocolonialism; the other on solidarity, development and knowledge transfer.

China’s courts draw a line in the sand: AI cannot be an excuse to fire workers

Artificial intelligence is reshaping the world of work at breakneck speed, and almost everywhere the same question is being asked: who pays the price when a machine can do your job? Across much of the capitalist world the answer has been brutally simple – the worker does. In China, the courts are giving a very different answer.

In this detailed original analysis for Friends of Socialist China, İbrahim Can Eraslan examines a landmark ruling handed down by the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court on the eve of International Workers’ Day 2026, which found that a technology company had unlawfully dismissed an employee after replacing his role with AI. Far from being an isolated case, Eraslan shows how it builds on a consistent and growing body of jurisprudence in Beijing, Guangzhou and beyond, all resting on a single principle: that voluntary AI adoption is a business decision, and that companies which automate must therefore shoulder the corresponding social responsibilities rather than dumping the costs onto their workforce.

Crucially, Eraslan situates these rulings within China’s wider policy architecture – from the 15th Five-Year Plan’s commitment to assessing AI’s employment effects, to proposals for compulsory employment impact assessments before large-scale AI deployment – and contrasts this socialist, employment-first approach with the ‘employment at will’ doctrine of the United States and the patchwork protections of the European Union. The result, he argues, is one of the first coherent national legal frameworks anywhere in the world for managing AI-driven job displacement: not Luddism, but a principled insistence that the fruits of technological progress be shared and that its costs not be socialised onto working people.

He concludes:

China’s courts have drawn a line in the sand. AI is welcome. But AI cannot be an excuse to fire workers. The cost of progress must be shared, and the burden must not fall on those who can least afford to bear it. In a world where capital everywhere is racing to automate labor out of existence, China’s socialist legal system is saying: not so fast.

China and the Global Green Revolution – a webinar review

Friends of Socialist China’s US committee recently organised a hybrid event in Portland on the theme ‘China’s Global Green Revolution’, co-facilitated by Sara Flounders and Carlos Martinez, alongside seven contributors to the book China Changes Everything. The discussion explored how China’s lead in renewable energy, reforestation, ecological agriculture and green technology is reshaping the global response to the climate crisis – and why defending that contribution against the new cold war matters for the whole of humanity.

The following review, by Lyn Neeley, summarises the speakers’ contributions, from record-efficiency coal plants and the race for lunar helium-3 to glow-in-the-dark street plants and saltwater rice. A recording of the event is available via the International Action Center.

Brazil’s Lula hails China-developed surgical robot as ‘incredible’

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva recently performed a simulated surgery from 1,400 kilometres away, using a Chinese-built Toumai MT-1000 surgical robot – the world’s only commercial remote surgery system supporting all major specialties. He remarked: “It is incredible to see up close how innovation can expand access, save lives, and further strengthen Brazil’s Unified Health System.”

Brazil’s Unified Health System is one of the largest free, universal public health systems on the planet. Chinese surgical-robotics technology, developed by Shanghai MicroPort MedBot, is being integrated in the service of a public, free-at-the-point-of-use system. At the cancer hospital Lula visited, annual patient throughput has already risen from around 400 to 680 since the Toumai was installed.

China is now Brazil’s largest trading partner, with two-way trade of around $188 billion in 2024. As Lula has put it, China is Brazil’s “best partner.” This cooperation goes well beyond soybeans and other primary commodities; it includes assisting Brazil’s industrial strategy and working closely on cutting-edge medical technology.

Why has China blocked Meta’s purchase of Manus AI?

When China’s National Development and Reform Commission ordered Meta to unwind its $2 billion acquisition of AI startup Manus on 27 April, Western media reached predictably for its standard toolkit: “authoritarian overreach”, “arbitrary intervention”, an assault on the “democratisation of technology.” What this framing systematically obscures is the substantive legal, strategic and political logic behind the decision.

The two pieces collected here provide that missing context. Sara Vivacqua’s investigation, published by the progressive Brazilian outlet Diário do Centro do Mundo and translated into English by the author, dissects both the legal architecture of China’s decision and the character of the company it rejected. Manus is not simply a commercial product; it is an autonomous AI agent – capable of operating inside authenticated platforms, accessing local sessions and executing complex multi-step tasks – built by Chinese engineers in China, with Chinese state support, before a hasty relocation to Singapore (presumably for purposes of regulatory evasion). The NDRC’s ruling establishes a clear and consequential precedent: jurisdictional control follows where technology is built and who builds it, not where a holding company is incorporated.

