More on China: A Reply to Carlos Martinez’s Reply

Carlos Martinez has posted a thoughtful, measured response to my recent article raising questions on the soundness of the “Chinese road to socialism.” I’m appreciative that he accepted my arguments as constructive and comradely. I’m happy that Martinez-- one of the most ardent defenders of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics-- is open to a respectful and frank exchange. I hope others will engage in a similar fashion.

We have several points of disagreement, both factual and theoretical. 

I challenge China’s foreign policy. I believe that the PRC’s departure from the proletarian internationalism that served as the foundation for the Communist International and for a united and fighting world Communist movement has frequently placed it on the wrong side of history. 

From the break with the Soviet Union, China has fallen short on international solidarity and opposition to the imperialist system. Driven by anti-Soviet animus, China sowed disunity among Communists and anti-imperialists and placed unnecessary obstacles in front of support for the heroic Vietnamese struggle against US imperialism (for example, instigating a break with the Japanese Communist Party). China forged an unholy rapprochement with the US leadership at a critical juncture of that struggle. The leaders valued discrediting Soviet and Cuban assistance to countries seeking liberation or advancing an independent course over advancing the struggles of those countries. China invaded Vietnam in 1979. The PRC justified these retreats from a class-based policy by adopting a non-Leninist Three World Theory that equated US imperialism with Soviet “social-imperialism.” 

With the demise of the Soviet Union, the post-Mao PRC embarked on a foreign policy devoid of class alignments and class interests. In place of constructing policy around the interests of the working class, China defines the central contradiction to be between the US and its closest allies and a vague “Global South,” a slippery concept that includes the greatest, most powerful rival to the US, other emerging economic powerhouses, and the poorest, most economically deprived countries; countries ruled by tyrants, by popular regimes, or by bourgeois democracies; and countries defiant of the US, countries allied with the US, and countries supplicant to the US. In short, there is no discernable basis-- certainly no class-based relationship-- linking these varied countries together today. Moreover-- paradoxically-- China has unqualified and economically productive relations with both sides of the “contradiction.” 

Accordingly, China is absent from international campaigns against egregious violators of even the most basic moral values, like the economic boycotting of the genocidal regime in Israel. It is not so much that PRC foreign relations are consistently malignant as it is that they are incoherent and disappointingly neutral from a class perspective.

This incoherence is witnessed in China’s lack of militant engagement with the burning international issues of the left at this moment: the Israeli genocide, the current US war with Iran, the exercise of the Monroe Doctrine in Venezuela, or the strangling of Cuba. Is this what the left accepts as fighting the imperialist system? 

Far too many on the left pretend that defanging or diminishing the influence of the US-- like dismantling the British empire-- will put an end to imperialism. For them, China’s intense competition with the US is the same as anti-imperialism. Of course, Marxists should not believe this simplification. Since Lenin’s polemics against Kautsky, Marxist-Leninists have understood that it is capitalism that gives birth to imperialism and that the surpassing or defeat of one imperialist country-- whether it be the British Empire, the Japanese Empire, the Nazis, or the US-- does not signal the end of the imperialist system. Other capitalist countries will seek dominance and risk war to achieve it. Only the ending of capitalism will bring that victory. Even long before Lenin, Marx and Engels affirmed this conclusion broadly in the Communist Manifesto:

In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put to an end, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end. CM (International Publishers), p. 28.

It is this unbreakable link between the existence of capitalism and the exploitation of other nations that liberal and social democratic commentators fail to see or acknowledge. Instead, they urge support for one “better” nation over another in the rivalries intrinsic to the imperialist system. Nor do the Chinese Communists, in word or deed, acknowledge this relationship. How could they, without denouncing their continued participation in the global capitalist system of commodity production and exchange?

Fifty years from now, will people remember the Chinese Communists for the hundreds of thousands of Chinese volunteers who died defending their neighbor, People’s Korea, and resisting the designs of the bloodthirsty, mad imperialist, General Douglas MacArthur? Or will they remember them for the 26 loans to Kenya totaling $6.2 billion at a more favorable rate than that offered by the World Bank or the IMF?

