"Still, Trying to be Glorious"
(or "Notes after China under Xi Jinping
and how his brand of socialism is still a continuity of his predecessors")
(or "Notes after China under Xi Jinping
and how his brand of socialism is still a continuity of his predecessors")
 |
| Source: Financial Times |
 |
| Souce: New Yorker |
For as Xi Jinping and his politburo celerated the founding anniversary of the people's republic, that country, trying to call itself "communist" is far smaller than what was before 1991. In an article in Financial Times it stated that "it has achieved four decades of staggering economic growth. Yet it is still a middle-income country, ranked by the IMF at 75th in the world, in gross domestic product per head at purchasing power parity — a little behind Mexico and Thailand."
But come to think that despite that kind of state, China's artisanal-trader nature keeps them moving the way Xi Jinping himself, like his predecessors, trying to create a legacy that's "outsmarting Wall Street, Westminster, and Kremlin"- and disregarding whether it's political system remains the same so long as it keeps the economy going and benefiting from them. Yet to achieve that kind of venture it has to prove that it ables to reach the best level of government performance and to have an economy that's also capable to attain a high-income levels of prosperity-even by adapting further capitalist ways on the basis of "efficiency"- so is the ability to transform modern technology into a system of comprehensive surveillance over virtually every Chinese person.
Still "taking time to struggle"
But despite this ever prevailng revisionist direction remember: Chairman Mao worked hard his entire life both to win the revolution and to establish a country that according to him would restore its greatness through people's will- that since 1949 up to the present one would say that without Mao there could not have been a new China.
How come? In 1943 Chiang kai Shek once said that "without the Guomindang there would be no China" in his book entitled "China's destiny." That destiny during his period would say be marred by a continuity of oppression and injustice, of corrupt military officers and of profiteering compradores. In fact there were no difference between these lowlives who, behind the banner of "nationalism and democracy" were actually less to do with those two.
And from those same periods would say that Chairman Mao often reminded the people that should always remember the revolutionary martyrs for its contributions, and to understand why they sacrificed their lives for the cause they stood and fought for- for from these people, from their thoughts and in their deeds, would say that they wanted to build a new China – a new China where there would be no class exploitation or class repression, a new China where the people would become the master of the country.
For sure people would start babbling negatively about Mao either because he is a "dicatator" or a "communist." But for the Chinese and others who studied his thought, his drivel for the emancipation of the Chinese working class was more patriotic than a patriot whose banner waving appeal as enough to call it patriotism or nationalism. His "Great Leap Forward", although true that there were mistakes and shortcomings in policymaking, meant the need to unite people and to contribute for their homeland's development.
Yet, that development doesn't forget its committment to the struggle to emancipate the laboring masses. To cite "On Khruschev's Phoney Communism and Its Historical Lessons for the World", Mao said:
"What is the correct conception of socialist society? Do classes and class struggle exist throughout the stage of socialism? Should the dictatorship of the proletariat be maintained and the socialist revolution be carried through to the end? Or should the dictatorship of the proletariat be abolished so as to pave the way for capitalist restoration? These questions must be answered correctly according to the basic theory of Marxism-Leninism and the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat."
Yet, that development doesn't forget its committment to the struggle to emancipate the laboring masses. To cite "On Khruschev's Phoney Communism and Its Historical Lessons for the World", Mao said:
"What is the correct conception of socialist society? Do classes and class struggle exist throughout the stage of socialism? Should the dictatorship of the proletariat be maintained and the socialist revolution be carried through to the end? Or should the dictatorship of the proletariat be abolished so as to pave the way for capitalist restoration? These questions must be answered correctly according to the basic theory of Marxism-Leninism and the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat."
Nowadays, a concerned Chinese who did seeking truth from facts would likely to conclude that the revisionists not just have siezed power but to continue holding it. That by "serving the people" been replaced by "getting rich is glorious" would say that these revisionists became no different from the neoliberals despite babbling socialism, praising Marx-Lenin-Mao, or in the case of Xi Jinping, babbling about "serving the people" when in fact obeys neoliberal-globalist agreements.
"Will Mr Xi go down in history as the man who brought China to the top of the world,
or as a Chinese version of Leonid Brezhnev?"
Pardon if some would think that Xi is becoming like China's version of Brezhnev or Khruschev especially in purusing a revisionist path and by equating socialist development to just increasing material weath alone. Knowing that China's growth at present be like reminiscent of Soviet Union, the drivel would hath been economistic by nature but in its different direction such as opening itself to capitalism using the terms "modernisation" and "development". Even Xi's predecessor, Deng Xiaoping did admitted that there were (or should say are) revisionists amongst ranks:
"Of course this has something to do with anti-revisionism. There are big Khrushchevs and there are little Khrushchevs. Even a village has Khrushchevs. Schools? Factories? Neighborhoods? They all have Khrushchevs. Don’t think we’re so pure."
"Will Mr Xi go down in history as the man who brought China to the top of the world,
or as a Chinese version of Leonid Brezhnev?"
Pardon if some would think that Xi is becoming like China's version of Brezhnev or Khruschev especially in purusing a revisionist path and by equating socialist development to just increasing material weath alone. Knowing that China's growth at present be like reminiscent of Soviet Union, the drivel would hath been economistic by nature but in its different direction such as opening itself to capitalism using the terms "modernisation" and "development". Even Xi's predecessor, Deng Xiaoping did admitted that there were (or should say are) revisionists amongst ranks:"Of course this has something to do with anti-revisionism. There are big Khrushchevs and there are little Khrushchevs. Even a village has Khrushchevs. Schools? Factories? Neighborhoods? They all have Khrushchevs. Don’t think we’re so pure."