But Sara goes further, placing the ruling in the context of what Meta actually is. The company’s integration into US military AI development, its Llama models deployed across federal agencies and Five Eyes intelligence partners, its partnership with defence contractor Anduril, and its documented history of global electoral interference through the Cambridge Analytica scandal – all of this reframes the acquisition not as a business deal but as a potential intelligence operation. The question the Western press refuses to ask is the obvious one: why would any sovereign state hand strategic AI infrastructure to a company that functions as an arm of the US national security apparatus?

Below Sara Vivacqua’s article, we reproduce a Global Times editorial making the complementary case from a Chinese regulatory perspective: that the decision is legally grounded, internationally consistent, and entirely compatible with China’s continued openness to foreign investment in non-sensitive sectors. The EU, the US and Japan all operate comparable review mechanisms; the difference is that when China uses them, it is treated in the Western media as evidence of authoritarianism rather than ordinary statecraft.

Together, these two pieces offer what the mainstream coverage has failed to provide: a clear-eyed account of a decision that is legally sound and strategically coherent.

How China Blocked Zuckerberg’s Espionage Project with Manus AI

Meta, owned by Mark Zuckerberg and the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, found itself frustrated this Monday (27^th April) in its attempt to appropriate Chinese artificial intelligence technology.

How the US lost its chip war on China

The following article by Gary Wilson, originally published in Struggle La Lucha, argues that the United States has effectively lost its attempt to contain China’s rise and preserve US monopoly control over advanced technology through semiconductor export controls. The Trump administration’s recent decision to allow renewed exports of Nvidia’s H200 AI chips to China, albeit with restrictions and fees, is a tacit admission that the chip war has failed. “The chip war did not revive US industry. It exposed its fragility.”

Tracing the origins of the chip war to the Obama-era Pivot to Asia, the article situates semiconductor restrictions within a broader strategy of military, economic, and technological containment. Under Trump and Biden, this evolved into an aggressive weaponisation of global supply chains, using export controls, sanctions and alliance pressure to block China’s access to advanced chips, manufacturing tools and software ecosystems.

Gary observes that China’s response was decisive and systematic. Through long-term state planning, and integration of AI into production and infrastructure, Chinese firms – Huawei in particular – have made rapid advances in domestic hardware and systems design. By compensating for individual chip inferiority with massive, coordinated clusters, China narrowed performance gaps and accelerated technological self-reliance. Export controls, instead of halting progress, intensified China’s drive toward technological sovereignty.

The fallout has been global. US reshoring efforts have yielded little fruit thus far; the US’s allies have been forced to absorb substantial losses, and trust in US-controlled supply chains has reached an all-time low. Allowing Nvidia exports is therefore essentially a retreat aimed at preserving residual influence through software dependence. The article concludes that monopoly enforcement has reached its limits: coercion cannot replace production, and the era of US-dictated technological dominance is ending.

Imperialist monopoly capitalism cannot outplan a system organized for long-term development. Coercion cannot substitute for production. Sanctions cannot replace planning… What comes next will not be decided by chips alone. It will be decided by which social system can organise production, labor, and technology to meet real needs over time. On that terrain, the chip war has already delivered its verdict.

When the White House quietly approved renewed exports of Nvidia’s H200 AI accelerators to China — with a 25% fee attached — it marked more than a policy adjustment. It marked the effective collapse of Washington’s semiconductor containment strategy.

After years of escalating export controls, sanctions, and alliance pressure, the United States is now conceding what the chip war made clear: China cannot be technologically frozen, and U.S. monopoly control over advanced technology is no longer enforceable.

Intelligence artificial, profits fictitious

In the following article for Struggle La Lucha, Gary Wilson argues that the US economy’s apparent strength is illusory, sustained not by genuine productivity or innovation but by speculation — particularly around artificial intelligence. He describes the so-called AI revolution as a massive financial bubble: stock prices have soared far beyond the real value produced by technology or labour, echoing the speculative manias of the past.

The author observes that capitalism’s need for constant expansion drives investors to seek new frontiers when previous ones — such as smartphones and social media — stagnate. Artificial intelligence, and especially the dream of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), has become the latest speculative frontier, attracting trillions in investment despite limited real-world returns. Big tech companies have seen valuations reach absurd levels, even as AI products remain unprofitable.