*****

I wholeheartedly agree with Carlos Martinez that, in the end, our difference turns on whether the ruling Communist Party of China can successfully tame capitalism in order to construct the material conditions for a socialist state without being devoured by rapacious capitalism. In my words, the question becomes: Can and should a Communist Party “manage” capitalism? In Martinez’s words, the relevant answer lies in “which class holds state power…”

The most common response to this question-- one which Martinez gives-- is to cite the period after 1921 in the Soviet Union: the period of the New Economic Program, or NEP. In that period, the Soviet leadership adopted policies that re-introduced private businesses, relatively open markets, and foreign investment into the Soviet economy. From this fact, defenders of “socialism with Chinese characters” argue for the historical legitimacy of China’s opening to the global capitalist market and its rapid expansion of capitalist production relations.

Indeed, the NEP policy enjoyed the authority of the Party’s leader, V.I. Lenin. But unstated is Lenin’s resolve to abandon it once the war-torn Soviet economy was back on its feet, understanding that NEP was transitional. NEP was accompanied by severe imbalances (the so-called scissors crisis), massive inequalities, corruption, and political instability. With the withdrawal of NEP, the Soviet Union returned to the path of a balanced growth of the productive forces under socialist relations of production. As E. H. Carr wrote in his careful study of the period:

But the idyllic picture of a predominantly peasant country painlessly evolving towards socialism under the gentle pressures of NEP was disturbed by the strained relations between the agricultural and industrial sectors of the economy, whose persistence still constituted the root of the trouble. It had been comfortably believed or hoped after the twelfth party congress that the price scissors would widen no further and the situation gradually right itself. The opposite happened… By this time [October, 1923] other unmistakable signs of a grave economic crisis had begun to appear… The industrial trusts, relying on the strengths of their financial positions and of their monopoly sales organization, and on the market provided by the new ‘middle class’ which NEP had created in the towns, continued to force up prices and were content to hold back goods… The economic crisis of 1923 clearly differed from the preceding crises through which the Soviet regime had passed since 1917…

…what happened in 1923 was in this sense a crisis of NEP-- ‘the first crisis’, in Rykov’s words, ‘which has driven a wedge between workers and peasants’... A History of Soviet Russia: The Interregnum 1923-1924, pp 95-97.

The Soviet leadership moved on without NEP, adopting a five-year plan guided by central planning in 1928.

Peoples’ China has hewed to an NEP-like project for nearly half a century and now has the world’s largest or second largest economy; yet we know of no clearly defined path to the final expropriation of the expropriators or even a promise forthcoming of the definition of such a path.   

China’s NEP-like approach and Martinez’s defense of it stands on a promissory note: The Communist Party holds state power and, representing the working class, guarantees both that capitalism will not be restored and socialism is in China’s future. However, it is a promissory note, but-- by no means-- a guarantee.

Two points need to made:

1. Holding state power is not a sufficient condition for a party to stay on the socialist course, as the experience of the USSR and the Eastern European socialist countries demonstrates. While capturing state power may well be-- as many of us believe-- a necessary condition for achieving socialism, what a ruling party does while in power determines whether a country goes toward or away from a socialist future. If the Gorbachev era teaches us anything, it is that building socialism is a fragile project and a party-- even a Communist Party in power-- can go off the rails. 

2. The class partisanship of a Communist Party is not a given. Parties reflect the class structures of their respective countries at various times; parties reflect their membership composition; and parties reflect the ideological orientation of their leaders. These factors can be decisive.

In the case of China, the percentage of workers in the Communist Party has steadily declined between 2008 and 2023 (see below) as has the percentage of peasants. 

Source: Intra-party statistical communiqué of the Communist Party of China 图解：中国共产党党

Those losses have come with the gain in influence of managers and professionals among party members. Clearly, this trend would suggest that the Party, as the safeguard of the interests of the working masses, may be growing weaker. Workers represented well below 10 percent of members in 2023, and peasant membership has slipped below that of professionals and managers, a category that represents the largest employment category among those reported.

