The world can thank its lucky stars that China came onto the world stage when it did and stayed true to its revolutionary ideals despite the US hegemon trying its best to "buy" the leaders of China like it did in the rest of the Western world. China is now the only country in the world that can stop the US hegemon juggernaut.
G'day Alec, please note CPC is not in the foreign war school,they have not even helped the RF in what you could call its hour of need where as N K stepped up objectively with millions of 152mm rounds and many trainloads of unknowns plus sent troops so I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the hoped for action. China has even played hardball with the RF over energy price negotiations as energy is critical for them as they only have renewables no fossil fuels except some not so good coal. I surmise they buy their fuelrods from the RF also.
I agree China generally doesn't see wars as the best way to achieve political goals (sometimes, I wish it weren't so). I also assume there is a tacit understanding between Putin and Xi how Russia prefers Chinese involvements in the ongoing conflict. Russia has a lot of pride riding on this as an independent pole in the new world order - taking some limited help from N Korea or Iran is one thing, taking help from China - its equal partner - will be perceived differently.
Even Iran and Russia have no empathy or comradely connection, the RF supported sanctions against Iran in the UN and historically they were enemies and Putin is a neocon clone and sure as the sun rises he would not like the Shia mullahs running the show, he only likes sunni jihadi supplicants aka Chechnyans as there must have been some business arrangements reached during the 2nd Chechnyan war peace talks I surmise and evidence suggests so as the Chechnyans form a large part of Spetznatz and Rosgvardia. It is all not what it seems and the not a war is all part of it and the Kremlin seems reticent to win it for not so straight forward reasons.
I agree. China is also uncomfortable with the mullahs running Iran. Beijing historically prefers to deal with secular states who are rational about their national interests. Iran has a very complex system of governance and frankly in my view, lacks strategic acumen. I wrote a few pieces on this point back in May when the Iran Israel war was waging.
Putin seems to play 4 dimensional chess with complex calculations (unlike Trump who only pretends). Anyway I wish the Russians well and hope they settle this one soon.
I am sorry if your "friends" cannot face reality. This calls to mind Bonhoeffer's theory on stupidity - some stupidity is not an intellectual deficiency, rather a moral one.
I frequently credit these parasites for having executed their (((24 Protocols))) to perfection, inflicting upon generations of unsuspecting, uncritical and gullible people with dangerous propaganda and part of the indoctrination process of western-aligned moral superiority.
But alas, parasites cannot parasitize on themselves: none of them add any value by doing real work. The only thing they're good at is leaching off of people, controlling banks and manipulating economies for their own profit and satisfying their sadism.
Consequently, this is also the most dangerous time for the real free world such for BRICS and the Fair World Order when the decline of their hosts is nearing terminal velocity as they desperately seek to migrate to a new host.
I think the jewish parasites are running out of hosts big enough to feed their bloodthirst. after taking out the biggest one (the "only superpower" in the world), they have cornered themselves. I doubt they will do well in the coming reshuffling of the world order. But then again, who knows for sure - I have heard cockroaches are the most difficult to kill, even in a thermonuclear blast.
I also first read this Lenin essay at the beginning of the neoliberalism acceleration (1980). The analysis was prescient in 1980 let alone 1918. The grinding elimination of competition, the removal of obstacles to monopoly (elimination of the UK Monopolies and Mergers Commission), the mergers of banks and then other financial institutions to create mega rentiers (Deregulation) and the financialisation of housing (removing protection from Building Societies). All through political capture.
It is not techno feudalism but real feudalism. In the feudal era 80% of a UK family’s income went to house rent. We’ve just returned to this.
The communist alternative at the time of ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their need’ failed as a resource allocation mechanism. Either unwieldy centrally controlled, or too homogeneous.
The big breakthrough though is China’s state socialism combined with the energy of market economy. Liberate people and enterprises to innovate and produce , by eliminating any friction in the competition. Funding bottlenecks, barriers to entry, rent bottlenecks, infrastructure, communications, health, education, power etc etc. natural monopolies are state controlled and a stringent authority ensures obstacles to competition are removed. Brilliant.
The energy this model has, and continues to unleash is awe inspiring.
I think China's biggest contribution is to show there are indeed alternatives, as opposed to Thatcher's TINA (there is no alternative - the financial capitalism she was advocating).
China's model may not be entirely replicable or applicable in other countries but it has showed the world modernization doesn't equate westernization, prosperity doesn't equate finance capitalism. You can build a successful modern economy based on servicing the need of the majority rather than the profit motive of the 1%.
This sounds like a Trojan Horse idea to get people to buy into socialism. There are no “natural monopolies”. Monopolies are a result of state participation. They are impossible in a free market where there is no government interference/regulations.
no one should buy into any economic model wholesale without understanding their specific situations. Beijing caveats its own economic model as "socialism with Chinese characteristics". I think a better term may be market-based state capitalism with socialist characteristics.
most people have stopped thinking of the economic system they live under. Frankly, if you think the system you have is the best, by all means stick with it. Few are able to make any changes anyway.
I don't think most countries can replicate the Chinese model even if they want.
What I am highlighting are economic realities as I see them. For example, I view most the Mag 7 tech firms as functional monopolies. of course, there are other ways people interprete the realities as they see fit.
no economy exists in a vacuum except in western economic textbooks. perfect "free market" doesn't exist and has never existed. In many ways, I actually think China is far more market driven than the US or UK if one defines free market as low level of government intervention or regulation.
Socioeconomic systems aren't fungible. Example: Denmark in the mid-'80s was still so ethnically homogeneous that half the Copenhagen phonebook was Hansens and Jensens. It was a wealthy high-trust Eurosocialist society, with income inequality controlled by a tax rate up to 90%, free excellent healthcare and education, and so forth. Denmark had Jews, but not many. They didn't visibly run things. An ethnically cohesive society can defend itself against Jews.
Denmark had just started being invaded by low-trust low-IQ high-violence MidEast&Africa types, in this case Turk 'Guest-Workers' who of course stayed unless deported. Suddenly they had rapes, murders and such; they had Turks throwing rocks at topless Danish women on Danish beaches because of their brutal religion. I remember riding a bus to work, full of literally stinking Turks.
At the time, I realized that Danish socioeconomics wouldn't work in the USA because even the Whites were too primitive, let alone the Blacks and Jews who would always cheat and steal. Probably Japan and Scandinavia were the only places where that very-high-trust model could work.
Great to see a fair representation of Lenin’s research and theory. Quite unusual these days.
It’s really important — it wasn’t just an academic argument to him — Lenin was challenging other socialists who refused to admit that the imperialist powers were headed for war.
I think Lenin was the greatest leader in the history of USSR. In addition to his reforms to elevate the country from the backward feudal Tsarist rule, he also defeated western and japanese invasion of Russia in 1918. Lenin was an idealist but that wasn't enough as he didn't have time to build a sustainable meritocratic organization to carry out the ideals. Too bad the USSR didn't travel down a similar path as China to build a socialist system based on market, competition and equitable distribution of wealth and opportunities. It's a tragic loss to the movement to create a better world for all.
I agree he was the greatest leader but the revolution succeeded because the workers ended up agreeing with the Bolsheviks that they themselves should take power through their 'soviets' - democratic councils based in the actual workplaces - along with the soldiers and peasants' councils.
"Too bad the USSR didn't travel down a similar path as China to build a socialist system based on market, competition" - actually they did introduce free markets measures as a way to try to keep the peasants committed to the revolution.
China wasn't invaded like Russia was after the revolution, and didn't have to fight a devastating 3 year civil war against the West and the old ruling class. So, as impoverished was China was in 1949, they had a better start. To cut a long story short!!
Lenin did introduce many important reforms and Stalin drove the country's industrialization. But economic dynamism was lost after the 50s, though USSR had many scientific breakthroughs such as the space program. The country stagnated since the 1960s, leading to the collapse in 91. Gorbachev was too idealistic and trusting and a poor leader.
China did fight a war with the US and its allies for 3 years right after the founding of PRC in korea, though the country itself wasn't invaded. And that was right after 14 years fighting with japanese invaders and 4 years of civil war. for China, the first half of 20th century was wars and chaoes. So China's start wasn't much better than USSR. on the other hand, the struggle toughened the country and laid the foundation to bootstrap to today's progress.
Yes, we are comparing two terrible situations - who knows...
I thought more about what I said. Perhaps I haven't placed enough emphasis on the fact that Lenin couldn't play the leading role he would have after the health problems from the 1918 assassination attempt on him, less than a year after the revolution, and subsequent death in 1924... Imagine if Mao was taken out of action in 1950. He made mistakes but was such a unifying figure.
