China

[blindpig]

Containment to confrontation, cold to hot: the US drive to war on China

Common prosperity or common destitution? The drive to war against China must be resolutely opposed.
Lalkar writers

Thursday 1 May 2025


China has made considerable efforts to show the world that its aim is peaceful coexistence and mutual and beneficial development. But the imperialists are incapable of ‘coexisting’ on equal terms in a world populated by free and sovereign peoples. Imperialists need domination in order to maintain their global machinery of wealth extraction, without which their continued existence as a parasitic class is doomed. As their system’s economic crisis gets deeper, their need to regime-change and subjugate China is becoming ever more desperate.

China’s economy continues to grow steadily. In purchasing power parity (PPP) terms, it is by now the largest in the world. Its mobilisation of extraordinary resources to break out of underdevelopment and become a science and technology superpower appears to be paying substantial dividends, with the country establishing a clear lead globally in renewable energy, electric vehicles, telecommunications, advanced manufacturing, infrastructure construction and more.

It is by far the global leader in poverty alleviation and sustainable development. Sanctions on semiconductor exports have not slowed down China’s progress in computing, and indeed have had an enzymatic effect on its domestic chip industry. The spectacular success of DeepSeek’s open-source R1 large language model indicates that the USA can no longer take its leadership in the digital realm for granted.

Meanwhile, the west’s attempts to ‘decouple’ from China economically have yielded precious little fruit. While a handful of imperialist countries have promised to remove Huawei from their telecoms network infrastructure, and while sanctions on Chinese electric vehicles mean that consumers in the west have to pay obscene sums for inferior quality cars, China’s integration and mutually-beneficial cooperation with the world has continued to expand.

China is now the largest trading partner of approximately two-thirds of the world’s countries. Over 150 states are signed up to the Belt and Road Initiative. China lies at the core of Brics and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

US president Donald Trump’s tariffs were meant to coerce China into accepting the USA’s trade terms and to force other countries to unambiguously join Washington’s economic and geopolitical ‘camp’, thereby alienating China. Nothing of the sort has taken place. Even the normally supine European Union has denounced the tariffs and signalled its intention to expand trade with China.

In summary, the Project for a New American Century is not going well. Zbigniew Brzezinski famously wrote in his The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997) that “the most dangerous scenario would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an ‘anti-hegemonic’ coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances”.

Precisely such an anti-hegemonic coalition exists, and is uniting the countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and the Pacific in a project of building a multipolar future, thereby posing an existential challenge to the so-called ‘rules-based international order’ based on the principles of unilateralism, war, destabilisation, coercion and unequal exchange.

From cold war to hot war?
So far, so positive. But we mustn’t forget that “war is the continuation of politics by other means”. If imperialist policy is not having its intended effect, there is a very real risk that the US ruling class and its hangers-on will resort to outright war in pursuit of their hegemonic ambitions.

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, said Mao Zedong. And while the USA’s economic dominance may be waning, it still has an awful lot of guns with which to project political power. Donald Trump announced recently, as he sat next to genocidal-maniac-in-chief Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House, that the next US budget will assign a record-breaking trillion dollars to the military. This is more than three times China’s military expenditure, and approximately ten times that of Russia.

Meanwhile, the USA has over 800 foreign military bases, a stockpile of around 5,500 nuclear warheads, and vast deployments of troops and weapons around the world, increasingly concentrated in China’s neighbourhood.

Taiwan as the trigger
The flashpoint for a military attack on China would most likely be the Taiwan province, which has long occupied pride of place in the USA’s encirclement campaign.

Taiwan has been part of China for many centuries. It was seized by Japan in 1895 and returned to Chinese control at the end of World War Two, as agreed at the Potsdam conference. Defeated in the Chinese revolutionary war (1946-49), Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang forces decamped to Taiwan and declared the island to be the true ‘Republic of China’.

It would have been quickly integrated into the People’s Republic but for the Harry Truman administration positioning the US Navy’s Seventh fleet in the Taiwan Strait in 1950, calculating that de-facto American control would bring significant strategic advantages, including the ability to maintain a permanent nuclear threat against China, the Soviet Union and the DPRK.

In the words of the criminal warmonger General Douglas MacArthur, Taiwan was to become the USA’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier” in the region, and the cornerstone of its ‘First Island Chain’ strategy – a collection of military bases, weapons and troops deployed specifically in order to contain and encircle the People’s Republic of China.

Undermining of the One China principle
Under the Shanghai communiqué, issued in 1972 on the last evening of President Richard Nixon’s historic visit to China, the United States acknowledged “that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States government does not challenge that position.”

As such the USA – along with 180 other countries – supports the One China principle and recognises the People’s Republic as the sole legal government representing the whole of China. However, the US imperialists have also maintained their close economic and military links with Taiwan, and have adopted a posture of ‘strategic ambiguity’ in their relations with the island.

In recent years, seeking to provoke conflict and undermine China, Washington has increased its support for Taiwanese separatists and ramped up its supply of weapons to the administration in Taipei.

Bipartisan consensus on escalation
US president Joe Biden stated multiple times – in clear contravention of the USA’s commitments and with no basis in international law – that the USA would intervene militarily if China attempted to use force to change the status quo concerning Taiwan.

In 2023, President Biden signed off on direct US military aid to Taiwan for the first time, with a BBC article observing: “The USA is quietly arming Taiwan to the teeth.” Then-Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi’s 2022 trip to Taipei was the highest-level US visit to the island in a quarter of a century.

In January 2023, US air force General Mike Minihan sent a memo to the officers under his command saying “my gut tells me” there will be a war between the USA and China in 2025, and that the trigger for that war would be Taiwan. The memo called on US armed forces to “be prepared for deployment at a moment’s notice” in order to enter a war in the Taiwan Strait and “defeat China”.

Republicans are no less bellicose on this issue. Mike Pompeo, Trump’s secretary of state from 2018-21, said in 2022: “The United States government should immediately take necessary and long overdue steps to do the right and obvious thing: that is to offer the Republic of China, Taiwan, America’s diplomatic recognition as a free and sovereign country.”

President Trump’s new cabinet is packed with notorious anti-China hawks such as Marco Rubio (secretary of state), Pete Hegseth (defence secretary), Mike Waltz (national security advisor) and Peter Navarro (senior counsellor for trade and manufacturing).

An internal guidance memo circulated by Secretary Hegseth in March called on the US military to “prioritise deterring China’s seizure of Taiwan and shoring up homeland defence”. A report in the Washington Post stated that the document “outlines, in broad and sometimes partisan detail, the execution of President Donald Trump’s vision to prepare for and win a potential war against Beijing”.

Incidentally, the memo also provided some useful context for the Trump regime’s moves towards extrication from the Ukraine conflict: since “China is the department’s sole pacing threat”, the “threat from Moscow” will have to be “largely attended by European allies”. In other words, the USA’s strategy constitutes a reiteration and deepening of the Obama-Clinton ‘Pivot to Asia’. (Secret Pentagon memo on China, homeland has Heritage fingerprints by Alex Horton and Hannah Natanson, 29 March 2025)

These escalations over Taiwan by successive US administrations are closely linked to the creation of the Aukus nuclear pact between the USA, Britain and Australia, as well as to the USA’s encouragement of Japanese rearmament and the establishment of four new US military bases in the Philippines – “a key bit of real estate which would offer a front seat to monitor the Chinese in the South China Sea and around Taiwan”. (US secures deal on Philippines bases to complete arc around China by Rupert Wingfield-Hayes, 2 February 2023)

This all adds up to accelerating preparations for war with China – a war with the objective of dismantling Chinese socialism, establishing a comprador regime (or set of regimes), privatising China’s economy, rolling back the extraordinary advances of the Chinese working class and peasantry, and replacing common prosperity with common destitution.

Needless to say, this would be disastrous not just for the Chinese people but for the entire global working class. The drive to war against China must be resolutely opposed.

https://thecommunists.org/2025/05/01/ne ... china-usa/

[blindpig]

Lu Di: Can China Surpass the Change of Capitalist Hegemony?

Speech at the China Political Economy 40 Forum 2025
Karl Sanchez
Jul 03, 2025


Dr. Lu Di—Professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and Professor at Lingnan College, Sun Yat-sen University

A few weeks ago, I promised to publish some translations of some speeches made by Chinese political-economists. The long essay by Lu Feng was well received despite its length. Today, we have a not too longish speech by Lu Di that was presented at the annual China Political Economy 40 Forum, which this year was held at Xiamen University, a public university in Siming, Xiamen, Fujian, China founded in 1921. The one aspect I find difficult to fully translate are the graphics, although their information is provided in the descriptive text by the speaker. The speech’s title is provocative but it’s not some fiery polemic and ought to be at an intellectual level compatible with those who subscribe to the Gym. Here we go:

The topic I would like to talk about today is the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics in world history. The theory of "world history" is the basic principle and concept of Marxism in the study of the process of global history. In the evolution of modern history, the "history of the world", the world capitalist system is universal.

Today's speech attempts to examine Chinese modernization within the framework of "world history" in order to emphasize that the subjectivity of China's economic system and the practice of economic reform inevitably face the constraints of the world capital system, and to explain the characteristics, logic, and contradictions of these constraints, so that it is possible to guide practice beyond capitalism, which is the mission of socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics.

Next, I would like to discuss the following four topics

(1) Backward development and the logic of capitalism on a global scale;

(2) the current stage of economic development and overcoming the "middle-income trap";

(3) Comparative Perspective: The Limits of Capitalism and China's Practice;

(4) Systems Perspective – Hegemony beyond capitalism.

It is hoped that we can explore the characteristics of cosmopolitanism from multiple perspectives, and how China can explore the construction of a socialist market economy and the path of modernization for itself and the world.

Backward development and the accumulation logic of capitalism on a worldwide scale

As I have just said, in the basic category of Marxism, modern history is "world history", and Chinese-style modernization is also carried out in the face of this existence. Even if it is the formulation of the construction and development strategy of the first 30 years of the Republic, it is also based on the premise of coping with the encirclement and pressure of this system to a large extent.

Let me share with you a very simple table. Table 1 shows the average annual real growth rate of GDP per capita, and we can see that the growth of developed countries in the OECD has declined significantly from 3.03 to 1.59% in the two time periods 1960-1980 and 1980-2023. But even so, compared with other countries outside China, the developed countries of the OECD are still ahead of the curve. In general, it indicates that the global economic development outside of China has fallen to a considerable extent.

Figure 1 illustrates the divergence of growth around the world, with China being a special case, growing at a very fast rate. The red line is the ratio of Chinese's per capita GDP level to the per capita GDP of OECD developed countries, and the blue line is the proportion of China and global developing countries outside the OECD to the per capita GDP of OECD developed countries. It can be seen that the proportion of the developing world excluding China in 2023 is lower than in 1960. It can be seen that the divergence in global development is obvious.



The reason for this decline and divergence needs to be explained, so as to better explain why China is a special case, and by extension, what are the characteristics of China's socialist market economy and Chinese-style modernization, and make China a special case in the systemic sense of the world.

One possible explanation is that globalization on a global scale is actually a process of financialization of the economy, especially the political creed of neoliberal reforms that are widely pursued around the world: market liberalization, privatization of public assets and public services, and various kinds of deregulation, in the final analysis, allow capital to pursue profits as freely as possible, which leads to the financialization and speculation of the economy.

As a result, on the one hand, the underinvestment in the world, combined with the deterioration of income distribution, which has suppressed consumption, has made systemic underdemand the norm, which forms the basis of the crisis. On the other hand, speculation’s nature is only to distribute profits rather than generate production profits, and in the case of squeezed production, systemic crises often erupt first in the form of financial crisis situations.

In this process, the expansion of the capital system in global space has brought in a wide variety of productive resources, especially cheap labour and the natural environment. Capitalist countries have gained "predatory accumulation", but have moved polluting industries to developing countries, leading the developing world into the development trap of low-technology, low-labor income.

What we have to think about, then, is how China has overcome these constraints so far, in terms of institutions and policies, and whether it is well equipped to deal with similar constraints in the future.

The current stage of economic development and overcoming the "middle-income trap"

A related topic that has been discussed more often is, can China survive the middle-income trap?

The World Bank's World Development Report 2024, with the theme of "The Middle-Income Trap", makes a very unoptimistic judgment on the actual performance of world development in the era of globalization and looks forward to the future. China is at the top of the report's list of a large group of countries facing daunting challenges.

Their pessimism about China is based on the fact that the share of high-income economies in the global population has been declining unabated, from 30% in 1960 to 17% in 2023.

Why is this happening? The prevailing explanation is that middle-income economies lack a competitive advantage in the world market: they cannot compete with low-income economies in labor-intensive, low-value-added industries (because of higher labor costs). It is not possible to compete with high-income economies in capital-intensive, high-value-added industries (because of the lower level of technology).

So they think China is facing such a challenge. How to deal with it? The World Bank's report proposes a "3i" approach, the core of which is through the so-called investment + introduction of foreign technology + innovation (investment + infusion + innovation). This is an emphasis on capacity-building, which is to say that it is a fundamental departure from the dominant political tenets of the preceding peak of liberalism: neoliberal maxims such as "the right relative prices" and "the right property arrangements", emphasizing that as long as the market-determined "inducements" automatically lead to competitiveness, they will naturally avoid the pitfalls and promote development.

This shift in thinking has also taken place elsewhere, such as the European Union's industrial policy debate, the United States' "New Washington Consensus" or the OECD's "mission-oriented innovation policy", and so on. The core idea is also to emphasize the importance of building "capacity", and to judge that the market alone is not enough to achieve things, and that the state needs to intervene and play a key role.

To a large extent, this is a tendency to learn from China, that is, to overcome the crisis and to develop in the future depends on a combination of "efficient markets and promising governments".

However, be aware of the "synthetic fallacy" here: in a worldwide systemic downturn, everyone is more competitive, which means canceling each other out, and thus cannot be used as the right direction.

China's development goals or missions are far more systematic and profound than those of developing countries facing the threat of the "middle-income trap" and developed countries facing crises, which are manifested in the new concept and pursuit of innovative, coordinated, green, open and shared development, as well as the construction of a corresponding new development pattern. This means that the task of development is heavier, the requirements for systems and policies are more stringent, and there is a long way to go.

The limits of capitalism and the practice in China

If we look at the challenges facing China from a comparative perspective, are there any lessons we can learn from around the world? According to the historical literature of capitalism, the world capitalist system has undergone hegemonic succession and cyclical reincarnation since its rise in the 16th century. So far, the long cycle under US hegemony has included the "golden age of capitalism" nearly 30 years after World War II, and the era of neoliberal globalization since 1980.

In terms of the economic and social development of the developed countries, the Golden Age is undoubtedly far superior: sustained economic growth, near-full employment, equalization of income distribution, basic livelihood security at the bottom of society, universal health care and education, etc., are all in stark contrast to the performance of the neoliberal era.

However, the Golden Age did not last after all, or rather, the Golden Age model was inherently unsustainable within the limits of capitalism.

Institutional arrangements such as the welfare state, state-owned enterprises, industrial policy, development-oriented finance, and centralized labor-management negotiation can contradict the logic of profit at the micro level, and can contradict the logic of overall profit in the short term, but cannot go against the prescriptive nature of capitalism - the logic of total profit in the long run.

Then, even in terms of economic development alone, China's socialist market economy has not only been, and will continue to be, surpassing neoliberalism, but certainly beyond the Golden Age model.

Going back to the superficial level, there is pessimism about development around the world, and one of the direct causes is the lack of productive investment. China has long been an exception, but in recent years it has shown signs of convergence towards the world normal.



If you look at the table above (as shown in the chart), the rate of investment in developing countries outside of China has either stagnated or declined. China is the exception, but this exception is not necessarily the case. We know that since entering the new normal we have seen a downward trend in the rate of productive investment, which reflects the shortcomings of market efficiency and government promising, that is, relative to our goals, the sluggish investment at the market level is because investment is limited by the logic of speculation and profit. The lack of investment at the government level is due to the lack of financial power, that is, the asymmetry of fiscal rights and responsibilities in the economy and society.

This may mean that among the many constraints facing China's economic development at this stage, there are also elements of economic financialization and the constraints of the golden age model manifested in fiscal constraints.

That is to say, the socialist market economy is fundamentally different from capitalism, and if we say that speculation and financialization have appeared, it is not because of endogenous development, but because of the constraints of capitalism at the source.

To overcome these constraints, then, it is necessary to transcend the historical model of capitalism, which is the subject of the entire process of Chinese-style modernization.

Beyond the hegemonic change of capitalism

The backward development of the world is difficult to advance and even hindered and suppressed in the context of the global domination of the neoliberal capitalist system, and it is necessary to seek an alternative order and development path.

The final point is to pin our hopes on China.

China is of great significance to the development of the world. Chinese modernization and China's socialist market economy are not something that we can build on our own. On the one hand, the world should learn from China's lessons and learn from China; on the other hand, it is expected that China can provide a systemic role in the reshaping of the world political and economic order. That is, China as a force to reshape the world political and economic order, promote productive investment, technological development, and freedom from the manipulation of financial hegemony in the Global South.

It is clear that China has so far been trying to influence the direction of systemic development around the world in an economic sense, and we are mainly building connectivity around the Belt and Road Initiative, and through the construction of transportation networks, spatially connecting the fragmented economies of the Global South. This leads to the investment and construction of infrastructure, electricity, telecommunication networks, transport conditions, etc., also in order to connect these economies, establish productive activities, and participate in the professional division of labor under the scale of demand that is thus promoted.

On top of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which provides a platform for the development of the countries of the Global South, China does not seek to interfere with the intentions of its partners, but rather believes that all economic and social development decisions are determined by their own political and economic internal characteristics. This is especially true in the area of social development, where income distribution, social welfare, labour security, environmental protection, etc., not to mention respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity are the primary norms of the "non-intervention" position.

On this basis, even if we pursue purely economic activities, and we promote equal and free market activities and interconnection, we are likely to fundamentally shake the existing world political and economic order, especially the more developed countries are, and the more they rely on the monopoly rents of globalization to maintain the current level of economic activity and social development.

Under such circumstances, there is no monopoly or monopoly in our various foreign economic activities, but the developed countries inevitably need to make fundamental self-adjustments, especially to abandon their pursuit of hegemony, so that Chinese-style modernization can be completed.

epilogue

From the perspective of a long period of time and big history, according to the study of the literature of "historical capitalism", the normal state of capitalism is monopoly, the combination of capital and state power, the construction and implementation of hegemony within the scope of the system, and the absorption of monopoly rent. This norm has permeated the entire history of capitalism since the sixteenth century, with long cycles or hegemonic systems, including those dominated by the Mediterranean city-states, the Netherlands, Great Britain, and the United States.

China's rise is an anomaly, its political and economic characteristics are far from transnational monopolies and hegemony, and it does not draw monopoly rents from the outside world but promotes its own development and the development of the world through productive activities and equal competition. Transcending the characteristics of historical capitalism and implementing Chinese modernization itself and its systemic impact on the development of the world, China should be the core topic of socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics.

I hope that the above shallow discussions can provide a meaningful reference for the construction of socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics, thank you! [My Emphasis]

Yes, there’s a lot of presumed prior knowledge within the audience that will make the above confusing to non-experts as many terms demand definition. Those Gym readers who have followed the writings of Michael Hudson and diligently watched the weekly chats between him and Richard Wolff will have a much better understanding. Today’s chat ended with the issue of the conflict between China and the Outlaw US Empire that’s alluded to above. Much discussion into why developing nations are struggling to develop has transpired over the last 30 years and includes the argument why Neoliberal—or Corporate as it was called—Globalization was a bad gig for developing nations and is equated as an escalation in neocolonialism. What’s happened, however, is the neoliberal offshoring/deindustrialization of their host nations as part of Corporate Globalization enabled the low-end industrialization mentioned above that has grown significantly and reached a point where the core of the BRICS nations were finally able to free themselves from the debt bind and use the incoming capital flows for their internal investment—even low-end manufacturing requires a certain level of infrastructure support owned by the state, so the state was able to capture the monopoly rents on that infrastructure and reinvest it.

China and Russia have shown that it’s possible to have state owned banks provide disbursement of treasury produced monies in the form of investments for a host of projects all aimed at national development. A good case study is now happening within Russia—it’s development of a high-speed rail network from the ground-up. China has built more than 40 thousand kilometers of high-speed railroads and adds 3-4,000 kilometers annually, while Russia’s project isn’t nearly as aggressive, “In 2045, the length of the high-speed rail network will exceed 4.5 thousand kilometers.” Some of the component manufacturers will be private SMEs, but the entire project is state-owned and financed. The aim of both political-economies is to eliminate rent seeking and avaricious greed and behaviors that have a negative effect on developmental investment, growth and societal harmony. There’s a very good reason why almost all non-OECD nations have joined the BRI and want to join BRICS. But those nations also need to do housecleaning at home by ensuring strict government control over the financial sector or nationalizing it completely; and for those nations having odious debts to declare those debts odious and cease servicing them. Once freed from their debt-bondage, those nations can then direct monies their governments create into development projects built by their citizenry who then spend the wages they received back into the economy, and the economy grows.

Ultimately, when the financial basis for investment and development is owned and managed by the people, the major means of production are also owned and managed by the people. There can still be privately owned business within such a system, although IMO many will take on a cooperative nature since that’s the national ethos. Capital as such doesn’t need to be made into an ism as it exists in all economies as a tool. A cooperatively/socially owned enterprise still needs to generate a profit to pay its owners and invest in modernization of its plant. The key is to prevent excesses and monopsonistic situations, and when the latter occurs to nationalize that market segment so economic rents can be captured by government. The ultimate goal is to establish and perpetuate harmony within society and globally between all societies.

https://karlof1.substack.com/p/lu-di-ca ... the-change

******

China's Power Projection Capabilities in the Indo-Pacific
July 2, 9:12



China's power projection capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region to break the back of American hegemony.
Overseas ports for PLA Navy use, air strike component, long-range missile systems.
The critical turning point in favor of expanding PLA Navy capabilities is noted in 2013, when China's military potential began to increase dramatically. It was in 2013 that Xi Jinping became the Chairman of the PRC.

Download in large size https://t.me/china3army/36665

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9932376.html

Google Translator

******

Chinese Dominance of Robotics

Another Industry of the Future to be Dominated by China
Roger Boyd
Jul 04, 2025

The machine tool industry, and the subset of robotics, are and will be crucial to the ongoing ability of the industrial sector to lift productivity and maintain competitiveness. The leading nations in the machine tool industry are China (one third), Germany and Japan (an eighth each), the the US and Italy (a twelfth each); with a quarter for all other nations. China’s global dominance of manufacturing industry, still fast economic growth and low energy costs, together with the ease with which its corporations integrate hardware and increasingly advanced software put it at a significant advantage to Germany and Japan.

The fastest growing part of the machine tool industry is that of robotics, in which China enjoys a 40% market share. According to Morgan Stanley, China’s robotics industry is set to grow at a compound growth rate of 23% a year to US$108 billion by 2028; from US$47 billion in 2024. As Hua Bin notes:

Separate data published by China’s National Bureau of Statistics on Monday revealed that the country’s industrial robot output surged 35.5 per cent year on year in May, reaching 69,056 units, while service robot output jumped 13.8 per cent to 1.2 million units …

China dominates the global robotics landscape, accounting for over half of the world’s industrial robot installations last year – 7 times that of the US.

He continues:

China is home to 741,700 robotics-related companies, including front runners such as Shenzhen-based DJI and UBTech Robotics, Hangzhou-based Unitree, and Shanghai-based AgiBot.

DJI is estimated to have 70% global consumer and commercial drone market. Unitree claims over 60% global market share in quadruped robots and is known as the DJI of robots. It is also a world leader in the most sophisticated humanoids.



And China is providing robots at much lower cost, with massive demand driven by Chinese manufacturers that are installing more robots than the rest of the world; driving increasing efficiency improvements and facilitating greater competitiveness. China will not replace its workers with robots, it will increase efficiency to offset a falling workforce while displacing workers from other countries.



The nation’s humanoid robotics market is forecast to grow at a compound annual rate of 63% per year, from US$300 million in 2025 to US$3.4 billion in 2030. This is where the humanoid robotics revolution will take place, not in the laughable antics of Tesla. And not even in a US which is well behind the leaders, where even the leading US-based human robotics company, Boston Dynamics, is owned by South Korean Hyundai. Notice that in the above video that the Tesla humanoid robot was on static display, showing that its’ previous “displayed” capabilities were much more sham performances than reality.

The Morgan Stanley report states that humanoid robotics are already helping to reshape Chinese manufacturing, and will help drive unprecedented gains in productivity and quality. Gains that will help maintain GDP growth as the population starts a slow decline, and help Chinese manufacturers gain an even greater lead over their Western competitors. Morgan Stanley predicts 252,000 humanoid robots in China in 2030, and 300 million in 2050; one third of the global stock.



The scariest part of the Morgan Stanley report for Western nations should be where it compares the rise of Chinese humanoid robotics companies to the trajectory of the Chinese EV industry, with China rapidly taking a dominant global position. Given the central role of the automotive industry in the use of robotics, such an outcome should not be surprising. Perhaps the most worried should be the German Mittelstand of small and medium firms that dominate the German robotics industry, and the Italian small and medium sized dominant Italian producers. They may be overcome by the scale of the Chinese competitors and by the ease with which those competitors integrate both hardware and software (including AI), together with their rapid pace of new product innovation.



The ongoing collapse of the German and Italian automobile manufacturing sectors will certainly be a severe problem for German and Italian robotics companies. And as with so many high technology industries, China dominates the supply chain.