This “fictitious prosperity”, built on credit and hype, fuses finance capital with US imperial ambitions. The military, intelligence agencies and tech monopolies now form a military-tech-industrial complex, with AI development justified in terms of national security and global dominance. “Silicon Valley has metastasized into a merger of big capital, big tech, and big war. The empire’s newest weapon isn’t a missile — it’s the algorithm.”

In contrast, China treats AI as a practical tool for production — applying it to manufacturing, logistics, and energy — rather than a casino for speculative profit.

China, by contrast, is treating AI not as a casino chip but as a tool. Instead of betting on abstract intelligence for future profit, China applies AI to real sectors — manufacturing, logistics, energy, and urban planning… While the U.S. bankrolls hype, China retools for production. This isn’t just a tech race — it’s a clash between two systems: finance-driven capitalism versus planned development.

The author was among the speakers at our webinar on DeepSeek and the challenge to US technological hegemony, held in February 2025.

The U.S. economy isn’t booming — it’s levitating. What keeps it up isn’t productivity or innovation, but speculation.

The so-called “AI revolution,” hailed as a new industrial dawn, is in reality a massive bubble — a speculative fever driving stock prices far beyond what the technology can actually deliver.

The anatomy of a bubble

A speculative bubble forms when the price of something — like tech stocks — rises far beyond its real, sustainable value.

That real value comes not from market hype or quick profits, but from workers’ labor power — their capacity to create more value than they’re paid for.

But in a bubble, prices rise not because real production or value creation is expanding, but because investors are chasing promises — each betting that someone else will pay even more for the same asset.

The pattern isn’t accidental. It’s built into capitalism itself.

Step one: Capital needs to expand

Capitalism runs on an “expand or die” engine. Every firm must grow constantly to survive — outspending, outproducing, and out-innovating its rivals.

When one wave of growth slows, capital hunts for another.

China’s technology infrastructure is blazing a trail for humanity

The following is the text of a speech given by Alessandro Zancan (a member of the Iskra Books editorial board and Friends of Socialist China Britain’s committee) at a China delegation report back meeting held in Brighton on 13 September 2025.

Ale reflects on China’s development over recent decades, arguing that its people-oriented use of technology is central to the country’s success in a number of fields. Platforms like WeChat and AliPay integrate public and private services efficiently and securely, while Huawei’s HarmonyOS NEXT exemplifies China’s push for seamless, cooperative, and non-exploitative tech ecosystems. This state-led coordination underpins achievements in pandemic control, renewable energy and poverty alleviation.

China’s poverty eradication, powered by data systems, digital infrastructure and rural electrification, is the fruit not of charity but of socialist planning and collective effort.

The article concludes that China’s dialectical approach to socialism — pragmatic, adaptive, and technologically advanced — offers lessons for Marxists worldwide: to study China’s experience, challenge Western narratives, and develop their own independent, cooperative platforms for knowledge building, dissemination and coordination.

Quick Rundown of Trip

At the end of May and through the beginning of June, delegates from various organisations, including Iskra Books, the Communist Party of Britain, the Young Communist League, Black Liberation Alliance, Qiao Collective, Freedom Road Socialist Organisation and Workers World Party went on a trip to China, as members of Friends of Socialist China’s Britain and US committees. We were graciously invited and hosted by the China NGO Network for International Exchanges (CNIE).

Shaanxi

Our first stop was in Xi’an, Shaanxi province, by way of a short layover in Shanghai. We saw the Terracotta Army in Emperor Qinshihuang’s Mausoleum Site Museum and we visited the Xi’an City Wall.

We wandered a bit on our own, and experienced the city as tourists, before moving on to Yan’an – the main centre of the Chinese Revolution from the conclusion of the Long March in 1935 until the late 1940s – where we visited the Revolutionary Memorial Hall and the CPC base. We actually got to enter Mao Zedong’s, Zhou Enlai’s and Liu Shaoqi’s cave houses, along with the 7th National Congress Hall.

Gansu

In Dunhuang, Gansu province, we attended a number of meetings and conferences, headlined by the Fourth Dialogue on Exchanges and Mutual Learning Among Civilisations, where we got to meet delegates from all over the world. We visited one of China’s biggest solar parks; we saw the stunning Mogao Caves; and attended the Dragon Boat Festival celebration in the Gobi Desert. It was truly breathtaking, and nothing else I have seen in my life can truly compare.