There was always contention between Moaist ways and Stalinist ways and there has never been more than amicable relations between the two neighbours which may well have been organised by what some call Trotskyists but really amounts to ZOG or Zionists but this modern world of flooding the zone and apparent convergence who really knows.
Mao didn't like Stalin's domineering ways (he himself suffered from the same personality shortcoming:). He also saw Stalin as an expansionist.
But Mao really didn't like khrushchev who was considered too cozy with the west despite all his theatrics and too critical of Stalin. Mao was particularly sensitive to disloyal successors and that was why he removed a string of potential heirs.
the more I study the Sino-Soviet break, the more I see personality conflicts rather than fundamental ideological misalignments. It's Deng who actually changed the rigid ideological system and moved China to market reform.
there are a few good books I have on my shelf by western authors. none are without their faults but I view them as generally objective, even when the authors are critical. some are biographies that are contextualized in the period and helpful to develop a sense of what's going on. Here is a short list (I think I have more but scattered around the house):
- John King Fairbank's The Great Chinese Revolution
- Ezra Vogel's Deng Xiaoping and the transformation of China
- Han Suyin's The Eldest Son", a 1994 biography about Zhou Enlai - I think this is one of the best books on any Chinese leaders, well written based on excellent research and interviews
- Philip Short's Mao
there are a number of other worthy readings, though not specifically about the period - Kerry Brown's books about China and Xi, and Alfred Chan's Xi Jinping, published earlier this year.
Would have to agree except was Stalin a revanchist I felt the revanchist in chief Trotsky whose Permanent revolution he killed with his Socialism in one country along with the man himself seems to suggest otherwise though I'm no scholar on the matter.
I sure agree re personality conflicts were a big thing but have to add that I feel that some in the USSR leadership must have had secret talks and leaned towards a convergence that led to perestroika and the sell-out of the masses and the gifting of the wealth of the working class to today's oligarchs and siloviki.
Stalin was no theoretician but a hands on fella who pulled off the great bank heist in today's Tbilisi to fund the Bolsheviks and the revolution though conspiracy theorists suggest the Jewish money men did and hence the Bolsheviks were mostlyJewish or puppets of them, I don't know and don't lean right enough to go that way but Zionazis are a very different kettle of fish.
my knowledge about USSR is limited to text books and a few memoirs and biographies. I probably have missed many intricacies and finer points. One thing I have always been curious about is the jewish influence in early Bolsheviks, especially Trosky. Was he a genuine revolutionary or a covert zionist agent?
Here's some info, not aimed at you Hua, just FYI seeing as you raised it.
Leftwing Russian Jews were more likely to join the Jewish Labour Bund than the Bolsheviks, which had Jewish members too but the stuff about the "Jewish" Bolsheviks is complete bunk!
From a book debunking Nazi propaganda about Jews:
“Drawing on data gathered at the annual party congresses of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the historian Benjamin Pinkus has assessed the statistical and organizational representation of Jews within the power institutions of the party—the Central Committee, Politburo, Secretariat, and government bureaucracies. He concludes that there was “no historical basis” for claims that the Bolshevik regime was the work of the Jews. As of 1917, roughly 1,000, or about 5 percent, of the 23,000 members of the Bolshevik party were Jewish. By August 1917, 6 of 21 members of the Central Committee were Jews: Lev Kamenev, Grigory Sokolnikov, Jakov Sverdlov, Grigory Zinoviev, Leon Trotsky, and Moisei Uritsky. The party census of 1922 showed 19,564 Jewish members, 5.21 percent of the total. By 1927, the 49,627 Jewish members comprised 4.34 percent of all party members.” https://ebin.pub/the-jewish-enemy-nazi-propaganda-during-world-war-ii-and-the-holocaust-9780674038592.html (the link contains the full text)
Re Trotsky, I have no doubt he was 100% genuine. He was never "an early Bolshevik". He didn't join the Bolsheviks till during the revolution year of 1917, and admitted Lenin had been correct about the painstaking work of building the Bolsheviks in the preceeding years as a grassroots organisation (officially since 1903), and that the revolution wouldn't have succeeded without its leadership.
Some people claim Lenin was Jewish too, but no self-respecting commentator does. I delved into that claim and apparently Lenin may have had a Jewish ancestor but wouldn't have known.
Marxism was the theory that the Bolsheviks adhered to of how to get from capitalism to socialism. Marx was Jewish and his closest collaborator for the ENTIRE time of their research, writings and activism was Engels, who was not Jewish.
If Jewishness was particularly relevant to the Bolsheviks, you would think that would have come through in their writings and agitation!! Only people who believe politics is a process of "secret" unknown agendas would think this isn't relevant. The Bolsheviks were very open (in the context of a police state) about their politics, otherwise how would they convince people to join?
Lastly, Zionism was still quite fringe back then and not taken seriously by the vast majority of Jews. Anti-Jewish racism made it a little more acceptable by the 1920's but nothing like what it became post-1947.
thanks for shedding light on this. It makes sense the Nazi would want to propagate a smear against the Bolsheviks by linking it with jewish world domination plan.
I also don't think Marx's work had anything to do with his ethnic background. He is among the many outstanding thinkers and scientists of jewish origin. some jews perpetuated terrible crimes in history, let alone the ongoing atrocities, and that has cost most of the world's goodwill. it's too bad that even the good people are tainted with the association.
That surely is something that I believe will remain contentious for time immemorial. I have opinions re that but lately the zone is being flooded with right-wing misinformation etc. and truth is not permitted anymore.
Great piece. Today I watched Ben Norton interviewing Chinese scholar Zhang Weiwei , comparing Chinese and US/west political economies that touches on some of these same points,
I have followed Ben's work for many years and indeed watched the interview with Weiwei. Weiwei is in the government policy circle and has a deep understanding of how the country's leadership thinks about geoeconomic and geopolitical issues. One of his fellow scholars, also the dean of the Fudan school of international relations, Mr. Wang Huning, is now the 4th highest ranking official in Beijing and widely considered as the brain trust for the past three presidents (Jiang, Hu, and Xi). Weiwei's ideas reflect many of Mr. Wang's thoughts.
I agree with you one of the most important contributions China can make is to show the world there is another path to modernization and prosperity rather than the conventional wisdom of modernization = westernization, prosperity = financial capitalism practiced in the US/UK. The propadanga from francis fukuyama to milton friedman have poisoned many minds around the world.
Barring all out nuclear war East and West are locked in a death struggle that eventually will see the East prevail based by sheer numbers. Forty years ago the West held all the cards, but has not played them well. Even though they were warned 70 years ago the East would even eventually emerge they exhausted themselves trying to control the world through wars, militarism and rampant predatory capitalism--- never the road to salvation as wars especially in these times are ultimately Pyrrhic.
As the crisis deepens the future has greater clarity.
Desperation can never be the mindset for sound decision making.
The intransigence of the West and our refusal to entertain a "middle way" is the low road to marginalization.
The West loses simply because Capitalism is parasitic. When the West cannot invade and loot countries in the Global South then like any parasite, it eats the host. The West is basically done unless it recognizes the current version of Capitalism (Financial) is a parasite. IMO, this won't happen unless there is a change in mentality across all of politics and society. This change will require a severe economic collapse that would immiserate the majority of American and European peoples. Expecting change via academic institutions or government organisations is impossible because at every level of study, leisure and work, people in the West are indoctrinated with this "exceptionalist Capitalist belief". There is no better teacher of "truth" than direct experience.
well said. The toxic brainwashing in the west these days is nothing short of shocking. It makes one recall the hilarious one-liner - "believe in me rather than your lying eyes". the only thing more mindboggling is that the indoctrination is still working.
hats off to the shysters who have built an entire echo chamber to reinforce the dumbing down of the population. welcome to 1984.
G'day Ron, even after the severe economic collapse it starts all over again as the reserve banks take action to make the workers bear the cost of the depression. Check out all the previous depression/recessions and look at the actions taken which generally exacerbate the intensity of suffering for the majority but bail out the losses of the 1%.
Then a war is used to cleanse all then rinse and start reconstruction creating massive profits for those who cause the original situation.
The only answer is the working class takes power and changes the situation to its benefit.
this is the playbook for the owner class (or the modern euphemism calls shareholders). rule no 1: divide and conquer; rule no 2: capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich; rule no 3: if nothing works, go to war.