China is either dominating, or moving to dominate, the industrial sectors of the future. The shock to the West over the next five to ten years will be profound, as the realization that the five century period of Western intellectual, industrial and military dominance is truly coming to an end.

https://rogerboyd.substack.com/p/chines ... f-robotics

[blindpig]

New East Asian Attitude Between China, Japan & South Korea
Geoeconomics is reshaping Geopolitics
Karl Sanchez
Jul 05, 2025


South Korean President Lee Jae-myung

The recent election of Lee Jae-myung as South Korean President combined with the changing attitude in Japan toward the Outlaw US Empire has produced a new dimension into East Asian affairs that got a shove with Trump’s Trade War even before Lee was elected. The Japanese are tired of being a vassal and the Koreans need economic revitalization as the Samsung issue demonstrates. I didn’t cover the South Korean political turmoil very closely here at the Gym, which was likely instigated by Imperial forces before Trump arrived. One point was made clear—South Koreans will not tolerate another dictatorship. And to help describe the new RoK president is the following short Global Times report, “South Korean President pledges early improvement of relations with China; China ties crucial for Seoul amid trade uncertainties: expert:”

South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, speaking on Thursday in a press conference after taking office last month, vowed to "protect peace and people's lives through practical diplomacy centered on national interests," based on South Korea's alliance with the US, close cooperation with South Korea, the US and Japan and the early improvement of its relations with China and Russia, according to the full text of Lee's speech published by the Maeil Business Newspaper on Thursday.

Improving ties with China under the Lee administration is a necessary matter, and it is crucial for Seoul to sustain economic growth amid uncertainties in trade talks with the US, according to analysts from China and South Korea reached by the Global Times.

According to South Korea's Yonhap News Agency on Thursday, at the press conference held at the former presidential compound of Cheong Wa Dae, known as the Blue House in Seoul, Lee elaborated on his foreign policy.

The Straits Times report noted that Lee pledged a pragmatic approach as the basis for accelerating efforts to improve ties with China and Russia, while saying the alliance with the US was the cornerstone of his foreign policy.

On Japan, Lee pledged to pursue a two-track approach in which past history issues, rooted in Japan's 1910-45 colonial rule of Korea, should be dealt with separately from future cooperation in security and economic areas, Yonhap reported.

Lee's latest statement reflects the consistency and stability of his long-advocated pragmatic foreign policy, which has been welcomed by the South Korean public as the rising approval ratings showed, Dong Xiangrong, a senior research fellow at the National Institute of International Strategy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Thursday.

In a recent Gallup Korea survey, 64 percent of 1,004 adult respondents said Lee was doing a good job, Yonhap reported on June 27, about three weeks into his term in office.

Another survey by Realmeter and commissioned by a local news outlet showed on Monday that Lee's approval rating rose for the second consecutive week to 59.7 percent, the Korea Herald reported.

On Thursday, Lee also reiterated his pledge to revive the country's faltering economy and outlined plans to boost growth. However, Lee said that the uncertainty remains for Seoul if its trade talks with Washington can result in a deal before next week's deadline to avert sweeping US tariffs, according to the Bloomberg.

Lee vowed to make his best efforts to produce "mutually beneficial and sustainable outcomes" in the trade negotiations, according to Yonhap.

Lee's economic policies and diplomatic strategies are closely linked. He is committed to improving relations with China while facing obstacles in tariff negotiations with the US, which are closely tied to South Korea's current economic difficulties, Dong said.

According to a May assessment by the Bank of Korea, the central bank of the country, economic growth this year is projected to be only 0.8 percent.

After Lee took office, South Korea's stock market has witnessed significant rise, but such growth is largely interpreted as a boost in market confidence driven by recovering political stability and the elimination of uncertainty, rather than a substantial improvement in economic fundamentals, Dong said. "To achieve sustained economic improvement, tangible progress is still needed in areas such as domestic investment, consumption, and foreign trade."

Improving relations with China is also one of the key and feasible directions of Lee's economic policy, aimed at promoting South Korea's economic recovery through strengthened international trade cooperation, Dong explained.

Woo Su-keun, head of the Institute of East Asian Studies of Korea and president of the Korea-China Global Association, told the Global Times in a recent interview that improving South Korea-China relations under the Lee administration is a necessary matter.

In fact, South Koreans with sound and reasonable judgment are well aware of the importance of South Korea-China relations, regardless of their political orientation, whether they are conservative or liberal, as well as the need for improved South Korea-China relations, Woo said.

Currently, the global economic environment is being distorted by the excessive greed of certain countries. However, South Korea and China, the central core countries of the global society, need to work closely together to maintain the banner of free trade and fair competition, which are essential for the sustainable shared prosperity of the global community, Woo urged. {My Emphasis]

Pragmatic and he will be helped given his proper personality which is very important in East Asian relations. That’s why keeping Japan-RoK relations on a track where past grievances are kept to themselves so proper face-saving can be allowed while issues still get resolved. That way current relations can grow without being hindered by poor etiquette. In fact, all East Asian nations need to adjust their personalities so harmony can emerge. There’s motion pushing progress—the 2025 China-Japan-ROK Cooperation International Forum where Wu Hailong, President of the China Public Diplomacy Association and former ambassador to the European Union, delivered a keynote speech whose translated text is about to follow. First, we have an introduction by the Beijing Club who supplied the speech transcript via The Beijing Dialogue:

Against the backdrop of in-depth adjustment of the international landscape and rising regional risks, China-Japan-ROK cooperation is facing a strategic opportunity to reconstruct a new pattern. At the opening ceremony of the 2025 China-Japan-ROK Cooperation International Forum, Wu Hailong, President of the China Public Diplomacy Association and former ambassador to the European Union, delivered a keynote speech, pointing out that China, Japan and the ROK should assess the situation and take advantage of the situation, restart negotiations on high-level economic and trade agreements, strengthen linkage and cooperation with Asian countries, consolidate the foundation of bilateral relations, effectively manage geopolitical interference, and strive to enhance mutual trust between the people. Only by reconstructing the mind can we create a new situation in China-Japan-ROK cooperation.

(The Trilateral International Cooperation Forum is the annual flagship event of the Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat, which aims to provide a platform for dialogue among the governments, academics, enterprises, and media of the three countries to discuss in depth the issues of political relations, economic cooperation, and socio-cultural exchanges among the three countries.) The 2025 Trilateral Cooperation International Forum was held in Tokyo, Japan, on July 1, with the theme of "Shaping the Future Together: Trilateral Cooperation in a Changing Global Situation", with more than 200 on-site guests and hundreds of online audiences.）

Wu Hailong

And now for Mr. Wu’s speech:

I have just participated in the Trilateral Outlook Group Dialogue organized by the Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat. The meeting put forward many valuable opinions and suggestions on the current challenges and opportunities faced by China, Japan and the ROK, as well as the cooperation between the three countries in the political, economic, social and cultural fields. This is one of the best atmospheres, the most in-depth discussions, and the most consensus among the many trilateral cooperation meetings I have attended in recent years. The dialogue boosted the confidence and determination of the participants of the three countries in trilateral cooperation.

Today, I would like to focus on the following aspects to share my views on China-Japan-ROK cooperation.

1. The three countries should reconstruct new cooperative relations in response to the new changes. What's new? That is, the international political pattern and the international economic pattern have undergone profound changes. The power of the Global South is rising rapidly, the rift between the United States and its allies is deepening, and the contradictions and differences with other countries are intensifying. Unilateralism and protectionism are rampant, the multilateral trading system has been severely impacted, and economic and trade frictions and discriminatory trade barriers have surged. The law of the jungle is in full swing, the process of globalization has suffered serious setbacks, and the politicization and security of economic and trade issues have seriously constrained global economic and trade cooperation, resulting in more and more restrictive trade and investment policies. The international division of labor has been forced to adjust, and there is a risk of fragmentation of the global production and supply chain. The economic and trade system has become more diversified and regionalized.

In the face of this new change, the cooperation between China, Japan and the ROK is more urgent and necessary than ever. The three countries can no longer simply repeat yesterday's story of cooperation but should take advantage of the situation and find new ways and breakthroughs for cooperation. The three countries should jointly oppose unilateralism and protectionism, uphold multilateralism and actively promote the reshaping of international trade rules and order. The three countries should restart negotiations on a free trade agreement as soon as possible and negotiate a high-level and more open free trade agreement. The investment treaties of China, Japan and South Korea should also consider upgrading and raising standards. China, Japan, and South Korea could also consider strengthening cooperation in the monetary field. Some people say that China's rapid development has reduced the complementarity of the economies of China, Japan, and the ROK and increased their competitiveness. In fact, there is still a lot of room for cooperation among the three countries, and many new areas of cooperation can be explored. China, Japan and South Korea can cooperate in high-tech industries such as digital economy and artificial intelligence, and expand the "China-Japan-South Korea+" cooperation model.

2. The three countries should strengthen their linkage with regional countries. Trilateral cooperation should be based on the three countries, and at the same time, it should transcend the three countries. China, Japan and the ROK are countries with important influence in Asia, and they share a common destiny and interests with Asia. If Asia is good, the three countries will benefit, and if the three countries are good, Asia will benefit, and safeguarding the common interests of Asia is to safeguard its own interests. Therefore, China, Japan, and South Korea need to strengthen their ties with Asia.

The three countries should strengthen cooperation with ASEAN and make more effective use of cooperation under the RCEP framework. The three countries should coordinate and optimize resources, markets and manufacturing capabilities in their respective regions. It is necessary to form a reasonable industrial layout and division of labor in the region, and build a relatively stable production and supply chain in the region. The three countries should become the leaders, promoters and builders of regional economic integration in Asia. This can not only reduce dependence on the U.S. market, but also cope with the pressure of U.S. tariffs, share development opportunities with regional countries on the basis of mutual benefit and win-win results, and jointly respond to various external challenges and risks.

3. Bilateral relations have always been the foundation of trilateral cooperation between China, Japan and the ROK. Bilateral stability leads to trilateral prosperity. If there is no stable, sustained, and healthy development in China-Japan, China-ROK, and Japan-ROK relations, there will be no way to talk about cooperation among China, Japan, and the ROK. As the saying goes, "if the skin does not exist, the hair will not be attached". Therefore, rationalizing and consolidating the bilateral relations between the three countries is crucial to trilateral cooperation. As close neighbors, bumps and jolts are inevitable among the three countries, and problems left over from history and contradictions of practical interests need to be properly handled.

At present, the improvement and development of bilateral relations between the three countries are facing a new historical opportunity. South Korea's new leader has just taken office. Japan's new leader has not long been in office. The leaders of the three countries have the will to improve and strengthen the relations between the three countries, and the three countries should grasp this historical opportunity, focusing on drawing lessons from history, respecting each other's core interests and concerns, managing differences and contradictions, enhancing the level of cooperation among the three countries in various fields, reshaping a new bilateral relationship under a new and changing situation, and laying a solid foundation for trilateral cooperation, so as to form a bilateral and trilateral bilateral and trilateral relations that promote each other.

Fourth, the three countries should properly handle the impact of geopolitics on their relations. Under the current international situation, which is chaotic and intertwined, international relations and the international pattern are undergoing profound changes. The three countries must soberly, rationally and prudently handle the impact of geopolitics on trilateral relations. China-Japan relations are China-Japan relations, and China-South Korea relations are China-South Korea relations, which should be refreshing and refreshing, and should not be affected by the US policy toward China or the fluctuations of Sino-US relations. As far as China and the United States are concerned, the relationship between these two major powers, which will determine the direction of the world pattern in the 21 st century, is complex and important, and there are many troubles, but they can always find an appropriate way to get along. It would be wisest for Japan and South Korea to formulate China policies based on their own national interests.

5. Another prominent problem that currently exists in the three countries is the problem of people's perception of each other. Whether the trilateral relations can have a solid foundation and whether the trilateral cooperation can be carried out steadily and in the long term depends on cultivating friendly relations between the people of the three countries. At present, the goodwill between the people of China and Japan and between China and the ROK is not high, and this seriously affects and restricts the improvement of bilateral relations and cooperation among the three countries. There are many reasons for the low favorability of the people in China, Japan and South Korea, including the entanglement of historical reasons and differences in cultural identity, the impact of the ups and downs of bilateral relations, the imbalance of psychological cognition caused by economic, scientific and technological developments, and the problem of the guidance of media reports and the lack of official guidance.

When there is a problem in people's cognition, it is necessary to start with the people, and make great efforts to increase people-to-people exchanges and exchanges among the three countries. In recent years, the number of people-to-people exchanges between the three countries has been rising, but the increase in the number of people-to-people exchanges alone cannot solve the misunderstandings, prejudices and differences between the people, and it is necessary for relevant departments and institutions to organize various activities in a planned manner, especially youth exchanges and dialogue activities, with the focus on enhancing understanding, accumulating mutual trust and bringing in feelings. This is a long-term work that requires long-term and unremitting efforts. The trilateral secretariats should play their unique role in this regard, and the governments, media, think tanks, and sectors of the three countries should play an active role and form a joint force. Only when the people's favorability is increased and the emotional distance is shortened can the foundation of the trilateral relations be solidified.

In the face of great changes in the international situation, as long as China, Japan and the ROK assess the situation and be good at adjusting and changing their minds in a timely manner, and reshape and reconstruct the trilateral cooperative relationship, the content and mode of cooperation, the trilateral cooperation will be able to achieve breakthrough development and reach a new level. [My Emphasis]

Clearly, there’s a great deal of work to be done by governments and their publics. China’s been advocating a rational return to acting on interests for many years but its message is often distorted by the huffing and puffing of the Outlaw US Empire whose decline is now quite obvious and detrimental to its vassals. It appears that both Japan and South Korea understand that with the Trade/Tariff Wars being a rude wake-uo call. Not mentioned are the demographic crises both Japan and South Korea face which is impacting their economies. Both must take a hard look and determine how to interact with the rapidly rising economies of Indonesia and Malaysia, the rest of ASEAN and China. As suggested, the RCEP should be used more than it has so far. I expect more diplomatic action to continue at a high level after the BRICS Summit that begins tomorrow as on July 10-11, the regular meetings of the foreign ministers of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in Kuala Lumpur and the Russia-ASEAN Summit occur, which will be followed by the East Asia Summit and the ASEAN Regional Forum on Security. Then on July 14-15 in Tianjin, China, the SCO Council of Foreign Ministers will meet. And on 9 July, Trump is to announce the new tariff schedule—or not. I expect news about changes in the New Development or BRICS Bank besides the news it now has Colombia and Uzbekistan as members. And just reported today:

South Korean President Lee Jae-myung is mulling sending special envoys to key nations this month, including China, the US, and Japan, announced the presidential office, Yonhap News Agency reported.

Musing that’s promising and very much in-line with what’s reported above.

In an update to a recent Gym item:

A new report from energy think tank Ember finds that 10 BRICS countries accounted for more than half - 51 percent - of global solar electricity generation in 2024, up from just 15 percent a decade earlier.

And a closing note on the Trade/Tariff War:

In May, both US imports and exports contracted, with the trade deficit widening further. Analysts said that the latest data indicated that the US tariff policies continued to disrupt supply chains, while impacting the US economy.

The US recorded a trade deficit of $71.5 billion, up by 18.7 percent year-on-year, according to data released by the US Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) on Thursday.

US May exports were $279.0 billion, $11.6 billion less than April exports. May imports were $350.5 billion, $0.3 billion less than April imports.

This also means an expansion from the $60.3 billion goods and services deficit in April, according to BEA statistics.

IMO, the global Big Picture situation improved over the last month, unless you’re a Zionist, US Imperialist, or a Palestinian (although they cheered Iran’s victory). Missing from the above is India. I’ll try to increase Gym reporting on its happenings.

https://karlof1.substack.com/p/new-east ... ween-china

******

Selected works of Xi Jinping on ecological civilization published
Xinhua | Updated: 2025-07-06 16:39

BEIJING -- The first volume of selected works of Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee, on ecological civilization has been published and is available nationwide.

The volume brings together 79 pieces of Xi's most important and fundamental works on ecological civilization construction from December 2012 to April 2025. Some of these works, which come in forms such as speeches and instructions, have been published for the first time.

The publication serves as an authoritative resource that the whole Party and people of all ethnic groups across the nation can use for their in-depth study and implementation of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, particularly Xi Jinping Thought on Ecological Civilization.

It is of great significance for Chinese people in establishing and practicing the idea that lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets, in supporting high-quality development with a high-quality ecological environment, and in comprehensively advancing the building of a Beautiful China.

Compiled by the Institute of Party History and Literature of the CPC Central Committee, the book was published by the Central Party Literature Press.

http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/20250 ... 3a668.html

[blindpig]

The Sinicization of Marxism: "This is China" No. 290
Karl Sanchez
Jul 06, 2025


Wu Xinwen on left, Zhang Weiwei in center, unnamed moderator on right.

Wow! What a great topic. Here’s Dragon TV’s synopsis of its 290th program broadcast on June 30, featuring Professor Zhang Weiwei, Dean of the Institute of China Studies of Fudan University, and Professor Wu Xinwen, Deputy Dean of the Institute of China Studies of Fudan University, engaging in a dialogue on the topic as described:

General Secretary Xi Jinping proposed "two combinations": the combination of the basic tenets of Marxism with the specific reality of China, and the combination of the basic tenets of Marxism with the excellent traditional Chinese culture. These "two combinations" demonstrate the Sinicization of Marxism and the inherent strong vitality of China's excellent traditional culture.

The usual program format of opening remarks followed by discussion and capped by audience questions is what follows:

Wu Xinwen:

In the historical process of Sinicizing Marxism, there are "two combinations." The "first combination" is to integrate the basic tenets of Marxism with China's specific reality; The "second combination" is to integrate the basic tenets of Marxism with the fine traditional Chinese culture. Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era is the latest theoretical achievement of the "two combinations". The "first combination" was put forward in the thirties of the last century, and the "second combination" was clearly put forward by General Secretary Xi Jinping a few years ago, and had a major repercussion in the ideological and theoretical circles. Today, I would like to focus on the "second combination" and make a few of my own views.

The first point is that the "second combination" means that neither Marxism nor the excellent traditional Chinese culture singly is sufficient for the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era. On the one hand, General Secretary Xi Jinping stressed that Marxism is our soul, and to turn our backs on this soul is to make the subversive mistake of losing our soul and losing our direction. We must persist in taking Marxism as our guide, guard Marxism, the spiritual pillar of communists, and learn and make good use of this ability to take care of our own affairs, and we must not waver at any time and under any circumstances. He raised the issue of Marxism being speechless in some disciplines, missing from textbooks, and losing its voice in forums, and repeatedly criticized the Westernization theory that abandons Marxism, blindly copies from the West, and takes Western systems and values as the guideline, and warns party members and cadres that Marxism is the true scripture of our communists.

However, the Marxism referred to by the Chinese communists has never been an abstract Marxism, but a Marxism that concretely combines the characteristics of the nation and the characteristics of the times. This is an important starting point for our discussion of the "second union" today.

On the other hand, the general secretary called the excellent traditional Chinese culture our roots. Without the Chinese civilization that has lasted for more than 5,000 years, without the excellent traditional Chinese culture formed by the long-term accumulation of Chinese civilization, and without the spiritual identity of the Chinese nation established on the basis of the excellent traditional Chinese culture, there would be no Chinese characteristics, Chinese style and Chinese style. If this root vein is cut off, socialism with Chinese characteristics will float without roots and be grounded, and it will be impossible to grow into a towering tree. Only by basing ourselves on Chinese civilization can we understand the historical inevitability, cultural connotation and unique advantages of China's path.

The "second combination" is proposed, and its practical relevance is obvious. In contemporary China's ideological and cultural circles, there is not only the trend of Westernization that rejects Marxism and the fine traditional Chinese culture, but also the conservatism that is hostile to Marxism and the dogmatism that ignores the fine traditional Chinese culture. They are all one-sided, wrong, and wishful thinking. Today, as the Chinese nation creates modern civilization and a new form of human civilization, Marxism and China's excellent traditional culture complement each other and are indispensable. To completely deny the two, to forget one's ancestors, or to set the two against each other is divorced from the reality of Chinese thought and culture.

The second point is that the focus of the "second combination" is on integration, and we must work hard on integration. Since the founding of the Communist Party of China, the integration of Marxism and the excellent traditional Chinese culture in different fields and to varying degrees has been carried out. The development achievements made by contemporary China and the stage of development in which it is located can enable us to view Marxism and China's fine traditional culture with a more confident, calm, and open mind, to better solve the problems of "two skins" and "confrontation between the two armies" that existed in the past, promote the integration of the two more consciously, comprehensively, and deeply, and achieve comprehensive innovation from a new starting point.

Therefore, the combination in the "second combination" is not to a lalang match [Chinese cultural term related to the incompatible becoming compatible] , not to make a platter, nor to merge similar items, but on the basis of the spiritual compatibility between Marxism and the excellent traditional Chinese culture, a profound chemical reaction will take place, so as to promote the integration of the two and build the modern civilization of the Chinese nation. In this process, we must neither forget our ancestors nor rely on them alone but make new inventions and creations in ideology and culture, put forward Chinese's own theories, and produce China's own thinkers and theoreticians.

As Chairman Mao Zedong said: "Not as good as Marx, not Marxist; equal to Marx, not Marxist. Only by surpassing Marx can he be a Marxist." [Dialectical reasoning] Use Marxism to activate the excellent genes in Chinese civilization, and at the same time inject the rich wisdom of the Chinese nation into Marxism at a deeper level, integrate the essence of Marxist thought with the essence of traditional Chinese culture, and fuse it into a new ideological and theoretical advantage, providing a solid theoretical foundation for Chinese-style modernization. Therefore, the combination here is a strong alliance and mutual achievement, 1+1>2, which is to cultivate the new cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation and give vitality and vitality to contemporary Chinese thought and culture.

Third, the "second combination" is not a combination for the sake of combination, nor is it a purely conceptual game of philosophical speculation divorced from reality, but an attempt to answer the major and urgent questions and challenges facing China and the world; that is, to answer the questions of China, the world, the people, and the times. The "second combination" and the "first combination" are inseparable and mutually reinforcing. The continuous deepening of the "second integration" can better serve the "first integration" and solve the practical problems faced by contemporary China.

The greatest reality of contemporary China is that, on the basis of its existing achievements, it should overcome various problems and challenges, pursue comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable development, and achieve the strategic goal of building a great modern socialist country at a new historical starting point. To achieve this goal, we need strong ideological and theoretical guidance and a broader cultural depth to mobilize all resources, integrate all forces, and stimulate the initiative and creativity of all Chinese. All these depend on the sustained and in-depth promotion of the "second integration" to form a general theoretical pattern and atmosphere that is inclusive and draws on the strengths of others, and constantly produces new ideological and theoretical achievements, endowing China with spirit and spirit in the 21 st century.

Contemporary China has become the China of the world, and China is closely related to the world. Solving China's problems is a pilot test and experiment in solving many of the world's problems. In the era of globalization and multipolarization, many problems in the world also affect the final settlement of China's problems. Today's world is facing the problems of the collapse of a unipolar world, the emergence of a multipolar world, and the formation of a multipolar world order, as well as the new scientific and technological revolution and industrial revolution with artificial intelligence as the core, which will bring great opportunities to mankind, and at the same time bring new impacts to the human knowledge system and value system. Many of these problems and challenges are new and unprecedented.

Where is humanity headed? How can humanity form a new multipolar world order and a new order of human knowledge and values? What role will China play in addressing these issues and challenges? Answering these "big questions" requires new ideological theories and cultural creation. And any creation and innovation is not carried out in a vacuum, it needs a foothold, resources and nutrition, and more importantly, a clear direction. The "second combination" can make its own unique contribution in these areas.

Fourth, one of the focal points of the "second integration" is to further integrate the distinctive and sharp style of Marxism with the concise and lively characteristics of China's fine traditional culture, carry forward the fine tradition of being specific, concise, and lively in the Chinese version of Marxism, improve the style of study and writing, and enhance the pertinence, popularity, and effectiveness of ideological and theoretical propaganda. We all know that Sinicized Marxism can change China and the world, not by relying on long expositions and fundamentalism, but by relying on its power of truth to face problems, hit the key points, and conquer people's hearts.

Chairman Mao Zedong proposed that books should not be read, but rather they should not be read randomly and without a clue, and they should avoid being nerd [The Paradox of Knowledge]. Comrade Deng Xiaoping also held that Marxism is not mystical but is a very simple thing and a very simple truth and advocated that the study of Marxism-Leninism should be refined and effective and should not rely on the book. He used the Chinese idiom "seeking truth from facts" to summarize the essence of Marxism, which made people suddenly enlightened. General Secretary Xi Jinping also stressed that to spread Marxism well, we must not follow the script, find chapters and extract sentences, but popularize and popularize it, and earnestly change the bad tendencies of being the same, having the same people, following the rules, and not daring to go beyond the thunder pool in ideological and theoretical propaganda.

Finally, it should be pointed out that some people may be worried that only emphasizing the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with the excellent traditional Chinese culture will cause the Chinese people to form a closed and conservative mentality, which will affect China's absorption of the excellent achievements of human civilization, especially Western civilization. In fact, this worry is unnecessary. Writers of Marxist classics and successive generations of leaders of the Communist Party of China have always emphasized that Marxism is not a dogma, but a guide to action, a banner for progress, and an ideological weapon. It does not end the truth, but opens the way to it.

The excellent traditional Chinese culture originally contains the enterprising spirit of daring to be the first in the world, the innovative consciousness of reforming the old and bringing forth the new, returning to the original and opening up the new, and the broad mind of tolerance and symbiosis, good at learning and learning from others. In this respect, Marxism and China's fine traditional culture can be said to be like-minded and complement each other. The comprehensive and in-depth integration of the two will provide a broader space and open up brighter prospects for learning from all the outstanding achievements of human civilization, including Western civilization. Thank you!

【Roundtable Discussion】

Moderator: Mr. Wu gave a speech just now, and the "two combinations" proposed by the general secretary made us feel the basic tenets of Marxism and the strong inner vitality of China's excellent traditional culture, and it is very important to understand them. I would like to ask Mr. Zhang, how can the basic principles of Marxism help us understand the excellent traditional Chinese culture?

Zhang Weiwei: "The second combination", in fact, we started to do this for a long time, and now we have refined it. An important reason for this is that there is a natural fit between Marxism and many things in the excellent traditional Chinese culture, or in other words, the excellent traditional Chinese culture contains many simple socialist elements, making it easier for the Chinese people to accept Marxism. For example, there is a great emphasis on equality, "not suffering from the few but suffering from inequality", since more than 2,000 years ago, the "Book of Rites" emphasized "great harmony" and emphasized that "the road is the journey, the world is for the public", and now we can explain its relationship with the communist ideal.