We then moved to Jiayuguan, where we visited a dairy farm and a number of museums; had a wine tasting from one of Asia’s largest wine producers; visited the JISCO Smart Grid and Localised New Energy Consumption Demonstration Project; and got to see the westernmost point of the Great Wall. Multiple projectors lined the walls, projecting animations of historical events, mapped to the structure of each fortress and individual wall.

Planned obsolescence of capitalism versus sustainable Chinese alternatives: a clash of ideologies

We are pleased to republish below an interesting opinion piece by Bhabani Shankar Nayak, arguing that the fierce hostility of Western elites toward China stems to a significant degree from an ideological clash between neoliberal capitalism and China’s alternative development model. Unlike the US system – driven by profit and sustained through planned obsolescence – China promotes long-term, sustainable, people-centred development aimed at public well-being and common prosperity.

Bhabani includes examples such as China’s breakthrough in nuclear battery technology by Betavolt, with a 50-year lifespan that threatens the Western consumer electronics model reliant on constant upgrades. Similarly, China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS) challenges US financial dominance by providing an alternative to the SWIFT network. These innovations, alongside China’s space program and infrastructure development, reflect a vision rooted in durability and public interest rather than profit.

The article critiques the Schumpeterian notion of ‘creative destruction’ as a myth that masks the exploitative nature of innovation under capitalism, whereby the creative potential of labour is entirely subordinated to private profit. It argues that capitalism commodifies both material goods and human emotions, perpetuating waste and insecurity.

In contrast, China offers a civilisational alternative that fundamentally threatens both the economic viability and ideological foundations of capitalism. This dynamic is a major part of what drives the ongoing campaign to contain and encircle China and to suppress its rise.

Bhabani Shankar Nayak is a Professor of Business Management at London Metropolitan University. He is the author or editor of numerous books and articles on China and other issues related to development in the Global South. This article was first published in Countercurrents.

Why do the American ruling elites, both in the Republican and Democratic parties, oppose China so strongly?

Since taking office, President Donald Trump imposed tariffs of up to 145% on Chinese goods. But it doesn’t stop at trade and tariffs. The American imperialist strategy—marked by political, economic, and military bullying—continues in an unprecedented scale in an effort to pressure China into submission under imperialist hegemony. The core objective is to undermine China’s development and its alternative path, which challenges the foundations of the capitalist system.

What has China achieved that fundamentally challenges the very foundation of American capitalism?

One striking example is the development of a miniature nuclear battery by the Chinese company Betavolt, with support from the Chinese government. This battery boasts a lifespan of 50 years, eliminating the need for recharging in devices such as mobile phones and electric vehicles. Such a breakthrough not only renders frequent charging obsolete but also disrupts the business models of American and European electronics companies, which rely heavily on planned obsolescence—a strategy that encourages repeated consumption through short-lived products and continual upgrades. For example, Apple Inc. products like iPhones continuously changes every year.

China has not only developed its own space station and lunar exploration program but has also created an international transaction system known as the Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS). This system has the potential to completely bypass the Western-dominated SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) network used for global banking and international transactions.

These are just a few examples of the achievements stemming from China’s scientific, political and economic system, which fundamentally contrasts with the American and European capitalist model. Unlike the Western approach, which is largely driven by profit, China’s scientific and technological advancements are geared toward improving the well-being of its people and promoting sustainable development and long-term prosperity. Such alternatives pose a direct challenge to the American-led imperialist capitalist order—one that the ruling elites find deeply threatening and, therefore, unacceptable to their capitalist hegemony.

The Schumpeterian notion of capitalism as a process of “creative destruction”—where innovation leads to the replacement of outdated industries by newer, more efficient ones—is, in reality, a myth. The Schumpeterian sympathy for capitalism stems from its lenient understanding of capitalist innovation. What is truly creative and innovative is labour itself. However, under capitalism, the creative potential of labour is not liberated but rather controlled and exploited to sustain and expand a profit-driven system. Capitalism continually restructures itself to either accommodate or dominate the productive and creative capacities of labour. This dynamic reinforces the strategy of planned obsolescence, accelerating the exploitation of both nature and human beings—as producers and consumers.

Rapid technological advancement, rather than serving human progress, is often harnessed to sustain this exploitative system. The capitalist logic of planned obsolescence deliberately designs products with artificially limited lifespans, ensuring they become quickly outdated. This fuels a “use-and-throw” culture—one that perpetuates constant consumption and reinforces commodity dependency. Far from promoting genuine innovation, this cycle serves to undermine it, replacing durable progress with short-term profitability.