Agreed. As China rises I can imagine working classes elsewhere being pushed into revolutionary situations. Do you know of any Marxist organisation capable of leading such a struggle?
I think one of the main contributions from China is to show there is another way, unlike Thatcher's TINA (there is no alternative - to the kind of capitalism she preached).
I agree China is definitely showing another way. My concern is how long is this possible *within* a global capitalist system. This is why Marx and Engels argued for internationalism i.e. the solution had to be global. Also, Lenin in 1918: “without the German revolution, we are ruined”.
He also looks at Lenin's criteria for imperialism. I made an examination of it. His conclusions are essentially that there are three possibilities for China's path:
Scenario 1: The "historical semi-peripheral" path, where internal contradictions (inequality, debt, social unrest) halt its rise.
Scenario 2: China becomes an exploiter, with China's per capita GDP rising to 50-75% of the "imperial standard" (core countries). The unrest would be primarily in the periphery (Africa, South Asia) due to extreme exploitation, and also involve geopolitical instability from rivalry over energy (e.g., conflict with other major importers).
Scenario 3: China becomes a core capitalist country in terms of living standards. The text states this would be disastrous not just for climate but for "any meaningful hope for a sustainable human civilization." The disaster is framed as an absolute ecological limit being breached. (whether or not you think it's from or only from CO2, the climate is changing)
I'll be interested to see your thoughts in your next piece.
Lorraine, thanks for sharing the fascinating piece. I read with a lot of interest. My first reactions - 1) characterization of China's relationship with raw material supplying countries by western media has been inherently biased and sometimes intentionally misleading. I would rather rely on the perspectives of the African or Latin American countries themselves to form an opinion. After all, they have experience dealing with the western colonial exploitation and trade with China. They are in the best position to compare and reach their conclusion about the nature of Chinese investment and trade.
2) the concept of "core vs pheripheral" in the global capitalist system is an interesting one to deepdive. I suggest you explore Eric Li's analysis on the subject. Basically his view was the west initially wanted China to be on the peripheral as a supplier of unskilled labor, similar to raw material suppliers in the middle east, African and other developing countries, all in the name of division of labor and relative competitive advantage. However, China defied expectations and moved up the value chain and now is becoming core to the global economic system. China is now competing, even surpassing, the traditional member of the "core". This is the root cause of western containment and confrontation with China.
3) China's path forward - the three scenarios seem logical but I think the options are broader than those listed. I believe China will find a path to reach a high level of economic development coupled with a high standard of living. But I doubt it's inevitable China's rise must be based on exploitation of poorer countries. It's quite possible to have a win win situation. In this sense, the author's views reflect a heavy western zero-sum game influence.
4) I reject the idea that China can only reach a high standard of living based on the same consumerism and overuse of resources as in the US. For example, China can use much less carbon fossiles for transportation, electricity generation, etc. through adoption of green energy, which it already leads the world.
in summary, I think the article presents an interesting perspective but the conclusions are hardly convincing. Again, there are alternatives to the zero-sum game played by the "core" capitalist powers.
Hello Lorraine, the left or social democrats in the West have been completely hijacked and while serving some elements of reform for the working classes, in most cases they simply serve to confuse, divide and extend Capitalist domination....just like Trotskyist were meant to sabotage. This YT channel has many Communists from around the World committed to Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc.....and the long struggle against exploitation: https://www.youtube.com/@Marxengelsleninstalinmao
Hi Ron, thanks but I think both Lenin and Trotsky developed Marxist theory and did their best to keep it alive, so I doubt I would find a home there sadly.
G'day Lorraine, well the only party that has the desire or intent is the ICFI, US section, Socialist Equality Party who run the WSWS. world socialist website. Though the other Socialist revisionist parties do their best to suck in left leaning people to deflect their energy away from the struggle of class based analysis to geopolitics Zanon style as do the altmedia ex intelligence and military types like Johnson, Ritter etc.without forgetting Pepe.
G'day Lorraine, will have to read your article but as sure as the sun rises the SEP is no propaganda arm of the state but as I live in the bush in Queensland which shut its border to the rest of the country and airports were closed I didn't experience it nor went down the rabbit hole and had no Rna vaccine just Astra zeneca nor read about it for my Phd so can't comment on their statements re covid etc. The whole situation is cloaked in right-wing fog and as I said no Covid Phd.
I’ve been looking for the working class in the ‘west’ for a while. Let me know when you find them. Apart from a small number of thinking people, the majority of people are programmed for quick answers and quick fixes, usually against their own best interests.
So are your schools pigsties otherwise there they are, who delivers your pizza. Do you have a policeman in your town is he from the bourgeoisie. What about when your mum dies who will bury her? Flippancy and cognitive dissonance perfectly paired in your comment.
Agreed we have to change mindsets, not just what we think, but how we think, adjusting to a fast changing world reflecting the times we live in and the actual challenges we face.
I often wonder why it is necessary for the United States to constantly be at war. Your points on this were helpful. Looking forward to your next article.
I appreciate it. the playbook for the owner class (or what the modern euphemism calls shareholders) are rule no 1: divide and conquer; rule no 2: capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich; rule no 3: if nothing works, go to war
I think the most valuable part of China's experience is to show there is another way.
indeed. there was a long tradition of economic critique back in the late 19th and early 20th century. frankly there was a lot of diversity in thinking and willingness to experiment. My personal view is the general population has been largely dumbed down after the ruling elite discovered mass media control and full spectrum propaganda from academia to talking heads on TV.
Oh, undoubtedly. I'm always either reading books and/or listening to academic lectures and podcasts on a wide variety of issues.... and when you're well-informed in contrast to the public--the effect of the mass media control, mass public education, corruption of academia, and the general poisoning of public / civic culture is alarmingly discernible....
"Anti-trust agencies such as FTC exist only in name today"
people said that about the FDA & CDC too, until this year;
to his point, however, more sheep are screaming more loudly about RFK Jr than they are about Big Pharma
After reading this I find that both views (Thiel/Lenin) reflect narrow, static views, even if slightly different.
Thiel thinks the meaning of life is to over-adapt to a - presumed static - context?
Lenin says that over-adapting to static context is inevitable?
That's it?
Not surprisingly, both reflect narrow, short-term thinking.
Neither of them heard of Wallace? Darwin? Future Shock?
Another view is that contexts might change! Ya think? If & when it does, every over-built monopoly is a veritable Dinosaur, unfixable and the first to go.
What does Thiel think about that? Nothing? Just start a new monopoly?
That's it? That's the meaning of life?
With that approach he could monopolize the Monty Python genre.
And Lenin? All he has to say is that "Thiel's" are inevitable? He too, didn't seem to perceive longer context cycles.
Meanwhile, the review author concludes that:
China is building an "Economy of Abundance for Common Prosperity" while the US has (been reinfected by the BritishSystem) of Economy of Scarcity for the enrichment of the 1%.
That conclusion, too, seems rather absolutist.
Another explanation? China may simply have been forced into doing whatever works to escape being on the wrong end of colonialism. Same as the USA in 1776. (see Hamilton/CareyLincoln "American System")
Total Soccer worked for the Dutch.
Total Economics in various flavors will likely work for whomever puts more effort into it.
The trick is to sustain it. Wake me in 5000 years to see how it all evolved.
As the Goons who elect Lindsey Graham say: "This ain't Rocket Surgery!"
I think you are total right economic models evolve over time and nothing is static. That's why I never subscribe to the "end of history" propaganda. Same for the Chinese model - it is working very well in China's specific environment and at this point in history. But by no means, it is easily replicable in other countries or can afford to stay static.
My main argument, which will come in part 2 of the essay, is there is no universal political or economic model that applies to all. Any system, if it wants to be successful, must be flexible and adaptable. The Chinese model today incorporates many elements of the Hamiltonian economic programs that was largely responsible for the US economic takeoff in late 19th century. China also combines many elements from the socialist system as well as its own historical traditions.
I think the biggest learning from the Chinese model is there is another alternative to what is preached in mainstream western political economy.
I do believe Thiel represents the motivations of the capitalists today, especially the techno financial capitalism in the US, where monopoly is far more in reach than in industrial capitalism phase. Lenin's critique is on the mark and reflects the path capitalism has evolved.
indeed, we live in interesting times and time will tell where history moves next. One thing I can be very absolutist about is history doesn't end if we can avoid thermonuclear destruction.
