The CPI and China: A response
The August edition of Socialist Voice published another article by Gearóid Ó Machail on the subject of China, Lenin’s Warning: Eurocentrism and the New “Left-Wing” Infantilism this time declaring that people who question the direction that China has taken are engaging in “ ‘Left-wing’ infantilism” and that “This attitude is not only a betrayal of Lenin’s teachings but a fundamental abandonment of historical materialism.”
At the end of this article Ó Machail states that the various approaches to the establishment of Marxism in China, Vietnam and Laos “deserve respect and study, not contempt and negation.” Yes, they deserve respect and study but questioning various aspects of these respective approaches does not necessarily amount to “contempt and negation”.
Furthermore, applying “respect and study” does not require the commentator to adopt a fawning approach as a matter of principle (see Love letter to China as an example of a response to such antics).
In this current article, Ó Machail tries to kill two birds with one stone by uncritically lauding the virtues of China, Vietnam and Laos while disparaging those who question aspects of those various approaches – bringing a misrepresented Lenin down on their heads for good measure.
It should be noted that such questions as “Are these achievements flawless?” answered by “No” does not constitute a reasonable acknowledgement that all may not be well or that there is room for debate especially when the “no” is followed by “Every socialist nation faces challenges and contradictions in building socialism. However, to dismiss these accomplishments as “state capitalism” or “bureaucratic capitalism” insults the struggles of hundreds of millions and demonstrates theoretical laziness.”
Strangely, for a commentator who wants people to adopt a flexible approach to the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics, Ó Machail has an utterly intolerant attitude to anybody who might have any probing questions on the matter.
China and its particular take on socialism is a serious issue. For most of us who are not even close to being experts on the matter, we could benefit from objective analysis of the various and seemingly contradictory aspects of ‘socialist’ development in China. Unfortunately, it seems we will not find such objectivity in Socialist Voice.
Who is paying?
For instance, Ó Machail tells us that “A once impoverished, semi-colonial country, under Communist Party leadership, has become the world’s second-largest economy and completed the largest poverty alleviation programme in human history.” This is undeniably correct but these ‘achievements’ did not occur in a vacumn. What was and is the cost? And who is paying the price? While O Machail champions the concept of endless growth as China appears to continue on that trajectory, anyone who questions that future is soundly reprimanded as being a Trotskyist or a “Western Marxist”.
The achievements of the Soviet Union in both development and alleviation of poverty through the most adverse conditions – starting from mostly feudalism, through foreign attacks, economic blockades, the destruction of and cost of rebuilding the Soviet Union itself as well as rebuilding eastern Europe after the Second World War, its capacity to defeat Nazi Germany, etc, is touched on by O’Machail: “Lenin repeatedly emphasises a core principle: Marxism must be integrated with the revolutionary practice of each specific country. The Bolsheviks’ success lay precisely in the fact that they did not “mechanically apply Marxism but creatively utilised it.” Yet many contemporary Western Marxists seem to have forgotten this basic truth.”
A basic truth left out of this analysis is that the Soviet Union managed its development and achievements without deviating to socialism with ‘Soviet characteristics’ similar to the road China is apparently travelling today.
It is also undeniably correct that the countries of modern western Europe, for instance, became great economies and raised the standard of living of their populations – even their poorest – to relative luxury compared to conditions in many other parts of the world.
If we made that statement and failed to provide any context, Ó Machail and the CPI would rightly call us out and fill in the blank spots on imperialism, colonialism, genocide, war, dispossession, exploitation of resources, etc at which point, everything would make sense.
Now, return to China and let us try to figure out what costs might be involved in its progress and development, at which point we might take a look at environmental impacts, for instance. But wait, here comes Lenin again, or is it some Trotskyist? No! Its O Machail to stop you in your tracks: “The achievements of Southeast Asian socialist states are real, immense, and plain to see. To dismiss them with haughty contempt is not merely a theoretical error but political irresponsibility.”
Political thuggery
Actually, to dismiss any questions related to whether these are socialist states or to attempt to restrict objective examination of the nature or consequences of their achievements is political thuggery. By CPI standards, if you are not engaging in “haughty contempt” then you are “replacing concrete historical analysis with abstract dogma”, or, your attitude “is not only a betrayal of Lenin’s teachings but a fundamental abandonment of historical materialism”, and you are also insulting “the struggles of hundreds of millions and demonstrates theoretical laziness.” Take that.
Political thuggery has deep roots in the CPI and asking probing questions can be a dangerous pursuit. Both in its internal functioning and its external interactions, it adopts a position of superiority that then translates into intolerance of any questioning of its position. Within the party structures this manifests itself as very carefully ‘managing’ any debate and branding any dissent and externally by lecturing under the holy grail of (supposed) ‘Marxist analysis’.
Little wonder that the CPI has got itself into so much trouble internally and is completely ignored externally. Rather than such strategies saving it from awkward questions, the operation of a communist party with ‘CPI characteristics’ has left it vulnerable, impotent and hopelessly exposed.
The CPI could help us understand the political and economic developments taking place in China, for instance. It could present an objective analysis of socialist development within the constraints of what is possible in China, Vietnam and Laos. It could try to explain the nature of some apparent contradictions and possible outcomes. It does not have to agree with everything China does as it is both possible and reasonable to defend China against aggression, to support its peaceful initiatives, its right to self-determination etc, and still be questioning or even critical of certain aspects of Chinese society, of its international relations and of adverse impacts on the environment, for instance.
Repeating selective and questionable arguments, often with little or no context and frequently despite contrary evidence, is no use to anyone.
Instead of being an independent supportive entity, the CPI has become a propaganda tool that also serves as a threatening obstruction to objective analysis. Such a tactic does not enhance the development or understanding of socialism in China but it certainly erodes any credibility the party might still have.
From a purely CPI strategic position we repeat our question: Since when did aligning with an evolving and deeply contradictory social system whose future development and eventual orientation is necessarily unclear, become an acceptable political strategy?
Considering its experience with the Soviet Union – providing unconditional support to an entity it had no influence over – it would be reasonable to think it had learned a lesson. Because of that same lack of influence in the case of China, our focus will remain centred not on China’s model of development but on the lack of political maturity and objectivity of the CPI itself and on what causes it to crave an external crutch while continuously ignoring the fact that it has no legs.
If you will forgive the contradiction, the shallowness of the CPI is very deep indeed.