Technological progress under American and European capitalism is primarily driven by the logic of planned obsolescence. It functions not to meet genuine human needs, but to manufacture ever-new desires for commodity-based consumption. Products and services are deliberately designed with short lifespans, encouraging constant replacement and repeat purchases—strategies rooted in corporate interests aimed at sustaining perpetual profit. This cycle not only accelerates the depletion of natural resources but also fuels consumer anxiety, particularly through the psychological pressure of the “fear of missing out.” In this way, capitalism commodifies both material goods and emotional experience, reinforcing a culture of disposability and dependency.

However, China’s scientific and economic progress is guided by a long-term vision centered on the well-being of its people—an approach fundamentally opposed to the capitalist strategy of planned obsolescence. Unlike the American and European market-led systems, which prioritise profit based on exploitation, the Chinese model places public welfare at the core of its technological and developmental agenda. This alternative model threatens the very foundations of Western capitalism by offering a path rooted in sustainability, resilience, and durability—countering the wasteful “use-and-throw” culture that has emerged from capitalist cycles of consumption and planned obsolescence.

In this context, China presents not just a geopolitical rival, but a civilisational alternative—one that challenges the dominance of profit over people. It is precisely because of this that American imperialism, along with its European allies, relentlessly seeks to undermine and weaken China and its achievements. The fear is not merely rooted in economic competition, but in the example that China sets: a political model of planned economic development grounded in peace, progress, and prosperity—one that dares to envision a future beyond capitalist exploitation and its foundation in planned obsolescence.

China’s solar space station: A game-changer in renewable energy

We are pleased to republish below an article by James Wood, a British-Australian technologist and geopolitical analyst based in China, about exciting developments being made by Chinese scientists in the realm of space-based solar power (SBSP), supplementing the article we posted several weeks ago, Science fiction or science reality: China makes impressive progress towards space-based solar power, and providing an Australian perspective.

Describing the technology in easy-to-understand terms, James writes: “Imagine a kilometre-wide solar array orbiting Earth, harvesting limitless, uninterrupted solar energy and beaming it back home, day and night, without the interference of clouds or darkness… Unlike Earth-based solar farms, which suffer from weather conditions and night-time dips, a solar station in space captures continuous, unfiltered solar radiation, potentially more efficient than anything on the ground. The energy is then converted into microwaves and beamed down to terrestrial receiving stations, where it is transformed back into electricity and integrated into the grid.”

The author notes that China’s “state-driven, centralised approach allows for massive co-ordination and rapid development, unlike the fragmented, slow-moving private sector initiatives in the US”. Meanwhile Australia, “despite its vast potential, has been lagging in both space-based technology and terrestrial renewable energy advancements”. This is attributed to inadequate infrastructure and a lack of long-term strategic planning.

In this as in many other fields, China’s socialist system is proving its superiority over capitalism in terms of moving human understanding and capacity forward.

This article originally appeared on Pearls and Irritations.

China is making the once sci-fi dream of space-based solar power a reality and leaving the West scrambling to keep up. Imagine a kilometre-wide solar array orbiting Earth, harvesting limitless, uninterrupted solar energy and beaming it back home, day and night, without the interference of clouds or darkness. The China Academy of Space Technology is spearheading this geostationary solar power station and with a 2028-2050 roadmap, Beijing is set to redefine the global energy game.

In 2028, China plans to launch a low Earth orbit test satellite generating 10 kilowatts (kW) to trial microwave power transmission. By 2030, a 1-megawatt (MW) station is expected to be deployed in geostationary orbit at 36,000 km, where it will be assembled in space before beaming power back to Earth. By 2035, the system aims to scale up to 10 MW, proving its potential for mass energy production. By 2050, the goal is to have a commercially operated solar power plant in space generating two gigawatts (GW) of electricity with an approximately one-kilometre-wide antenna and complex solar cell array assembled in space.

Unlike Earth-based solar farms, which suffer from weather conditions and night-time dips, a solar station in space captures continuous, unfiltered solar radiation, potentially more efficient than anything on the ground. The energy is then converted into microwaves and beamed down to terrestrial receiving stations, where it is transformed back into electricity and integrated into the grid. The Bishan testing facility in Chongqing, backed by $15 million in funding, is already fine-tuning the radio wave transmission technology needed to transmit solar energy from orbit to Earth.

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.