IMO one of the most important tools of the Owner Class is Intellectual Property (IP) laws. These laws create government enforced monopolies for the oligarchs. They illegitimately treat as ideas as physical property and stifle advancement in every domain where they exist (ie, industry to art). Moreover, when combined with the regulatory moats that encircle all the major industries, what you get is corporatism. A beast that is separate from pure collectivist communism by about 6-degrees. Based on your description of China, they’re avoiding this dynamic with their modern day success. Hopefully it continues and they eschew IP laws which destroy innovation and centralize economic power.
I cannot agree more. IPs are bottlenecks like toll roads. in real life, tolls are removed once the people who built the road have earned a justiable return on their investment. There is no reason to extend the roll to generate extraordinary profit for an one off effort.
that's why I think the open source model Chinese AI developers are adopting is so revolutionary. open source democratizes access and fosters more innovation when closed system is designed for profit maximization.
I think the way you frame Thiel versus Lenin as embodying “two economic orders” misses that there are certainly more than two. When China launched its reform period in the early 1980s, local branches of the Party in places like Shanghai explicitly referenced the American Jacksonians as a model for decentralized, adaptive governance. What emerged for several decades resembled the American Old Republic (from the late 1820s until the early 1960s) far more than contemporary America: provinces and cities exercising real discretion in banking, trade, and industrial planning, competing and experimenting much like American localities and states once did. So while your essay highlights extremes of monopoly capitalism and state socialism, it overlooks that China’s system, and the older American one it echoed, demonstrate a third path of federated, bottom-up political economy that can’t be captured by a simple binary
Lenin didn’t “embody”, or favour, the monopoly capitalism economic order, or the state capitalist model.
I think what Hua was doing was to show that
1) both Thiel and Lenin observe that capitalism tends towards a monopoly structure.
2) Lenin went further to argue that monopoly capitalism, the “highest stage of capitalism”, was also an imperialist rivalry between the great powers and, in the final analysis, leads to military conflict. He believed this conflict was unavoidable and urged workers to organise together en masse to overthrow the class system, thereby ridding the world of profit-based economic competition, reverting instead to production being for human need.
Thiel is simply pointing out the logic of the system. Lenin went further to show the implications.
Thanks, Lorraine. I think what I was mainly getting at is that framing history as Lenin v Thiel risks overlooking that there were and ar other paradigms entirely, ones that aren’t reducible to either monopoly capitalism or soviet power. The American Old Republic, for example, was built on federated, bottom-up authority structures that deliberately dispersed economic and political power, and China’s system since the early 80s has been like this by allowing provinces and cities broad discretion to experiment with finance, trade, and industrial planning
exactly. The choices should never be binary. There are many paths that could overlap in some places but diverge in others. Capitalism is indeed very good at incentivizing people to create wealth but socialism is a more equitable approach to distribute wealth. Doctrinal rigidity is dangerous but a system that is fluid and decentralized is more resilient. The local empowerment part, as you pointed out, is a critical component of the Chinese system which is often mistakenly assumed to be only about centralization.
thanks for the insightful comment. agreed that there are many options and variations of market-based and/or planned economies. I wasn't trying to be exhaustive and I also didn't mean China is following a Lenin model. In my view, Lenin was a sharp analyst and critique of the type of finance capitalism the west was evolving into. But he didn't offer an alternative beyond the central planning in USSR (partly because he wasn't in power for very long and had to fight off a western/japanese invasion between 1918 and 2025 - Lenin himself died in 2024).
China's path is different from both the finance capitalism and Lenin's central-planning models. Lenin's contribution is his theories help Beijing to avoid the finance capitalism model.
China's model has many elements of the Hamiltonian economic programs. But it also has many unique features - something economist Jin Keyu called "beyond capitalism or socialism". I characterize the model as market-based state industrial capitalism. The second part of the essay will look at the dynamics of this political economy.
Thanks for the reply! Yes, I agree that China’s path is distinct from both Lenin’s central planning and Western finance capitalism. I would just add that when you point to Hamiltonian elements, I think it’s very important to note that from the 1820s onward America explicitly rejected Hamilton’s paradigm and installed something quite different, what the Jacksonians called a democratic, pluralistic, decentralized political economy. That model, with its dispersion of banking, private finance, scientific, fiscal, commercial, legal/regulatory, and policymaking authority, was starkly different than the centralization of decision making, standardization of law and regulation, continental divisions of labor, and economic central planning coordinated by networked national elites that Hamilton's plan called for
good point. I am not a scholar on the finer point of past US economic policies but I can appreciate the point you are making about how the US operated a very different set of monetary and commercial choices than practiced today. I use the Hamiltonian school as a shorthand for traditional US development model that was responsible for its industrial takeoff.
Yeah the initial decades were Hamiltonian, with a short break in the middle, but were very lucky that at the moment the Industrial Revolution was going to soon begin, we took a different path. California was literally meant to have the same development economics that the Congo has been subjected to for the past fifty years! What a worse world it would have been! But luckily Hamilton et al’s successors, the Whigs, were defeated by the generation 1.0 Democratic Party (the Jacksonians)
Lenin’s model was soviet power - for workers, soldiers and peasants to rule together through their soviets - councils. These came together to form a very large national body of delegates. Ministries were delegated power but it was all done on the basis of mass discussion and debate. Electors were based in their workplaces/regiments/land and had immediate recall over delegates, who in turn were paid the average wage of a skilled worker. The civil war against the foreign invasion-backed Whites and ensuing famine destroyed this system at a practical implementation level.
So many opportunists joined the government that Lenin noted the “mass of bureaucrats” was turning the country into a “workers’ state with bureaucratic distortions”. In reality it was no longer a workers’ state.
Stalin introduced the first 5 year plan in 1928, to break the rich peasants who would not support the cities during the crisis caused by Britain’s boycott of Russian food exports. I think only after that could you call it state planning. After Lenin’s death, Stalin had already entrenched himself as head of that bureaucracy and purged those who wanted to limp along waiting for revolutions elsewhere. The state-centralised planning was Stalin’s revision of Marxism - “socialism in one country” - the defeat of the international revolution.
I think the way you frame Thiel versus Lenin as embodying “two economic orders” misses that there are certainly more than two. When China launched its reform period in the early 1980s, local branches of the Party in places like Shanghai explicitly referenced the American Jacksonians as a model for decentralized, adaptive governance. What emerged for several decades resembled the American Old Republic (from the late 1820s until the early 1960s) far more than contemporary America: provinces and cities exercising real discretion in banking, trade, and industrial planning, competing and experimenting much like American localities and states once did. So while your essay highlights extremes of monopoly capitalism and state socialism, it overlooks that China’s system, and the older American one it echoed, demonstrate a third path of federated, bottom-up political economy that can’t be captured by a simple binary
my bad. I am no good with names and Word spelling-check didn't catch this one. I don't want to use cliches like don't judge a book by its cover (even when there is a typo on the title:). Hope you look beyond the title and share your thoughts on the content.
empires fail slowly and then implode. generally the rut starts first internally and then manifests outwardly. Maybe the next economic collapse will get the job (AI looks like a big bubble, maybe even a scam). could be the debt implosion. A war with China would also do the job. there are so many triggers and the captain is drunk and asleep.
The world can thank its lucky stars that China came onto the world stage when it did and stayed true to its revolutionary ideals despite the US hegemon trying its best to "buy" the leaders of China like it did in the rest of the Western world. China is now the only country in the world that can stop the US hegemon juggernaut.
The only point I would add "China is now the only country in the world that can stop the US Jewish hegemon juggernaut"
G'day Alec, please note CPC is not in the foreign war school,they have not even helped the RF in what you could call its hour of need where as N K stepped up objectively with millions of 152mm rounds and many trainloads of unknowns plus sent troops so I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the hoped for action. China has even played hardball with the RF over energy price negotiations as energy is critical for them as they only have renewables no fossil fuels except some not so good coal. I surmise they buy their fuelrods from the RF also.
I agree China generally doesn't see wars as the best way to achieve political goals (sometimes, I wish it weren't so). I also assume there is a tacit understanding between Putin and Xi how Russia prefers Chinese involvements in the ongoing conflict. Russia has a lot of pride riding on this as an independent pole in the new world order - taking some limited help from N Korea or Iran is one thing, taking help from China - its equal partner - will be perceived differently.
Even Iran and Russia have no empathy or comradely connection, the RF supported sanctions against Iran in the UN and historically they were enemies and Putin is a neocon clone and sure as the sun rises he would not like the Shia mullahs running the show, he only likes sunni jihadi supplicants aka Chechnyans as there must have been some business arrangements reached during the 2nd Chechnyan war peace talks I surmise and evidence suggests so as the Chechnyans form a large part of Spetznatz and Rosgvardia. It is all not what it seems and the not a war is all part of it and the Kremlin seems reticent to win it for not so straight forward reasons.