This dramatic growth of party membership by the upper strata began with the “opening” and continues in the Xi era. To be fair, under Xi’s leadership, efforts have been made to educate and integrate this stratum into party life; but, nonetheless, the shift from a party of workers and peasants to a party of managers and professionals (and “public servants”) is a disconcerting trend. Further, these trends challenge Martinez’s presumption that the Chinese Communists’ firm rule over China guarantees a socialist path. A similar trend was exhibited by the CPSU up to the dissolution of the USSR. To the question “which class holds state power?” my answer is “I’m not so sure…”

If Western accounts are to be believed, corruption has become rife within the Communist Party. To the credit of General Secretary Xi, the Party has mounted powerful campaigns against this abuse of power, employing harsh measures to even those high up in state power. This is laudatory. But the existence of widespread personal enrichment is a worrying sign of ideological rot.

*****

I share with Martinez an admiration for the late, outstanding British-Indian Marxist R. Palme Dutt. Martinez recently (June 27) spoke about Dutt’s legacy, delivering the R. Palme Dutt Memorial Lecture 2026 in London.

Dutt famously wrote a pamphlet in 1967 entitled Whither China? in which he questioned where the People’s Republic was headed, given the break with the international Communist movement and the chaos of the Cultural Revolution. I have tried to follow Dutt’s approach in my own writing about People’s China, neither condemning nor endorsing the Chinese Communist Party's chosen road, but skeptically raising queries about dangerous turns and risky detours in the journey. I first expressed my fidelity to Dutt’s approach in 2011 in The Chinese Puzzle and most recently in People’s China: What Lies Ahead. 

For his lecture, Martinez does not shy away from Dutt’s critical views expressed in 1967, seven years before his death. He cleverly entitled the lecture: What would Rajani Palme Dutt Have Made of Contemporary China? 

We can’t know, but it would be helpful if we carefully attended to Dutt’s thinking.

Martinez dismisses Dutt’s critique of the Three Worlds Theory, maintaining that it continues to find resonance today, though he restates it in a form radically out of focus with current realities:

But the notion of the principal contradiction in global politics as being between oppressed and oppressor nations; and identifying the main arena of struggle as being in the Global South rather than in the industrialised North; and furthermore highlighting the possibility of establishing a modus vivendi with the ‘Second World’, or the ‘intermediate zone’, and helping to draw it away from a dying hegemonism – all that remains valid and useful for understanding the world today.

In Whither China? Dutt discredits the Three Worlds Theory or even any contemporary revisit to it:

This geographical theory of the battle between “cities” and “rural areas”, drawn from the experience of the Chinese revolution, and transferred to the world scale, plays straight into the hands of the current reactionary imperialist theories which seek to deny the Marxist class analysis of the contradiction between imperialism and socialism as the main world contradiction, and to substitute a picture of the conflict between the “haves” countries (in which they [the Chinese] include the Soviet Union in the same basket with western imperialism) and the “have not” countries. Thus this theory, while professing to give a clamorous voice to the anti-imperialist struggles of the peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, in reality disrupts them from unity of the world socialist front which is the indispensable basis for their victory, and thereby renders them vulnerable to imperialism. Whither China?, p. 27.

Would Dutt withdraw this argument today? I think not. We live in a world where Pakistani workers or Bolivian workers have more in common with the forgotten workers of the deindustrialized North than with their native bourgeoisies or the corrupted tyrants that rule their countries. Their fate depends more on distinguishing between the various classes arrayed with and against them than in a battle of their respective bourgeoisies for a more favored place in the imperialist hierarchy, as the Three Worlds Theory would suggest.