Moderator: There are many combinations of the basic tenets of Marxism and China's specific practice, and young people may have some understanding of the excellent traditional Chinese culture if they do not have a deeper understanding of the culture, and they may not be able to grasp the inner vitality.

As Teacher Zhang said just now, we also said in our program that Chinese are philosophers, and the relationship between part and whole, the relationship between two things that are interdependent and mutually influencing, everyone seems to have understood since childhood. Understanding the principles of Marxism is also very helpful for understanding the fine traditional Chinese culture.

Wu Xinwen: I would like to add that in the basic tenets of Marxism, there is a law in the development of social history, and this law can be understood by us. For example, the relationship between the productive forces and the relations of production, between the economic base and the superstructure. There is a saying in ancient China that "things must come to pass, and reason is certain", some things are not transferred by people's subjective will, what should come will definitely come, you should not be confused by that phenomenon, but to grasp the fundamental regularity behind it. For example, the principle of productive forces and production relations, why reform and opening up? In fact, the relations of production have already hindered the development of the productive forces, and if the relations of production are not changed, the further development of the productive forces will be hindered, so it is necessary to carry out reform and opening up.

Including the tradition in Chinese history, it is necessary to innovate and demand new, which is something engraved in the bones of the Chinese. The two happen to be mutually inspiring.

Zhang Weiwei: Because it has certain genes, such as the genes of dialectical thinking, which are more compatible with Marxism. Therefore, it is easier for Chinese to accept Marxism, and it is easy to accept the Sinicization of Marxism.

Moderator: Western scholars have also put forward dialectical thinking, but their dialectical thinking is not as profound as ours in practice or its impact on everyone.

Zhang Weiwei: Anyway, I often share Chinese wisdom with them when I go out, and we think that a lot of very ordinary wisdom is difficult to produce in other cultures. For example, "take a step back and open the sky", some small countries, they have never retreated, and as soon as they retreated, they were destroyed, and they did not produce this kind of culture, including the Middle East, where small countries are the mainstay, and there is no way to retreat, and this tradition has not been formed. During our reform and opening up period, we used a lot of common people's words, which are also part of Chinese culture, such as "crossing the river by feeling the stones", and Deng Xiaoping actually quoted the words of the common people.

I have also said in Russia that our evaluation of Chairman Mao Zedong is 37 points, 7 points are huge achievements, and 3 points are mistakes. In fact, this is dialectics. Russian friends say, how did we not think of it? We have all denied Stalin.

Recently, the United States and Russia have started talks, and some people have been hyping it up, especially the West, and the United States wants Russia to side with the United States against China. Lavrov spoke very well, he said that our friendship with China is very strong, he said that the Chinese are very calm and long-term, which is a very concise summary of the cultural inheritance of the Chinese.

Wu Xinwen: When it comes to the long-term nature of Marxism, I would like to add that Marxism and China's excellent traditional culture have one thing in common, that is, they are both very lofty and long-term. We ancient Chinese talked about great ambitions, and for the whole society, it has a Taiping-style ideal, the ideal of great harmony. Marxism, on the other hand, pursues the emancipation of all mankind, and even at the lowest ebb of humanity’s career development, it will not throw away his ideals. Like Mao Zedong, before the victory of the Long March in 1935, he proposed that "the world is peaceful, and the world is hot and cold".

On the other hand, however, the Marxist ideal is integrated with reality, and its starting point is in line with people's common sense. Marxism says that people must first eat, wear, and shelter before they can do other things. Traditional Chinese thought, "Guanzi" says, "Cang Liao is honest and knows etiquette, food and clothing are enough to know honor and disgrace", which means that for ordinary people, the first thing to solve is to solve the problem of food, clothing and housing. These two things can be excited by each other, at the high point and at the base. So the combination of these two theories is not accidental.

Moderator: It's very important to understand them. And after understanding is practice, and after practice is development. So, I would like to hear Mr. Wu's point of view; what do you think will happen to the principles of Marxism after we understand the excellent traditional Chinese culture?

Wu Xinwen: I think one of the things that is very obvious is that the two can be combined because, first, they can fit together, and there are similar or even the same things; But on the other hand, we also have to admit that the two theories are not exactly the same, and sometimes there are differences. What's the biggest difference? The excellent traditional Chinese culture is built on the basis of the Chinese civilization and agricultural civilization. What is the emphasis of a civilization based on agriculture? I think it's like benevolence, righteousness, courtesy, wisdom and faith, gentleness and generosity, pacifism, to talk about stability, it's best not to be chaotic, to be stable, not to toss around, so it regards peace and security as an important value.

But we know that Marxism arose in a society of change at a time when capitalism had already developed, especially when industry had already begun to develop. A very important feature of a changing society is that there is a struggle between people. Therefore, Marxism emphasizes struggle. In Marx's later years, an American reporter interviewed him and asked him where the ultimate meaning and value of life was. In particular, when the Communist Party became the ruling party and the leading party, there was still a lot of work to be done on how to govern the country and how to combine the criticism of Marxism with many wisdom and constructive things in traditional Chinese governance.

Moderator: Mr. Wu just said that because the excellent traditional Chinese culture was born from agricultural civilization, in fact, it is also constantly innovating. We have always said in the program that in our traditional culture, there is reform and self-transcendence, isn't this a struggle? Because the struggle is not only a struggle with the outside, but also a struggle with the self, to surpass the self and overcome this difficulty.

Zhang Weiwei: In addition, China is a civilized country, and the civilization that has not been interrupted for thousands of years is actually the "second combination" mentioned by the general secretary, which emphasizes the combination with the excellent traditional Chinese culture, that is, distinguishing the essence from the dross, and only combining it with the excellent part. For example, the strong impetus for reform that you mentioned earlier is behind the tradition of "renewing every day, renewing every day, and renewing every day", which is linked to the struggle.

Wu Xinwen: I said that I have absorbed a lot from Marxism, and there are Chinese traditions, but for the general analysis of Chinese traditions, you have to look at Lin Yutang's "My Country and My People", and he believes that the national character of the Chinese is still conservative and moderate, and they should not fight with others unless they have to.

Host: In fact, Chinese people have always wanted to pursue innovation, absolutely not resting on our laurels, we are full of curiosity about new things and take the initiative to embrace them.

Zhang Weiwei: I once looked at a sociological study, because the traditional Western concept is that Chinese are more conservative and Westerners are innovative.

But China's enthusiasm for embracing new things is unimaginable abroad. In China, whether you approve of it or not, but in general, face recognition has been available every day, everywhere, almost every community, and the European Union is still discussing whether it can use face recognition, and Chinese culture believes that if the benefits of something new outweigh the disadvantages, embrace it, and then solve various problems that may arise in use. I went to France to the Champs-Élysées, I wanted to take pictures, and my French friends said to beware of your phone being robbed. I mean, don't you have surveillance? They say it's all fake.

Moderator: It is because we seek truth from facts, and the basic tenets of Marxism are well integrated with China's specific reality, and we will innovate when there is a need for innovation, and we will not cling to some concepts. But sometimes in the West, the people's voices are in need of innovation, and it may be trapped in that system.

Zhang Weiwei: I said that the attitude of the Chinese is very realistic, and it is really a brave spirit of innovation. If we embrace new things that cannot be stopped, we will make use of them in pursuit of advantages and avoiding disadvantages, and this is Marxism.

In the process of development, it is useless to be afraid of what problems to solve, and to solve any problems. [Putin practices that approach.]

Moderator: To be afraid is to go against the tide. When we understand and truly grasp the essence of culture, we will promote the process of Sinicizing Marxism. On the other hand, if you truly grasp the principles of Marxism, you can also help us very well distinguish the good parts of the traditional culture from the bad parts, and at the same time carry forward the good parts.

Wu Xinwen: We read Chairman Mao Zedong's "Three Old Articles", one of which is called "The Fool Moves the Mountain" In fact, there are "two combinations" in "Yugong Moves Mountains", that is, there is a combination of Marxism and China's specific reality. Such an article was part of Mao Zedong's speech at the closing session of the Seventh National Congress of the Communist Party of China. So he was solving the problem of where China was going after the end of the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and when the Japanese were about to be defeated.

When Mao Zedong talked about this issue, he borrowed the fable "The Fool Moves the Mountain" in the chapter of "Liezi Tangwen". He said that the two mountains of imperialism and feudalism in "Yu Gong Moving Mountains" are Taihang and Wangwu Ershan, and Yu Gong said that I dig mountains to rely on my descendants is endless, as long as I insist on digging, sincere, and focus on doing one thing and keep doing it, I will definitely succeed. And Chairman Mao said that the real strength is like who the children and grandchildren are, and the strength of the children and grandchildren depends on our Communist Party, and the Communist Party members must be conscious, the vanguard must be conscious, and the people must be conscious. In the end, God was moved by the spirit of Yugong and sent the gods to remove the two mountains. Chairman Mao said that God is the people, and the people are God.

Therefore, in Mao Zedong Thought, these "two combinations" are closely integrated, and it is necessary to solve China's problems, but it is necessary to stimulate the traditional resources of China, the spirit of sincerity, the spirit of man conquering heaven, and the spirit of believing in the power of the people.

Zhang Weiwei: It was about the 50s, when Chairman Mao talked to Vice Premier Li Fuchun, who was in charge of industry. Chairman Mao said that the country must have strength, and today it is called hard power, and it is necessary to develop industry. Then Mao Zedong made an analogy, he said that we have a saying, if you don't have a handful of rice in your hand, the chickens won't come. This is very vivid, it is a vernacular, it is the wisdom of the people, but the truth is very profound, this is the Sinicization of Marxism.

Moderator: These are very factual statements and practices, and this is also a very good suggestion for us at the moment. All our goals are to solve the people's yearning for a better life, whether we draw strength from the excellent traditional Chinese culture or combine it with China's specific practice, in the final analysis, we want to solve the problem.

Wu Xinwen: When it comes to the issue of the people, I would also like to add that ancient China also had people-oriented thinking, but there was a major weakness of the people-oriented in ancient China, in the traditional agricultural society, although the people-oriented emphasized the importance of its value, but in actual operation, it was to let the people be self-sufficient, that is, the government should not interfere too much, and let the people do things themselves. But it's not okay to think about it.

An important viewpoint of Marxism is that the people have to be organized, and the people who are not organized have no strength. As Sun Yat-sen said, it was a plate of loose sand, or as Marx said, the peasants in the French Revolution were a bag of potatoes. So, how do you get organized? It is necessary to rely on a vanguard and a party to go down to the grassroots level and integrate the people's forces, and this is what the Communist Party does. I think this is a very big supplement to traditional Chinese culture, and it is also a development.

Moderator: The "two combinations" we just discussed are Chinese wisdom and a very important part of the "four self-confidences". We often say that the civilizations of all countries in the world should learn from each other and learn from each other's strengths. What are some of the lessons we have learned that we can share with other places?

Zhang Weiwei: That's too much. Many foreigners, especially in the "Global South", take the initiative to learn from China, because it is true that China has achieved things that they could not have imagined. They used to follow the Western model, and the result has always been to hit a wall and fail, and now it is up to China to succeed. So as I said last time, the world has entered a new era of seeking knowledge about China.

Now we are not discussing whether the liberal arts are important; the liberal arts are still very important; but we must do a good job, and we must extract a lot of good things from China's great practice and explore its inspiration for the entire international community.

Not long ago, in an interview with a US media outlet, I compared China's two sessions with the US Congress, where Trump spoke. I said that the characteristic of Trump's speech, in your English, is "divide and rule", to emphasize that we are different from you, to emphasize that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are completely different, the Republican Party can, the Democratic Party cannot, the scene is also like this, half of the people applaud, half of them are sarcastic. China is not like that; China is seeking consensus: my name is unite and prosper.

Wu Xinwen: I think there is an important wisdom in the "two combinations" that can be used as a reference for the whole world, that is, the unity of knowledge and action in Chinese culture.

I think one of the biggest problems in Western politics now is that there is no action in the middle of a lot of talk, and there is only a lot of talk, which is the most taboo in Marxism and traditional Chinese culture.

Moderator: When Wang Yangming said that knowledge and action are united, he said that knowledge without action is not knowledge, and action without knowledge is not action, and these two are not separated, it is completely unified. In the principles of Marxism, there is often a concept of a unified whole.

Wu Xinwen: That's what Mao Zedong's "Theory of Practice" is talking about.

Moderator: The problem in the West now is that its knowledge is not knowledge that comes from deeds, but knowledge for the sake of knowing, it may be to solicit votes, it may be a concept of freedom of speech for the sake of partisan interests and individual interests for a period of time.

【Questions from the Audience】

Audience: Hello two teachers, good host. I'm Wang Ziqiang, a first-year student from East China University of Science and Technology. I found a phenomenon that on platforms where young people gather, such as Bilibili and Xiaohongshu, traditional culture is often decomposed into ancient role-playing and Hanfu punch-in, while Marxist theory is difficult to spread due to its obscure content. I'd like to ask how you think the "second union" responds to this cultural fragmentation? Is there a concrete case where this combination can really appeal to Gen Z and not just a formality?

Zhang Weiwei: I think so, I remember that we had a writer named Yan Wenjing, a fairy tale writer, and when he was at the Lu Xun Academy of Arts and Letters, he had the opportunity to have a long talk with Mao Zedong in Yan'an. After the talk, he said with emotion that Chairman Mao talked to me about the heavens and the earth, the south and the north, Tang and Song poems, and everything in the universe, all afternoon, but not once did he mention Marx, but after the conversation, I thought that he was talking about Marxism, that is to say, it had reached the stage of being superb. In my opinion, this is the most wonderful part of spreading Marxism.

Now what's the problem? Many of us professional scholars study Marxism, but they are not Marxists and do not believe in Marxism, so their lectures are very boring.

Wu Xinwen: There is no identity, no emotion, so he just reads according to the script, and even his heart is resistant, and he feels that talking about this thing seems to be a bit unreasonable, weak-hearted, and short of breath, so he will have more problems.

Zhang Weiwei: That is to say, when we talk about Marxism in ordinary times, it can be a very lively and vigorous Marxism, a Marxism that solves practical problems, and even does not use Marx's words to talk about Marxism, let Marx speak Chinese, and even this should become the mainstream. This is because Marxism is first and foremost an ideological method, a standpoint, viewpoint, and method for looking at problems, and from this angle, this will become very lively and vivid.

Wu Xinwen: I think the "two combinations" can actually have many levels, the first one is at the language level, General Secretary Xi Jinping said that "civilization is like water, moisturizing things silently", which is a very important concept of civilization, and it is also traditional Chinese, but when he talks like this, there is actually Chinese Taoist thought contained in it. General Secretary Xi Jinping has said that the education of ideals and beliefs, moral education, and the cultivation of work style of our Communists is the study of the minds of our Communists. In ancient China, it was also said that Confucianism emphasized righteousness and sincerity, and Confucius said that "politicians are upright", that is, they should do correct, just, and righteous things. It turns out that we did not associate the study of mind with this set of things of the Communist Party, but when General Secretary Xi Jinping said this, I can say that we suddenly understand that these lofty things are completely passable, and people have the same heart and the same reason, and these things can be used.

Audience: Hello host, hello two teachers. I'm Li Yanhui, a first-year electronic information student at East China University of Science and Technology. The question I want to ask is, will we now use new media, such as short videos, to reinterpret the "second combination", will it undermine the seriousness of political theory? How to grasp the scale of this reinterpretation? Thank you.

Zhang Weiwei: You just introduced you as a freshman student, and you should pay attention to maintaining the vigor of young people. Some teachers in the university are not confident enough and will only read from the book and speak in a serious way about Marxism, which they do not believe in, should be a vigorous cause, and must not become an old-fashioned, rigid and disgusting thing. What is good communication? What the common people like to see, what young people are willing to accept, and what is tasteful, but we are not engaged in populism, which is a very important criterion. [As always, the need to connect the past with the present and show why the connection’s important is the challenge for the teacher.]

Wu Xinwen: There are two aspects to pay attention to, both serious and lively, but what do you think is the main problem now? I think the main problem and tendency is that there is more seriousness than liveliness; that is, everyone has a straight face, and the theoretical articles they write are all things that people don't want to read, and they are all too serious. So now it's time to be lively. Chairman Mao and General Secretary Xi Jinping can learn from this.

Chairman Mao has a famous saying about Marxism. He said that Marxism is the doctrine of wrangling. Some people say that will it affect the seriousness of Marxism. However, when Mao Zedong spoke at that time, he emphasized that many aspects of Marxism should be taken into account, and you can't just grasp one thing and then throw away the rest. This is not possible. Marxism is a wrangling doctrine. Some people say that it is too serious, but it works best and can achieve such an effect.

When General Secretary Xi Jinping talked about ideological issues, he said that don't care about a lot of rumors, what people say to you, don't care too much, don't be disturbed, just follow your own direction steadfastly. These words are very vivid and vivid words, do these words damage the seriousness of Marxism? I don't think so.

Audience: Hello two teachers, good host. I'm Zhang Cunzheng from the School of Economics at Fudan University. Marxism and the excellent traditional Chinese culture have commonalities, and both emphasize the practical basis of methodology. Based on the understanding of this issue, I would like to ask, in the process of grassroots governance, how to do a good job in the "second combination"? How to transform this theory and traditional culture into a practical driving force for the development of grassroots governance through the "second combination"? Thank you.

Wu Xinwen: In fact, a very important issue of grassroots governance is to pay attention to people's livelihood and how people can live a better life. Now common prosperity is an important point. But as I mentioned earlier, one of our Chinese traditions is to emphasize prosperity, but I think the way to get rich is a little weaker, and it is to let the people develop themselves. But Marxism emphasizes the need to organize.

Therefore, one of China's experiences in solving the problem of absolute poverty is that the party organizations should go down to the grassroots level, and the party should lead and organize the people, and it is necessary to develop a collective economy. On the other hand, I think that the Communist Party's grassroots cultural work and propaganda work should be strengthened, and this is a very big work, and it is the work of winning the hearts and minds of the people.

Zhang Weiwei: Last time we did an issue of "People's City and People's Construction", we put forward a concept, which is also very important, that in grassroots governance, socialism should take root and make the people feel socialism in their lives. For example, Shanghai's promotion of a 15-minute life circle is actually to make you feel socialism, and there is a post station where the courier brother can take a break, providing various services that are convenient and beneficial to the people, which is to let everyone feel the temperature of socialism in daily life.

Moderator: It is often said that the excellent traditional Chinese culture is "daily use without awareness", sometimes, many of our good practices and good practices are also "daily use without awareness", we are only in it, forget to talk about it, this work to do, cannot just "use daily without awareness", "daily use but also feel".

Zhang Weiwei: So this time Xiaohongshu [Mao’s Little Red Book] "big reconciliation", we have done a period, and the effect is also very good. In fact, when you compare it with typical capitalism, you find so many advantages of socialism. This is why I said “be patriotic as soon as you go abroad.”Once you arrive in a capitalist society, you feel that you don't agree with many things in the country, and they are actually socialist. Therefore, Xiaohongshu's “reconciliation” effect is very good.

Moderator: During the dialogue, we discussed the specific practice of the basic tenets of Marxism in China and also discussed the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with the excellent traditional Chinese culture. I have a very big feeling that this kind of discussion and dialogue will deepen our understanding of theory and excellent traditional culture, and will also give us greater motivation, reminding us that the most important thing is that you have to practice after cognition, and practice can solve practical problems. And it is such a process that makes us truly Marxists.

Zhang Weiwei: And adhere to the Chinese cultural tradition, especially Wang Yangming's tradition, the unity of knowledge and action, don't wait, do it now, go back today and do it. [My Emphasis]

(Karl's comment at link, no space.)

https://karlof1.substack.com/p/the-sini ... rxism-this

*****

China is Not a Monolith

Posted by Internationalist 360° on July 7, 2025
Brandon Warner



The Communist Party and Socialist Construction

Out of the 1.4 billion people who live in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), around 100 million Chinese citizens are members of the Communist Party of China (CPC). To put that in perspective, Germany has a total population of about 84 million. And yet, all too often popular and even academic discourse sees fit to make broad categorizations (be they positive or negative) about China and its ruling Party, as if a political organization larger than any European country except Russia or a country larger than any other save India could be reduced to a single voice. Indeed, it is highly questionable how any group of such size could function at all without discourse, criticism, and self-reflection, and yet China’s return to global prominence has been meteoric.

Making matters worse, ideological sectarianism has led many leftists in the English-speaking world to refuse any serious engagement with more recent developments in China. This has resulted in a media landscape in which some of the most comprehensive outlets describing China’s socialist project come from reactionary sources engaged in bad faith analyses. The aim of this article is to serve as an introduction to a few of the key elements of the Chinese effort to construct socialism. It is written to inspire readers to engage more deeply with the many voices coming from China, rather than attempt to reduce the entirety of the PRC or the CPC to something which can fit inside of an “either this or that” box.

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics

Any amount of time studying CPC publications will quickly familiarize one with the concept of the tífǎ (提法). Tífǎ are short phrases which condense extensive ideological meaning, with examples including “Harmonious Society”, the “Four Basic Principles”, and “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics”. In the case of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, what is being invoked is the continual application of socialist theory within China’s unique but permanently changing material circumstances. To that end, a line is drawn connecting the Party’s major ideological developments, which are listed as: Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Theory of Three Represents, the Scientific Outlook on Development, and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.

The CPC Constitution, in summarizing these developments, refers to each as a “crystallization of the collective wisdom of the Communist Party of China” in their respective epochs, emphasizing historical precedence. Each major ideological development by the Party is contextualized with all those that have preceded it and justified by its claim of representing a continuation of Marxist-Leninist principles. The development of China’s socialist project has been one of dramatic change and adaptation, but it is interesting to note how, with each new iteration of party leadership, the CPC has found it necessary to state and restate its commitment to socialist principles and a communist future. The Party’s legitimacy, its “right to rule”, is in part tied to its adherence to socialist ideals. Rather than attempting to move beyond these ideals, the rhetoric of the CPC repeatedly and consistently reaffirms them.

Like all nation-states, the PRC has no choice but to exist in a world-system defined by the dominance of the capitalist mode of production. The PRC Constitution states that “class struggle will continue to exist within a certain scope for a long time to come” adding that “the people of China must fight against those domestic and foreign forces and elements that are hostile to and undermine our country’s socialist system”. Similarly, the CPC Constitution notes that “owing to both domestic factors and international influences, a certain amount of class struggle will continue to exist for a long time to come, and under certain circumstances may even grow more pronounced, however, it is no longer the principal contradiction”. This is rationalized, according to the CPC Constitution, as inevitable given China’s current level of development in what is called the “primary stage of socialism” — a stage which “cannot be bypassed” and “will take over a century”.

Article 3 of the PRC Constitution and Article 10 of the CPC Constitution state that the State and Party operate in accordance with the principles of democratic centralism. It is true that the centralized aspect of Chinese governance limits actions and speech which would hinder the Party’s decisions, but this should not be misunderstood as the negation of debate within the Party or country as a whole. Dissent is constrained, but that does not mean that it does not exist. In 2012, Chinese academic Cheng Enfu defined seven tendencies in China’s political discourse: neo-liberalism, democratic socialism, new leftism, eclectic Marxism, orthodox Marxism, revivalism, and innovative Marxism. These tendencies are representative of a complex and ongoing debate within China and include policy-positions ranging from the prioritization of Confucian values to the furthering of economic privatization to the reinvigoration of Maoism. Similarly, David Ownby, a professor at the University of Montreal who runs the Reading the China Dream blog, frequently translates works by Chinese scholars into English, dividing this discourse into three main categories: liberalism, New Leftism, and New Confucianism. Ownby insists that “genuine debate… occurs constantly in China, and the intellectual world is not as ‘harmonious’ as Chinese authorities would prefer, nor as totalitarian as Western media sometimes suggests.”

Moreover, CPC publications, as well as the Party’s constitution, insist that China has entered the “primary stage” of socialist development. Whereas Lenin’s State and Revolution elaborated on the Marxist conception of the time, that the overthrow of capitalist society would first result in a “lower phase” of communism (socialism) and then a “higher phase”, the CPC insists that this lower phase must itself be broken into stages given China’s historical circumstances. In the “primary stage” of socialist development, the CPC has achieved national autonomy and placed market forces under Party control. From this perspective, one might understand the continuance of class struggle as a tactical decision while the CPC pursues the current “principal contradiction” of raising the living standards of the Chinese people and addressing “unbalanced and inadequate development”.

Cheng Enfu and Yang Jun, in an article for the Monthly Review, consider China’s socialist development through a “Triple Revolution” theory. They argue that revolution first takes the form of a seizure of power, followed by an embodiment of reform and self-improvement, and finally a transitional period to “carry the revolution through to its completion”. The authors note how this notion of carrying the revolution to its completion has been reintroduced by Xi Jinping as an “urgent demand” of the CPC. The development of socialism in China is an ongoing conversation, and its future will be tied to the ability of Chinese socialists to push their values forward through the challenges of both internal and external contradictions.

“Crossing the River by Feeling the Stones”

The CPC is attempting to build socialism by balancing the benefits and consequences of market economics through a process of experimentation and a philosophy of pragmatism (summarized in Deng Xiaoping’s famous quote, now an oft-quoted adage in Party discourse: “crossing the river by feeling the stones”). Chen Yun, who served on the Central Committee of the CPC from 1931-1987, described what has come to be known as “birdcage economics”. Chen insisted that market forces were necessary for the PRC to catch-up with the industrialized world before it succumbed to internal and external pressures. However, he also warned that the “bird” (market forces) must never be allowed outside of its “cage” (the state plans of the CPC). He stated: “We have to utilize a cage, that is to say, both invigoration of the economy and allowance for regulation by market forces should play their role as prescribed by the state plan, and we must not deviate from the format of state plans.”

China’s socialist market economy is not Soviet-style socialism premised on central planning. Nor is it free market capitalism. It has elements of both, though in reality it is neither. The state plays a tremendous role, and while the market is given space to thrive, this space is defined by ironclad limits set by the Communist Party and adjusted in accordance with changing domestic, international, and global realities. The question of whether any individual adjustment is conducive to the ends of socialism or represents a step backward is best raised empirically, rather than ideologically, which requires familiarity with China’s material situation.

