Search
Close this search box.

Review of China in Global Capitalism

September 9, 2024

China in Global Capitalism: Building International Solidarity against Imperial Rivalry
by Eli Friedman, Kevin Lin, Rosa Liu, and Ashley Smith
Haymarket
2024

The following is an analytical review of China in Global Capitalism.  Ralf’s more lengthy summary of the book can be found at naoqingchu.1Ralf Ruckus, “Book Summary: China in Global Capitalism,” naoqingchu (blog), July 28, 2024, https://nqch.org/2024/07/28/book-summary-china-in-global-capitalism/.

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) went through massive changes from the late 1970s into the 2000s, raising important questions as to the interpretation of this transformation. The political left, both within and outside the PRC, has not reached consensus in defining the country’s political and economic system: on this most important issue of dissent, some leftists think the country moved from socialism to capitalism, while others think it remained socialist.

Accordingly, some leftists oppose capitalist relations and support social struggles in the PRC, while others defend the supposedly socialist system and support the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime. This division between the left’s interpretations of domestic relations within the PRC extends onto the global scale, namely onto the geopolitical rivalry between the CCP-governed PRC, as the emerging world’s economic power, and the United States, as the global hegemon. Some leftists see both countries as capitalist and oppose their regimes, while others support the CCP regime versus its US adversary.

The relative dominance of both these interpretations varies depending on region and country. While the pro-CCP faction has remained fairly small in some regions, it plays a bigger (or even dominant) role in others. In any case, the different interpretations of CCP and PRC and the connected political division have led to confusion, conflict, and paralysis—obstructing the development of stronger left-wing movements around the globe against regional and global capitalist forces.

China in Global Capitalism. Building International Solidarity against Imperial Rivalry, by Eli Friedman, Kevin Lin, Rosa Liu, and Ashley Smith, attempts to counter this confusion and division. A first reading, focusing on the general narrative and analysis, convincingly argues for the capitalist character of the contemporary PRC. The book is a good introduction for those seeking a better understanding of the current conditions and social struggles in the PRC, as well as the country’s role in global capitalism.

The first chapter, “China is Capitalist,” gives a clear account of the PRC’s current political system and the capitalist character of the economy—including private and state capital, and class relations in urban industries and agriculture. In the second chapter, “The Emergence of a New Great Power,” the authors lay out the development of the PRC from its founding in 1949 until today. They follow the buildup of the socialist system with its social struggles, the market reforms after 1978 as well as the crises they produced, and the integration of the PRC’s economy into global capitalism since the 1990s in collaboration with foreign capital.

The third chapter, “Class Struggles in the Countryside, the Cities, and Workplaces,” picks up the book’s main argument that the PRC is capitalist. It describes the social struggles of state workers, migrant workers, and peasants against exploitation and dispossession, as well as the regime’s measures in response to them. The fourth chapter, “Feminist Resistance and the Crisis of Social Reproduction,” addresses the current crisis of social reproduction in China. That crisis results from the effects of the commodification and privatization of social reproduction and care work in the countryside and cities beginning in the 1990s. Women have found ways to resist the increasing pressures and sexist CCP policies, and feminist movements have staged protests against male violence and patriarchal rule. The fifth chapter, “China’s National Questions,” discusses the CCP regime’s racist and oppressive policies in the PRC’s peripheral regions of Tibet and Xinjiang and its expansionist maneuvers over the last fifteen years regarding Hong Kong and Taiwan. It also follows different waves of struggle in these regions and the CCP regime’s countermeasures.

The sixth chapter, “The US v. China: The Twenty-First Century’s Central Interimperial Rivalry,” sheds light on the evolving rivalry between capitalist forces in the PRC and in the United States. It describes how US governments have tried to counter the relative decline of the global hegemonic power as well as the policies the CCP regime has used to expand the PRC’s role and influence in the world. In the seventh chapter, “China and Global Capitalism’s Ecological and Climate Crises,” the authors turn to the global ecological and climate crises that cannot be properly addressed due to the growing rivalry between the great powers US and China. The authors argue that only a global mass movement could enforce a program that effectively solves these crises. The eighth chapter, “Pandemics in an Epoch of Imperial Rivalry,” analyzes the trajectory of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Global capitalism created the conditions for the outbreak of such a pandemic. The rivalry between the United States and the PRC prevented a coherent global response. The authors look at these regimes respective failures to deal with the pandemic.

None of these criticisms challenge the book’s general arguments on the PRC’s capitalist character and the need to confront the CCP regime, its imperialist ambitions, and its US rival. However, these issues point to important controversies in the analysis of class relations and state structures.