And like his predecessors, Xi's work be like: too much emphasis on economic development, but where is the revolutionary aspect which the oppressed nations looked upon to? Perhaps their socialism with their own characteristics may end nonetheless not socialistic but corporatist with the bureaucrats and businessmen having the upper hand over those of the working masses whose view of people's China be like a continuing example of socialism.
In fairness, in Xi's work "The people's wish for a good life is our goal", he recognises the role of the masses, and that by trying to imitate Mao, he said:
"The people are the makers of our history. They ate the real heroes and the source of our strength. We are fully aware that the capability of any individual is limited, but as long as we unite as one like a fortress, there is no difficulty we cannot overcome. One can only work for a limited period of time, but there is no limit to serving the people with dedication. Our responsibility is weightier than mountains, our task arduous, and the road head along. We must always bear in mind what the people think and share weal and woe with them, and we must work together with them diligently for the public good and for the expectations of history and of the people."
Quite nice to hear those words at first, especially in Xi having recognised the importance of mass line and the need to serve the people, but on the other hand, did these words ever put justice for the sweatshop workers at the export processing zones? Did it curb corruption strongly and swiftly? Did it uplift the masses in the countryside when scrupulous businessmen continue to make profits? Sometimes such words tried to mask the revisionist stance, of adherence to capitalism, social imperialism and its big power hegemony that happening nowadays, that sometimes caused friction especially in its neighbours including those of its socialist neighbour Vietnam.
Anyway, the problems China encounter everyday, particularly those of bureaucratic corruption and its ever prevailing capitalist-oriented economic policies, makes one recall this:
"Those representatives of the bourgeoisie who have sneaked into the party, the government, the army, and various spheres of culture are a bunch of counterrevolutionary revisionists. Once conditions are ripe, they will seize political power and turn the dictatorship of the proletariat into a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Some of them we have already seen through; others we have not. Some are still trusted by us and are being trained as our successors, persons like Khrushchev for example, who are still nestling beside us."
Thus, no wonder why Mao Zedong exprressed the need for a reorganisation, a cultural revolution by urging the need for "bombard the headquarters":
"‘China’s first Marxist-Leninist big character poster and Commentator’s article on it in Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily) are indeed superbly written! Comrades, please read them again. But in the last fifty days or so some leading comrades from the central down to the local levels have acted in a diametrically opposite way. Adopting the reactionary stand of the bourgeoisie, they have enforced a bourgeois dictatorship and struck down the surging movement of the great cultural revolution of the proletariat. They have stood facts on their head and juggled black and white, encircled and suppressed revolutionaries, stifled opinions differing from their own, imposed a white terror, and felt very pleased with themselves. They have puffed up the arrogance of the bourgeoisie and deflated the morale of the proletariat. How poisonous! Viewed in connection with the Right deviation in 1962 and the wrong tendency of 1964 which was ‘Left’ in form but Right in essence, shouldn’t this make one wide awake?"
Such words continue to remain relevant in today's setting such as businessmen in the National Peoples' Congress. For sure socialists would really disagree the idea of seeing scrupulous men becoming "communists" by convenience-of assuming to be "for the masses" while tolerating the existence of sweatshop labour for multinationals if not seeing multinationals themselves violating China's labor laws. For a concerned socialist, is the revisionists tolerate it for the sake of "development"? Unsurprising and worth compelling to express what Mao saidth about the need to "bombard the headquarters" as people dared to seek further truth from facts.
But for the sake of fairness would say that China still takes pride being modern and improved be it in Shenzen or Shanghai; that in promoting developments the drivel would be the means to uplift the masses materially such as towering condominiums to its myriad of technology; while on the other hand come to think that despite their numerous achievements, and its still trying to assume its place as a "socialist country", the revisionism that's ever seen and criticised by many has made others who did study Marx-Lenin-Mao Zedong Thought to take China's "place", of making further a basis to build and upheld socialism in one country, and to promote a greater role of the masses in taking the power of the state and transforming it as a tool for building a patriotic, democratic, and well-oriented society.
Thus, no wonder why Mao Zedong exprressed the need for a reorganisation, a cultural revolution by urging the need for "bombard the headquarters":
"‘China’s first Marxist-Leninist big character poster and Commentator’s article on it in Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily) are indeed superbly written! Comrades, please read them again. But in the last fifty days or so some leading comrades from the central down to the local levels have acted in a diametrically opposite way. Adopting the reactionary stand of the bourgeoisie, they have enforced a bourgeois dictatorship and struck down the surging movement of the great cultural revolution of the proletariat. They have stood facts on their head and juggled black and white, encircled and suppressed revolutionaries, stifled opinions differing from their own, imposed a white terror, and felt very pleased with themselves. They have puffed up the arrogance of the bourgeoisie and deflated the morale of the proletariat. How poisonous! Viewed in connection with the Right deviation in 1962 and the wrong tendency of 1964 which was ‘Left’ in form but Right in essence, shouldn’t this make one wide awake?"
***
But for the sake of fairness would say that China still takes pride being modern and improved be it in Shenzen or Shanghai; that in promoting developments the drivel would be the means to uplift the masses materially such as towering condominiums to its myriad of technology; while on the other hand come to think that despite their numerous achievements, and its still trying to assume its place as a "socialist country", the revisionism that's ever seen and criticised by many has made others who did study Marx-Lenin-Mao Zedong Thought to take China's "place", of making further a basis to build and upheld socialism in one country, and to promote a greater role of the masses in taking the power of the state and transforming it as a tool for building a patriotic, democratic, and well-oriented society.