The CPC’s exercise of state power has also extended beyond the market. Yang Ping, founder of the journal Wénhuà Zònghéng (文化纵横), considers China’s rise to be representative of a “third wave” of socialism following the initial wave of European labor movements gaining class-consciousness and the second wave of socialist state projects which ended with the dissolution of the USSR. Yang argues that China’s development of a socialist market economy has allowed it to rise rapidly without succumbing to the international pressures that overwhelmed Soviet-style socialism. Key to this point is an emphasis on the leading role of the Communist Party on the grounds that “if socialism does not provide ideological and cultural leadership, capitalism inevitably will”.

Under Xi Jinping, there has been a renewed effort at consolidating more and more civil spaces and social institutions under CPC control — rationalized, according to Yang Ping’s argument, that CPC leadership is necessary to prevent Chinese development from succumbing to capitalist idealism. This logic might be compared to the role of the state as a “birdcage” for the market: the CPC understands that the institutions of civil society must expand as China develops, but will not allow this expansion to take place without oversight on the grounds that the absence of leadership by the Communist Party is synonymous with the presence of leadership by capitalist interests. This is a balancing act, one which is rife with contradictions, and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics will be judged historically by its ability to successfully navigate and resolve such contradictions.

One example of these contradictions in civil society is the role of organized labor in China. All labor unions must be affiliated with the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), an organization controlled by the CPC. Within China’s socialist market economy many corporations are also under party oversight, and must maintain internal party organizations. This creates an obvious conflict of interest in which workers seeking a resolution to their grievances are left appealing to representatives who are also connected to their company’s management. This has resulted in widespread distrust of the ACFTU and the emergence of grassroots labor organizations and NGOs in Chinese civil society, initially tolerated by the CPC but now largely dismantled or integrated into CPC-led organizations.

However, the integration of Party and society has also enabled incredible progress, such as Xi Jinping’s poverty alleviation campaign which has lifted nearly 100 million Chinese citizens out of extreme poverty since 2013 (contributing to the 800 million who have been lifted out of poverty in China since 1978). The success of such a campaign would have been unthinkable without the capacity to mobilize large numbers of party cadres alongside local communities to address problems at their roots and in a sustained way. For example, a key role was played by the All-China Women’s Federation (ACWF), a mass organization tied to the CPC. This deliberate linking of Party and civil society represents an adherence to the Maoist principle of the “mass line”. The same integration of civil society organizations under CPC control which has contributed to workplace grievances and widespread strikes has also facilitated the unprecedented feat of raising the living standards of hundreds of millions while eradicating extreme poverty. China’s path to socialism is a balancing act. It is an ongoing debate over how to implement the proper kind of leadership in relation to constantly changing material circumstances, and in the face of internal and external contradictions — it cannot be otherwise.

What Can Be Learned from China’s Socialist Endeavor?

CPC official Sun Yeli has stated that while China’s modernization process contains universally applicable aspects, it is also tailored to China’s unique context. The scholar Yuen Yuen Ang has described China’s economic model as “using what you have”, referring to the creative application of local resources by grassroots actors in accordance with top-down directives. What might be learned from China is not any one specific policy or organizational system, but a methodology. An understanding of Marxism not as a dogmatic subscription to a set of conclusions to be considered ahistorically, but rather as a science of change grounded in the material world. Socialist principles (the pursuit of economic equality, international solidarity, and a resolution of exploitative contradictions) should be ironclad and inflexible. But these principles cannot be realized in one fell swoop — they must be constructed piece by piece, with inevitable setbacks and all of the challenges of human imperfection.

Marxists around the world should consider what socialism will have to look like in relation to their own specific environments. This requires a critical analysis of which tactics will or will not allow one to further the socialist cause, conducted concretely rather than abstractly. The fact that the CPC has not been able to skip from its “Century of Humiliation” straight to a fully classless society free of exploitation seems to be grounds for many so-called “Western Marxists” to dismiss the entirety of China’s effort at socialist construction outright, a consequence of treating Marxism as a dogma rather than as a science. Yet, no socialist project has ever existed outside of a state of siege from both domestic and international counter-revolutionary forces. Nor has a socialist project yet been achieved in the so-called “developed” world.

Such points cannot be brushed aside. Socialist China did not come into being with an industrialized economy or a military strong enough to secure its sovereignty. Rather, it emerged out of a period of historic weakness, imperialist exploitation, and poverty. High among these contradictions has been the horror of poverty, which led Deng Xiaoping to declare that without raising people’s living standards “you cannot say that you are building socialism”. In spite of its hardships, China has made historic strides forward. Missteps, setbacks, and counter-revolutionary tendencies (both internal and external) are inevitable. Socialist construction cannot proceed through ideological purity, it must navigate the contradictions of reality without losing sight of a red future.

There are of course reasons for concern, for example the makeup of the Party going forward. Drawing on the Organizational Department of the CPC as its source, South China Morning Post reports that CPC membership in 2019 consisted primarily of managerial and technical workers. Agricultural and “blue-collar” workers combined make up roughly a third of Party membership (a slight decrease from 2012). The Party is also aging, with about 18% of members being retirees and around a third being at least 61 years old. Female representation is horribly low and improving only at a snail’s pace. The composition of the Party, increasingly “white collar” and stubbornly male, cannot but impact the internal decision-making dynamics of the CPC going forward — but such matters are concerns, not grounds for surrender or dismissal.

In one of his polemics, Vladimir Lenin noted that in revolutionary times the Communist Party had to “speak French”, his metaphor for utilizing “rousing slogans” to “raise the energy of the direct struggle of the masses and extend its scope”. For “pure” socialists, this direct application of revolutionary zeal seems to be the be-all end-all of socialist construction. Yet, Lenin claimed, in times of stagnation one must learn to “speak German”, working slowly, “advancing step by step, winning inch by inch”, ultimately declaring: “Whoever finds this work tedious, whoever does not understand the need for preserving and developing the revolutionary principles of Social-Democratic tactics in this phase too, on this bend of the road, is taking the name of Marxist in vain.”

The history of the Communist Party of China is that of an organization which has learned, through trial and error, when to “speak French” and when to “speak German” (and there have been errors, ranging from the consequences of the Cultural Revolution to the inconsistency with which violations of worker’s legal rights have been addressed). Now, as the largest economy by GDP (PPP), the CPC is showing the world what it means to “speak Chinese”: to creatively navigate the contradictions of socialist growth in a capitalist world-economy while tirelessly developing a revolutionary culture. China’s socialism will proceed in the only way human endeavor possibly can: through steps and missteps, deviations and corrections, debate and reflection. It is an experiment which demands the world’s attention, led by a party which is not static, but living. Readers are encouraged to engage critically with the variety of theoretical perspectives emerging from China, and to engage with China’s socialist project as a process rather than as a monolith. In this time of historic reaction, Leftists around the world must learn to “use what they have”, to refine theory through practice, and to progress down the path towards a red future through both inches and strides.

Source: The Left Berlin

https://libya360.wordpress.com/2025/07/ ... -monolith/

[blindpig]

Who Says a Chicken Feather Can’t Fly up to Heaven?: The Twenty-Eighth Newsletter (2025)

China showcases a number of promising developments in the construction of socialism – though not without challenges and contradictions.

10 July 2025



Dear friends,

Greetings from the desk of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research.

In 1957, Mao Zedong oversaw the publication of Socialist Upsurge in China’s Countryside, a three-volume collection of articles compiled by the Communist Party of China for the political education of the peasantry. The following year, selections from these volumes were republished in abridged and regional editions. One such edition included a report from the Anyang Regional Communist Party Committee’s Office for the Co-operative Movement with an introduction by Mao. The text, called ‘Who Says a Chicken Feather Can’t Fly up to Heaven?’, provides the title for this newsletter.

The chicken feather’s task is the task of socialism: to do what is considered by many to be impossible. The peasants of Anyang, Mao wrote, faced a choice between capitalism and socialism – although any socialist construction would inevitably bear traces of the capitalist system, as it must emerge out of existing forms of social production. ‘The poor want to remake their lives’, Mao wrote. ‘The old system is dying. A new system is being born. Chicken feathers really are flying up to heaven’. But Mao remained cautious. In the preface to another article, ‘They Insist on Taking the Road to Co-Operation’ (20 September 1955), he wrote:

Socialism is something new. A severe struggle must be waged against the old ways before socialism can be brought about. At a given time, a section of society is very stubborn and refuses to abandon its old ways. At another time, these same people may change their attitude and approve the new.



Ever since socialist forces have endeavoured to build a society free from the wretched outcomes of capitalism, they have had to contend with the challenge of transcending pre-existing social relations. The mechanisms to allocate resources under the capitalist system – such as the ‘profit incentive’ – create the conditions for private control over social processes, which in turn generate enormous waste and inequality. When socialists have tried to imagine a society without the commodification of labour – one of the defining features of capitalism – they have found themselves replicating the wage system through experiments such as labour vouchers based on time worked. The transition away from commodified labour was not going to be abrupt or simple, but rather a protracted process of struggle to de-commodify key areas of social life (such as healthcare, education, and transportation) and to create mechanisms for people to acquire goods for personal use through non-wage means. When socialist forces took state power – as in the USSR after 1917 and China after 1949 – they struggled to construct elementary forms of socialism while navigating the following conundrums:

Limited systems for managing information. Socialist economies were vast and complex yet lacked adequate mechanisms to gather and process all the data required for the effective planning of a dynamic economy – a challenge that persists even today, despite powerful computing technologies.

Fundamental uncertainty in decision-making. Planning authorities had to make budgetary and investment decisions under conditions of uncertainty, particularly as rapid advances in science and technology risked rendering major investments obsolete.

Tension between long-term planning and short-term demand. Central plans often clashed with shifting consumer tastes, making it difficult to align long-term planned investment with the short-term tastes and whims of consumers.

Conflicting political objectives. Economic goals were not always politically unified, and competing visions embedded in various plans often led to acute forms of bureaucratisation.

There is no formula for overcoming these and other problems faced by socialist projects once in state power. They must be solved experimentally – or, as the Chinese saying goes, by ‘crossing the river by feeling the stones’ (摸着石头过河). It is fitting, then, that the June 2025 edition of Wenhua Zongheng, published by Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research and focused on ‘Chinese Experiments in Socialist Modernisation’, opens with an essay by the Chinese writer Li Tuo titled ‘On the Experimental Nature of Socialism and the Complexity of China’s Reform and Opening Up’. One of the key insights of Li Tuo’s fascinating essay – which journeys from the Paris Commune to China’s reform and opening up – is that socialist revolutions, particularly in formerly colonised or economically underdeveloped countries, cannot transition directly to ‘complete socialism’ but must go through – quoting Lenin – ‘a series of varied, imperfect, and concrete attempts to create this or that socialist state’.



I like the emphasis on ‘this or that socialist state’. There is no blueprint, but there are examples that need to be studied and histories that need to be properly digested. This is precisely what Li Tuo does in his essay, which he ends by marvelling at the creation of the high-speed rail system in China.

The next essay, written by Meng Jie and Zhang Zibin and titled ‘Industrial Policy with Chinese Characteristics: The Political Economy of China’s Intermediary Institutions’, examines China’s socialist modernisation with the diligence it demands – not just with awe but through close study. Every time I hear Meng Jie lecture or read his work on China’s market economy, I am deeply impressed by his insistence on building theory from active research in the very factories that produce the goods for modern China. Meng Jie and Zhang Zibin’s essay is no different, drawing on field research conducted in various factories along the high-speed rail supply chain.

What the authors find is that China’s high-speed rail production system was built within the state-owned sector but conceptualised within a ‘constructive market’ framework where ‘intra-governmental competition’ served as the engine of innovation. In other words, the Chinese state constructed a market that involved not just a profit-seeking private sector but also a product-oriented public sector with institutions competing to achieve national development goals. Finance for this entire system came from state-owned financial institutions that steered capital accumulation towards social use rather than merely a high rate of return. As Meng Jie and Zhang Zibin write, ‘The primary goal of state-owned capital is to implement the objectives of socialist production and fulfil the tasks set by the national development plans and strategies’. This essay is part of a broader effort by Meng Jie and his collaborators to try to understand the system of production relations and innovation that China has developed – a crucial area of enquiry as the country enters the era of ‘new quality productive forces’, a key concept in contemporary Chinese development policy.

One of the key elements of this latest issue of Wenhua Zongheng is to show that class struggle continues during the period of socialist construction. What this means is that various experiments are needed along the way to see what works and what doesn’t – both to develop the productive forces and to put in place more equitable social relations. In this process there has been a continued ideological struggle inside China as the capitalists seek ways to reproduce themselves. However, under China’s socialist system, capitalists are not permitted to organise themselves into a class with political power through ownership of media, financial systems, political parties, or other institutions. They cannot freely take their profits overseas or invest them wherever they like. There are several strategic dams in place – including capital controls – that regulate the flow of capital and prevent the Chinese capitalists from becoming oligarchic and refusing to invest in their country (a problem faced by so many governments in both the Global North and South, where oligarchs can take their capital wherever they want and even go on ‘strike’ by refusing to invest in infrastructure or industry). China’s capital remains within the country and in reach of a state-owned banking system that puts that capital to work within the parameters of the national development plan. Capitalists can operate in the country, but they cannot dominate the system and allow their profit-seeking behaviour to become paramount. In this way, the class struggle is tilted in favour of the people. This is what separates the socialist system in China from the capitalist systems in other countries.

In The German Ideology (1846), Marx and Engels wrote of the ‘muck of ages’ that needed to be set aside for a new world to be born. This act of setting aside is going to take a very long time.

The chicken feather certainly has not yet reached heaven, but it is not in hell either.

Warmly,

Vijay

https://thetricontinental.org/newslette ... velopment/

******

Washington Warns Beijing and Its Partners: ‘The Bomb Will Not Save Multipolarity’
July 10, 2025



By Lama El Horr – Jul 9, 2025

Amid rising global instability, Washington’s aggressive pursuit of nuclear and geopolitical dominance threatens the foundation of multipolarity—and China knows it.

In a context where China shows no sign of capitulating to the Atlantic bloc’s hybrid warfare, it can be assumed that Beijing has meticulously studied the nervous system of the 21st-century American Empire, and now possesses the means to deprive the American hegemon of the properties of the Phoenix bird.

Three decades have passed since the reformist shift initiated by Deng Xiaoping. The current state of the world reveals that this shift not only guaranteed China’s economic development; it also materialized the vision of an anti-hegemonic world, as articulated by the father of Chinese independence.

Contemporary China’s geopolitical adversaries have been slow to grasp the implications of these transformations. Exhilarated by the opening of the Chinese market to foreign capital, which guaranteed them decades of titanic returns on investment, the imperialist oligarchs, Gilgamesh in search of immortality, had a hangover when they emerged from their Far Eastern opulence to discover that their post-Cold War supremacy was, in fact, founded on the relocation of their productive capacities to China, the deindustrialization of Western countries, and the downgrading of their workforce.

When Washington decides to impose its conditions by force, diplomacy is nothing more than folklore for public opinion

This systemic gluttony is the root cause of most of the world’s crises. Allergic to the idea of a more equitable redistribution of wealth, to the industrialization of developing countries, and to the participation of emerging powers in the management of world affairs, the oligarchs of the Atlantic bloc, obsessed by the memory of their omnipotence, have decided to invest their speculative capital in the industry of destruction – an enterprise facilitated by the geopolitical blindness of the European elite.

Sovereignty is a matter of American exceptionalism
The intransigence of American diplomacy, which plays deaf to the legitimate demands of the global majority, reveals that Washington is currently at an impasse. It goes without saying that China, like the BRICS bloc, will not accept the primacy of Washington’s interests over their rights to sovereignty, development, and security. Under these conditions, the only way out for the American Empire is destruction—of the law, of diplomacy, of the opposing military forces.

Do UN resolutions reached by consensus hinder imperialist wars of conquest in West Asia? It is enough to accuse the UN of condoning terrorism and create a tailor-made law. Do the free trade rules governing the WTO prevent Washington from competing on equal terms with China? It is enough to accuse Beijing of unfair competition and shift toward protectionism. Is using the dollar as a weapon of coercion pushing the BRICS to consider a less iniquitous monetary system? All it takes is accusing the multipolar bloc of revisionism and brandishing the threat of tariffs.

We have also seen that when Washington decides to impose its conditions by force, diplomacy is nothing more than folklore for public opinion. Panama’s bitter experience illustrates the extent to which sovereignty is a relative concept: Trump claims ownership of the Panama Canal and declares he wants to station his troops there; he disputes the country’s participation in the BRI project, and threatens military intervention if the leaders do not comply. How much room for maneuver does a country like Panama have? – And when Washington lacks the means to impose its conditions, as is the case with Iran, “negotiations” are at most a means of misleading the adversary before stabbing it in the back – with the help of its regional hitman: Israel. Tehran’s distrust is so heightened that the country is making the resumption of negotiations conditional on a guarantee that it will not be bombed again during the talks.

Diplomacy and negotiations have thus been rendered meaningless, since everything is permeable, and even signed agreements are ineffective as soon as they are concluded. In its report detailing trade relations between China and the United States, Beijing reveals that Washington not only distorts the statistics in its favor, but has also failed to honor its trade commitments to China. And what about the cessation of hostilities agreement between Israel and Hezbollah, supposedly guaranteed by the United States and France, which has been violated nearly 4,000 times by Israel since it was signed!

In this context of chronic instability, everything suggests that Washington and its satellites are working to govern by fait accompli, by turning the status quo situations (Palestine, Golan Heights, Sinai, Cyprus, South Caucasus, Taiwan, Falkland Islands, etc.) that have prevailed for decades to their advantage. In this race against time, the Atlantic bloc is defying all forms of deterrence, including nuclear deterrence. So much so that Washington, London, Paris, and their Israeli offshoot now appear committed to a project of denuclearizing their geopolitical adversaries, including Beijing and Moscow.

It is worth revisiting certain statements and actions of the Western bloc. In March of this year, the G7 once again urged North Korea to renounce its nuclear weapons, prompting a strong reaction from Pyongyang. That same month, on the sidelines of the “Raisina Dialogue,” European Union representatives expressed concern about Beijing’s possession of nuclear weapons and stressed the need to monitor China’s nuclear arsenal. Two months later, Abdullah Khan, a fellow at Pakistan’s Institute for Conflict and Security Studies, revealed that Israeli drones had attempted to sabotage Pakistan’s nuclear facilities during the recent armed conflict between Islamabad and New Delhi. Finally, it is worth remembering that, ten days before the Israeli-American assault on Iran, Russia suffered a multipronged “Ukrainian” attack on its nuclear bombers.

It would be surprising if Beijing did not feel a sense of paranoia, given Washington’s stubborn desire to impose not only its economic and technological dominance, but also its nuclear hegemony.



The European Union, a Key Instrument in Washington’s Hands
One can legitimately question the role of European leaders in this headlong rush toward disaster. The last Munich Security Conference was perceived by many as a humiliation of EU leaders by Washington. Yet, this meeting also revealed the Achilles heel of the new American administration.

Without a consensus between European liberal-democratic parties and ultra-conservatives and nationalists, the Trump team would lack the means to implement its geopolitical roadmap: this is, in essence, what the American Vice President expressed in Munich. His lyrical flights about Washington’s commitment to freedom of expression were only intended to facilitate the formation of a transatlantic coalition around Washington’s neo-militarist project, Peace Through Strength, in which the anti-immigration narrative is expected to play a central role. In other words, J.D. Vance’s mission was to guarantee greater political and media space for European far-right parties.

The MAGA team’s goal was to secure European support on three fronts: the (so far verbal) attenuation of hostilities against Moscow, with the aim of breaking the Moscow-Beijing axis; support for Israeli wars of conquest in West Asia to hinder China and the BRI project (which calls for an anti-Muslim narrative); and the formation of an Asia-Pacific Defense Pact, rehabilitating the “Yellow Peril” narrative, in order to isolate China and halt the rise of an anti-hegemonic order.

The Pentagon chief’s blackmail of NATO allies followed the same logic: maintaining the US nuclear umbrella would be conditional on replenishing NATO coffers, that is, the US military-industrial complex—suggesting that the use of military weapons is an absolute priority for Washington. It is notable that the European liberal-democratic parties, modeling their discourse on that of the American Democratic Party, are all in favor of continuing NATO’s covert war against Russia (this is less the case for the extreme right). On the other hand, we observe nuances in their support for Israeli wars: while they almost all acquiesce in the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, invoking “Israel’s right to defend itself” against an occupied people, they are more divided on other Israeli aggressions (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Iran), or in the face of American plans to harass the world’s second-largest economic power in its vital space.

Clearly, the Europeans did not exploit the levers of pressure this situation offered them, once again confining themselves to the limits set, from Washington, by the Democratic and Republican camps. Yet, they had the means to cut short the farce of “Strategic Autonomy” and finally develop an “Autonomous Strategy” by rebalancing the EU’s position between the world’s two leading economic powers; by dissociating themselves from illegal and genocidal Israeli expansionism; and by distancing themselves from the American wait-and-see attitude toward Moscow, to propose a European security architecture that takes into account the vital interests of their next-door neighbor.

Instead, the European elite became mired in its own deception. Was Macron’s announcement of an international conference (canceled at the last minute) for the recognition of a Palestinian state intended to give Netanyahu more time to fine-tune the massacre? Was it intended to deceive Iran before the Israeli-American aggression? Or was it a lever of pressure in the face of Washington’s military interventionism before the NATO summit – “Help us continue the war against the Russians, and we will help you against the Arabs, the Iranians, and the Chinese”? Inevitably, this imaginary conference casts doubt on the real reasons that pushed Macron to renew dialogue with Moscow.

And if the announcement of this conference was ever intended to challenge the Pentagon’s budgetary dictates, it was no more successful: the French president and his main EU counterparts have indeed retreated on all fronts, leaving Washington’s Achilles heel intact. – Not everyone can be Paris!

As a result, Washington can continue to rely on its European satellites to perfect its multi-continental industry of destruction – including of EU prosperity – in the hope of curbing China’s rise and the Global South’s escape from poverty. In the hope of being a Phoenix bird, in short.

(New Eastern Outlook)

https://orinocotribune.com/washington-w ... ipolarity/

******



China strikes Diabetes
Originally published: Countercurrents on July 7, 2025 by Bhabani Shankar Nayak (more by Countercurrents) | (Posted Jul 09, 2025)

The International Diabetes Federation (IDF)’s Diabetes Atlas reports that 589 million adults (aged 20—79) are currently living with diabetes—equivalent to 1 in 9 adults worldwide. This number is projected to rise to 853 million by 2050. The report also states that diabetes was responsible for 3.4 million deaths in 2024, equating to one death every nine seconds. Additionally, diabetes accounted for at least USD 1 trillion in health expenditures, representing a 338% increase over the past 17 years. The report further predicts that diabetes-related health spending will continue to rise, exceeding USD 1.054 trillion by 2045.

Diabetes is a silent epidemic, causing death and suffering on an unimaginable scale. However, for pharmaceutical corporations, insurance companies, and private healthcare providers, it represents a highly profitable business opportunity. The commercialization of illness lies at the heart of capitalism, particularly in the healthcare models practiced by many large corporations based in the United States and Europe. The pharmaceutical industry manages diabetes through ongoing treatment but rarely invests in a cure—treating the disease as though it were incurable.

However, this long-standing dream of capitalist corporations and their multi-billion-dollar pharmaceutical “business of sickness” is facing disruption. Chinese scientists have discovered a method to reverse both Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes using stem cell therapy based on induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) technology. This technique involves reprogramming adult cells to behave like embryonic stem cells. In this breakthrough, Chinese researchers use a patient’s own fat cells to generate insulin-producing islet cells, which are then injected under the anterior rectus sheath of the abdomen. Once implanted, these cells begin to regulate blood sugar levels naturally by producing insulin—just as a healthy pancreas would. Initial trials conducted at Tianjin First Central Hospital have shown remarkable results: patients with Type-1 diabetes were able to stop insulin use entirely within seventy-five days, while those with Type-2 diabetes achieved the same outcome in just eleven weeks. The European Medical Journal described the development as a milestone, stating,

Stem-Cell Therapy success in China marks a milestone in Type-1 Diabetes treatment.

The Chinese National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) is fast-tracking the next phase of clinical trials, aiming to address this global epidemic within the next three years. With this breakthrough, China is poised to transform the global healthcare industry. It marks a significant step toward ending the silent epidemic of diabetes and alleviating the suffering of millions around the world. This development also poses a major challenge to profit-driven pharmaceutical corporations and healthcare industries that have long relied on the continuous demand for insulin, diabetes medications, and related medical equipment.

The rise of medical technology, innovations in medical science, and advancements in health research in China are not accidental. They are the result of deliberate policy decisions and strategic investments by the People’s Republic of China, under the leadership of the Communist Party of China. The Chinese government has been actively deepening health research and reforming its healthcare system, which led to the development of the “Shanghai Integration Model” (SIM). This model fosters efficiency and synergy between public health initiatives and research-driven medical services. Fundamentally, it stands in opposition to the privatization of healthcare and the commercialisation of illness. These forward-thinking health policies have also contributed to major medical breakthroughs, including treatments for AIDS and obesity developed by Chinese scientists.

All major Chinese universities offer medical science and health-related programs, supported by dedicated research institutes and centers. These programs, offered by public universities, are grounded in the principle of public health over profit. At their core is the goal of freeing people from curable, preventable, and life-threatening diseases. The focus is on using knowledge to empower humanity and promote health and well-being. This mission aligns with the broader vision of the Chinese Communist Party—led government, which prioritizes human welfare, health, and happiness through science-driven public policy.

While imperialism—led by the United States—continues to manufacture conflict and invest heavily in high-tech weaponry to sustain the highest stage of capitalism through violence, destruction, and control, China is taking a different path. It is investing in life-saving medicines and medical technologies aimed at improving human health and well-being. In the midst of ongoing anti-China propaganda campaigns, the contrast is stark. The alternatives are clear: a world driven by war and profit, or one focused on health, innovation, and the collective good.

