December 10, 2022 By Stephen Gowans It has been a tough week for the star-gazers who run a platform called Friends of Socialist China, a motley collection of Sinophiles and pretend-Marxists who sup…
China spreads stability, which right now is the more revolutionary course of action. Neoliberalism represents a new stage of capital, accumulation through destruction; unable anymore to create genuine wealth, the capitalists simply destroy wealth elsewhere, thus creating the necessary differential. They did it to Russia, they are doing it in the Middle East, and are starting to do it at home. Thus today it is the United States and her allies who spread revolution worldwide, with the goal of creating unrest and grinding countries into poverty. By creating stability and prosperity worldwide, China is shutting out the United States more effectively than any war would.
You know, I’ve been reading and re-reading your reply for about a day now, trying to decipher why it bothers me so much. I think it essentially boils down to two points:
USA doesn’t spread revolution. It spreads Maidan. A change of government is not a revolution, despite attempts by statedep to cement this definition. Revolution requires a change of social organisation and (as part of that) change of the way of thinking. China doesn’t have to fund agent provocateurs to overthrow governments, in fact I am glad that it does not. But helping spread Marxist thought? Why not?
The term “stability”. There’s capitalist “stability” too, just look at USA - it had the same capitalist system for centuries. Heck, stability is a beloved talking point of capitalists! That’s one of the most favourite notions of the current Russian government, in fact. But we both know there is no true “stability” under capitalism, I’d go as far as to say the notion itself is undialectical.
Those are good points. Honestly, I don’t really have an answer – will have to think a bit more about it. It might very well be that China has overcorrected from the ultraleftism of late Mao and the Gang of Four, and fallen somewhat into the opposite error, that simply advancing the forces of production will automatically and by itself bring about socialism. I don’t believe Xi thinks this way, given a lot of his public statements. But many Chinese politicians during the 1990s and early 2000s clearly did.
I think that it has to do with the fact that the one major obstacle to the development of socialism around the world is US unipolarity. Effectively, the US and its satellite states have been acting as a sort of vanguard of capital worldwide, helping national bourgeoisies to strangle their own left-wing movements, which in turn brings them the confidence of these national bourgeoisies, helping to maintain US unipolarity. Thus, to help socialism spread, China must break US unipolarity.
And to break US unipolarity, China will effectively need to win over the confidence of national bourgeoisies all over the world, in the process breaking the international bourgeoisie’s class consciousness. Now, “exporting” revolution is unlikely to achieve this, as it will only antagonise the national bourgeoisies of their countries, forcing them into the US’s arms. What instead China needs to do is to economically invest into the 3rd world so that the national bourgeoisies of these countries, which are also the victims of western imperialism, albeit to a lesser extent than the proletariat, come to see China as a friend and the US as an enemy. In that way, these newly pro-China national bourgeoisies are more vulnerable to home-grown socialist movements, and the US’s role as a Vanguard of Capital is reduced as, due to having less resources to imperialise over, its own ability to crush left-wing movements in its sphere is reduced.
What China can also do is support homegrown socialist movements that do manage to take power on their own so that they don’t then fall to reaction (for example, Venezuela). This would also have the advantage of meaning that, was socialism in China to fall, these would be less dependent on China then, say, the Eastern Block was on the USSR, making their socialism more likely to persist.
To summarise, what China needs to do, and is doing, to spread socialism is to break the unity of the bourgeoisie on an international scale by providing an alternative to capitalist-imperialism for the national bourgeoisies of the 3rd world, leaving them to be isolated from the bourgeoisies of the Imperial Core when it comes to resisting socialism, and also weakening the Imperial Core as the supply of foreign resources and labour for its capital to exploit is reduced. Then, it can help socialist movements strong enough to come to power on their own survive. This would, in my opinion, be better than exporting the revolution.
PS: Sorry for the wall of text, and for replying a bit late; I thought about this.
In that it doesn’t spread the revolution.