I agree. China is also uncomfortable with the mullahs running Iran. Beijing historically prefers to deal with secular states who are rational about their national interests. Iran has a very complex system of governance and frankly in my view, lacks strategic acumen. I wrote a few pieces on this point back in May when the Iran Israel war was waging.
Putin seems to play 4 dimensional chess with complex calculations (unlike Trump who only pretends). Anyway I wish the Russians well and hope they settle this one soon.
Agreed
American's financial system is jewish tyranny and not American, problem is when I bring up this subject to my "friends" they un-friend me.
I am sorry if your "friends" cannot face reality. This calls to mind Bonhoeffer's theory on stupidity - some stupidity is not an intellectual deficiency, rather a moral one.
I frequently credit these parasites for having executed their (((24 Protocols))) to perfection, inflicting upon generations of unsuspecting, uncritical and gullible people with dangerous propaganda and part of the indoctrination process of western-aligned moral superiority.
But alas, parasites cannot parasitize on themselves: none of them add any value by doing real work. The only thing they're good at is leaching off of people, controlling banks and manipulating economies for their own profit and satisfying their sadism.
Consequently, this is also the most dangerous time for the real free world such for BRICS and the Fair World Order when the decline of their hosts is nearing terminal velocity as they desperately seek to migrate to a new host.
I think the jewish parasites are running out of hosts big enough to feed their bloodthirst. after taking out the biggest one (the "only superpower" in the world), they have cornered themselves. I doubt they will do well in the coming reshuffling of the world order. But then again, who knows for sure - I have heard cockroaches are the most difficult to kill, even in a thermonuclear blast.
I also first read this Lenin essay at the beginning of the neoliberalism acceleration (1980). The analysis was prescient in 1980 let alone 1918. The grinding elimination of competition, the removal of obstacles to monopoly (elimination of the UK Monopolies and Mergers Commission), the mergers of banks and then other financial institutions to create mega rentiers (Deregulation) and the financialisation of housing (removing protection from Building Societies). All through political capture.
It is not techno feudalism but real feudalism. In the feudal era 80% of a UK family’s income went to house rent. We’ve just returned to this.
The communist alternative at the time of ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their need’ failed as a resource allocation mechanism. Either unwieldy centrally controlled, or too homogeneous.
The big breakthrough though is China’s state socialism combined with the energy of market economy. Liberate people and enterprises to innovate and produce , by eliminating any friction in the competition. Funding bottlenecks, barriers to entry, rent bottlenecks, infrastructure, communications, health, education, power etc etc. natural monopolies are state controlled and a stringent authority ensures obstacles to competition are removed. Brilliant.
The energy this model has, and continues to unleash is awe inspiring.
I think China's biggest contribution is to show there are indeed alternatives, as opposed to Thatcher's TINA (there is no alternative - the financial capitalism she was advocating).
China's model may not be entirely replicable or applicable in other countries but it has showed the world modernization doesn't equate westernization, prosperity doesn't equate finance capitalism. You can build a successful modern economy based on servicing the need of the majority rather than the profit motive of the 1%.
This sounds like a Trojan Horse idea to get people to buy into socialism. There are no “natural monopolies”. Monopolies are a result of state participation. They are impossible in a free market where there is no government interference/regulations.
no one should buy into any economic model wholesale without understanding their specific situations. Beijing caveats its own economic model as "socialism with Chinese characteristics". I think a better term may be market-based state capitalism with socialist characteristics.
most people have stopped thinking of the economic system they live under. Frankly, if you think the system you have is the best, by all means stick with it. Few are able to make any changes anyway.
I don't think most countries can replicate the Chinese model even if they want.
What I am highlighting are economic realities as I see them. For example, I view most the Mag 7 tech firms as functional monopolies. of course, there are other ways people interprete the realities as they see fit.
no economy exists in a vacuum except in western economic textbooks. perfect "free market" doesn't exist and has never existed. In many ways, I actually think China is far more market driven than the US or UK if one defines free market as low level of government intervention or regulation.
Socioeconomic systems aren't fungible. Example: Denmark in the mid-'80s was still so ethnically homogeneous that half the Copenhagen phonebook was Hansens and Jensens. It was a wealthy high-trust Eurosocialist society, with income inequality controlled by a tax rate up to 90%, free excellent healthcare and education, and so forth. Denmark had Jews, but not many. They didn't visibly run things. An ethnically cohesive society can defend itself against Jews.
Denmark had just started being invaded by low-trust low-IQ high-violence MidEast&Africa types, in this case Turk 'Guest-Workers' who of course stayed unless deported. Suddenly they had rapes, murders and such; they had Turks throwing rocks at topless Danish women on Danish beaches because of their brutal religion. I remember riding a bus to work, full of literally stinking Turks.
At the time, I realized that Danish socioeconomics wouldn't work in the USA because even the Whites were too primitive, let alone the Blacks and Jews who would always cheat and steal. Probably Japan and Scandinavia were the only places where that very-high-trust model could work.
Great to see a fair representation of Lenin’s research and theory. Quite unusual these days.
It’s really important — it wasn’t just an academic argument to him — Lenin was challenging other socialists who refused to admit that the imperialist powers were headed for war.
I think Lenin was the greatest leader in the history of USSR. In addition to his reforms to elevate the country from the backward feudal Tsarist rule, he also defeated western and japanese invasion of Russia in 1918. Lenin was an idealist but that wasn't enough as he didn't have time to build a sustainable meritocratic organization to carry out the ideals. Too bad the USSR didn't travel down a similar path as China to build a socialist system based on market, competition and equitable distribution of wealth and opportunities. It's a tragic loss to the movement to create a better world for all.
I agree he was the greatest leader but the revolution succeeded because the workers ended up agreeing with the Bolsheviks that they themselves should take power through their 'soviets' - democratic councils based in the actual workplaces - along with the soldiers and peasants' councils.
"Too bad the USSR didn't travel down a similar path as China to build a socialist system based on market, competition" - actually they did introduce free markets measures as a way to try to keep the peasants committed to the revolution.
China wasn't invaded like Russia was after the revolution, and didn't have to fight a devastating 3 year civil war against the West and the old ruling class. So, as impoverished was China was in 1949, they had a better start. To cut a long story short!!
Lenin did introduce many important reforms and Stalin drove the country's industrialization. But economic dynamism was lost after the 50s, though USSR had many scientific breakthroughs such as the space program. The country stagnated since the 1960s, leading to the collapse in 91. Gorbachev was too idealistic and trusting and a poor leader.
China did fight a war with the US and its allies for 3 years right after the founding of PRC in korea, though the country itself wasn't invaded. And that was right after 14 years fighting with japanese invaders and 4 years of civil war. for China, the first half of 20th century was wars and chaoes. So China's start wasn't much better than USSR. on the other hand, the struggle toughened the country and laid the foundation to bootstrap to today's progress.
Yes, we are comparing two terrible situations - who knows...
I thought more about what I said. Perhaps I haven't placed enough emphasis on the fact that Lenin couldn't play the leading role he would have after the health problems from the 1918 assassination attempt on him, less than a year after the revolution, and subsequent death in 1924... Imagine if Mao was taken out of action in 1950. He made mistakes but was such a unifying figure.
And Stalin defeated his opposition ruthlessly.
There was always contention between Moaist ways and Stalinist ways and there has never been more than amicable relations between the two neighbours which may well have been organised by what some call Trotskyists but really amounts to ZOG or Zionists but this modern world of flooding the zone and apparent convergence who really knows.
Mao didn't like Stalin's domineering ways (he himself suffered from the same personality shortcoming:). He also saw Stalin as an expansionist.
But Mao really didn't like khrushchev who was considered too cozy with the west despite all his theatrics and too critical of Stalin. Mao was particularly sensitive to disloyal successors and that was why he removed a string of potential heirs.
the more I study the Sino-Soviet break, the more I see personality conflicts rather than fundamental ideological misalignments. It's Deng who actually changed the rigid ideological system and moved China to market reform.
Can you recommend English language books on China 1949 - 1979? I need guidance as I don't trust the mainstream books!!
there are a few good books I have on my shelf by western authors. none are without their faults but I view them as generally objective, even when the authors are critical. some are biographies that are contextualized in the period and helpful to develop a sense of what's going on. Here is a short list (I think I have more but scattered around the house):
- John King Fairbank's The Great Chinese Revolution
- Ezra Vogel's Deng Xiaoping and the transformation of China
- Han Suyin's The Eldest Son", a 1994 biography about Zhou Enlai - I think this is one of the best books on any Chinese leaders, well written based on excellent research and interviews
- Philip Short's Mao
there are a number of other worthy readings, though not specifically about the period - Kerry Brown's books about China and Xi, and Alfred Chan's Xi Jinping, published earlier this year.