Dutt was an uncompromising partisan for socialism, as a look at his many writings demonstrate. And he makes his views on what constitutes socialism crystal clear. In a series of lectures collected under the title, Problems of Contemporary History, he writes:

For the innocent victims of this terminology game, who may be confused by the supposed identity of large-scale monopoly capitalism and socialism, the simplest rule of thumb test to judge the economy of a country is to enquire whether there is a Stock Exchange. There are Stock Exchanges in Stockholm, in London, in Paris and in New York. But there is no Stock Exchange in Moscow or Pekin or Warsaw or Prague or Budapest. In other words, the economy of the Western countries, however elaborate the social democratic dressing and facade, is based on stocks and shares; that is, on the private ownership of the means of production; on incomes derived from ownership; on rent, interests, and profits drawn on the basis of ownership by a minority class from the labors of the entire population. In socialist countries there is no need of a Stock Exchange…

To a socialist audience such an explanation may seem elementary to the point of childishness. But to the general Western reading public, especially the bourgeois intelligentsia, mystified by reactionary apologists (often professing to hold “left” opinions and regarding themselves as far to the left of reactionary out-of-date Communists) this game of terminology has been carried to such an extent that an elementary explanation of this type is necessary. Problems of Contemporary History, p. 76.

Sadly, today, stock exchanges are a reality in Moscow, Beijing, Warsaw, and Prague-- a testament to the retreat of real-existing-socialism. However, the game is far from over. The setbacks to socialism are more than matched by the decline of a decadent, dysfunctional capitalism. But our setbacks should not lower our expectations for the emancipatory, liberatory power of socialism. We should never simply declare victory and accept what we have and call it socialism. 

On the other hand, we must concede that others may see a different road to our goal and pursue it in different ways.

Like the great Marxist, R. Palme Dutt, we should not be afraid to challenge those approaches. All ideological perspectives, political programs, and policies should be rigorously put to the test of reason and history. 

Though Dutt subjected the Chinese revolutionary project to sharp and-- I believe, justifiable-- criticism, he made an important qualification to be kept in mind:

...our international duty, irrespective of any difference on policy or tactical questions with the Chinese leadership within the international communist movement, is to maintain solidarity with China and the Chinese people and the Chinese revolution against the aggression of U.S. imperialism. Whither China?, p.47-48. 

Greg Godels

zzsblogml@gmail.com

Fascism: What’s in a Word?

The word “fascism” is a lightning rod. No one wants to be called a fascist. Everyone is ready to call someone else a fascist. 

Like many highly charged words, the more common its usage becomes, the more inexact its meaning becomes.  

Today, Trump is a fascist, Putin is a fascist, Modi is a fascist, Radical Islam is Islamofascism, the House and Senate members who passed the FISA renewal are fascists, Ukraine is a fascist country, political correctness is fascism, anti-Zionists are fascists, Zionists are fascists, and so on….

Clearly, the word “fascism” in these contexts is most often an expression of extreme disapproval-- a kind of expletive.

A problem arises when the claimant-- the person using the word-- has something more definite in mind, something more exacting. A problem arises when the user of the word intends to draw an association with the real, historically concrete phenomena of fascism that emerged in the aftermath of World War I and rose tragically to ravage and terrorize nearly the entire world. 

The idea that people or organizations are preparing to organize Blackshirts, Brownshirts, Silver Shirts or whatever to intimidate or overthrow conventional political processes is understandably reprehensible. But to conjure such an image in order to influence the political process, though without sufficient warrant, is misleading.

In a highly charged political context, it is not only misleading, but also unhelpful, and even incendiary.

Even a policy as sanctified by much of the left as the New Deal has been called fascist, proto-fascist, or fascist-tinged by commentators from across the political spectrum. And the “sainted” FDR has been labeled fascist by many. Critics from both left and right have seen parallels between elements of the New Deal and Mussolini’s corporatism. Still others have found similarities between the Rooseveltian Civilian Conservation Corps and Hitler’s German Labor Services. Since the New Deal was a mish-mash of trial-and-error pragmatism, it is a disservice to wed it with any particular ideology.

Of course, “fascism” depends on how we define it. Problems of definition arose immediately after World War II and the defeat of the major fascist powers. The emerging Cold War led to the US and its allies accepting a narrow definition when it came to new-found allies among former Nazis and Nazi collaborators. In its conflict with the Soviets, US leaders relied on Germans and Eastern Europeans with dubious, fascist ties to advance weapons programs, utilize intelligence, and bolster anti-Communism. Vetting of fascists by ideology was a haphazard process at best.