Fair. Although I do wonder why
China spreads stability, which right now is the more revolutionary course of action. Neoliberalism represents a new stage of capital, accumulation through destruction; unable anymore to create genuine wealth, the capitalists simply destroy wealth elsewhere, thus creating the necessary differential. They did it to Russia, they are doing it in the Middle East, and are starting to do it at home. Thus today it is the United States and her allies who spread revolution worldwide, with the goal of creating unrest and grinding countries into poverty. By creating stability and prosperity worldwide, China is shutting out the United States more effectively than any war would.
You know, I’ve been reading and re-reading your reply for about a day now, trying to decipher why it bothers me so much. I think it essentially boils down to two points:
USA doesn’t spread revolution. It spreads Maidan. A change of government is not a revolution, despite attempts by statedep to cement this definition. Revolution requires a change of social organisation and (as part of that) change of the way of thinking. China doesn’t have to fund agent provocateurs to overthrow governments, in fact I am glad that it does not. But helping spread Marxist thought? Why not?
The term “stability”. There’s capitalist “stability” too, just look at USA - it had the same capitalist system for centuries. Heck, stability is a beloved talking point of capitalists! That’s one of the most favourite notions of the current Russian government, in fact. But we both know there is no true “stability” under capitalism, I’d go as far as to say the notion itself is undialectical.
Those are good points. Honestly, I don’t really have an answer – will have to think a bit more about it. It might very well be that China has overcorrected from the ultraleftism of late Mao and the Gang of Four, and fallen somewhat into the opposite error, that simply advancing the forces of production will automatically and by itself bring about socialism. I don’t believe Xi thinks this way, given a lot of his public statements. But many Chinese politicians during the 1990s and early 2000s clearly did.
capitalist ‘stability’ is when the economy is cyclical by design with no regard for the people, and kills millions through neglect and malice
Exactly. But from the outside (and certainly from the POV of the ruling class) it is stable. It performs its function
nevermind all those workers’ revolts and leftist uprisings they have to keep putting down, lol
Again, precisely my point
Easiest way to get isolated globally and starved out.
I’d like to see someone try to isolate the world’s factory
That’s how they became the world’s factory, though. I think they’ll be more willing to help spread the revolution as they get stronger in the future.
Long game
I think that it has to do with the fact that the one major obstacle to the development of socialism around the world is US unipolarity. Effectively, the US and its satellite states have been acting as a sort of vanguard of capital worldwide, helping national bourgeoisies to strangle their own left-wing movements, which in turn brings them the confidence of these national bourgeoisies, helping to maintain US unipolarity. Thus, to help socialism spread, China must break US unipolarity. And to break US unipolarity, China will effectively need to win over the confidence of national bourgeoisies all over the world, in the process breaking the international bourgeoisie’s class consciousness. Now, “exporting” revolution is unlikely to achieve this, as it will only antagonise the national bourgeoisies of their countries, forcing them into the US’s arms. What instead China needs to do is to economically invest into the 3rd world so that the national bourgeoisies of these countries, which are also the victims of western imperialism, albeit to a lesser extent than the proletariat, come to see China as a friend and the US as an enemy. In that way, these newly pro-China national bourgeoisies are more vulnerable to home-grown socialist movements, and the US’s role as a Vanguard of Capital is reduced as, due to having less resources to imperialise over, its own ability to crush left-wing movements in its sphere is reduced. What China can also do is support homegrown socialist movements that do manage to take power on their own so that they don’t then fall to reaction (for example, Venezuela). This would also have the advantage of meaning that, was socialism in China to fall, these would be less dependent on China then, say, the Eastern Block was on the USSR, making their socialism more likely to persist.
To summarise, what China needs to do, and is doing, to spread socialism is to break the unity of the bourgeoisie on an international scale by providing an alternative to capitalist-imperialism for the national bourgeoisies of the 3rd world, leaving them to be isolated from the bourgeoisies of the Imperial Core when it comes to resisting socialism, and also weakening the Imperial Core as the supply of foreign resources and labour for its capital to exploit is reduced. Then, it can help socialist movements strong enough to come to power on their own survive. This would, in my opinion, be better than exporting the revolution.
PS: Sorry for the wall of text, and for replying a bit late; I thought about this.