Thank you!! Plenty to keep me going with :)
Would have to agree except was Stalin a revanchist I felt the revanchist in chief Trotsky whose Permanent revolution he killed with his Socialism in one country along with the man himself seems to suggest otherwise though I'm no scholar on the matter.
I sure agree re personality conflicts were a big thing but have to add that I feel that some in the USSR leadership must have had secret talks and leaned towards a convergence that led to perestroika and the sell-out of the masses and the gifting of the wealth of the working class to today's oligarchs and siloviki.
Stalin was no theoretician but a hands on fella who pulled off the great bank heist in today's Tbilisi to fund the Bolsheviks and the revolution though conspiracy theorists suggest the Jewish money men did and hence the Bolsheviks were mostlyJewish or puppets of them, I don't know and don't lean right enough to go that way but Zionazis are a very different kettle of fish.
my knowledge about USSR is limited to text books and a few memoirs and biographies. I probably have missed many intricacies and finer points. One thing I have always been curious about is the jewish influence in early Bolsheviks, especially Trosky. Was he a genuine revolutionary or a covert zionist agent?
Here's some info, not aimed at you Hua, just FYI seeing as you raised it.
Leftwing Russian Jews were more likely to join the Jewish Labour Bund than the Bolsheviks, which had Jewish members too but the stuff about the "Jewish" Bolsheviks is complete bunk!
From a book debunking Nazi propaganda about Jews:
“Drawing on data gathered at the annual party congresses of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the historian Benjamin Pinkus has assessed the statistical and organizational representation of Jews within the power institutions of the party—the Central Committee, Politburo, Secretariat, and government bureaucracies. He concludes that there was “no historical basis” for claims that the Bolshevik regime was the work of the Jews. As of 1917, roughly 1,000, or about 5 percent, of the 23,000 members of the Bolshevik party were Jewish. By August 1917, 6 of 21 members of the Central Committee were Jews: Lev Kamenev, Grigory Sokolnikov, Jakov Sverdlov, Grigory Zinoviev, Leon Trotsky, and Moisei Uritsky. The party census of 1922 showed 19,564 Jewish members, 5.21 percent of the total. By 1927, the 49,627 Jewish members comprised 4.34 percent of all party members.” https://ebin.pub/the-jewish-enemy-nazi-propaganda-during-world-war-ii-and-the-holocaust-9780674038592.html (the link contains the full text)
Re Trotsky, I have no doubt he was 100% genuine. He was never "an early Bolshevik". He didn't join the Bolsheviks till during the revolution year of 1917, and admitted Lenin had been correct about the painstaking work of building the Bolsheviks in the preceeding years as a grassroots organisation (officially since 1903), and that the revolution wouldn't have succeeded without its leadership.
Some people claim Lenin was Jewish too, but no self-respecting commentator does. I delved into that claim and apparently Lenin may have had a Jewish ancestor but wouldn't have known.
Marxism was the theory that the Bolsheviks adhered to of how to get from capitalism to socialism. Marx was Jewish and his closest collaborator for the ENTIRE time of their research, writings and activism was Engels, who was not Jewish.
If Jewishness was particularly relevant to the Bolsheviks, you would think that would have come through in their writings and agitation!! Only people who believe politics is a process of "secret" unknown agendas would think this isn't relevant. The Bolsheviks were very open (in the context of a police state) about their politics, otherwise how would they convince people to join?
Lastly, Zionism was still quite fringe back then and not taken seriously by the vast majority of Jews. Anti-Jewish racism made it a little more acceptable by the 1920's but nothing like what it became post-1947.
thanks for shedding light on this. It makes sense the Nazi would want to propagate a smear against the Bolsheviks by linking it with jewish world domination plan.
I also don't think Marx's work had anything to do with his ethnic background. He is among the many outstanding thinkers and scientists of jewish origin. some jews perpetuated terrible crimes in history, let alone the ongoing atrocities, and that has cost most of the world's goodwill. it's too bad that even the good people are tainted with the association.
That surely is something that I believe will remain contentious for time immemorial. I have opinions re that but lately the zone is being flooded with right-wing misinformation etc. and truth is not permitted anymore.
Great piece. Today I watched Ben Norton interviewing Chinese scholar Zhang Weiwei , comparing Chinese and US/west political economies that touches on some of these same points,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkVyYvWezI0&ab_channel=GeopoliticalEconomyReport
China has it right and should be a model for the BRICS++ countries. I hope.
I have followed Ben's work for many years and indeed watched the interview with Weiwei. Weiwei is in the government policy circle and has a deep understanding of how the country's leadership thinks about geoeconomic and geopolitical issues. One of his fellow scholars, also the dean of the Fudan school of international relations, Mr. Wang Huning, is now the 4th highest ranking official in Beijing and widely considered as the brain trust for the past three presidents (Jiang, Hu, and Xi). Weiwei's ideas reflect many of Mr. Wang's thoughts.
I agree with you one of the most important contributions China can make is to show the world there is another path to modernization and prosperity rather than the conventional wisdom of modernization = westernization, prosperity = financial capitalism practiced in the US/UK. The propadanga from francis fukuyama to milton friedman have poisoned many minds around the world.
Barring all out nuclear war East and West are locked in a death struggle that eventually will see the East prevail based by sheer numbers. Forty years ago the West held all the cards, but has not played them well. Even though they were warned 70 years ago the East would even eventually emerge they exhausted themselves trying to control the world through wars, militarism and rampant predatory capitalism--- never the road to salvation as wars especially in these times are ultimately Pyrrhic.
As the crisis deepens the future has greater clarity.
Desperation can never be the mindset for sound decision making.
The intransigence of the West and our refusal to entertain a "middle way" is the low road to marginalization.
The fools of the West are chasing fool's gold .
The West loses simply because Capitalism is parasitic. When the West cannot invade and loot countries in the Global South then like any parasite, it eats the host. The West is basically done unless it recognizes the current version of Capitalism (Financial) is a parasite. IMO, this won't happen unless there is a change in mentality across all of politics and society. This change will require a severe economic collapse that would immiserate the majority of American and European peoples. Expecting change via academic institutions or government organisations is impossible because at every level of study, leisure and work, people in the West are indoctrinated with this "exceptionalist Capitalist belief". There is no better teacher of "truth" than direct experience.
well said. The toxic brainwashing in the west these days is nothing short of shocking. It makes one recall the hilarious one-liner - "believe in me rather than your lying eyes". the only thing more mindboggling is that the indoctrination is still working.
hats off to the shysters who have built an entire echo chamber to reinforce the dumbing down of the population. welcome to 1984.
G'day Ron, even after the severe economic collapse it starts all over again as the reserve banks take action to make the workers bear the cost of the depression. Check out all the previous depression/recessions and look at the actions taken which generally exacerbate the intensity of suffering for the majority but bail out the losses of the 1%.
Then a war is used to cleanse all then rinse and start reconstruction creating massive profits for those who cause the original situation.
The only answer is the working class takes power and changes the situation to its benefit.
this is the playbook for the owner class (or the modern euphemism calls shareholders). rule no 1: divide and conquer; rule no 2: capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich; rule no 3: if nothing works, go to war.
Agreed. As China rises I can imagine working classes elsewhere being pushed into revolutionary situations. Do you know of any Marxist organisation capable of leading such a struggle?
I think one of the main contributions from China is to show there is another way, unlike Thatcher's TINA (there is no alternative - to the kind of capitalism she preached).
I agree China is definitely showing another way. My concern is how long is this possible *within* a global capitalist system. This is why Marx and Engels argued for internationalism i.e. the solution had to be global. Also, Lenin in 1918: “without the German revolution, we are ruined”.
Do you know this paper? https://monthlyreview.org/2021/07/01/china-imperialism-or-semi-periphery/
He also looks at Lenin's criteria for imperialism. I made an examination of it. His conclusions are essentially that there are three possibilities for China's path:
Scenario 1: The "historical semi-peripheral" path, where internal contradictions (inequality, debt, social unrest) halt its rise.
Scenario 2: China becomes an exploiter, with China's per capita GDP rising to 50-75% of the "imperial standard" (core countries). The unrest would be primarily in the periphery (Africa, South Asia) due to extreme exploitation, and also involve geopolitical instability from rivalry over energy (e.g., conflict with other major importers).