On the other hand, attempts to link fascism to Communism was an ongoing project. Determined efforts to find common features to justify anti-Communism led to a construct called “totalitarianism.” Popularized by Hannah Arendt, Cold Warriors wanted and got a tally of supposed similarities that served their purposes and served to generate a common definition of two disparate ideologies.

Thus, the Cold War created both a narrow and broad interpretation of fascism-- one for practical purposes, the other for propaganda purposes.

As the Cold War warmed in the 1980s, academics like Stanley Payne (Fascism, Wisconsin, 1980), made attempts at more independent, nuanced, and objective definitions of “fascism.” Payne engaged in comparative historical analysis and arrived at his typological description of fascism. Unfortunately, it suffered somewhat from raw empiricism and a failure to properly weigh the factors disclosed. To its credit, it undercut the Cold War conflation of Communism and fascism by emphasizing anti-Communism as a common feature of fascism, and not conflating it with Communism. 

Further, Payne in 1980 recognizes the historically met concept of “liberal authoritarianism” -- a form of illiberal liberalism-- that might serve to explain much of the confusion of our anti-Trump left today, who are anxious to dispense with the Bill of Rights to save “our” democracy.

In a recent essay regarding the “fascism is imminent” fashion of today, noted liberal commentator, Patrick Lawrence, riffs on the concept of “liberal authoritarianism.” Lawrence declares in his article This Isn’t Fascism posted on Consortium News that “I cannot quite tell what people mean when they speak of fascism in our current circumstances. And [as] far as one can make out, a lot of people who use the term, and maybe most, do not know what they mean, either.”

Unfortunately, while Payne still serves as a keystone for contemporary Western academic scholarship, the old Cold War conflation of Communism and fascism has resumed, particularly under a new wave of retro-Cold Warriors like Anne Applebaum and Timothy Snyder. 

But more consequentially, the charge of fascism-- invoked irresponsibly-- has served as a weapon in electoral politics. Specifically, many in the Democratic Party-- bereft of an appealing program-- charge that a vote for Biden is a vote against fascism. Given that Biden’s failure on inflation and his bloody war-mongering are rejected, especially by youth and the Party’s left wing, portraying Trump as a fascist is an act of desperation, but an act that will ultimately do little to forego the rise of Trump and his ilk.

Again, invoking Lawrence:

Much of this, let’s call it the pollution of public discourse, comes from the liberal authoritarians. Rachel Maddow, to take one of the more pitiful cases, wants us to think Trump the dictator will end elections, destroy the courts, and render the Congress powerless. The MSNBC commentator has actually said these things on air.

One-man rule is the theme, if you listen to the Rachel Maddows. The evident intent is to cast Donald Trump in the most fearsome light possible, as it becomes clear Trump could well defeat President Biden at the polls come Nov. 5.

We can mark this stuff down to crude politicking in an election year, surely. There is nothing new in it. But this is not the point.

Opportunistic voices on the left will often draw a crude analogy with the rise of Nazism. They argue the simplistic and false case that disunity on the left opened the door for Hitler’s ascendency to the Chancellorship of Germany in 1933. They repeat an old whitewash of history-- dismissing Hitler’s backing by the German capitalists, the perfidy of the weak government, and the betrayal of the Social Democrats. They ignore the economic crisis, the rulers’ failure to address the crisis, and the peoples’ desperate search for a radical answer to that failure. An unquestionable sign of that desperation was the continuing growth of the votes for the Communist Party, along with the decline in votes for the Social Democrats, and other centrist parties.

Nazism was not inevitable, but ushered in on a fear of revolution, of workers’ power, by a despairing ruling class. That was the reality wherever fascism seized power in twentieth-century fascism.

Today, the answer to a deepening crisis of capitalist rule that is losing its legitimacy in the eyes of the masses is not rallying support around the failed policies that created and deepened the crisis. The answer is not to cry wolf or remind the people that matters could get worse. They know that!

The answer is to develop real answers to the despair facing working people-- reducing inequality, raising living standards, guaranteeing health care, increasing social benefits, improving affordable public transportation, protecting the environment, improving public education, and so on. These issues have existed for many decades, worsening with each passing year. There is no mystery. We are offered only two parties and they are determined to evade these issues. 