It is impossible to overlook the scale of people-centered development in China, where the state and government prioritise the well-being of the working masses. In contrast, governments in the United States and Western Europe often serve corporate interests, particularly in the healthcare sector, where profit is placed above public health. As a result, health corporations in these countries thrive financially—often at the expense of human lives and well-being.

Therefore, it is imperative to expose the hypocrisy embedded in Western systems—where profit is prioritised over people—while defending China and its working-class-driven innovations that advance human health and happiness. In a world shaped by competing models of development, China’s approach stands as a powerful alternative rooted in collective welfare, scientific progress, and the dignity of life.

https://mronline.org/2025/07/09/china-strikes-diabetes/

[blindpig]

Jiayuguan – the socialist future today

In the following article, which was originally published in the Morning Star under the title ‘China’s socialism succeeds where Eastern European failed’, Pawel Wargan, Political Coordinator at the Progressive International, writes movingly about his recent visit to Jiayuguan, a ‘steel city’ in western China’s Gansu province, contrasting this prosperous and civilised socialist community to the dystopian fate of similarly conceived projects in his native Poland and other formerly socialist countries.

Pawel writes that, “those of us who were born on the ruins of the socialist Eastern Bloc know how purpose-built, industrial ‘monotowns’ are meant to look. Rusting steel mills, cracked and potholed roads, weathered sheets of corrugated metal strewn about. Thick smog and poisoned soil. Drunks passed out on the train platform. Emaciated stray dogs. A lone child skipping down the muddy path of a panel-block neighbourhood silenced by demographic blight.”

All this, he notes, serves to “beat down the idea that socialism can produce anything but misery. And they have become so firmly embedded in the popular imagination that, for many, it is difficult to believe otherwise.”

Yet Poland’s Nowa Huta, the sprawling Krakow neighbourhood built around the Vladimir Lenin Steelworks; Russia’s Magnitogorsk, built around its eponymous Iron and Steel Works; or Germany’s Eisenhuttenstadt, established by the socialist German Democratic Republic around a major steel mill, also served as a template for the dignified life that communism envisioned for all working people. However, capitalist restoration shattered their ambitions.

Pawel continues: “How might these cities look today had the process of socialist construction continued uninterrupted? I found one possible answer in Jiayuguan, a remote desert city in China’s Gansu Province built from the ground up around a steel plant.”

The Jiuquan Iron and Steel Corporation (JISCO) was founded in 1958 as part of revolutionary China’s ambitious drive to establish the basis of a modern, industrialised economy. “It was a gruelling effort… Workers who came to the region dug the earth with their hands, trudged through waist-high mud, and carried heavy equipment on their backs. They faced the desert’s biting cold and punishing heat.”

But now, where once there was desert stands China’s fourteenth-largest steel producer. It has an annual capacity of over 11 million tons of crude steel – double the total steel-making capacity of Britain. And the state-owned enterprise has expanded its activities far beyond metals, to agricultural products and industrial manufacturing equipment, packaging and logistics, housing and healthcare, education and even wine, boasting the largest wine cellar in Asia. JISCO also manages the city’s power grid. Its Smart Grid and Localised New Energy Consumption Demonstration Project, powered almost entirely by artificial intelligence, automatically distributes energy, optimising for consumption patterns in real-time, thereby decoupling growth from energy use.

Therefore, he concludes: “Jiayuguan offered proof that the images of decay and despair that many have come to associate with industrial cities in Eastern Europe were not products of their socialist past, but symptoms of their capitalist present.”

Pawel visited Jiayuguan as part of an international delegation organised by the China NGO Network for International Exchanges (CNIE) and Friends of Socialist China that visited China between 25 May and 5 June 2025.

Those of us who were born on the ruins of the socialist Eastern Bloc know how purpose-built, industrial “monotowns” are meant to look.

Rusting steel mills, cracked and potholed roads, weathered sheets of corrugated metal strewn about. Thick smog and poisoned soil. Drunks passed out on the train platform. Emaciated stray dogs. A lone child skipping down the muddy path of a panel-block neighbourhood silenced by demographic blight.

In their commodified form, packaged for mass consumption in computer games and television shows, these images of post-socialist decay serve a purpose. They beat down the idea that socialism can produce anything but misery. And they have become so firmly embedded in the popular imagination that, for many, it is difficult to believe otherwise.

Of course, many of these cities were conceived as the opposites of the dark imaginaries later built around them.

To this day, we can find shadows of the ideal in Poland’s Nowa Huta, the sprawling Krakow neighbourhood built around the Vladimir Lenin Steelworks; Russia’s Magnitogorsk, built around its eponymous Iron and Steel Works; or Germany’s Eisenhuttenstadt, established by the socialist German Democratic Republic around a major steel mill combine.

Each aspired to be a model city — a template for the dignified life that communism envisioned for all working people. Each had green parks, good housing, abundant public services, and wide roads whose grandeur and neat symmetries recalled the genteel boulevards of Haussmannian Paris.

But capitalist restoration shattered their ambitions. Vibrant industrial cities saw their mills and factories chopped and diced and sold off at bargain prices. Economies underpinned by planned industrialisation were transformed overnight into sites of desperate labour and cheap resources, where value was siphoned upwards, to the emergent national oligarchies, then outwards to Wall Street or the City of London.

With that shift came an explosion in unemployment and an assault on society’s support systems: housing, healthcare, leisure, education, catering, and so on. The model cities became grayer. The metal rusted and the plaster began to flake off the walls. People left; many died. Then, these hollowed spaces became captive to imaginaries of failure established to keep a defeated people from ever seeking their sovereignty again.

How might these cities look today had the process of socialist construction continued uninterrupted? I found one possible answer in Jiayuguan, a remote desert city in China’s Gansu Province built from the ground up around a steel plant.

In 1955, under a decade after the Chinese Revolution, prospectors from Team 645 of the North-west Geological Bureau discovered major iron ore deposits in the Hexi Corridor of the snow-capped Qilian Mountains. Over 1,500 people would be called to the expedition, and 11 lost their lives.

With the discovery of iron, a vision emerged that would transform this barren patch of desert — once a strategic outpost on the ancient Silk Road, the western terminus of the Great Wall, and the threshold of the Gobi Desert — into a cornerstone of regional development.

The Jiuquan Iron and Steel Corporation (JISCO) was founded in 1958 as part of revolutionary China’s ambitious drive to establish the basis of a modern, industrialised economy.

It was a gruelling effort. At the heels of a century of humiliation, protracted civil war, and long struggle against Japanese occupation, China lacked basic technologies and know-how. Workers who came to the region dug the earth with their hands, trudged through waist-high mud, and carried heavy equipment on their backs. They faced the desert’s biting cold and punishing heat. It took the nascent industry more than a decade to break even.

But development continued, and the steel plant soon began reshaping the political geography of the region. The administrative boundaries were redrawn to create Jiayuguan City, carved from parts of surrounding counties and placed under provincial jurisdiction.

Now, where once there was desert stands China’s fourteenth-largest steel producer. It has an annual capacity of over 11 million tons of crude steel — double the total steel-making capacity of Britain.

JISCO has manufactured everything from the steel Apple logo on the back of the iPhone to the lattice shell and steel trussed columns of the “Bird’s Nest” National Stadium in Beijing.

The state enterprise has expanded its activities far beyond metals, to agricultural products and industrial manufacturing equipment, packaging and logistics, housing and healthcare, education and even wine.

The largest wine cellar in Asia is found at the Zixuan Winery near the Jiayuguan steel mills. The winery was the first in China to receive both national and international organic certifications, winning several awards in the process. (Having first tried Chinese wine as recently as a decade ago — and knowing that wines are notoriously slow to improve given the frequency of harvests — I was taken aback by the delicious, plummy and well-rounded merlot made here.)

JISCO also manages the city’s power grid. Its Smart Grid and Localised New Energy Consumption Demonstration Project, powered almost entirely by artificial intelligence, automatically distributes energy, optimising for consumption patterns in real-time.

Despite JISCO’s expanded production capacity and Jiayuguan’s rising living standards, energy consumption has decreased thanks to investments in efficiency — a decoupling of growth from energy use that many experts in the West say is impossible.

JISCO’s industrial waste is collected and used to make the tiles that cover the city’s broad pavements and public squares.

Alongside the industry, Jiayuguan City continued to develop. In many ways, the process mirrored efforts to build socialist industrial towns across the Eastern Bloc. But there is a crucial difference: Jiayuguan’s development was never interrupted, never subjected to the shock therapy of capitalist restoration.

Today, Jiayuguan is so unlike how we might expect a purpose-built industrial city to look. It is clean. Its green boulevards are lined with trees and neatly-trimmed hedges. Broad cycling lanes line the city’s well-paved roads, and new apartment blocks — buildings that might well be considered luxury housing in the West — rise against the backdrop of mountain peaks to house the city’s growing worker population. Trees cover some 40 per cent of this desert land and many of the city’s scenic parks are built around large, cerulean lakes.

On my last day in Jiayuguan, I told a local teacher that it was moving, coming from a part of the world that had lost its socialist path, to see a place where the story of the model city continues to be written.

Jiayuguan offered proof that the images of decay and despair that many have come to associate with industrial cities in Eastern Europe were not products of their socialist past, but symptoms of their capitalist present.

“China not only learned from the experiences of Eastern Europe,” he told me. “China saved socialism.” I asked how he felt about the changes his city had seen in the past few decades. His eyes smiled and he responded with seven words that we who call ourselves communists desperately wish to hear from all humanity: “I am satisfied, and I am proud.”

https://socialistchina.org/2025/07/14/j ... ure-today/



US Congressman claims young people’s rejection of Israeli war crimes is a Chinese plot

We are pleased to republish the following article by Alex Lo, which addresses one of the latest anti-China smears emanating from US political circles.

Democrat Congressman Jared Moskowitz says that China is following the ‘Nazi playbook’ by using TikTok to ‘brainwash’ American youth. Alex Lo writes:

“China has been accused of doing many nefarious things in the United States, but deliberately spreading anti-semitism?

“That’s the claim made by Democrat Congressman Jared Moskowitz in an official hearing. You have to admit facts-free China criticism in the US gets more inventive by the day.”

Moskowitz said: “This is not going well for Jews right now, and it isn’t getting better. We have not yet peaked… We are losing the youth of this country. We are losing them on TikTok, which is owned by a foreign country… The Chinese plan is to get us angry and divisive. And the Chinese plan is to start with the easiest plan possible, and that is us.”

Alex’s retort is clear and to the point: “There is a simple reason why many American youth are becoming critical of Israel – they read the news.”

Writing on July 6, he cites a number of reports published since the start of June including:

“Israeli air strike kills Gaza hospital director along with his family – Israeli attacks have killed 70 healthcare workers over the past 50 days.”
“Israeli forces kill 112 Palestinians in Gaza over 24 hours – At least 16 were reported killed while seeking aid.”
“Israel has demolished 1,000 Palestinian homes in West Bank camps since January”.
Others he cites were reported by Associated Press, the Financial Times and the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. He concludes:

“Anti-semitism has been a scourge responsible for some of the worst horrors in history and remains a problem today. But by committing genocide, Israel is making itself a pariah state.”

Alex Lo is a regular columnist for Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post since 2012. A journalist for 25 years, he has worked for various publications in Hong Kong and Toronto, Canada, as a news reporter and editor. He has also lectured in journalism at the University of Hong Kong.

The article was originally published in the South China Morning Post and is reproduced with the kind permission of the author.

China has been accused of doing many nefarious things in the United States, but deliberately spreading antisemitism?

That’s the claim made by Democrat Congressman Jared Moskowitz in an official hearing. You have to admit facts-free China criticism in the US gets more inventive by the day.

Beijing has been criticised for allowing antisemitic content without online censorship within China, and TikTok has been accused – the big reason it faces being banned – of platforming antisemitic criticism of Israel in the US. But equating the two explicitly is pretty new.

“This is not going well for Jews right now, and it isn’t getting better. We have not yet peaked,” Moskowitz said.

“We are losing the youth of this country. We are losing them on TikTok, which is owned by a foreign country that the president has now extended beyond what the law has allowed.”

He was referring to Donald Trump’s repeated extension of the deadline for a total ban or a forced sale of TikTok required by US law.

Moskowitz continues: “I don’t want TikTok to go away but I want it to get out of the hands of the Chinese. They are doing the Nazi playbook. They are dividing us. They are funding. They don’t need to do it with B2 bombers.

“That’s not what the Chinese plan is. The Chinese plan is to get us fighting among ourselves. The Chinese plan is to get us angry and divisive. And the Chinese plan is to start with the easiest plan possible, and that is us. Until we stop this ‘who did what to who’ stuff, we are not going to solve this.

“Jews are losing their usual allies. Those allies that we’ve had for decades and decades, groups that Jews have stood up for, we are losing them by the moment, especially among young people.

“This [congressional] hearing ain’t gonna fix s***. This is a virus that is spreading; until we are serious about what’s going on online and the brainwashing of our kids, this is going to get worse and more people are going to die in this country.”

There is a simple reason why many American youth are becoming critical of Israel – they read the news. Here are some reports since the start of June:

“Israeli air strike kills Gaza hospital director along with his family – Israeli attacks have killed 70 healthcare workers over the past 50 days.”

“Israeli forces kill 112 Palestinians in Gaza over 24 hours – At least 16 were reported killed while seeking aid.”

“Israel has demolished 1,000 Palestinian homes in West Bank camps since January”.

“UN report accuses global corporations of profiting from Gaza genocide.”

“Gazans survive among unexploded bombs – ‘Uninhabitable’ according to the US government, the Gaza Strip is strewn with undetonated explosives.”

“Hundreds of Palestinian families flee West Bank camp ahead of Israeli demolition orders.”

“West Bank town becomes ‘big prison’ as Israel fences it in”.

This one is from Haaretz, a leading liberal Israeli newspaper, so it’s not fake news: “‘It’s a killing field’: IDF aoldiers ordered to shoot deliberately at unarmed Gazans waiting for humanitarian aid.”

This one is from the Associated Press, so it’s not fake news either: “US contractors say their colleagues are firing live ammo as Palestinians seek food in Gaza”.

This news summary is from +972, an Israeli online news magazine: “Near-daily Israeli massacres at food distribution sites have killed over 400 Palestinians in the past month alone. Survivors describe stepping over corpses to get their hands on a bag of flour: ‘What choice do we have?’”

This is an investigative report by the Financial Times about a leading global firm, Boston Consulting Group: “BCG modelled plan to ‘relocate’ Palestinians from Gaza – Consulting firm had multimillion-dollar role in contentious new aid scheme for shattered enclave”.

Antisemitism has been a scourge responsible for some of the worst horrors in history and remains a problem today. But by committing genocide, Israel is making itself a pariah state.

https://socialistchina.org/2025/07/18/u ... nese-plot/

******

The US Cannot Go to War With China Without China


US Marine Corps Staff Sgt. Frantz Gaillou, senior drill instructor for Golf Company, 2nd Recruit Training Battalion, inspects recruits during an initial drill at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, in San Diego, California, March 7, 2025. Photo: U Marines/Zuma Press/ContactoPhoto.

By Bruno Sgarzini – Jul 16, 2025

A few weeks ago, US President Donald Trump had to back down in his trade war with China on one of his main battlegrounds: the transfer of advanced chips, such as those from NDVIA, to the Chinese technology industry. The lifting of the measure, designed to curb Chinese AI development, was negotiated with Beijing in London in exchange for Chinese companies selling strategic minerals to the US arms industry, including samarium, used to make heat-resistant magnets used in guided missile systems and military fighters like the F35.

Washington’s backtracking shows how it increasingly needs Beijing to make its weapons. In total, it relies on Chinese suppliers for 40% of its most sensitive weapons systems, according to a report by Govini, a US defense software company.

Among some of the most striking facts in the report is that the United States relies on China for 40% of the semiconductors in its weapons systems. Moreover, its B-2 bombers and Patriot missiles contain thousands of Chinese components. Chinese suppliers to the arms industry quadrupled between 2005 and 2020. The authors, moreover, estimate that US reliance on Chinese electronic artifacts grew by 600% since 2014. Systems such as the F/A-18, Ford aircraft carriers, and nuclear submarines rely massively on Chinese technology. “US production capacity plummeted after the Cold War,” according to the paper’s authors, Jeffrey Jeb Nadaner, former deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Industrial Policy, and Tara Murphy Dougherty, CEO of Govini.

The authors estimate that in 2005, there were 12,000 Chinese suppliers to the US arms industry. By 2023, the figure reached 43,000. Each Javelin anti-tank missile, used by Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, contains more than 200 Chinese semiconductors, while Ford-class aircraft carriers carry more than 6,000, F/A-18 fighters more than 5,000, and Virginia-class submarines more than 4,000. With this dependence, if Washington, for example, wanted to support Taiwan in a conflict with Beijing, it would send weapons full of Chinese semiconductors.

In the shipbuilding industry, the comparison is even worse. The United States has only five shipyards to build warships, while China has 17. Beijing’s Pacific fleet exceeds 340 ships and will grow to 440 by 2030. The authors estimate that China accounts for more than 35% of world shipbuilding, South Korea for more than 35%, Japan for 16%, and the United States for less than 1%.



Of course, the big question is how a country like the United States, with the highest military budget in the world, more than US $800 billion, does not have any industrial autonomy to manufacture its weapons. In fact, its armament capacity is quite poor. According to the authors, this can be seen in conflicts such as the one in Ukraine, where the United States produces 2,100 Javelin missiles per year when Kiev’s daily needs are 500. The same thing happens with artillery: the US industry manufactures 15,000 155 mm projectiles per month when Ukraine consumes that amount in hours in the conflict.

According to Govini’s experts, this is due to a series of factors, including the end of the Cold War and the merger of arms companies. “When the Soviet Union collapsed and US military spending contracted, US defense companies merged and adopted a lean production model and other financially driven ‘efficiencies.’ That approach constituted the formula for staying in business. It did not deliver any weapons cost savings, but resulted in a spike in per-unit price increases. In addition, with declining orders and the new business model, weapons stockpiles declined along with the production capacity to regenerate them.”

These mergers halved the number of medium-sized firms, which manufactured for the large contractors: the total of 60,000 small and medium-sized firms fell to 30,000. The authors, of course, also blame the Pentagon, Congress, and the government for promoting a “lean production” model which does not favor spending on industrial facilities, manufacturing lines, or specialized personnel for contingencies.

For this reason, according to them, “the arms industry cannot meet the production demands to support allies under fire and deter war in the Pacific.” For example, if there were an intense conflict in Taiwan, the United States would exhaust its stockpile of critical missiles within a week, according to a war simulation by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

And if that were to happen, as with critical minerals, the US would go to war against China with weapons filled with Chinese semiconductors.

https://orinocotribune.com/the-us-canno ... out-china/

*****

According to Ukrainian patterns
July 19, 13:11



According to Ukrainian pattern

Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman Chen Binhua has sent a message to Taiwan to come to its senses:

The Democratic Progressive Party authorities in Taiwan are deliberately ignoring the facts, distorting history, and using new textbooks to inflame the so-called "mainland threat" to sow anti-China sentiment, incite hostility, and promote "Taiwan independence." This is a continuation of the harmful policies that followed the introduction of the so-called "Taiwan independence education program," which only further indoctrinates young people. Such actions are deeply outrageous. We strongly condemn these vicious plans and extremely dangerous practices.

PS Beijing's sharp reaction is due to the fact that the US puppet, current Taiwan President Lai Qingde, has ordered the Ministry of Education to print textbooks to teach schoolchildren "literacy" regarding China. 13 textbooks on the topic of "Awareness of the Chinese Threat" have already been checked, the editors are making some adjustments to them, and in September they will be included in the school curriculum. Nothing new, the American manuals will now work on the island: in a couple of years, the young offspring will be brainwashed beyond recognition, and when they grow up, China will really become enemy number 1 for them. You don't have to go far, remember what textbooks Russian servicemen found in the so-called Ukraine: how the West fooled Ukrainians before the SVO, presenting Russia as an aggressor. The same thing is happening now in the post-Soviet countries, where history is falsified in school textbooks, they are trying to demonize Russia and present it as a colonizer. In China, they understand perfectly well that replacing the "firmware" in the minds of compatriots on the island will lead to unpredictable consequences. Washington, on the contrary, benefits from propaganda, ideological development and the imposition of anti-Chinese narratives to create hostility between the two sides of the strait as quickly as possible. They managed to pit the Slavs against each other, now it's the Chinese's turn.

@china3army - zinc

Below is a photo from the "Han Guang 41" exercises, where a war with China was practiced.













(Many more photos at link.)

For example, here is one of the scenarios that were practiced:

"Han Guang-41": today the exercises took place in the important area of Bali, New Taipei City, where the Taipei Port is located, which is critical in terms of maritime logistics.

This time the scenario was different from the usual coastal defense: the troops practiced deep defense inside the urban area, repelling the offensive of the PLA formations after their expected landing.

The focus was on the 269th Mechanized Brigade of the 6th Army, one of the main combat units of the northern defense sector.

The brigade's second battalion, equipped with CM-34 Yunbao infantry fighting vehicles with 30mm automatic cannons, as well as American HMMWVs armed with
Tou-2B anti-tank missile systems and helicopter-type tactical drones.

One of the features of the maneuvers was the construction of a multi-level system of artificial barriers on the enemy's routes:

concrete blocks of
the New Jersey type fencing,
steel "hedgehogs",
barbed wire,
HESCO modular structures,
buses and containers.

Tactics: retreat in depth followed by a strike.

Taiwanese Armed Forces units fight near the barriers, then retreat, drawing the enemy into built-up areas, where Chinese equipment becomes useless and infantry becomes a target.

When the PLA tries to bypass the defense, they will be encircled. Anti-tank crews and mobile groups will strike them from the flanks. All movements from the air are tracked by a reconnaissance drone.

As military analyst Jie Zhong notes, one of the main tasks was to force the PLA to move along predetermined routes, where the enemy would face crossfire zones and ambushes.

Then, according to the scenario, the Chinese columns would be routed deep in the city. Then the Taiwanese battalion would launch a counteroffensive. The port would be cleared by fighting, and control would be restored.

More photos and materials on the exercises in Taiwan can be found here https://t.me/china3army

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9963769.html

(Note that just like the Ukes they deploy heavy weapons in civilian areas = human shields.

Mao Zedong on the Third World War
July 19, 9:13



Mao Zedong on the Third World War

On this issue we must be in a state of moral preparedness and approach the matter analytically. We are firmly for peace and against war. However, if the imperialists nevertheless unleash a war, then even in this case we should not be afraid. Our approach to this issue is the same as to any "disorder": firstly, we are against it, secondly, we are not afraid.

After the First World War, the Soviet Union emerged with a population of 200 million people; after the Second World War, the socialist camp emerged, embracing 900 million people. It can be said that if, in spite of everything, the imperialists unleash a third world war, then as a result of the war hundreds of millions more people will certainly go over to the side of socialism and only a small territory will remain under the rule of imperialism; a complete collapse of the entire imperialist system is also possible.

As a result of the struggle, both opposites, which are in contradiction, cannot but transform into each other under certain conditions. The conditions are important here. Without certain conditions, the two warring parties cannot transform themselves into each other.

In the world, the proletariat is the one that most wants to change its position, and then the semi-proletariat, since the former has nothing at all, while the latter has, but little.

The current situation, in which the United States commands the majority of votes in the UN and controls many areas of the world, is only temporary. The day will certainly come when this situation will change.

China's position as a poor country and its lack of rights in the international arena will also change: a poor country will turn into a rich one, lack of rights will turn into full rights, that is, a transformation into the opposite will occur. Here the decisive condition is the socialist system and the struggle of the united people.

Mao Zedong
February 27, 1957

https://t.me/prorivists/6297 - zinc

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9963229.html

Google Translator

[blindpig]

China continues to cut its holdings of US debt
July 24, 8:32



China, which until relatively recently was the largest holder of American debt obligations, continues to rapidly get rid of them, now losing ground not only to Japan, but even to Britain. By the beginning of the war for Taiwan, China, taking into account the experience of the Russian Federation, will certainly try to minimize the West's ability to steal Chinese financial assets.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9972434.html

Google Translator

******

Despite Trump’s steep tariffs, China exported triple what it imported from the US in 2025 so far

Tariffs against China reached 145% and are now being reduced; China’s policies to boost domestic consumption yielded results

July 23, 2025 by Mauro Ramos


Automobile exports via the Shanghai Port surpassed 1.27 million units in the first half of this year, marking a 13% year-on-year increase and accounting for 36.7% of China's total auto exports during the period, data from the Shanghai Customs showed. Photo: PDChina

In the first half of the year, China exported almost three times more than it imported from the United States. The Asian country’s exports to the US totaled 1.55 trillion yuan, equivalent to about USD 217 billion, and in return, China-US imports were 530.35 billion yuan, just over USD 74 billion.

In other words, China once again had a trade surplus with the US of 1.019 trillion yuan – or USD 143 billion.

The steep tariffs, which reached their highest levels with China (145%), were created with the stated goal to “Rectify Trade Practices that Contribute to Large and Persistent Annual United States Goods Trade Deficits”, as outlined in Trump’s executive order title that established the so-called “reciprocal tariffs”. After rounds of negotiations in May, mutual tariffs were reduced to 10%.

However, Trump later stated that total tariffs for China would remain at 55%, comprising 20% from the “fentanyl issue” – the US blames China for the entry of substances used in opioid production into US territory – and another 25% from previous tariffs. The China-US trade surplus in the first half of this year, in fact, represents a decrease compared to the same period in 2024, when the trade surplus was 1.14 trillion yuan (about USD 160 billion).

However, China’s performance in the first half shows a reality far from what the US president announced or described. In May, Trump stated that China was “doing very badly”. Shortly after, upon announcing the first conversation with Chinese President Xi Jinping, the US leader changed his tone. “We don’t want to hurt China. China has been hurt a lot; they are closing factories, they are having a lot of unrest, and they were very happy to be able to do something with us,” he said.