The ninth chapter, “‘China’ in the US: The Roots and Nature of Diasporic Struggles,” addresses the need to build solidarity across borders in order to counter the fallouts of the US/PRC-rivalry and to address the multiple crises global capitalism has produced. According to the authors, progressives among Chinese Americans and Chinese migrants in the United States—including students—can be central actors for building such solidarity across the divide between the PRC and the United States. In their conclusion, “Neither Washington Nor Beijing: International Solidarity against Imperialist Rivalry,” the authors demand an “internationalism from below that forges solidarity across borders and connects grassroots struggles of workers and other oppressed in the PRC and elsewhere—especially in the United States—against the great powers and their ruling classes. The authors are also very clear on the necessity for the left around the globe to not only grasp the immense impact of PRC capitalism on the global situation but also to come together and develop a common position against the ruling classes in both the United States and the PRC.

In sum, the plentitude of themes covered in the book makes it highly informative. However, a second reading of the book that focuses on particular arguments and concepts leads to a range of issues. I will discuss just three of them here: one formal, one analytical, and one strategic. None of these criticisms challenge the book’s general arguments on the PRC’s capitalist character and the need to confront the CCP regime, its imperialist ambitions, and its US rival. However, these issues point to important controversies in the analysis of class relations and state structures. Moreover, they involve vital questions that extend beyond the scope of this book and impact leftwing strategies to confront those aforementioned class relations and state structures.

The first, rather formal, issue concerns a certain sloppiness in the book’s presentation of the role of the state, the government, or the ruling class. The authors generally name countries as agents: the “US” does this, “China” that. Furthermore, the countries’ governments are often just addressed by giving the president’s name: “Xi” wanted this, “Biden” did that. The latter tendency suggests that personal interests drive these political figures rather than the interests of the state and capital they represent. Addressing countries such as the “US” or “China” as unitary and homogeneous actors ignores the more complex interests within the frame of each national state which are behind certain actions. It also implies that different sections of the ruling class and the working class are collectively supporting these actions. Conflating the distinct interests of the government, the regime (that includes more than just the nominal “heads” of government), the ruling class, or particular factions of capital in a particular nation state under the rubric “China” or “US” makes the actual role that any of these actors play in a specific policy a matter of guesswork. It would be helpful to clearly identify them.

My second, more analytical, criticism concerns the fifth chapter, “China’s National Questions” and is twofold. In my view, framing certain social and political struggles as linked to “nations” or as “national” is inadequate. And the combination of two distinct contexts of resistance and struggle—on the one hand, ethnic groups such as Uyghurs and Tibetans facing racist oppression from the side of the CCP regime, and, on the other, the populations of Hong Kong and Taiwan facing the CCP regime’s attempts to take over these regions—is unwarranted.

Firstly, the framing of certain struggles as “national” appears after the authors rightly criticize the deployment of Han nationalism and Han settler colonialism, the CCP regime’s imposed “development” in Tibet, and the repression in Xinjiang through the “People’s war on terror.” The description of the forms of resistance in these regions against these policies remains vague, and the authors describe them as “national struggles” without clarifying what that means. Do they call for the support of nationalist or “national liberation” causes? 

In my view, “nations” are constructed social entities linked to the development of capitalism and the establishment of nation states as the main structural framework for capitalists to create and reproduce favorable conditions of capital accumulation. The occupation, domination, repression, and racism involved when the ruling classes of nation states attempt to enlarge their sphere of influence or enforce their capitalist rule upon people both within and without the defined limits of the nation state, indeed, need to be countered through the empowerment and support of social struggles. However, historically, the infusion of such social struggles with nationalist concepts—often a strategic move of (oppositional) bourgeois nationalist forces if not of opportunistic social or political groups including some from the left—has led to the making of new nation states which, again, functioned as the framework for exploitative systems.

Therefore, when Uyghurs and Tibetans have faced racist oppression as ethnic and cultural groups or as forced or otherwise exploited labor, their social and political struggles against these forms should be supported. But the promotion of nationalist or reactionary goals from within these struggles—for instance, for the construction of a theocratic state or the establishment of a capitalist nation state—must be criticized.

…the term organizing has become a kind of fetish, supported more recently through the successful organizing drives of US unions in different sectors. Those who use the term mostly just emphasize openly that people should come together to tackle the conditions of capitalist exploitation; they do not openly emphasize the necessity to join forces and tackle the existence of capitalist relations.