Lawrence makes a similar point:

I suppose it might make America’s many-sided crisis — political, economic, social — more comprehensible if we name it [fascism] to suggest it has a frightening antecedent. But this is profoundly counterproductive. So long as we, some of us, go on persuading ourselves we face the threat of fascism or Fascism, either one, we simply obscure what it is we actually face.

We name it wrongly... I do not see fascism in any form anywhere on America’s horizon. To call it such is to render ourselves incapable of acting effectively.

But that still leaves us with the question: What is fascism? Is there no cogent definition?

Indeed, there is one that springs forth from a deep and thorough study by the late Marxist thinker, R. Palme Dutt. Published in 1934, soon after Hitler’s rise to power, Fascism and Social Revolution (International Publishers) locates fascism in the cauldron of the rise of Communism, a deep economic crisis, and the collapse of capitalist class legitimacy.

Dutt, unlike servile academics weaving a bizarre, historically challenged link between Communism and fascism, discovers direct ties between capitalism and fascism (p. 72-73).

Fascism manufactures its ideology around its practice. Dutt explains: 

Fascism, in fact, developed as a movement in practice, in the conditions of threatening proletarian revolution, as a counter-revolutionary mass movement supported by the bourgeoisie, employing weapons of mixed social demagogy and terrorism to defeat the revolution and build up a strengthened capitalist state dictatorship; and only later endeavoured to adorn and rationalize this process with a “theory” (p. 75).

Dutt’s operational definition contrasts favorably with the failed attempt by writers like Payne who attempted to engage comparative studies in order to arrive at a superficial typography of fascism.

Dutt further adds the class dimensions, absent in nearly all non-Marxist definitions:

Fascism, in short, is a movement of mixed elements, dominantly petit-bourgeois, but also slum-proletariat and demoralized working class, financed and directed by finance-capital, by the big industrialists, landlords and financiers, to defeat the working-class revolution and smash working-class organizations (p. 82).

Elegant in its simplicity, robust in its comprehensiveness, Dutt’s explication of fascism aptly characterizes historic fascism from the march on Rome to the Generals’ coup in Indonesia and Pinochet’s regime in Chile. When social conditions deteriorate drastically and workers and their organizations threaten the capitalist order, the rulers throw their support behind counter-revolutionaries prepared to defend and strengthen the capitalist order, even at the expense of bourgeois democracy.

These institutions and organizations fester within bourgeois society as latent counter-revolutionary forces ready to be unleashed at the right moment by a desperate capitalist ruling class.

Clearly, Dutt’s study and elucidation of fascism clears the muddy waters stirred by today’s alarmists and opportunists. There is no imminent threat of revolution; the revolutionary left and the workers’ organizations currently pose little threat to the capitalist order, unfortunately. 

There is no emergent organized mass movement responding to a counter-revolutionary call. The mass movements of the right-- the Black Legions, the KKK, the Proud Boys, the militias, etc.-- do exist, should conditions ever ripen for a mobilization against the working class; but for today, they remain unacceptable to most of the ruling class.

For the most part, the capitalist class, especially its dominant monopoly sector, is satisfied to conduct its business within the confines of bourgeois democracy. “Finance-capital… the big industrialists, landlords and financiers…” defend and protect the two-party system because they regard it as functioning adequately, though the “lawfare” attacks piling up on Trump and the rabid media attacks against him show that an important section of the ruling class considers his unpredictability to be a threat to stability. 

Others think that his buffoonery and bluster serve as a safety valve for the discontent infecting the citizenry, much as Berlusconi’s clown-act pacified and entertained Italians unhappy over their political fate for three decades.

In any case, Trump does not pose the threat of fascism that many would like us to believe. 

We need to find other words to describe the deep crisis of bourgeois legitimacy that we are enduring, words that do not force us into a frenzied defensive posture that deflects us from finding real solutions to a real and profound problems facing working people. 

Greg Godels

zzsblogml@gmail.com