China: To Celebrate or Not

On 29 October 2009 I posted the following status message on my Facebook Profile:


'1949-2009. In the midst of unprecedented attacks on China by the Western media, "Long Live the Revolution"!'


That received several interesting responses which are worth pondering over:

A: are u celebrating the revolution or china as it is now? i would never want to defend the china of now as revolutionary, actually i would not want to defend much of china's defining moments after the revolution though i sure want to understand them. if that makes me counter-revolutionary, so be it. and just because the western media attacks something, it doesnt mean that leftists should jump into its defense. thats a very unproductive position to take.


ME:  it is important to defend alternative possibilities. if we take a "messianic moralist" attitude to criticise ... everything and defend nothing then the only thing that really comes out clean is ourselves - which may not be such a glorious thing. the legacy of the anti-imperialist struggle of the chinese people ought to be defended. no doubt we know little of in-china developments, but the attempts by china to respond creatively to emerging situations. this is the crux of marxism to provide concrete responses to concrete situations. today's china is making a valiant attempt to survive in a very difficult atmosphere and really doing better that india on many indicators. and no one can help a revolution that does not make mistakes, the point is to try to develop an alternative system. Long Live the Revolution!



B: Yes, the legacy of anti-imperialist (and anti-feudal) struggle of Chinese people should be defended. One of the outcomes of this struggle was the PRC constitution, which emerged as an important document in defence of worker's rights. An important aspect of the constitution was the "16 points", which included "four great rights": the right ... Read more to speak out freely, to air one's views freely, to write big-character posters and to hold great debates. Right to strike, which must be a pillar for any Marxist regime, was an important component of 16 points. Throughout the first phase of Cultural Revolution, the Red Guards were encouraged to engage in debates not just within themselves, but even with counter-revolutionaries, and if necessary, question the leadership. Four great rights were removed in 1978, while right to strike was removed in 1982. With that, the great legacy of anti-imperialist struggle was all but dead, making way for unfettered and unopposed introduction of neoliberal economic reforms, with all opposition to reforms brutally suppressed. I can understand CPM with it's recent history in WB wanting to emulate similar brutal suppression of resistance against neoliberalism, but please, let us not bring Marx or Mao into this: current PRC has little to do with either Marx or Cultural Revolution.


Also, what do you mean by "the large majority of chinese economy is still under public control"? Firstly, I suppose by "public ownership" you mean "state ownership" (and no, the two are not necessarily the synonymous, not in post-Deng China with massive curtailment of political rights). Secondly, even if we accept, for argument's sake, that state ... Read moreownership implies public ownership, what is the basis of your claim?

Finally, I repeat an earlier question: how do you define "messianic moralism"? How is this anything more than a mumbo-jumbo used to discredit a resistance when it suits you, while claiming legacy over all other resistance movements?


Anyway, I agree that from foreign policy point of view, there ought to be greater cooperation between India & China in the interest of multipolarity, just like there should be greater cooperation with Iran or Pakistan or Bangladesh or Myanmar. Does not mean that we hail or celebrate the economic or political structure in any of these countries.


A: arjun the question i asked was very simple- what are we celebrating. it is possible to celebrate and be aware of negative implications and outcomes of the event/action at the same time. and as far as essense of marxism is concerned- it also includes- ruthless criticism of all that exists. but then why am i even getting into this debate- a debate/... Read morediscussion/conversation can only happen if we are ready to listen. but the moment you used the 'messianic moralism' angle to counter another's perspective, the possibility of conversation is over. i am extremely saddened by this standard response and the constant use of this term coined by Prabhat Patnaik, which according to me doesnt even do justice to much of Prabhat's interventions in this debate and which is clearly one of the most indefensible stand points from a marxist perspective.


(I have removed the names of the respondents for I was not sure whether they would like to be indentified on an open page)


My response:


Firstly, let me clarify what we are celebrating. I think there are two separate things. One, is the event of the Chinese People's Revolution leading to the formation of the PRC. It is an achievement for the people of the world and should be celebrate in the spirit in which we would celebrate the Indian Independence, or the French Revolution or the American War of Independence – albeit with their subsequent short comings and divergence from the democratic path. Two, is the continuance in power of what is called a Communist Party in the largest country in the world, almost two decades after the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union. And today China has emerged as as a force to reckon with in the world – politically, economically and culturally.