Secondly, the lumping together of the suppression of Uyghurs, Tibetans and other groups in Xinjiang and Tibet on one hand, and the expansionist CCP policies in Hong Kong and Taiwan on the other is misleading. The situation in Hong Kong and Taiwan, unlike that in Xinjiang and Tibet, does not involve extreme forms of racism and Sinicization promoted by the CCP against particular ethnic and cultural groups. The CCP regime claimed control over political and economic affairs in Hong Kong and aims to gain similar control over Taiwan. It is vital to recognize the refusal of proletarian and left-wing groups to accept the rule of the PRC ruling class and its authoritarian capitalism. However, we need to criticize the nationalist (or “localist”) tendencies which strive for the construction of a distinct Hong Kong or Taiwan “nation” and which engage in racist discourses against people from the PRC. Such nationalist tendencies dominated the Hong Kong movement in 2019 and have infused part of the political left in Taiwan, too. The dominant part of the Hong Kong movement neither questioned the capitalist conditions in the city state, nor its racist and sexist migration regime. And while a part of the left in Taiwan is aware of the exploitative economic system on the island as well as the racist migration regime serving that system, it has not managed to develop an anticapitalist project that attacks these conditions along with the increasing Taiwanese nationalism that ignores or even defends them.

The third issue is strategic criticism of the authors’ outlook presented in the conclusion and their proposed strategy for the left in the envisioned future of imperialist competition and continued social struggles from below. While we can hardly expect an elaborate strategy at this point of rapid change and general weakness of left-wing politics, the authors use a range of concepts that remain vague, such as the embeddedness of the left, organizing or unionization, and even the Green New Deal. 

The authors’ positive use of the Green New Deal as a model for left-wing struggle is irritating, both because the term describes a program for the development of some kind of “green” (or rather, greenwashed) capitalism, and because it references the New Deal of the 1930s. In my view, the 1930s New Deal was an attempt to weaken and suppress the increasingly powerful class struggles in the United States through material concessions and control measures by welfare state institutions and, consequently, should not be cited as a model for a left-wing resistance in the present era.

The authors’ support of unionization seems to suggest that unions with large memberships will necessarily play a progressive role in social struggles. This blithe faith is countered by the experience of reformist or right-wing unionism in the United States and elsewhere as roadblocks against substantial change. Lastly, the term organizing has become a kind of fetish, supported more recently through the successful organizing drives of US unions in different sectors. Those who use the term mostly just emphasize openly that people should come together to tackle the conditions of capitalist exploitation; they do not openly emphasize the necessity to join forces and tackle the existence of capitalist relations. In that sense, organizing drives remain a formal way to strive for one’s interests by strengthening collective power within the system; they do not promote the usage of that collective power to move beyond the system.

Finally, the envisioned “embedding” of the political left in social movements and struggles not only remains vague, but also looks like a mere appeal to a left that, in large parts, remains embedded in reformist and statist politics rather than social movements. While we have seen some promising militant social and left-wing movements in the United States, Western Europe, and elsewhere developing from below in recent years, a substantial part of the left is still dominated by academics, middle class actors, and people with ambitions politically invested in the structures of the capitalist state. The history of the cooptation and integration of (former) leftist actors by bourgeois institutions and the state has even had the effect that many proletarians see the left in general as a part of the ruling class or “the establishment” and as linked to the capitalist and state agencies they confront.

Therefore, when discussing strategies for the empowerment of social struggles and specifying the role the left can play to support this empowerment, one must raise the central question of overcoming capitalist relations once and for all. Profound change that solves the social and ecological crises linked to capitalism and imperialism does not come through mere organization of proletarians by leftists, leftist infiltration of unions, or the promotion of a “deal” that facilitates green capitalism; it happens through a revolutionary process—revolution not in its limited insurrectional meaning but as a process of eroding existing capitalist institutions and of substituting them with forms of production and reproduction without exploitation, racism, and sexism as the base of social relations globally. The task of the left is to facilitate and strengthen tendencies in social movements and struggles that engage in such a process of erosion and substitution.

Despite these points of critique, the book is recommended reading because it gives a good overview of the trajectory of the PRC and its role in global capitalism. It provides a convincing argument on the capitalist character of the current CCP regime, and it argues for the support of social struggles across borders. Hence, it will aid those attempting to find a consistent position against global capitalism and its representatives in the United States and the PRC.

SHARE

HELLO, COMRADE

While logged in, you may access all print issues.

If you’d like to log out, click here:

NEED TO UPDATE YOUR DETAILS?

Support our Work

Gift Subscriptions, Renewals, and More