World-China Forum

Thoroughly Modern Marx

The economic crisis has spawned a resurgence of interest in Karl Marx. Worldwide sales of Das Kapital have shot up (one lone German publisher sold thousands of copies in 2008, compared with 100 the year before), a measure of a crisis so broad in scope and devastation that it has global capitalism—and its high priests—in an ideological tailspin.

Yet even as faith in neoliberal orthodoxies has imploded, why resurrect Marx? To start, Marx was far ahead of his time in predicting the successful capitalist globalization of recent decades. He accurately foresaw many of the fateful factors that would give rise to today’s global economic crisis: what he called the “contradictions” inherent in a world comprised of competitive markets, commodity production, and financial speculation.

Penning his most famous works in an era when the French and American revolutions were less than a hundred years old, Marx had premonitions of AIG and Bear Stearns trembling a century and a half later. He was singularly cognizant of what he called the “most revolutionary part” played in human history by the bourgeoisie—those forerunners of today’s Wall Street bankers and corporate executives. As Marx put it in The Communist Manifesto, “The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. . . . In one word, it creates a world after its own image.”

But Marx was no booster of capitalist globalization in his time or ours. Instead, he understood that “the need for a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe,” foreseeing that the development of capitalism would inevitably be “paving the way for more extensive and exhaustive crises.” Marx identified how disastrous speculation could trigger and exacerbate crises in the whole economy. And he saw through the political illusions of those who would argue that such crises could be permanently prevented through incremental reform. (Leo Panitch, Foreign Policy May/June)

Chinese leaders: Children should be successors to socialist cause

In April 1942, late chairman of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Mao Zedong wrote an inscription for the children's day, calling on kids to "unite and learn to become the masters of new China." In late September 1951, Mao wrote eight words in a notebook presented to a children's representative in Beijing, which read "study diligently and make progress everyday." The eight Chinese characters quickly spread around the nation. The words can still be seen in most primary school classrooms.

Deng Xiaoping, core of the second generation of China's leadership, also stressed that teenagers should be cultivated as qualified builders and the successors to the cause of socialism. In November 1979, Deng cautioned all CPC members that "picking the right successors is a major strategic issue that can affect the long-term interests of the Party and the country."

In a congratulatory letter for the 40th anniversary of the founding of the Young Pioneers of China sent by Jiang Zemin, core of China's third-generation leadership, Jiang highlighted that "the cause of proletariat revolutions must be carried forward through unremitting efforts of generations." "The children today would have to shoulder the responsibility to build our socialist motherland in the 21st Century," Jiang said in the letter, "The cultivation of our successors must begin from their childhood."

At a work conference held in May 2004, Chinese President Hu Jintao urged the whole Party and the whole society to highlight "education on children's ideology and ethics and cultivate the builders and successors to the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics." "Children are the hope of the Party and China," Hu said, "They are the hope of the Chinese nation." (Xinhua)

How Beijing is Battling the Global Crisis

To protect their borrowers from collapse, the Chinese have hardly any choice but to continue buying up American treasury bonds. Nevertheless, Beijing is also taking advantage of the crisis to portray itself as an alternative to the United States and a future superpower. It is gratifying for the Chinese leadership to look on as the West reaches for solutions that smack of state capitalism.

China's leaders stand a good chance of winning this global competition, at least in the short term. After all, the planned market economy is their own turf. Furthermore, the Communist Party has no democratically elected parliament to worry about, one that could seek to influence its "market economy with Chinese characteristics." And they can practically order their state-owned banks to issue loans to companies, many of which are also state-owned.

It doesn't take much to convince the Chinese masses to spend their money, as they embark on an enthusiastic shopping spree in Anhui and other provinces -- particularly in the country's relatively backward western regions -- into which Beijing is currently funneling large amounts of government funds. "Jiadian Xiaxiang," or "Electric Household Appliances for the Villages," is the title of the campaign currently underway in China. The economic stimulus program is straightforward: Buyers must identify themselves as farmers. After purchasing their new television sets, refrigerators, washing machines or mobile phones, the customers receive a 13-percent rebate on the purchase price from their local tax offices. Beijing is using similar government stimulus programs to boost car buying. A tax imposed on the purchase of certain small cars was cut in half, bringing it to 5 percent. The government is spending about €560 million ($755 million) in the hope of stimulating sales of vehicles in rural areas. And it seems to be working. In March alone, the Chinese bought more than 770,000 new cars, a 27-percent rise over the previous month and a new record monthly sales figure. (Wieland Wagner, SPIEGEL)

Who is really spinning the propaganda?

The People's Republic of China celebrates its 60th anniversary this year, and according to Britain's The Telegraph newspaper, the Chinese people need reminding by yet another communist "propaganda campaign". On May 10, the daily reported: "An Internet poll conducted across several leading Chinese websites as part of a propaganda campaign to mark the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the People's Republic, has drawn a patriotic response".  By constantly labeling Chinese government initiatives as "communist propaganda" the newspaper deliberately paints a sinister and very outdated picture harking back to the days of "reds under the beds" and the "yellow peril".

The core of the issue is: By constant use of such name-calling tactics, this newspaper - along with other foreign media representatives based in China - betrays it cannot, and will not accept China's socialist governing system. Even after 60 years, they cannot accept the Communist Party of China has won overwhelming favor among the Chinese people, and thus won the war and a mandate to govern. These newspapers are blinded by their own bias and self-centered belief systems. (Patrick Whiteley, China Daily)

Debate over "universal value" is a class struggle

Recently in China there has been fierce debate about "universal value." Some "scholars", officials, "educational officials," and others oppose China's development toward democracy, freedom, constitutionalism, and human rights by opposing universal values. What they say about political reform is only a type of administrative reform, not the real political reform to "put constitutionalism into practices." Their opinions run against the tide of history. While their flame is high now, anyone can see that it is only the last radiance of a dying class. They can only rely on methods such as media monopoly, education monopoly, or even state violence to inculcate the society. Very few people now believe them.

Judging by Marxist theory of class analysis, the current debate over "universal value" in our society is actually a class struggle; it is theoretical debate among China's different classes. Those who endorse universal values represent advanced productive forces of working class and civilized capitalism. Those who oppose universal values are crony capitalists and represent backward productive forces of savage capitalism. Those who doubt universal values are many people at the lower-level social ladder with reliance on backward productive forces and are petty bourgeoisies in extreme difficulties.

With regard to intellectuals, as Comrade Mao Zedong pointed out, there have never been independent intellectuals; different intellectuals always belong to different classes. For instance, "scholars" who oppose constitutional democracy in China are an intelligentsia for crony capitalism. Leftist intellectuals such as those at "Utopia" are an intelligentsia representing disadvantageous great masses at the bottom of social ladder. Those who call for universal values such as constitutionalism, freedom, democracy, and human rights belong to an intelligentsia of advanced workers and civilized capitalists.

Advanced workers and civilized capitalists enjoy good competitiveness in the market because of their advanced productive forces.  What they want thus is freedom in commerce. The superstructure that guarantees this freedom is constitutional democracy, which contains elements such as freedom, democracy, rule of law, and human rights. But savage capitalism has no place in democratic society. Only under the darkest rule of autocracy and by collusion between government officials and business people that it can assume dominance in a society. As a result, savage capitalists can only oppose democracy and uphold authoritarianism, and oppose rule of law and get hold of lawless anarchy.   

This controversy over universal values once again proves the class theory of Marxism: in many cases, academic debate in social sciences in the final analysis is a debate of economic interests in society.

Note: the above translation is from several paragraphs of the Chinese article "普世价值”之争是阶级斗争.