But celebration does not preclude the possibility of criticism. Like all well wishers of the Socialist Path, I too am skeptical of the the changes occurring in China today. There are reports of growing inequality, the little understood phenomenon of Market Socialism and incidents of police repression of protests in Tibet and certain other parts of the country, including the curtailment of the right guaranteed by the original PRC Constitution. One is particularly disturbed by the contours of Market Socialism for similar experiments had led to the dissolution of Socialism in the Soviet Union. We are also aware that within the Chinese establishment there is a debate on on such policy matters, though the state policy seems to be stable. The Chinese Communist Party has to tread a very difficult path during the phase of onslaught of imperialist globalisation. We do hope that it has taken lessons from the Soviet Experience. At the same time it is heartening to note that China appears to be relatively unscathed by the current crisis of global capital – thus its integration to the imperialist economy seems to be either incomplete or laden with substantial checks.


That leaves us with the question should we celebrate today's China? Those of us who are part of the Left movement, and have reasonable commitment to see it grow cannot be dismissive of the Communist rule in China as easily as an anti-Left person. Here we may remember the headline in a leading US daily (I forget which possibly WSJ or NYT) after the fall of the Soviet Union : “We have won!” Certainly we would agree that the fall of the SU has been a terrible set back for the growth of Socialism across the globe, no matter which brand of Marxism we advocate or do not advocate. The opponents of Socialism have tomtommed the fall of the SU to wean away the youth from the path of social change, and present the capitalist system as the only viable and unchangeable system – the “end of history”. To win more young minds towards the Left it is important to defend the Socialist alternatives. Of course, such defence can be and ought to be critical, but criticism should not be dismissive of the alternative system. As I have noted earlier, Marxism is about adaptability and experimentation in the face of a changing world. From this angle, I think we ought to celebrate today's China if we are serious of a Socialist movement. Yes, Venezuala and Latin America presents before us another path of inclusive development – but even that is not free of criticism – Chavez has been criticized for being a maverick and an individualist!


On the question of brutality – let me say something which is bound to be disliked by many: yes, a revolutionary state ought to be brutal towards counter-revolutionaries. If they are not, they shall have to face the same fate as that of Salvador Allende and Chilean revolution. We have seen how brutal anti-communist forces can be with the Communist – in Indonesia and in Saddam's Iraq. In the battle for power there is very little room for leniency. Certainly there need not be any programmatic understanding about killing people, but in the face of class war there will be bloodshed. However, brutality cannot be an acceptable response to every instance of disagreement or internal dissidence and there should be democratic mechanism to control such cases. Having said that, the situation in China or other Socialist societies are not simple – imperialism uses its wiles and ways to prop up dissidence and therefore, the state has to extremely cautious. It is like living in siege.


A reference was made to the the CPI(M) and this is what I have to say – yes, the CPI(M) in the recent past has made severe errors of judgment in the path to transition from agriculture to industry in West Bengal. In the process several atrocities have been committed on the people. These acts need not be defended. One only hopes that the results of the Lok Sabha elections in 2009 will cause serious course correction and a greater pro-people strategy will be adopted in the future. For I feel that a change of hands in the state government placing the rabid Trinamool Congress in the seat of power will mean a reversal of many measures which had empowered the poor in West Bengal. I think those gains belong to the people of West Bengal and not only to the CPI(M). one can only hope that all democratic forces will use their best efforts to ensure that the Left in Bengal functions as a genuine Left alternative.


At the same time let me put this question also: will we be willing to condemn the brutality of the CPI(Maoist) who have adopted a strategy of physical annihilation of CPI(Marxist) cadre in the name of Marx and Mao? Or should we seek to justify that brutality in the name of spontaneous upsurge of people's anger?


Lastly, on the question of “messianic moralism”: The term was used by Prabhat Patnaik and I need not explain it further. However, I do think that some of us who are democratic by instinct, but critical of the organised Left (not only in India) express skepticism in all substantial embodiments of socialist principles. Such people tend to be perfectionists, always smelling the rotting of a glorious idea. There is a mix of Gandhian idealism and romanticism in the idea of the perfect revolution. They are unable to tolerate any deviation from the idea and assume positions of sharp criticism. Though such criticism can be very productive in keeping check on the movement for change, it lack in something that is an essential ingredient of any political movement – the partisan spirit. In academia we can criticize threadbare, but in a movement we need to defend – an alternative, an embodiment of those ideas for which we would encourage others to take up a path of sacrifice (to whatever extent that may be). The wavering of a skeptic cannot build a movement for change – for the enemy, the capitalist, the imperialist is never in doubt of itself.


I wish to thank all who contributed with ideas and feel that this is an important debate and must be conducted in a comradely spirit, for all of us desire a better world.


On a lighter note, I do express the hope that the Commonwealth Games to be held in Delhi in October 2010 should be able to match the level of organisation (with all the criticism that has been levied) of the Beijing Olympics 2008.