Economist Ding Yifang told Brasil de Fato that China’s retaliation played a role in the reduction of Chinese exports to the US. “China reinforced control over the export of rare earths to the US, which caused many problems in the US manufacturing industry, especially the automotive industry,” explains Ding, who is a senior researcher at the Taihe Institute.

The economist also notes that trade resumed growth in June after the easing of both China’s control over rare earth exports to the US and the ban on semiconductor sales to China, resulting from negotiations between the two governments in London. According to data from the General Administration of Customs, China’s exports to the US in June increased by 5.8% compared to the same month last year, and one percentage point compared to May. Imports, after a decline in May (-3.4%), grew again by 1.1% in June compared to the same month last year.

It is still too early to determine that the steep tariffs failed in their goal of balancing exports and imports with China. But considering, on the one hand, that the reduction of tariffs allowed the resumption of bilateral trade in June, and on the other hand, the fact that the agreements do not bring new concessions from the Chinese side (at least what is publicly known), there seems to be no reason for a different scenario by the end of this year.

Decline with the US compensated by market diversification
Trade between the two countries in the first half of 2025 declined. Chinese imports from the United States fell by 7.7%, and China’s exports to the North American country plunged by 9.9%. These numbers were driven by the significant year-on-year decline in trade in the second quarter: a fall of 20.8%.

This reduction with the US was, to some extent, compensated by China’s two main trading partners: the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union (EU). ASEAN became China’s main trading partner in 2020, surpassing the US and EU. In the first six months of this year, ASEAN accounted for 16.8% of China’s total foreign trade (3.67 trillion yuan, about USD 514 billion). Exports increased by 14.3% and imports by 2.3%.

In the case of the EU, in second place, there was an increase in trade volume (3.5%), totaling 2.82 trillion yuan (about USD 395 billion), and representing 12.9% of the total. China’s total imports fell by 2.7%, partly driven by the large 20.8% drop in trade volume with the United States in the second quarter.

China’s overall exports, however, grew by 7.2%. China’s overall trade with the BRICS also increased. In the first half of this year, China’s imports and exports with other BRICS members and partner countries reached 6.11 trillion yuan (about USD 856 billion), an increase of 3.9% year-on-year, Lyu Daliang, head of the Department of Statistics and Analysis of the General Administration of Customs, said at a press conference last week.

Read more: Second China-Central Asia summit concludes in Astana with call for multipolar world order
The element of domestic consumption in growth
The increase in trade with other countries and regions was an important factor in China’s first-half economic results, but domestic demand was the main driver of growth.

In this regard, consumption was the main highlight. The Chinese government continued with a strategy launched in 2024 to promote consumption, which is the Action Plan to Promote the Exchange of Consumer Goods. The central government allocated 81 billion yuan (USD 11.3 billion) for this campaign, according to data from the Ministry of Finance.

The program offers subsidies of up to 20% for people to exchange home appliances, vehicles, and other products for newer, more energy-efficient models. According to Chinese Minister of Commerce Wang Wentao, the exchange program generated more than 2.9 trillion yuan (about USD 407 billion) in sales revenue from January to June this year, “benefiting about 400 million participants through subsidies and various incentives.”

https://peoplesdispatch.org/2025/07/23/ ... 25-so-far/

******



China’s five-year plans democratic, people-centred and grounded in material reality

In a wide-ranging interview with Global Times, Friends of Socialist China co-editor Carlos Martinez describes China’s Five-Year Plans (FYPs) as democratic, people-centred, and grounded in material reality. He emphasises that China’s success in planning stems from its ability to align governance with popular needs and long-term strategy. “China is known globally for its effective governance and for its record of keeping its promises”, he notes, citing the 13th FYP’s targeted poverty alleviation campaign as a key example of practical planning based on extensive grassroots research.

Carlos stresses that these plans are not top-down decrees but involve widespread consultation, making them highly democratic and responsive to the needs of the people.

China’s five-year plans are well-received by the people because they are based on extensive consultation with the people, and are responsive to the needs, wishes and aspirations of the people. Every plan is based on discussions with, and feedback from, the people. In that sense, the plans are highly democratic, and accord with Chinese emphasis that “the people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history.” The basic methodology of the mass line – from the masses, to the masses – has been well employed by the government and the Party in devising goals and plans.

China’s evolving development strategy, he argues, is responsive to shifting realities. Early plans focused on light industry and technological catch-up; today, priorities include green energy, advanced manufacturing, and digitisation. “Quality, rather than quantity, has become a more important feature of the country’s growth”, he observes.

Carlos credites President Xi Jinping with combining short-, medium-, and long-term planning rooted in the principles of common prosperity and ecological sustainability. Furthermore, Xi’s strategic thinking increasingly has global applicability, as seen in initiatives like the Belt and Road and the Global Development Initiative.

Contrasting China’s approach with the short-termism of Western governments, Carlos points out that, unlike the West’s shareholder-driven model, China’s system prioritises the long-term interests of the people. “Ultimately, the ‘institutional advantage’ is the political power of the working people, and the fact that, in China, people come before profit.”

GT: In China, the scientific formulation and consistent implementation of five-year plans stand as an important piece of experience in the CPC’s approach to governing the country. Why do you think China places significant emphasis on scientific formulation and consistent implementation of five-year plans?

Martinez: China is known globally for its effective governance and for its record of keeping its promises. Its objectives and plans are developed over a long period of time, and are firmly grounded in material reality and the needs and aspirations of the people.

For example, China’s 13th Five-Year Plan (2016-20) codified the central leadership’s poverty-reduction decision into the state will that is operable in practice. The targeted poverty alleviation campaign included sending officials to the countryside to identify the communities, families and individuals living in extreme poverty. Once the “facts on the ground” were established, a comprehensive plan was developed – at national, provincial, county and village levels – to sustainably lift everyone out of extreme poverty, so that they had a steady income, along with guaranteed housing, food, clothing, education, healthcare, modern energy and running water.

China keeps its promises, and it does so by mobilizing enormous resources toward key projects. In 2020, President Xi announced the country’s commitment to peaking its carbon dioxide emissions before 2030. This goal informed the current (14th) five-year plan, and appropriate targets were set at every level, throughout the country.

In summary, China develops plans that are realistic and flexible, that meet both the short-term and long-term needs of the people and that contribute to the country’s overall strategy. Once the blueprint is agreed and established, different parts and levels of the government work closely with the central government, with state-owned enterprises, private businesses, educational institutions, as well as community organizations and NGOs to implement the plan. The whole country works together to realize an agenda that aligns with the collective interest. This embodies the spirit of socialism.

GT: Chinese President Xi once stressed that “if a blueprint is good, factually based, scientifically sound and well-received by the people we should keep working on it, one administration after another, and the outcome of our work will be real and appreciated and remembered by the people.” How do you understand the key words – “factually based, scientifically sound and well-received by the people”? Considering these characteristics, why are China’s five-year plans considered “good blueprints”?

Martinez: China’s five-year plans are well-received by the people because they are based on extensive consultation with the people, and are responsive to the needs, wishes and aspirations of the people. Every plan is based on discussions with, and feedback from, the people. In that sense, the plans are highly democratic, and accord with Chinese emphasis that “the people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history.” The basic methodology of the mass line – from the masses, to the masses – has been well employed by the government and the Party in devising goals and plans.

Moreover, China’s five-year plans reflect a constantly shifting material reality. China’s development needs have changed beyond recognition. At the start of Reform and Opening Up, China was, technologically, quite a backward country, and its economic strategy reflected the need to leverage “latecomer’s advantage,” focusing on light industry and learning technology and management techniques from the advanced capitalist countries. Now, China is a world leader in several important areas of science and technology, including renewable energy, telecommunications, space exploration, advanced industry and more. As such, its planning has become much more focused on new quality productive forces, and quality, rather than quantity, has become a more important feature of the country’s growth.

It should also be mentioned that five-year plans align with even longer-term strategic planning. For example, the 14th Five-Year Plan lays the foundations for achieving socialist modernization by 2035, meaning that China will have a per capita income equivalent to that of a medium-level developed country, along with world-class standards of education, health, environmental protection, and cultural and sporting excellence. Furthermore, the 14th plan marks the beginning of China’s march toward its Second Centenary Goal of building a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious and beautiful. So, when we talk about “good blueprints,” we are talking about 30-year blueprints as well as five-year blueprints.

GT: During his time working in local areas, Xi organized in-depth research on medium-term and long-term development strategies and formulated plans, resulting in a series of valuable ideological assets and rich practical achievements, such as the 15-year strategy for Xiamen, the “3820” strategic project for Fuzhou and the “Double Eight Strategy” for Zhejiang Province. How do you view Xi’s strategic thinking?

Martinez: Throughout his entire political career, Xi’s strategic thinking has combined short-term, medium-term and long-term perspectives while maintaining a close connection to the higher goals and principles of Chinese socialism. These principles include poverty alleviation, improving people’s living standards, creating common prosperity, remaining people-centered, constructing an ecological civilization, defending China’s sovereignty and promoting peace.

What’s more, Xi’s strategic thought has become increasingly global in scope. In Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, common prosperity is a notion that applies to the whole world; in China’s vision, all peoples and all countries can enjoy a better life, enjoy peace and develop in an ecologically sustainable way. The nations of the world are one family in which every family member can thrive, and China’s global public goods – the Belt and Road Initiative, the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative and the Global Civilization Initiative – provide a framework to support this. So, in that sense, President Xi’s strategic thinking has global importance and applicability, and people around the world can benefit a great deal from studying it.

GT: If you were to offer advice on the formulation of the 15th Five-Year Plan, what would be your most important advice?

Martinez: It seems to me that the direction China is pursuing is essentially correct: accelerating its green energy transition; developing its high-technology sector; maintaining a focus on the real economy and rejecting the path of financialization; nurturing critical industries such as electric vehicles and semiconductors; building further efficiency in the agricultural sector; expanding physical infrastructure; continuing mutually-beneficial trade and investment relationships with the rest of the world; all while promoting common prosperity, increasing incomes, creating high-quality jobs, improving healthcare, education and social welfare.

GT: There is a viewpoint that, unlike the rigid planned economy, China’s five-year planning strategy has actually become a “more responsive model.” What are your thoughts on this? How does China’s five-year development planning strategy achieve a balance between long-term goals and flexibility? Compared to the feasibility issues often seen in the presidential addresses or development strategies of some Western countries, China consistently turns good blueprints into reality, what institutional advantages does this reflect? What insights do you think this can provide to Western countries?

Martinez: Yes, China’s planning has become more flexible, and, to a considerable degree, it is indicative rather than prescriptive. What’s particularly interesting is how new technologies such as big data, machine learning and internet-of-things are increasingly being used in China to provide faster and more effective feedback loops, such that economic plans can be updated and resources reallocated extremely quickly.

In economic terms, the great advantage of China’s socialist system is that it allows the country to mobilize tremendous resources in order to accomplish major initiatives. The government, state-owned enterprises and private companies all work together in the shared ecosystem of a socialist market economy, regulated by the state and adhering to a high-level plan. China’s system ensures that the most important decisions concerning allocation of capital are made in the long-term interests of the people, not in the short-term interests of capital.

Capital in the West is increasingly “impatient.” Over the last few decades, it has moved to a shareholder-driven model in which investors demand quick returns. Such a model does not provide a supportive environment for long-term planning, therefore plans are proposed and then simply forgotten about. China’s model is much more democratic: Plans are developed on the basis of extensive discussions over the course of a certain period, and the resulting document becomes a blueprint for action that people know about, contribute to and expect to see positive results from.

Ultimately, the “institutional advantage” is the political power of the working people, and the fact that, in China, people come before profit.

https://socialistchina.org/2025/07/25/c ... l-reality/



China’s progress proves socialism is the only viable political framework for saving the planet[/img]

The following article by Carlos Martinez argues that China’s remarkable progress in green energy and other aspects of environmental sustainability demonstrates that socialism is the only viable framework for addressing the global climate crisis.

In June 2025, China surpassed 1 terawatt (TW) of installed solar power—about 45 percent of the global total—while combined solar and wind capacity now exceeds coal, marking a pivotal shift and decisive progress towards the country’s goal of achieving net zero by 2060.

Carlos states that China’s successes stem from its socialist system: public ownership and central planning allow for the rapid implementation of large-scale environmental initiatives. “China’s economic system is structured in such a way that political and economic priorities are determined not by capital’s drive for constant expansion but by the needs and aspirations of the people.”

In contrast, capitalist countries continue subsidising fossil fuels and outsourcing emissions while pushing responsibility onto individuals. Decades of climate summits and treaties have failed to slow global emissions, and Green New Deal proposals in the West remain mostly rhetorical.

Carlos concludes that China’s example shows how socialism can provide the structural tools necessary to tackle climate change—offering both practical support for developing countries and political inspiration for those in the capitalist West.

It was reported in late June 2025 that China has reached a historic milestone in its energy transition: the country’s cumulative installed solar capacity has surpassed 1 terawatt (TW). This represents approximately 45 percent of the global total, and is several times higher than the figure for the US (177 gigawatts (GW)) and the European Union (269 GW).

According to the latest figures released by China’s National Energy Administration (NEA), the nation’s total installed capacity of wind and solar photovoltaic power has reached 1.5 TW, outstripping thermal power for the first time. This achievement solidifies China’s status as the world’s only renewable energy superpower, and reflects its firm commitment to phasing out its use of fossil fuels.

Ecological civilisation
This progress is a manifestation of China’s program of ecological civilisation, which promotes balanced and sustainable development directed towards the harmonious coexistence of humanity and nature, and which has led to China emerging as the undisputed global leader in renewable energy, biodiversity protection, forestation, pollution reduction and sustainable transport .

China’s strategy is based on an understanding that, in the words of President Xi Jinping, “humankind can no longer afford to ignore the repeated warnings of nature and go down the beaten path of extracting resources without investing in conservation, pursuing development at the expense of protection, and exploiting resources without restoration”.

China is therefore working feverishly towards its ambitious long-term emissions targets, announced at the UN General Assembly in 2020: to peak carbon dioxide emissions before 2030, and to achieve carbon neutrality before 2060.

According to a detailed analysis by Carbon Brief, the goal of peaking emissions has already been reached. China’s emissions were down 1.6 percent year-on-year in the first quarter of 2025, even as overall electricity demand continued to grow.

In an essay for the New York Times titled America Is Losing the Green Tech Race to China, David Wallace-Wells, prominent journalist and author of The Uninhabitable Earth, describes China’s role in the global green-tech supply chain: “China produces 84 percent of the world’s solar modules… It produces 89 percent of the world’s solar cells and 97 percent of its solar wafers and ingots, 86 percent each of its polysilicon and battery cells, 87 percent of its battery cathodes, 96 percent of its battery anodes, 91 percent of its battery electrodes and 85 percent of its battery separators. The list goes on.”

The necessary counterpart to the rise of clean energy is the steady decline of coal’s share of China’s power mix. At the beginning of the 21st century, around 80 percent of China’s electricity was generated from coal; by May 2024 it was down to 53 percent, and is falling fast.

While it’s true that China continues to build new coal-fired power plants, these tend to be modern, cleaner and more efficient replacements for existing plants. US-based analysts KJ Noh and Michael Wong note that the bulk of China’s coal plants are now advanced supercritical or ultra-supercritical plants, “which means they are much more efficient and cleaner than many of the industrial-era legacy plants of the US”.

Furthermore, many of the coal plants planned or under construction will act in a reserve capacity to ensure reliability of supply from solar and wind power plants. A 2023 Telegraph article notes that the approval of new coal plants “does not mean what many in the West think it means. China is adding one GW of coal power on average as backup for every six GW of new renewable power. The two go hand in hand”.

China’s sustained investment in renewable energy has meant a global reduction in costs, such that in much of the world, solar and wind power are increasingly price-competitive with fossil fuels. According to the International Energy Agency, China’s huge investment in green energy has “contributed to a cost decline more than 80 percent, helping solar PV to become the most affordable electricity generation technology in many parts of the world”.

Global crisis
It is by now almost universally understood that humans need to transition away from fossil fuels and adopt renewable energy if we are to avoid catastrophic levels of climate change. As Hannah Ritchie, Deputy Editor and Lead Researcher at Our World in Data, says:

“Global temperatures are rising. Sea levels are rising; ice sheets are melting; and other species are struggling to adapt to a changing climate. Humans face an avalanche of problems from flooding and drought to wildfires and fatal heatwaves. Farmers are at risk of crop failures. Cities are at risk of being submerged. There’s one main cause: human emissions of greenhouse gases.

The science is clear and widely accepted: human activity, most importantly the burning of fossil fuels, has increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to an unprecedented level. This has led to more heat being trapped within the Earth’s atmosphere (that is, less heat is being radiated back into space), resulting in a global heating effect, which leads to more frequent and severe weather events, rising sea levels, and shifts in ecosystems.

Greenhouse gas concentration will continue to increase, and the corresponding ecological problems will get significantly worse, unless we either reduce our consumption of energy to an extraordinary degree or we switch to non-emitting forms of energy. The idea of reducing humanity’s overall energy consumption is obviously not plausible in a global context where billions of people need to consume more energy in order to meet their development needs.

The only realistic option for preventing climate breakdown is to undertake a massive global transition to green energy: to meet humanity’s energy needs without releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and without causing permanent damage to the environment.

Why China?
Since the early 1990s there has been a global consensus on the need to urgently transition to green energy, and yet the advanced capitalist countries have made precious little progress in this regard. Indeed, these countries maintain fossil fuel subsidies, they continue to expand drilling for oil and gas, and of course they engage in ecologically ruinous military activities. Inasmuch as they have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions, it has been achieved largely through exporting industry to manufacturing powerhouses in the Global South – principally China.

Economic anthropologist Jason Hickel writes: “The past half-century is littered with milestones of inaction. A scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change first began to form in the mid-1970s… The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted in 1992 to set non-binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions. International climate summits – the UN Congress of Parties – have been held annually since 1995 to negotiate plans for emissions reductions. The UN framework has been extended three times, with the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the Copenhagen Accord in 2009, and the Paris Agreement in 2015. And yet global CO2 emissions continue to rise year after year, while ecosystems unravel at a deadly pace.”

For decades they have told us that mysterious market forces will fix the environmental crisis. When the dynamics of supply and demand fail to perform their magic, the capitalist class attempts to shift blame on to individual consumers, who are expected to reduce their domestic energy consumption, to avoid flying, to recycle, to take shorter showers, to drive electric cars, to eat less meat and so on. The crisis is thereby, in typical neoliberal fashion, individualised, and the capitalist system is absolved of all responsibility.

What China’s leadership in environmental matters shows is that socialism is the only viable political and economic framework for saving the planet.

Public ownership, China’s democratic planning system, the absence of any meaningful fossil fuel lobby, and the location of political power in the working people have all allowed China to make far more rapid progress than the other major powers in relation to environmental protection and sustainable development.

China’s economic system is structured in such a way that political and economic priorities are determined not by capital’s drive for constant expansion but by the needs and aspirations of the people. Xi Jinping has pointed out several times that, in economic terms, the great advantage of China’s socialist system is that it allows the country to mobilise tremendous resources in order to accomplish major initiatives. The government, state-owned enterprises, cooperative and private companies all work together in the shared ecosystem of a socialist market economy, regulated by the state and adhering to a high-level plan. The largest banks are state-owned, meaning that the most important decisions concerning allocation of capital are made in the long-term interests of the people, not in the short-term interests of capital.

The US, Britain, EU and Canada are talking the talk; China is walking the walk. As John Bellamy Foster has observed: “While China has made moves to implement its radical conception of ecological civilisation, which is built into state planning and regulation, the notion of a Green New Deal has taken concrete form nowhere in the West. It is merely a slogan at this point without any real political backing within the system. It was talked about by progressive forces and then rejected by the powers that be.”

To reiterate, the fundamental reason China has emerged as the undisputed leader in the fight against climate breakdown is its socialist system. However, the whole world, and particularly developing countries, can benefit from China’s innovations in renewable energy and electric transport. And for those of us in the advanced capitalist countries, where political power is dominated by a decaying bourgeoisie, China’s example can be used to help create mass pressure to stop our governments and ruling classes from destroying the planet, and to encourage sensible cooperation with China on environmental issues.

https://socialistchina.org/2025/07/21/c ... he-planet/

[blindpig]

Can China Massively Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions By 2030?
Roger Boyd
Jul 28, 2025

There are two major parts of removing fossil fuels from the Chinese energy system

Remove fossil fuels from the electricity generation system

Expand the usage of electricity to replace fossil fuels

and 3, increase energy efficiency

Electricity Generation Mix
On the first count, China has been making progress with an exponential explosion in the installed capacity of wind (20% per year) and solar (45% per year). The share of wind and solar in Chinese electricity generation has increased rapidly, with solar generation having tripled in only five years. This has been offset by the growth in electricity generation, which is outpacing GDP growth, such that fossil fuel generation still increased by 1% in 2024.

But this year the sheer scale of the growth in installed capacity, which is continuing to grow at 20% (wind) and 45% (solar) even as the installed base keeps growing, has reached a tipping point where it more than offsets the growth in overall electricity demand. The only way that the installed capacity growth can be maintained is if the yearly amounts of new capacity installed keep escalating; and they have.

2021: Wind 47 GW; Solar 53 GW - 100GW

2022: Wind 37 GW; Solar 86 GW - 123GW

2023: Wind 76 GW; Solar 216 GW - 292 GW

2024: Wind 80 GW; Solar 278 GW - 358 GW

2025 (est): Wind 120 GW; Solar 380 GW - 500 GW

That 2025 figure for solar is greater than the installed capacity of the whole of Europe in 2024, and more than twice that of the US. And of course, the US will be slowing down given the Trump administration’s removal of all fiscal support to the industry. The combined amount of installed wind and solar capacity is forecast to increase by 35% in 2025.

In 2024 wind and solar provided 18% of Chinese electricity generation. Even assuming electricity demand growth of 7%, the share of wind and solar generation will jump to 23%. Assuming that the other low carbon sources remain relatively stable, that would still not produce a fall in fossil fuel usage. As has been seen recently, with some reduction in curtailment due to grid issues wind and solar may be able to displace a small amount of fossil fuel usage.

The rate of growth in new capacity installations will need to keep growing at about the same rate for a good few years to start to make a real dent in fossil fuel electricity generation, that’s a doubling of the domestic Chinese solar and wind market about every 2.3 years. With overall energy consumption continuing to grow at 7% per year, by the end of 2030 the amount of fossil fuel generation will have fallen by about two thirds. But that assumes that the Chinese domestic solar and wind industry installations will be 4.5 times greater in 2030 than in 2025. Electricity generation would be 50% higher than in 2024.

Can China achieve such rapid growth in wind and solar installations? The West keeps under-estimating China’s ability to drive such rapid growth. The Global Wind Energy Council predicted the large surge of installations in 2025 (80 GW in 2024 to 140 GW in 2025), but Solar Power Europe predicted that China’s solar new solar installation would only be between 215 GW and 255 GW in 2025; a fall compared to 2024. It now looks as if at least 380 GW of solar will be installed in 2025, an increase of over 40% y-o-y. It is the solar industry that will do most of the heavy lifting to reach the above targets, and it is inherently easier to scale solar production and capacity installations than for wind. We also only have to look at the EV industry to show the ability to keep growing at 30% y-o-y for an extended period.

Chinese companies are already dominant in the solar and wind industries on a global scale. The top fifteen global wind turbine companies by share of global installed capacity in 2024, which was 117 GW:



Goldwind, Envision, Mingyang, Windey, SANY, Dongfang are all Chinese; 6 out of the top 10. Vestas is Danish, Siemens Gamesa and Nordex Acciona German, and GE Wind from the US. With China remaining by far as the fastest growing market globally, the Chinese manufacturers will only gain in market share by 2030. The biggest loser will be GE Wind given the policy changes made by the Trump administration. The Chinese CRRC, Sewind and CSSC Haizhuang may also be in the top 10 by 2030, displacing the US and German manufacturers.

The top 10 global solar module producers by shipments in Q1 2025 were:

JinkoSolar 17.5 GW (annual capacity of 90GW): China

LONGi Green Energy Technology 16.9 GW (12GW): China

JA Solar 15.7 (57GW): China

Trina Solar 15GW (95GW): China

Canadian Solar 6.9GW (57GW): Canada

Astroenergy n/a (55GW): China

Shunfeng n/a (50GW): China

First Solar n/a (17GW): USA

Risen Energy n/a (15GW): China

Hanwha Q CELLS n/a (8.4GW): South Korea

There is over-capacity in the market. If you add up the capacity for the above Chinese-only manufacturers you get 374 GW, and that is only for the top seven Chinese manufacturers. In addition, there will be spare capacity in the US with the policy changes and even in Europe policy support for wind and solar is soft and stocks of modules remain high at over 100GW. Solar module prices are still weak in 2025, having fallen from 25 cents/W to 8 cents/W in only a couple of years and only slightly rebounding since. This has created major profitability issues for the manufacturers, but also acts as a spur to demand. US general tariffs and tariffs specifically on solar cells will also act to redirect over-capacity toward the Chinese market.

If China does miss the 35% compound growth target and instead achieves 25% compound growth (just over three times an increase by 2030), together with some modest growth in other low carbon sources, the usage of fossil fuels would still be reduced by about 20% by 2030; and then rapidly fall between 2030 and 2035.

The other question is whether or not a very high percentage of wind and solar can be integrated into an energy grid. China has a number of advantages (i) a very significant amount of hydro capacity that can act as a “water battery” (ii) a very large country with highly diverse climates (iii) a huge, highly efficient and effective infrastructure production and implementation sector (iv) a rapidly growing fleet of battery powered EVs (v) a massive battery industry that continues to rapidly drive down costs.

Here is a very good discussion of the relative cost of running a grid with different levels of renewables given the rapidly falling cost of battery capacity; the latter has fallen by 40% since 2023. Sodium ion battery technology will drive costs down further over the next few years.



Even in the 35% high annual growth rate scenario, in 2030 wind and solar will be providing 73% of electricity, fossil fuels 14% and the remaining amount by hydro, nuclear and biomass. This is achievable and will be cost effective given the use of battery backup and an integrated national intelligent grid. Analyses show that it will be the replacement of the last 5-10% of fossil fuel generation that will be the most problematic. But that can wait for battery storage technology to provide the solution a decade or more from now.