Scenario 3: China becomes a core capitalist country in terms of living standards. The text states this would be disastrous not just for climate but for "any meaningful hope for a sustainable human civilization." The disaster is framed as an absolute ecological limit being breached. (whether or not you think it's from or only from CO2, the climate is changing)
I'll be interested to see your thoughts in your next piece.
Lorraine, thanks for sharing the fascinating piece. I read with a lot of interest. My first reactions - 1) characterization of China's relationship with raw material supplying countries by western media has been inherently biased and sometimes intentionally misleading. I would rather rely on the perspectives of the African or Latin American countries themselves to form an opinion. After all, they have experience dealing with the western colonial exploitation and trade with China. They are in the best position to compare and reach their conclusion about the nature of Chinese investment and trade.
2) the concept of "core vs pheripheral" in the global capitalist system is an interesting one to deepdive. I suggest you explore Eric Li's analysis on the subject. Basically his view was the west initially wanted China to be on the peripheral as a supplier of unskilled labor, similar to raw material suppliers in the middle east, African and other developing countries, all in the name of division of labor and relative competitive advantage. However, China defied expectations and moved up the value chain and now is becoming core to the global economic system. China is now competing, even surpassing, the traditional member of the "core". This is the root cause of western containment and confrontation with China.
3) China's path forward - the three scenarios seem logical but I think the options are broader than those listed. I believe China will find a path to reach a high level of economic development coupled with a high standard of living. But I doubt it's inevitable China's rise must be based on exploitation of poorer countries. It's quite possible to have a win win situation. In this sense, the author's views reflect a heavy western zero-sum game influence.
4) I reject the idea that China can only reach a high standard of living based on the same consumerism and overuse of resources as in the US. For example, China can use much less carbon fossiles for transportation, electricity generation, etc. through adoption of green energy, which it already leads the world.
in summary, I think the article presents an interesting perspective but the conclusions are hardly convincing. Again, there are alternatives to the zero-sum game played by the "core" capitalist powers.
Hello Lorraine, the left or social democrats in the West have been completely hijacked and while serving some elements of reform for the working classes, in most cases they simply serve to confuse, divide and extend Capitalist domination....just like Trotskyist were meant to sabotage. This YT channel has many Communists from around the World committed to Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc.....and the long struggle against exploitation: https://www.youtube.com/@Marxengelsleninstalinmao
I would also add Ben Norton's channel the Geopolitical Report.
Hi Ron, thanks but I think both Lenin and Trotsky developed Marxist theory and did their best to keep it alive, so I doubt I would find a home there sadly.
G'day Lorraine, well the only party that has the desire or intent is the ICFI, US section, Socialist Equality Party who run the WSWS. world socialist website. Though the other Socialist revisionist parties do their best to suck in left leaning people to deflect their energy away from the struggle of class based analysis to geopolitics Zanon style as do the altmedia ex intelligence and military types like Johnson, Ritter etc.without forgetting Pepe.
True. I use the altmedia for information, not political direction!
Sadly the WSWS believed bad Covid-19 "science". Groups that did that became a propaganda arm for corporate interests. I wrote about it here: https://lorrainepratley977529.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-the-covidian-left.
Lorraine that link does not work by the way.
G'day Lorraine, will have to read your article but as sure as the sun rises the SEP is no propaganda arm of the state but as I live in the bush in Queensland which shut its border to the rest of the country and airports were closed I didn't experience it nor went down the rabbit hole and had no Rna vaccine just Astra zeneca nor read about it for my Phd so can't comment on their statements re covid etc. The whole situation is cloaked in right-wing fog and as I said no Covid Phd.
I’ve been looking for the working class in the ‘west’ for a while. Let me know when you find them. Apart from a small number of thinking people, the majority of people are programmed for quick answers and quick fixes, usually against their own best interests.
So are your schools pigsties otherwise there they are, who delivers your pizza. Do you have a policeman in your town is he from the bourgeoisie. What about when your mum dies who will bury her? Flippancy and cognitive dissonance perfectly paired in your comment.
Agreed we have to change mindsets, not just what we think, but how we think, adjusting to a fast changing world reflecting the times we live in and the actual challenges we face.
I often wonder why it is necessary for the United States to constantly be at war. Your points on this were helpful. Looking forward to your next article.
I appreciate it. the playbook for the owner class (or what the modern euphemism calls shareholders) are rule no 1: divide and conquer; rule no 2: capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich; rule no 3: if nothing works, go to war
I think the most valuable part of China's experience is to show there is another way.
I think Lenin owed much of his critique of imperialism to the English economist and political critic J.A. Hobson, by the way.
indeed. there was a long tradition of economic critique back in the late 19th and early 20th century. frankly there was a lot of diversity in thinking and willingness to experiment. My personal view is the general population has been largely dumbed down after the ruling elite discovered mass media control and full spectrum propaganda from academia to talking heads on TV.
Oh, undoubtedly. I'm always either reading books and/or listening to academic lectures and podcasts on a wide variety of issues.... and when you're well-informed in contrast to the public--the effect of the mass media control, mass public education, corruption of academia, and the general poisoning of public / civic culture is alarmingly discernible....
seems far too absolutist
the profit motive and the goal of any business should be to achieve monopoly in the marketplace so they can reap extraordinary profits
..
"If you want to create and capture lasting value, look to build a monopoly"
Peter Thiel, WSJ
https://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-losers-1410535536
Pretty much the same as what Warren Buffet & Charlie Munger said too, & many others.
Lenin, as counterpart to Thiele? Ok.
https://huabinoliver.substack.com/p/peter-thiele-and-vladimir-ilyich
"Anti-trust agencies such as FTC exist only in name today"
people said that about the FDA & CDC too, until this year;
to his point, however, more sheep are screaming more loudly about RFK Jr than they are about Big Pharma
After reading this I find that both views (Thiel/Lenin) reflect narrow, static views, even if slightly different.
Thiel thinks the meaning of life is to over-adapt to a - presumed static - context?
Lenin says that over-adapting to static context is inevitable?
That's it?
Not surprisingly, both reflect narrow, short-term thinking.
Neither of them heard of Wallace? Darwin? Future Shock?
Another view is that contexts might change! Ya think? If & when it does, every over-built monopoly is a veritable Dinosaur, unfixable and the first to go.
What does Thiel think about that? Nothing? Just start a new monopoly?
That's it? That's the meaning of life?
With that approach he could monopolize the Monty Python genre.
And Lenin? All he has to say is that "Thiel's" are inevitable? He too, didn't seem to perceive longer context cycles.
Meanwhile, the review author concludes that:
China is building an "Economy of Abundance for Common Prosperity" while the US has (been reinfected by the BritishSystem) of Economy of Scarcity for the enrichment of the 1%.
That conclusion, too, seems rather absolutist.
Another explanation? China may simply have been forced into doing whatever works to escape being on the wrong end of colonialism. Same as the USA in 1776. (see Hamilton/CareyLincoln "American System")
Total Soccer worked for the Dutch.
Total Economics in various flavors will likely work for whomever puts more effort into it.
The trick is to sustain it. Wake me in 5000 years to see how it all evolved.
As the Goons who elect Lindsey Graham say: "This ain't Rocket Surgery!"
https://untappd.com/b/level-beer-this-ain-t-rocket-surgery/2687815
that's already an American beer brand? Go Figure!
https://untappd.com/LevelBeer
https://www.levelbeer.com/s/order?location=11ea698fd805d56a9fa50cc47a2ae330#6
Lemme guess. Thiel would advise securing monopoly IP, and Lenin would say it's inevitable.
And China would say conditions have changed and all beer contracts must be re-negotiated. :)
No one can predict what will bubble up on the next scale. It's unprecedented.
So let's just get back to Total Enjoyment of our Interesting Times.
May they always be more interesting yet!
I think you are total right economic models evolve over time and nothing is static. That's why I never subscribe to the "end of history" propaganda. Same for the Chinese model - it is working very well in China's specific environment and at this point in history. But by no means, it is easily replicable in other countries or can afford to stay static.
My main argument, which will come in part 2 of the essay, is there is no universal political or economic model that applies to all. Any system, if it wants to be successful, must be flexible and adaptable. The Chinese model today incorporates many elements of the Hamiltonian economic programs that was largely responsible for the US economic takeoff in late 19th century. China also combines many elements from the socialist system as well as its own historical traditions.
I think the biggest learning from the Chinese model is there is another alternative to what is preached in mainstream western political economy.
I do believe Thiel represents the motivations of the capitalists today, especially the techno financial capitalism in the US, where monopoly is far more in reach than in industrial capitalism phase. Lenin's critique is on the mark and reflects the path capitalism has evolved.
indeed, we live in interesting times and time will tell where history moves next. One thing I can be very absolutist about is history doesn't end if we can avoid thermonuclear destruction.
IMO one of the most important tools of the Owner Class is Intellectual Property (IP) laws. These laws create government enforced monopolies for the oligarchs. They illegitimately treat as ideas as physical property and stifle advancement in every domain where they exist (ie, industry to art). Moreover, when combined with the regulatory moats that encircle all the major industries, what you get is corporatism. A beast that is separate from pure collectivist communism by about 6-degrees. Based on your description of China, they’re avoiding this dynamic with their modern day success. Hopefully it continues and they eschew IP laws which destroy innovation and centralize economic power.
I cannot agree more. IPs are bottlenecks like toll roads. in real life, tolls are removed once the people who built the road have earned a justiable return on their investment. There is no reason to extend the roll to generate extraordinary profit for an one off effort.
that's why I think the open source model Chinese AI developers are adopting is so revolutionary. open source democratizes access and fosters more innovation when closed system is designed for profit maximization.
I think the way you frame Thiel versus Lenin as embodying “two economic orders” misses that there are certainly more than two. When China launched its reform period in the early 1980s, local branches of the Party in places like Shanghai explicitly referenced the American Jacksonians as a model for decentralized, adaptive governance. What emerged for several decades resembled the American Old Republic (from the late 1820s until the early 1960s) far more than contemporary America: provinces and cities exercising real discretion in banking, trade, and industrial planning, competing and experimenting much like American localities and states once did. So while your essay highlights extremes of monopoly capitalism and state socialism, it overlooks that China’s system, and the older American one it echoed, demonstrate a third path of federated, bottom-up political economy that can’t be captured by a simple binary
by the way, if interested, you can check out an earlier piece I wrote about the recipe of Chinese industrial success.
https://huabinoliver.substack.com/p/the-secret-sauce-of-chinese-industrial
Lenin didn’t “embody”, or favour, the monopoly capitalism economic order, or the state capitalist model.
I think what Hua was doing was to show that
1) both Thiel and Lenin observe that capitalism tends towards a monopoly structure.
2) Lenin went further to argue that monopoly capitalism, the “highest stage of capitalism”, was also an imperialist rivalry between the great powers and, in the final analysis, leads to military conflict. He believed this conflict was unavoidable and urged workers to organise together en masse to overthrow the class system, thereby ridding the world of profit-based economic competition, reverting instead to production being for human need.
Thiel is simply pointing out the logic of the system. Lenin went further to show the implications.
Thanks, Lorraine. I think what I was mainly getting at is that framing history as Lenin v Thiel risks overlooking that there were and ar other paradigms entirely, ones that aren’t reducible to either monopoly capitalism or soviet power. The American Old Republic, for example, was built on federated, bottom-up authority structures that deliberately dispersed economic and political power, and China’s system since the early 80s has been like this by allowing provinces and cities broad discretion to experiment with finance, trade, and industrial planning
exactly. The choices should never be binary. There are many paths that could overlap in some places but diverge in others. Capitalism is indeed very good at incentivizing people to create wealth but socialism is a more equitable approach to distribute wealth. Doctrinal rigidity is dangerous but a system that is fluid and decentralized is more resilient. The local empowerment part, as you pointed out, is a critical component of the Chinese system which is often mistakenly assumed to be only about centralization.
Thanks Mike. It's great more people are talking about alternatives!
thanks for the insightful comment. agreed that there are many options and variations of market-based and/or planned economies. I wasn't trying to be exhaustive and I also didn't mean China is following a Lenin model. In my view, Lenin was a sharp analyst and critique of the type of finance capitalism the west was evolving into. But he didn't offer an alternative beyond the central planning in USSR (partly because he wasn't in power for very long and had to fight off a western/japanese invasion between 1918 and 2025 - Lenin himself died in 2024).
China's path is different from both the finance capitalism and Lenin's central-planning models. Lenin's contribution is his theories help Beijing to avoid the finance capitalism model.
China's model has many elements of the Hamiltonian economic programs. But it also has many unique features - something economist Jin Keyu called "beyond capitalism or socialism". I characterize the model as market-based state industrial capitalism. The second part of the essay will look at the dynamics of this political economy.
Thanks for the reply! Yes, I agree that China’s path is distinct from both Lenin’s central planning and Western finance capitalism. I would just add that when you point to Hamiltonian elements, I think it’s very important to note that from the 1820s onward America explicitly rejected Hamilton’s paradigm and installed something quite different, what the Jacksonians called a democratic, pluralistic, decentralized political economy. That model, with its dispersion of banking, private finance, scientific, fiscal, commercial, legal/regulatory, and policymaking authority, was starkly different than the centralization of decision making, standardization of law and regulation, continental divisions of labor, and economic central planning coordinated by networked national elites that Hamilton's plan called for
good point. I am not a scholar on the finer point of past US economic policies but I can appreciate the point you are making about how the US operated a very different set of monetary and commercial choices than practiced today. I use the Hamiltonian school as a shorthand for traditional US development model that was responsible for its industrial takeoff.
Yeah the initial decades were Hamiltonian, with a short break in the middle, but were very lucky that at the moment the Industrial Revolution was going to soon begin, we took a different path. California was literally meant to have the same development economics that the Congo has been subjected to for the past fifty years! What a worse world it would have been! But luckily Hamilton et al’s successors, the Whigs, were defeated by the generation 1.0 Democratic Party (the Jacksonians)
history is full of ironies.
It sure is! I find great shame in us subjecting the Congo to the very program regions within ourselves had the right to reject.
Being a stickler for the facts here:
Lenin’s model was soviet power - for workers, soldiers and peasants to rule together through their soviets - councils. These came together to form a very large national body of delegates. Ministries were delegated power but it was all done on the basis of mass discussion and debate. Electors were based in their workplaces/regiments/land and had immediate recall over delegates, who in turn were paid the average wage of a skilled worker. The civil war against the foreign invasion-backed Whites and ensuing famine destroyed this system at a practical implementation level.
So many opportunists joined the government that Lenin noted the “mass of bureaucrats” was turning the country into a “workers’ state with bureaucratic distortions”. In reality it was no longer a workers’ state.
Stalin introduced the first 5 year plan in 1928, to break the rich peasants who would not support the cities during the crisis caused by Britain’s boycott of Russian food exports. I think only after that could you call it state planning. After Lenin’s death, Stalin had already entrenched himself as head of that bureaucracy and purged those who wanted to limp along waiting for revolutions elsewhere. The state-centralised planning was Stalin’s revision of Marxism - “socialism in one country” - the defeat of the international revolution.
there are so many nuances in history. Thanks for sharing these facts.
I think the way you frame Thiel versus Lenin as embodying “two economic orders” misses that there are certainly more than two. When China launched its reform period in the early 1980s, local branches of the Party in places like Shanghai explicitly referenced the American Jacksonians as a model for decentralized, adaptive governance. What emerged for several decades resembled the American Old Republic (from the late 1820s until the early 1960s) far more than contemporary America: provinces and cities exercising real discretion in banking, trade, and industrial planning, competing and experimenting much like American localities and states once did. So while your essay highlights extremes of monopoly capitalism and state socialism, it overlooks that China’s system, and the older American one it echoed, demonstrate a third path of federated, bottom-up political economy that can’t be captured by a simple binary
His name is Peter Thiel not Thiele
my bad. I am no good with names and Word spelling-check didn't catch this one. I don't want to use cliches like don't judge a book by its cover (even when there is a typo on the title:). Hope you look beyond the title and share your thoughts on the content.
Yes, hard to believe that one could write such a piece and not spell the main figure's name correctly!
Anyway, I enjoyed the article.
my bad. i won't just count on spelling-check on titles in the future, though i cannot promise there won't be typos elsewhere:)
It's spelled, 'Beelzebub'.
Well done!
Thank you for your brilliant analysis and useful references. Very inspirational!
How long before the US collapses? How do you envision this would happen?
empires fail slowly and then implode. generally the rut starts first internally and then manifests outwardly. Maybe the next economic collapse will get the job (AI looks like a big bubble, maybe even a scam). could be the debt implosion. A war with China would also do the job. there are so many triggers and the captain is drunk and asleep.