About 20% of China’s coal use is for steel production. If the recent breakthrough in steel production technology, “flash iron making” can be commercialized at scale, then electricity could also replace the coking coal use in steel production. Good for China, good for the environment, but not so good for Australian coking coal exports. The process can also use low quality iron ores that are abundant in China, good for China but not good for Australian and Brazilian iron ore exports. As this technology could also facilitate the use of mini-mills that use scrap metal to enter new markets, it may be a double-whammy for the iron ore exporting nations.



About 6% of Chinese coal consumption is also used in the production of cement. The reduction in coal usage will be a slow and incremental process.



Replace Oil With Electricity
Then there is the replacement of internal combustion engine vehicles (personal vehicles, taxis, buses and trucks) with electric vehicles, with electric motors running at 80%+ efficiency while internal combustion engine is between 20% and 40% energy efficient. Not only is oil replaced with electricity but overall energy efficiency jumps. China’s oil imports already contracted a small amount in 2024, to 11.1 mbpd from 11.3 mbpd. When domestic supplies are also counted China used about 14.2 mbpd in 2024, a fall from 14.8 mbpd in 2023; about 14% of global oil usage. Electrification is also being expanded to commercial vehicles, farm equipment such as tractors, and to mining equipment. About 8 mbpd was used for transportation in 2024.

In an earlier post I calculated that through the use of EVs, China could reduce its consumption of oil by about 2.4 mbpd by 2030, which would reduce overall oil consumption to 11.8 mbpd and imports to 8.7 mbpd. By 2035, the reduction would be 4.8 mbpd - reducing oil consumption to 9.4 mbpd and imports to 6.3 mbpd. The reduction will be greater given that older, less fuel efficient vehicles, would be more replaced by EVs than newer models; something that China is currently providing incentives for. So perhaps a 6 mbpd reduction by 2035 and a reductions in oil consumption and imports to 8.2 mbpd and 5.1 mbpd respectively. An amount that could be met predominantly from domestic production together with imports from Russia (2.17 mbpd in 2024 but could be much higher), Iran (1 mbpd in 2024, imported via Malaysia but could be higher), and Kazakhstan (200 kbpd).

The above would assume that in 2030 China’s wind and solar industry output would be 4.5 times that of 2024, and its EV production twice that of 2024; the latter being even greater with the probable growth in exports. All the while these industries, and the ones related to them, would be stagnating in North America while only growing slowly in Europe. China would truly be the dominating new energy power in the world, and also a leader in climate change having cut coal use by nearly two thirds (for the 74% that is used to produce electricity) and oil use by 17% and quite probably more. Now if they could also decrease energy intensity at a faster rate, things would look even better. And the drop in oil use would only accelerate between 2030 and 2035.

Could China do it? Don’t put anything past China and the CPC given was has already been achieved. Even if it undershot on the solar and wind somewhat it would still be a colossal achievement, a shining example to the rest of the world. Would it be enough to stop catastrophic climate change? The problem is that such changes needed to happen in the 2010s at the latest, and of course the US has now reverted back to full-on climate denial from the soft climate denial of the Biden administration. The use of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) technologies is becoming inevitable. Will China also dominate those technologies?

https://rogerboyd.substack.com/p/can-ch ... greenhouse

******

b]Taiwan's Voters Reject Anti-Chinese Recall Plot[/b]

In January 2024 Taiwan's current President Lai Ching-te won the election against two other candidates. (Taiwan has no run off elections.)

His Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) though, which supports Taiwan's independence from China, failed to get a majority in parliament. The opposition was thus, by controlling the budget, able to prevent Lai Ching-te from furthering a split from the Chinese homeland.

Like many recent election winners in so called democracies Lai Ching-te set out to manipulate the system to win powers the voters had been unwilling to concede to him. He organized a recall campaign against dozens of opposition lawmakers in the hope to gain a majority in parliament.

The New York Times reporting of it (archived) seemed to be in favor of this:

Voters in Taiwan face a critical decision on Saturday: whether to throw out 24 opposition lawmakers they elected just last year, in an extraordinary recall campaign that could put more power in the president’s hands but add to tensions with Beijing.
The vote threatens to flip the legislative balance in favor of President Lai Ching-te, who wants Taiwan to forge a future separate from China, against an opposition that favors closer ties with Beijing.
...
This weekend, two dozen Nationalist Party lawmakers face recall votes; an additional seven will next month.

To supporters, the “great recall” campaign reflects the vigor of Taiwan’s democracy, which emerged in the 1980s after decades of authoritarian rule under the Nationalist Party. Although a successful campaign would help Mr. Lai, many activists promoting the recalls say they are acting independently.

“We’re building a decentralized grass-roots movement,” said Molly Kuo, an organizer of one of the recall efforts in New Taipei. “We’re witnessing a deepening of democracy.”

A "decentralized grass-roots movement" that is running a well organized, millions of dollars campaign against parliament members of one specific party ???

Recall of a significant number of opposition lawmakers would make it much easier for Mr. Lai to push his agenda, which includes shifting Taiwan’s economy further from China. He could also appoint his preferred judges to Taiwan’s high court.

The recall votes were held today and the results are in. The voters did not fall for it.

In a rather pathetic attempt to cover the loss of its campaign the DDP party is urging everyone to not see the whole affair as what it is:

The defeat of a recall campaign against 24 KMT lawmakers should not be interpreted as the outcome of a struggle between political parties, the DPP argued Saturday.

Results showed all 24 legislators survived the vote, with anti-recall votes surpassing pro-recall in every election district, per the Central Election Commission.
...
Speaking to reporters Saturday evening, DPP Legislative Caucus Secretary-General Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) called on the public not to rush to conclusions.

The party’s secretary-general, Lin Yu-chang (林右昌), echoed her remarks, saying the recall votes had not been a fight between political parties, so the result should not be interpreted as a victory or a defeat for one party or another, the Liberty Times reported.

Sure.

As Arnaud Bertrand comments:

[This] couldn't be more ironic coming from the same party that explicitly framed the entire campaign as exactly this: presenting themselves, the DPP, as heroically trying to "save Taiwan's democracy" from the KMT, painting them as existential threats because of their pro-China bent. But now that they lost they suddenly want to pretend it was all just a non-partisan civic exercise.

The NYT report, written before the voting, noticed that this outcome would have consequences:

Widespread rejection of the recalls could hint at tepid support for Mr. Lai’s party ahead of local and presidential elections, experts say.

With his anti-China position Lai Ching-te is the U.S.' preferred candidate. As he is now likely to lose the next presidential election Taiwan should watch out for some of the usual U.S. directed manipulations.


Posted by b at 16:16 UTC | Comments (12)

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2025/07/t ... l#comments

[blindpig]

Communist Party of China joins Liberation Movements Summit in South Africa

The Communist Party of China (CPC) joined the Liberation Movements Summit that was hosted by the African National Congress (ANC) of South Africa in Johannesburg, between July 25-28, under the theme, ‘Defending the Liberation Gains, Advancing Integrated Socio-Economic Development, Strengthening Solidarity for a Better Africa.’

Besides the ANC, the core participants were the five other main liberation movements in the region – the Popular Liberation Movement of Angola (MPLA), the South West Africa People’s Organisation (SWAPO) of Namibia, the Mozambique Liberation Front (FRELIMO), the Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and the Chama Cha Mapinduzi (Revolutionary Party of Tanzania – CCM).

In a statement, the ANC said: “This critical gathering reaffirms the ideological foundations of the six Southern African liberation movements… and their historical role in securing independence, dignity and development across the region. It also seeks to reassert the relevance of these movements in a rapidly shifting global order.

“Southern Africa’s liberation movements transformed the region’s political landscape, resisting colonial rule and apartheid, and ushering in people-centred governance. Since independence, these movements have implemented landmark policies on land reform, education, housing, infrastructure and social protection.

“However, these gains now face erosion due to renewed imperial pressures, economic crises, and attempts at neo-colonial interference. The Summit provides a united platform to confront these threats and consolidate progressive regional responses grounded in Pan-Africanism, internationalism and multilateralism.

“The Summit is a strategic intervention in organisational renewal, deepening intra-party solidarity, and realignment of liberation movements with the socio-economic aspirations of a new generation. The ANC believes that the political, economic and cultural survival of Southern Africa’s liberation legacy demands honest introspection, shared learning and actionable unity.

“The Summit will advance frameworks for inter-party collaboration, regional integration, youth engagement, and sovereign resource governance. Through reaffirming shared values and strengthening alliances, the 2025 Liberation Movements Summit will chart a path forward, one that protects the gains of the past while building a just, inclusive and self-determined African future.”

Further details of the conference perspectives may be read here.

Besides these six movements, the POLISARIO Front of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) and the Palestinian National Liberation Movement Fatah were also represented at a senior level, along with the South African Communist Party (SACP), Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC) of Azania, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the South African National Civics Organisation (SANCO).

The Communist Party of China was represented by Liu Jianchao, Minister of the International Department of the Party Central Committee (IDCPC).

Among other parties represented were United Russia, the Communist Party of Cuba, the National Liberation Front (FLN) of Algeria, the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) of Nicaragua, the Botswana National Front (BNF – the main component of the progressive ruling Umbrella for Democratic Change coalition), and the Botswana Democratic Party, while messages of greetings included that from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

In his keynote address, Cyril Ramaphosa, President of the ANC and of the Republic of South Africa, said:

“Together our movements were forged in the cauldrons of anti-apartheid and anti-colonial struggle. Today, together, we must be forged anew in the fire of a new struggle. The struggle for social and economic justice for our people, regional unity, integration and sovereignty in an increasingly hostile global order.

“We gather this year on the 64th anniversary of the independence of Tanzania, the 50th anniversary of the independence of Angola and Mozambique, the 45th anniversary of the independence of Zimbabwe, and the 35th anniversary of the independence of Namibia. It is a moment not just for celebration, but it is also a moment for critical reflection. We must honour the memories of our founding giants Julius Nyerere, Eduardo Mondlane, Samora Machel, Agostinho Neto, Sam Nujoma, Robert Mugabe, Joshua Nkomo, Kenneth Kaunda, Oliver Tambo, Nelson Mandela, and many others.

“Their vision, courage, boldness, bravery, as well as sacrifice laid the foundations of a free Southern Africa that we live in today. We remember with deep reverence the recently departed comrade Sam Nujoma and comrade Hage Geingob of Namibia, stalwarts of SWAPO, and lifelong warriors for justice, equality, and dignity. We also here in South Africa remember the recently departed David Dabede Mabuza, former President of the Republic of South Africa, and the African National Congress.”

In a consistent theme of the conference, representing the serious and self-critical approach increasingly being taken by the participating parties, he added:

“Most of our movements are having to contend with declining electoral support, shifting demographics, frustrated young people in our various countries, economic inequality, and foreign interference. These trends speak to a deeper crisis, the disconnect between our founding narratives and the lived realities of a new generation of young people. It is a generation that sees and appreciates less of our past victories and more of our present shortcomings.

“It is a generation that demands jobs, justice, dignity, housing, education, health, and security, and sees our movements as distant, rigid, and slow to adapt. This disconnect amongst the population emboldens the external attacks on our sovereignty, our independence, development, and security. In fact, there has been ample evidence that international actors use the legitimate grievances of our people to attack progressive governments.”

In another pressing and topical reference, he stated: “Although the African continent is not responsible for the warming of the planet, it is most vulnerable to its effect. That is neither just nor is it sustainable. Countries in the Global North developed on the back of Africa’s human capital, on the back of Africa’s natural resources, and cultural destruction.

“The price has been centuries of extraction, exploitation, and underdevelopment whose effects are still felt up to today. As Walter Rodney argued in ‘How Europe Underdeveloped Africa’, Europe was developed by means of the same underdevelopment of Africa. To meet present-day challenges, we require urgent, substantial, and sustainable solutions to Africa’s challenges…

“We must recognise that our political independence is incomplete without economic justice. It is incomplete without resolving the question of land. It is incomplete unless we industrialise, we beneficiate the minerals that are extracted from our land, and we create jobs for our youth.”

Referencing the internationalism that has always characterised the region’s liberation movements, he stated: “We must reject xenophobia in all its forms. Migration itself must not be seen as a threat. It is a consequence of underdevelopment, war, global inequality, not a moral failing of those who move in search of hope.

“As liberation movements, we must advocate for people-centred regional migration policies that affirm dignity, rights, and solidarity as well. We must never forget our freedom struggles were international in nature. Our freedom was achieved not only by the tireless struggles of our peoples but by the efforts of people from across the world.

“Drawing on that experience, we reaffirm our support for the peoples of Palestine, Western Sahara, and Cuba. We condemn in the strongest terms the crimes against humanity and the genocide committed by the apartheid state of Israel against the people of Palestine. We are particularly horrified by the deliberate starvation of the people of Gaza.

“We call on the state of Israel to allow food and essential aid to be allowed in and to be distributed amongst the starving Palestinians. We call for an immediate end to the relentless bombardment of civilians and the destruction of their homes, their hospitals, their places of worship. We call on the world to stop the murder of children and babies through starvation.

“Our position remains very clear. Liberation is indivisible. We are not truly free until all are free…

“We should champion the vision of a multipolar, multicultural, equitable, inclusive, and a just world order. We should demand reform of the political and economic global governance institutions and the end of unilateral sanctions and the creation of a just global governance system rooted in dignity and in fairness. Working with like-minded forces across the world, we must be the architects of the new world order that we seek.”

He concluded: “We need to reaffirm that there shall be peace and friendship, that there shall be houses and security and comfort for all as set out in our freedom charter adopted in 1955, 70 years ago here in South Africa. Let us not only defend the gains of liberation. We should build on what we have achieved, and we have achieved a great deal even as our detractors seek to downplay the achievements that were brought about by our liberation movements.

“Let us realise the hopes and the aspirations of our people as we move together in unison as liberation movements, seeking to achieve the objectives that were set out by our forebears when they established our movements to attain our independence and our freedom against apartheid and against colonialism. This is the hour and the moment that we need to regain our strength and move forward, renewed and reinvigorated.”

Introduced by ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula, Comrade Liu Jianchao addressed the summit on its third day.

After extending the greetings and best wishes from General Secretary Xi Jinping and the 100 million CPC members, he said:

“Your forefathers led the brave and resilient African people out of the long dark night of colonialism and achieved national liberation. 31 years ago in 1994, as a UN observer, I had the privilege of witnessing the first non-racial democratic election in South Africa.

“After independence, leaders across African countries focused on achieving economic liberation and the revival of civilisations, taking yet another step towards modernisation. We are heartened to see that the once forgotten continent of Africa has transformed into a land of vitality and robust growth, becoming an important political, economic, and cultural pole of the world. As Comrade Nelson Mandela put it, we stand at the dawn of an African century.

“China has travelled a long and difficult path towards modernisation. Under the CPC’s leadership, what was once an impoverished agriculture nation has now become the second largest economy in the world. To realise modernisation, it is essential to have a strong political leadership able to lead and unite.

“There must be a correct direction, sensible goals, and the hard work of the entire people. China’s modernisation would not have been possible without the strong leadership of the Communist Party of China. The long-term governance of the CPC keeps Chinese modernisation on track, avoiding policy fluctuations and flip-flops.

“Under the CPC’s leadership, generations of the Chinese people have forged ahead, turning the grand blueprint into reality. To realise modernisation, it is essential to continuously meet people’s aspirations for a better life. The ultimate goal of modernisation is the free and well-rounded development of the individual.

“China will support Africa in cultivating the drivers of modernisation, namely green, balanced, and sustainable industrialisation, agricultural modernisation, and a skilled workforce to turn each resource, rich resources, and the demographic dividend into true growth engines. And China will support Africa in revitalising African civilisations and drawing strength from its splendid civilisation on the path to modernisation. As Comrade Nelson Mandela once said, the African rebirth is now more than an idea.

“Africa will embrace true liberation and full revitalisation in this century. China will join hands with Africa on the path towards civilisation for a better common future.”

The proceedings of the Summit’s third day may be viewed here. Comrade Liu’s speech begins at 06.10 minutes.

Following his speech ANC Deputy Secretary-General Nomvula Mokonyane read the message from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, which stated:

“We are proud that the Soviet Union, led by the Communist Party, had made a significant contribution to the support of the liberation struggle. Thousands of activists of your movements have received training in military schools and universities of the then Soviet Union. Our military officers worked in liberation movement camps in Africa.

“Soviet diplomats defended your just interests at the United Nations. We provided this support despite the fact that the West was trying to brand you as terrorists. Today, political power belongs to democratic governments that reflect the interests of the people.”

Liu Jianchao also held a number of bilateral meetings in the margins of the summit.

Meeting his host, Cyril Ramaphosa said South Africa regards China as its most important strategic partner and will continue to stand firmly with China to continuously strengthen and consolidate the South Africa-China all-round strategic cooperative partnership in the new era. The six Southern African liberation movements, including the ANC, maintain brotherly friendship with the CPC and regard the CPC as a political ally. The ANC hopes to further enhance exchanges with the CPC, learn from each other and jointly face international challenges.

Liu congratulated South Africa on the successful holding of the Liberation Movements Summit. China is willing to work with South Africa to implement the consensus reached by the two heads of state, strengthen bilateral and multilateral communication and coordination, promote unity and cooperation among developing countries, and jointly safeguard international fairness and justice and the interests of the Global South countries.

Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah, President of SWAPO and of the Republic of Namibia, said the world is now in a period of turbulence and transformation, which has a profound impact on the development of both Africa and China. Since last year, the Beijing Summit of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) and the Ministerial Meeting of Coordinators on the Implementation of the Follow-up Actions of the FOCAC have been successfully held, pushing Africa-China cooperation to a new level. Namibia highly appreciates this. Namibia hopes to strengthen cooperation with China in areas such as agriculture, minerals, infrastructure, clean energy, trade and investment under the framework of the FOCAC, and promote common development and prosperity between Namibia and China as well as Africa and China. SWAPO values its long-term friendly relations with the CPC and is satisfied with the current progress of cooperation between the two Parties.

Liu said, China and Namibia are good brothers, good friends and good partners. China and Namibia are both important members of the Global South. China stands ready to strengthen coordination and cooperation with Namibia under the strategic guidance of the two heads of state, strengthen the unity and cooperation among the Global South countries, jointly respond to the complex evolution of the international situation, and better safeguard the common interests of developing countries.

He added that both the CPC and SWAPO shoulder the historical mission of achieving national development and prosperity. The CPC is willing to strengthen political dialogue and strategic communication with the six Southern African liberation movements, including SWAPO, enhance exchanges and mutual learning of experience in state governance and administration, deepen cooperation in areas such as party building and cadre training, and contribute to the development of bilateral relations and the cause of strengthening the two Parties and the two countries.

Emmerson Mnangagwa, President and First Secretary of the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and Zimbabwean President said, the brotherly friendship between Zimbabwe and China has been tested over time. Zimbabwe remembers China’s firm support for its national liberation cause and thanks China for its long-term sincere assistance to Zimbabwe’s national development. Zimbabwe firmly supports the three global initiatives proposed by General Secretary Xi Jinping and is willing to deepen economic and trade cooperation and local exchanges with China under the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative and the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC). ZANU-PF values its close relationship with the CPC and has benefited a lot from cooperation, such as cadre training and the construction of party schools.

Liu said, General Secretary Xi Jinping and President Emmerson Mnangagwa reached important consensus on building a high-level China-Zimbabwe community with a shared future and a “five-star ironclad” cooperation framework, providing new strategic guidance for the development of China-Zimbabwe relations. China supports Zimbabwe in safeguarding its sovereignty, security and development interests. China is willing to take the 45th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries as an opportunity to implement the important consensus and summit outcomes reached by the two heads of state, deeply integrate the high-quality Belt and Road cooperation with Zimbabwe’s Vision 2030, and promote mutually beneficial cooperation in investment, trade, infrastructure, clean energy, digital economy and other fields to help Zimbabwe accelerate its modernisation process.

He added that the CPC and ZANU-PF are good comrades and brothers. The CPC is willing to enhance political dialogue between the two Parties, deepen exchanges of experience in state governance and administration, and strengthen cooperation in areas such as the construction of Party schools and cadre training to jointly improve governance capabilities.

Daniel Chapo, President of FRELIMO and President of Mozambique said, the friendship between Mozambique and China has a long history. Mozambique will always stand firmly with China and is willing to enhance bilateral and multilateral communication and coordination to jointly address the challenges brought about by the volatile international situation. He congratulated the CPC on its continuous growth and outstanding achievements in leading China’s development. He said that FRELIMO and the CPC are good brothers and partners, hoping to strengthen high-level exchanges with the CPC, and deeply learn from China’s experience in reform and development to help FRELIMO build itself into a stronger party, accelerate the country’s modernisation process, and continuously improve people’s living standards.

Liu said, the friendship between the CPC and FRELIMO is the political foundation and unique advantage of China-Mozambique relations. In the new situation, the CPC is willing to strengthen political dialogue with FRELIMO, deepen exchanges and cooperation in areas such as cadre training, enhance mutual understanding, and improve governance capabilities. Profound changes unseen in a century are accelerating in today’s world. China will continue to strengthen solidarity and cooperation with the six Southern African liberation movements, including FRELIMO, and other progressive forces around the world, join hands to resist risks, cope with challenges, and promote the common development of the Global South countries.

Meeting with Mara Quiosa, Vice President of the People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), Liu congratulated Angola on the 50th anniversary of its independence and said that China and Angola are good friends, good partners and good brothers sharing sincerity, real results, amity, and good faith. In recent years, President Xi Jinping and President Joao Lourenco have met many times, reaching important consensus on and charting the course for the development of China-Angola relations in the new era. China is willing to follow the important consensus reached by the two heads of state, deepen political mutual trust, strengthen the alignment of high-quality Belt and Road cooperation with the Angola 2050 strategy, and further explore the potential for mutually beneficial cooperation in key areas such as agriculture, infrastructure and mineral processing, to help Angola accelerate its independent development and bring more benefits to the people of both countries.

Quiosa said, Angola and China have enjoyed a long-standing friendship and close cooperation, with a solid and robust bilateral relationship. China is an important development partner of Angola. China has provided substantial assistance and support for Angola’s infrastructure development, and the in-depth cooperation between the two countries in agriculture, energy, water conservancy and other fields has effectively promoted Angola’s national development. The MPLA hopes to further deepen friendly relations with the CPC, increase personnel exchanges between the two Parties, strengthen exchanges of ideas and concepts and cooperation in cadre training, and promote greater development of bilateral relations.

Meeting with Mizengo Pinda, Member of the Central Committee of Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) and former Prime Minister of Tanzania, Liu said that the friendship between China and Tanzania is rooted in the fact that the older generation of leaders from the two countries shared weal and woe in the national liberation struggle, developed on the basis of mutual respect and trust in the pursuit of national rejuvenation, and grew stronger as both sides advanced together on the path of modernisation. It has become a fine example of unity and cooperation among developing countries in seeking common development. China supports Tanzania in exploring a development path that suits its national conditions, safeguarding its sovereignty, security and development interests.

He added that the CPC and the CCM share common ideals, enjoy deep friendship and maintain close cooperation. The CPC is willing to work with the CCM to implement the memorandum of understanding on exchanges and cooperation between the two Parties, enhance high-level exchanges and political dialogue, deepen exchanges of experience on governance issues of common concern such as poverty alleviation, anti-corruption and agricultural development, and continue to support the development of the Mwalimu Julius Nyerere Leadership School to jointly improve Party building of both sides and better serve their common cause of governance and national development.

Pinda said, the friendship between Tanzania and China has withstood the test of international vicissitudes and remains unbreakable. Tanzania admires China’s remarkable development achievements and is deeply grateful for China’s strong support in development. Tanzania hopes to accelerate the renovation and upgrading of the TAZARA Railway with China to help improve regional trade and logistics efficiency for Tanzania and its neighbouring countries. The CCM thanks the CPC for its support in the teaching and operation of the Mwalimu Julius Nyerere Leadership School and for helping the six Southern African liberation movements realise their development aspirations.

Meeting with Jibril Rajoub, Secretary General of the Fatah Central Committee of Palestine, Liu said, China highly values the traditional friendship between China and Palestine. No matter how the international situation changes, the two sides have always trusted and supported each other and are good friends, partners and brothers. The CPC attaches great importance to developing friendly relations with Fatah and is willing to deepen exchanges between the two Parties and promote the continuous development of the strategic partnership between China and Palestine.

China firmly supports the just cause of the Palestinian people to restore their legitimate national rights, support Palestine’s bid for full United Nations membership, and supports the immediate realisation of a sustained ceasefire in Gaza to effectively alleviate the humanitarian crisis. China is willing to work with the international community to continue to make unremitting efforts to promote an early, comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Palestinian question. China has always supported internal reconciliation in Palestine and believes that internal reconciliation in Palestine is an important step towards resolving the Palestinian question and achieving peace and stability in the Middle East. China sincerely hopes that Palestine will realise solidarity, unity and independent statehood at an early date.

Rajoub said, Fatah is proud of the deep friendship between Palestine and China and the long-term friendly cooperation with the CPC. He thanked China for its tremendous assistance to Palestine’s development over the years and its important contributions to promoting reconciliation among Palestinian factions, which has created positive conditions for Palestine to realise independent statehood and brought new hope to the Palestinian people.

Meeting with Fikile Mbalula, Secretary-General of the ANC, Liu said, since the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and South Africa 27 years ago, the two countries have always respected and supported each other, treated each other as equals, and achieved win-win cooperation, setting a fine example of friendly exchanges and mutual assistance between China and African countries and Global South countries. President Xi Jinping and President Cyril Ramaphosa have met many times, elevating China-South Africa relations to an all-round strategic cooperative partnership in the new era and reaching important consensus on jointly building a high-level China-South Africa community with a shared future, leading China-South Africa relations into a “golden era”.

He added that the CPC and the ANC are good comrades and brothers. Under the new circumstances, the CPC is willing to implement the memorandum of understanding on exchanges and cooperation between the two Parties, further deepen the institutionalised exchanges with the ANC, enhance high-level exchanges and political dialogue, strengthen exchanges of experience in state governance and administration, promote practical cooperation between the two sides through inter-party channels, and provide a strong political guarantee for the continuous and healthy development of China-South Africa relations.

The Liberation Movements Summit held in South Africa this time has sent out a strong message of progressive forces joining hands and opposing external interference. The CPC is willing to work with the ANC to make good use of mechanisms such as the BRICS Political Parties Plus Dialogue, strengthen unity and cooperation among Global South countries, jointly resist risks and address common challenges, and work for a more just and equitable international order.

Mbalula welcomed the CPC delegation led by Liu Jianchao for the Liberation Movements Summit. He said, South Africa appreciates the valuable support provided by China for South Africa’s national development over a long period of time. The ANC and the CPC have forged deep sentiments through long-term exchanges, effectively promoting the common development and prosperity of the two countries. The ANC hopes to strengthen exchanges with the CPC in areas such as ideological work and cadre training, and promote practical cooperation in trade, investment, and other fields, so as to deliver more tangible benefits to the two peoples.

Meeting with Gwen Ramokgopa, Treasurer-General of the ANC, Liu said, in the face of a complex and volatile international situation, it is more necessary for the political parties from the Global South countries, including the CPC and the Former Liberation Movements of Southern Africa, to strengthen unity and cooperation, jointly address global challenges, and promote the establishment of a more just and reasonable international order. The CPC values its friendly relations with the ANC and will continue to stand firmly with the ANC, implement the memorandum of understanding on exchanges and cooperation between the two Parties, deepen exchanges of experience in state governance and administration, and promote practical cooperation in agriculture, mining and real estate through the “political party +” channel to achieve mutual benefit and win-win results.

Ramokgopa said, the holding of the Liberation Movements Summit is conducive to uniting the progressive forces of the Global South, practicing true multilateralism, and maintaining international fairness and justice. South Africa firmly adheres to the one-China principle. The ANC attaches great importance to its brotherly relations with the CPC, appreciates the great development achievements made by the CPC in leading China and its positive contributions to promoting world development. The ANC hopes to further expand the depth and breadth of exchanges between the two Parties, strengthen exchanges and mutual learning in areas such as anti-corruption and state administration, enhance governance capabilities of both sides, and promote economic and trade investment cooperation between them through inter-party channels, so as to promote the common development of the two countries.

The next Liberation Movements Summit is due to be hosted by Tanzania’s CCM.

(More at link.)

https://socialistchina.org/2025/08/01/c ... th-africa/



Fact and fiction in Tibet: An eyewitness account

In the following article, which was originally published by Global Times as part of its “Truth Seen in Xizang” series, which draws on the eyewitness accounts by foreigners of their visits to China’s Xizang (Tibet) Autonomous Region, Arnold August, a Montreal-based writer and activist, and a leading member of the International Manifesto Group (IMG), reflects on his 2023 visit and notes:

“I am deeply interested in how China strives to integrate the most dynamic aspects of the religious features of culture into its thinking and actions. This applies locally to Buddhism in Xizang.”

Graphically describing the synthesis between tradition and modernity as an ancient civilisation experiences a period of rapid development, he recalls: “We see most people dressed in traditional garments, witness hundreds of Buddhist monks in their religious garb while walking and/or praying, traditional Buddhist architecture side by side with modern malls, kids rollerblading, others enjoying themselves with their families in an amusement park, or the less timid approaching our group to practice their English and satisfy their curiosity.”

Visiting the Jokhang Temple in the old part of the regional capital Lhasa, which features traditional Tibetan architecture, “what attracted my attention was that it houses the Gelug school monastery (Gelug means ‘virtuous’), the most recent of several vital schools of Tibetan Buddhism. The teaching language, of course, is Tibetan.” And the Potala Palace, which overlooks the city, “contains nearly 700 murals and 10,000 painted scrolls, as well as an impressive collection of important historical documents. If the Western-driven fable of Tibetan ‘suppression’ is true, then how can we explain China’s dedication to the history of the Xizang region?

“To claim that a culture is being ‘eradicated’ while its language is taught, its religion practiced, and its history displayed and studied is a contradiction too glaring to ignore. It raises the uncomfortable question: Who gets to define what cultural survival looks like?”

Arnold writes: “As someone born and raised in Montreal, Quebec, I have a deep appreciation for issues of language, identity and cultural preservation. This personal background made me particularly sensitive to what I observed in Xizang.”

Having described what he’d seen on the visit, he concludes: “In contrast, what is the situation in Quebec, whose distinct cultural heritage goes back to 1618? Unlike the situation for Tibetans, our music, film, journalism, novels and poetry remain just an obscure footnote to Anglo-American cultural and linguistic domination… My main message is to visit Xizang and experience the contrast between fact and fiction.”

Xizang, a region known for its breathtaking landscapes and unique cultural traditions, has long become a target of Western smear campaigns and falsehoods about China. What is the truth? In the “Truth Seen in Xizang” series, the Global Times publishes conversations with and articles from scholars and observers from around the world who have visited the region, sharing their firsthand experience of traveling to Xizang and observing the daily lives of people there. Through their insights and experiences, we aim to present an authentic perspective on the Xizang Autonomous Region. This is the seventh piece of the series.

In 2023, I had the honor of visiting China’s Xizang Autonomous Region as a delegate in the autumn cohort of scholars and journalists, alongside representatives from the Americas, Europe, and Australasia. I am deeply grateful to have been invited to visit Xizang. There are various reports from the ground to share. This is just one.
As someone born and raised in Montreal, Quebec, I have a deep appreciation for issues of language, identity and cultural preservation. This personal background made me particularly sensitive to what I observed in Xizang.

I am deeply interested in how China strives to integrate the most dynamic aspects of the religious features of culture into its thinking and actions. This applies locally to Buddhism in Xizang. However, despite my extensive education and subsequent studies on language and culture, the contrast in Xizang between US-led misinformation and the truth is so blatant that it left me positively bewildered every step of the way.

I am confronted with so much misinformation in the West regarding Xizang. This disinformation primarily centers on two issues: culture in the broad sense (including religion) and language. I did not expect the inconsistency between falsehood and reality, witnessed firsthand, to be so evident. It is so outrageous when you see it for yourself. The deceit is so outlandish in contrast to the facts that it becomes glaringly obvious.

My visit to the heart of Lhasa’s old town was a powerful reminder of China’s unique experiment in merging language and culture with modernity while fully safeguarding old traditions. You have to “see it to believe it.”

Yes, this is a popular, overworked phrase. However, when one is immersed in Lhasa, it fully applies. For example, by mingling in Lhasa with the Tibetans, we see most people dressed in traditional garments, witness hundreds of Buddhist monks in their religious garb while walking and/or praying, traditional Buddhist architecture side by side with modern malls, kids rollerblading, others enjoying themselves with their families in an amusement park, or the less timid approaching our group to practice their English and satisfy their curiosity.

There is a wealth of prominent content to explore when diving into Lhasa. For example, we visited Jokhang Temple in the old town, which features traditional Tibetan architecture. What attracted my attention was that it houses the Gelug school monastery (Gelug means “virtuous”), the most recent of several vital schools of Tibetan Buddhism. The teaching language, of course, is Tibetan.

The visit to the imposing Potala Palace, which has overlooked Lhasa, offers another perspective on Tibetan Buddhism. What impressed me most was its key role not only in religion but also in Xizang’s traditional political administration and thinking. The Palace contains nearly 700 murals and 10,000 painted scrolls, as well as an impressive collection of important historical documents. If the Western-driven fable of Tibetan “suppression” is true, then how can we explain China’s dedication to the history of the Xizang region?

The same applies to the Tibetan language. At Xizang University, established in 1985 in Lhasa, courses are mainly taught in Putonghua and Tibetan. We were told that the university had more than 20,000 students, an internationally renowned department of Tibetan studies and a majority-Tibetan student body. The university focuses on local communities and cultures. Far from being marginalized, the Tibetan language is an integral part of higher education and public life in Xizang.

The special visit to the Tibetan ancient documents research center on the Lhasa campus, which focused on the Phuri Manuscripts, was impressive. They constitute China’s most ancient and extensive collection of ancient Tibetan literature. The Phuri manuscripts were uncovered in 2002 in the rural Tibetan village of Phuri. The ancient documents offer insights into a kingdom established around the 13th and 14th centuries. The manuscripts portray the natural environment, traditional customs, social structures and history.

If the Western anti-China narrative of “cultural genocide” in Xizang had any truth to it at all, then China would need to “root out” these seeds of the Tibetan people to erase their collective memory. However, on the ground, we witnessed that the opposite is the case.

The Xizang Museum, completed in 1999, is the first large, modern museum in Xizang. It features a collection of more than 520,000 artifacts, focusing on the various dynastic periods of Tibetan history. The museum boasts numerous volumes, official documents and gifts from various emperors in history. It is widely accepted that to commit genocide against a people, the very roots of their civilization and history must be eradicated. However, under the Chinese government’s leadership, Tibetan culture has been well preserved.

When I thought we had seen it all, the best was yet to come. We visited the Tibetan Autonomous Region intangible cultural heritage preservation center. Since 2012, the central and local governments have invested a total of more than 400 million yuan ($55.7 million) in protecting Tibetan intangible cultural heritage through this center. It proved to be a highlight of the entire trip for me. How refreshing!

To claim that a culture is being “eradicated” while its language is taught, its religion practiced, and its history displayed and studied is a contradiction too glaring to ignore. It raises the uncomfortable question: Who gets to define what cultural survival looks like?

Too often, the Western gaze projects its own anxieties and strategic narratives onto others.

In contrast, what is the situation in Quebec, whose distinct cultural heritage goes back to 1618? Unlike the situation for Tibetans, our music, film, journalism, novels and poetry remain just an obscure footnote to Anglo-American cultural and linguistic domination. Despite protection efforts, the pressures of assimilation are a real concern.
By comparison, what I saw in Xizang was a proactive, well-funded and systematic commitment to heritage preservation.

In Xizang, I saw the truth – and it was thriving. My main message is to visit Xizang and experience the contrast between fact and fiction.

https://socialistchina.org/2025/08/01/f ... s-account/

******



British Defence Secretary threatens war with China

Britain’s Defence Minister, the largely and justifiably unknown John Healey, has made an extraordinary threat to go to war with China over the question of Taiwan, an island province that Britain legally recognises – not least according to the bilateral agreement concluded in 1972 between the two countries that elevated their diplomatic relations to ambassadorial level – as part of China.

Speaking on board the HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carrier, after it had docked in the north Australian port of Darwin, where it is to join the United States and other countries in the warmongering Talisman Sabre exercises largely aimed at China, Healey was asked by the right wing Telegraph newspaper, “what the UK is doing to help countries like Taiwan to prepare for potential escalation from China, Mr Healey said: ‘If we have to fight, as we have done in the past, Australia and the UK are nations that will fight together. We exercise together and by exercising together and being more ready to fight, we deter better together.’”

The HMS Prince of Wales is on a nine-month deployment to the Pacific region and is widely expected to sail through the Taiwan Strait around upcoming visits to Japan and South Korea. Already, the Royal Navy provocatively sailed the HMS Spey warship through China’s Taiwan Strait on June 18. It was the first such incident in four years.

Never one to miss out on a free trip, David Lammy, Britain’s equally preposterous Foreign Secretary, accompanied Healey. He has previously said that the UK plans to conduct more so-called “freedom of navigation operations” in the Taiwan Strait.

Further underlining the gravity of the situation, the Labour supporting Mirror newspaper noted:

“In April, Keir Starmer met the crew onboard HMS Prince of Wales during an overnight stay ahead of their voyage. The PM said the mission showed the UK’s ‘leadership on global issues and security and defence’.

“‘We all know that the world is more uncertain than it felt a few months or years before – we’re in a new era,’ Mr Starmer said at the time. ‘We are sending a clear message of strength to our adversaries, and a message of unity and purpose to our allies.’”

As with most, if not all, members of the current British government, it is difficult to fathom whether Healey’s outburst represents blood-curdling bellicosity, strategic myopia, rank ignorance and stupidity, gross irresponsibility, or just plain inexperience. However, the smart money is likely to be on any combination of all of the above.

In an editorial response, the Morning Star noted that: “British troops will be engaged in provocative manoeuvres viewed by Beijing as part of Washington’s bid to encircle it militarily. That is itself part of a wider US strategy to derail China’s rise… That is the overarching war game in which Operation Talisman Sabre takes place. Britain should have no part in it.”

China’s Global Times was more hard-hitting, noting that: “Chinese observers slammed the blatant remarks over China’s internal affair, saying it was a show of residual British colonial mentality.”

It added: “Observers also pointed out that, amid warming China-Australia relations highlighted by the Australian Prime Minister’s successful July visit to China, the British defence official’s remarks attempt to place Canberra in a difficult position. Full alignment with the UK and the US is not a wise choice.”

A spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in London was direct and to the point:

“If the said report is true, I am sure the UK official will regret having said that. China will never allow anyone to separate Taiwan from China in any way. Nor will China allow any external forces, the UK and Australia included, to undermine our efforts for complete reunification.”

Earlier, on July 25, the spokesperson responded to Foreign Secretary Lammy and Yvette Cooper, the tinpot totalitarian Home Secretary, having issued a joint statement making unwarranted comments on the law enforcement action taken by the Hong Kong SAR police against anti-China disruptors who have fled abroad:

“Hong Kong is China’s Hong Kong, and Hong Kong affairs are purely China’s internal affairs. China urges the UK to abandon its colonial mentality, stop interfering in Hong Kong affairs, cease meddling in China’s internal affairs, stop shielding criminals, and refrain from going further down the wrong path.”

Prior to Healey’s outburst, on 25 July 2025, the Chinese Embassy in the UK held a reception celebrating the 98th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Liberation Army of China. Ambassador Zheng Zeguang pointed out in his speech that this year marks the 80th anniversary of the recovery of Taiwan. Taiwan has been an inalienable part of China’s territory since ancient times. Both the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, issued by major victorious nations of WWII, including China and the UK, stated in explicit terms that Taiwan is a territory that Japan had stolen from the Chinese, and shall be restored to China. All these instruments have confirmed China’s sovereignty over Taiwan and formed an important part of the post-WWII international order. 

The Ambassador further emphasised that the Chinese people and their armed forces will never allow anyone to separate Taiwan from China in any way. Nor will they allow any external forces to undermine their efforts for complete reunification. All countries having diplomatic ties with China must properly handle Taiwan-related issues, which is key to the smooth development of bilateral relations with China.

Zheng Zeguang also noted that this year marks the 80th anniversary of the victory in the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War. More than 80 years ago, the peoples of China and the UK fought valiantly against fascist aggression on the main Eastern Front and the European battlefield, making enormous contributions to the global victory against fascism. China’s fight was the earliest to begin, and the longest-lasting. The Chinese people suffered the most significant human and material losses before ultimately defeating Japanese aggressors.

Ambassador Zheng emphasised that it should never be forgotten that China and the UK were allies and fought shoulder to shoulder during the war. That part of history has left behind many touching stories of solidarity and mutual support in the flames of war. In 1942, Chinese fishermen from Zhoushan risked their own lives under Japanese gunfire to save 384 British prisoners of war on board Lisbon Maru, which was mistakenly torpedoed by a US submarine. Also in 1942, the Chinese Expeditionary Force successfully rescued British troops besieged by the Japanese army in Myanmar. In 1938, George Hogg, a young Briton, travelled thousands of miles to China, where he established schools, aided orphaned children and gave his life for the Chinese people’s righteous cause. We should remember history, honour those fallen heroes, cherish peace and strive for a better future.

The reception was attended by nearly 300 guests.

In characteristically pugilistic terms, George Galloway responded to Healey in his MOATS (Mother of all Talk Shows) broadcast.

Denouncing his remarks as madness, George noted that Britain, a bankrupt and broken country that has given billions to the ‘thief of Kiev’ and spends millions on reconnaissance flights to facilitate the Gaza genocide, was now threatening China with war. Referring to the 1949 Amethyst Incident, George recalled that the last time Britain had ‘sailed a gunboat up the Yangzi [river]’, the Chinese had sunk it. And China is now a far more powerful country than it was 76 years ago.

Noting the contempt shown for democracy, as highlighted by the fact that Britain’s rubber stamp parliament had not even been consulted or informed, George addressed Healey: “You little runt are threatening China with war.” A man who had never heard a shot fired in anger in his miserable life was threatening a war to be waged at the expense of the British people “and with the blood of your sons and daughters.”

It might just be added that, coincidentally or otherwise, Healey spoke on the 72nd anniversary of the signing of the Armistice Agreement in Korea. During that 1950-53 conflict, British forces were soundly beaten by the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army, fighting together with their Korean allies, suffering more than 1,100 fatalities and more than 2,500 wounded. In one of the most humiliating defeats ever suffered by the British military in history, the so-called ‘Glorious Glosters’ were virtually annihilated by a Chinese army that came in like “a swollen wave…. breaking on the shore” in the words of the late Sir Anthony Farrar-Hockley who served as a captain in the battle. Of some 550 troops, only some 40 managed to escape with the rest smashing their weapons and ignominiously surrendering to the Chinese forces.

The following articles were originally published by the Morning Star and Global Times and on the website of the Chinese Embassy in London. We also embed below George Galloway’s clip from Instagram.

(Much more at link.)

https://socialistchina.org/2025/07/29/b ... ith-china/

[blindpig]

64 aircraft against China
August 5, 15:02



American fantasies reach the point of absurdity: 64 aircraft against China

The American think tank Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies has rolled out ( https://www.mitchellaerospacepower.org/ ... ummary.pdf ) a strategic plan: the United States will be able to seize dominance in the skies over Taiwan by using only 32 F-35 fighters and 32 F-15EX to support strategic bombers.

The reality that the Pentagon ignores: China today has more than 1,668 fighters ( https://t.me/china3army/36960 ) of the 4th and 5th generations, air reconnaissance and electronic warfare platforms, and a full-fledged echeloned air defense. Any air base with an F-15EX on the runway is the first target for Chinese ballistic missiles Dongfeng-17, Dongfeng-21D and hundreds of other "gifts".

Chinese forums are already laughing at the US, it seems, they have confused China with Iran or with the scenery for a Hollywood movie. The Taiwanese theater is not the Middle East ( https://t.me/WarPeaceAndYou/19906 ). There are no "safety zones" here. There are "kill zones".





Response from Beijing:

If the US really thinks that 64 aircraft will save Taiwan, we are only too happy. Try it. We have long been waiting for a reason to start a dress rehearsal for the Great War in the Western Pacific.

If the US military sends only 64 fighters to intervene in the situation in the Taiwan Strait, they will face a real massacre with Jian-20 and Jian-35 fighters.

In the face of the threat from the US Armed Forces, China needs to quickly produce Hong-20 strategic bombers, new nuclear submarines and nuclear aircraft carriers. In addition, the number of nuclear warheads in China should be increased first to 1,500, then to 2,000 in the second stage, and to 3,000 in the third stage. Of these 3,000 nuclear weapons: 2,000 are strategic nuclear warheads, and 1,000 are tactical.

Even the Americans in the comments no longer believe in their strategies:

American think tanks are run by idiots who think that it is possible to penetrate China's airspace with 32 F-35s and 32 F-15s. The level of blindness in Washington regarding the PLA's capabilities in the field of counter-stealth, electronic warfare, electronic intelligence, data analysis and control is very high.

@china3army - zinc

Iran has already been "defeated." "Russia has been torn to shreds." Now China will be "defeated."

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9996389.html

Google Translator

******

China Does Not Want To Be Hit By Missiles Produced With Its Parts

China's long term planning has allowed it to acquire some serious advantages which it now uses to counter economic and other attacks on it.

The refining of rare earth metals and the production of magnets from them is only one of several advantages it gained. These metals are not really rare. They are usually byproducts of large extractions of other minerals. But their refinement was considered to be environmentally dirty. It is only profitable at a large scale. Over the last two decades China has managed to create a near monopoly in it.

Rare earth magnets, while small in size, end up in a myriad of products. They are cheap but essential and difficult to replace.

As soon as the Trump administration tried to put high tariffs on China the country hit back. The export of rare earth products were stopped until a licensing process had been put into place.

The products are now considered to be dual-use items. China will allow the export of them for civilian purposes but it denies their use for the production of weapons. It wants to prevent to be hit by U.S. missiles which have 'Made in China' labeled parts in them. It is difficult to blame it for that.

Today's Wall Street Journal has nice write up on the issue:

China Is Choking Supply of Critical Minerals to Western Defense Companies - WSJ via MSN

Earlier this year, as U.S.-China trade tensions soared, Beijing tightened the controls it places on the export of rare earths. While Beijing allowed them to start flowing after the Trump administration agreed in June to a series of trade concessions, China has maintained a lock on critical minerals for defense purposes. China supplies around 90% of the world’s rare earths and dominates the production of many other critical minerals.
...
While companies have tried to find alternative sources of these minerals in recent years, some of the elements are so niche that they can’t be economically produced in the West, say industry executives.
...
In addition to the more recent export controls on rare earths, China has since December banned sales to the U.S. of germanium, gallium and antimony—which are used for things like hardening lead bullets and projectiles, and to allow soldiers to see at night.

It is astonishing how many military products use these metals:

More than 80,000 parts that are used in Defense Department weapons systems are made with critical minerals now subject to Chinese export controls, according to data from defense software firm Govini. Nearly all of the supply chains for key critical minerals used by the Pentagon rely on at least one Chinese supplier, Govini said, meaning restrictions from Beijing can cause widespread disruptions.
Since stepping up export controls earlier this year, China has begun requiring companies to provide extensive documentation of how they will use the rare earths and magnets they import. Chinese regulators often demand sensitive information, such as product images and even photos of production lines, to ensure none of the materials go to military use, say Western buyers.

One Western company that supplies Chinese-made rare-earth magnets to both civilian and defense companies says its requests for imported magnets have recently been approved for many civilian purposes—but rejected or delayed for defense and aerospace.

Especially hit are drone makers who provide for the war in Ukraine. Light weigh drone motors need rare earth magnets to run.

There is little the U.S. can do to argue against China's licensing process. At least as long as magnets for civilian purposes continue to be sold:

China exported 352.8 metric tons of rare earth magnets to the US in June, according to data released by the GAC. Reuters reported that China's exports of rare earth magnets to the US in June soared to more than seven times their May level.
The corresponding value of rare earth magnets exports to the US was $16.08 million in June, compared with $2.42 million in May, data from the GAC showed.

In general, China's exports of rare earths to foreign countries expanded in June, maintaining a growth momentum from the previous month.

In June, China exported 7,742.2 metric tons of rare earths, according to the GAC, up 32 percent from the previous month and 60.3 percent from June 2024.

China's exports of rare earths in June climbed to the highest volume since 2009, Bloomberg reported on Monday, citing official data.

The U.S. weapon industry is now in a bit of a panic. China is hunting down smugglers who try to circumvent its prohibitions. Alternative sources are simply not there.

The Pentagon is countering China's move by financing new production lines in the U.S.:

The Department of Defense has awarded grants to expand production of niche materials, including $14 million in funding last year to a Canadian company to produce germanium substrates used in solar cells for defense satellites. In July, the Pentagon took an even bigger step when it agreed to pay $400 million for a stake in MP Materials, the operator of the largest rare-earths mine in the Americas, which is rapidly scaling up its magnet manufacturing capacity.

In the first quarter of 2025 MP Materials had a revenue of $61 million while incurring losses of $23 million.

As China has already captured the global civilian market for magnets it can produce at scale and with profits. The U.S. company will likely only have a very limited range of customers who will have to pay very high prices.

One wonders what other potential high impact intermediate products China has managed to silently monopolize.

Posted by b on August 4, 2025 at 15:22 UTC | Permalink

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2025/08/c ... .html#more

*****

Hidden Vulnerabilities of NVIDIA Chips
August 4, 15:03



Beijing's Gambit Against Nvidia and Its H20 AI Chip

The Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) has summoned ( https://www.reuters.com/world/china/nvi ... 025-07-31/ ) Nvidia representatives to provide clarification on the potential national security threats posed by the H20 GPUs.

Beijing has expressed ( https://t.me/russian_osint ) concern over the desire of US lawmakers to introduce mandatory tracking and remote shutdown functions into AI chips. (Written here - https://t.me/Russian_OSINT/5548 )

In response, Nvidia denies the existence of any hidden vulnerabilities, stating that "( https://t.me/russian_osint ) NVIDIA does not have "backdoors" in the chips that would give someone remote access."

China points to the documented intentions of the opposite side to turn a hypothetical threat into a real one. Hence, the claims against Nvidia are completely reasonable: where is the guarantee that these mechanisms will not be activated in future batches of chips?

This is a mirror response to the US actions against Chinese tech giants like Huawei. Beijing (https://t.me/russian_osint ) demonstrates that it can apply the same doctrine of "threat to national ( https://t.me/russian_osint) security" against key American companies, creating symmetrical pressure. If Nvidia caves in to Washington and builds tracking mechanisms into chips, as required by the US Chip Security Act, then the Chinese market may officially close for Huang.

A powerful signal for its own market - dependence on foreign AI solutions is critically dangerous. It is necessary to quickly switch to domestic analogues and our own developments.

If Nvidia ignores US demands to please Beijing, it will immediately fall under the harshest sanctions of its own government. Now Jensen Huang is caught between the hammer of American policy and the anvil of Chinese countermeasures. ( https://t.me/russian_osint)Beijing has cleverly used the initiative of American legislators to ( https://t.me/russian_osint)create an extremely difficult dilemma for Nvidia to resolve. As analyst ( https://t.me/russian_osint)Gavekal Dragonomics noted , "Nvidia chips are now consumables for China. They can easily be put on the negotiating table." Beijing is not just attacking Nvidia, it is actively building its long-term future and betting on its own hardware. @Russian_OSINT - zinc


It is more difficult for us to play this game due to the serious lag behind the US and China in terms of chip production. Nevertheless, we must strive for the maximum possible sovereignty of key domestic software and hardware (as far as this is possible in the current state of domestic microelectronics, which will long be plagued by the consequences of the course "Why make it ourselves, let's buy it abroad").

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9994270.html

Google Translator