A love letter to China
The Communist Party of Ireland website published an Address to the Friends of Socialist China Conference: London, 27th September 2025 and later it became the lead article in the October issue of Socialist Voice.
Before we get into the detail, it has to be stated clearly that the article is quite shocking both in content and in delivery. Penned by Gearóid Ó Machail, the leading luminary of the Betty Sinclair Branch of the CPI, it is written in the style of a child infatuated with a teacher. The only difference is that childish infatuations seldom get put to paper and hardly ever get delivered. Even when a teacher receives such a note, the content is deemed to be harmless and that is the end of the matter.
That cannot be the case in this instance. Though there is much in the article that we agree with – we will get to that – our piece-by-piece analysis will show just how infantile and factually inaccurate most of the content is:
“We meet here at a time when the achievements of Chinese socialism are not only undeniable but are increasingly vital to the future of human civilisation and the survival of our delicate, global eco-system.” At the very least, both of those concepts require objective analysis, and this definitive-style attempt to shut down any debate on the issues will not shield Ó Machail or the CPI from rational examination. There are very serious questions to be asked about so-called development, consumerism and the means by which these apparently favourable objectives are to be achieved. Indeed, the entire green-energy issue is a major subject in itself. Conflating these issues is not only simplistic but intentionally deceptive.
“Witness the Irish governments reluctance, obduracy and foot-dragging in implementing the ‘Occupied Territories Bill’ to curb investment and trade with the genocidal Zionist regime. Leading figures among the Irish American capitalist class warned of the doomsday scenario and dire economic consequences of showing any tangible or even tokenistic opposition to Zionism and the ongoing genocide.”
Fair comment. But, what’s China’s position? Has China any similar legislation in the pipeline? What steps has China taken to try to stop or influence the “genocidal Zionist regime”? It remains Israel’s top trading partner for Chinese exports and holds second place for Israeli exports. However, for the purpose of our analysis, this is not the main concern; Ó Machail and the CPI issued a statement that completely ignores these facts and instead criticises Ireland’s position thereby opening themselves up to not just critical examination but to charges of downright bias and crass ignorance.
By any standard, the Irish government – forced by internal political pressure and faced with genuine threats from the US – has done more than the Chinese government to show even token opposition to the “genocidal Zionist regime”. And what about the “the deep-rooted pride of the Chinese people in their socialist path.” Werethere any internal mobilisations in China against the genocide or to try to influence the Chinese government to take a stand? Did the Communist Party of China (PCP) itself make any moves to restrict trade, for instance, between the two countries? In fact, in the course of the genocide in Gaza and the unrelenting attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank, China increased it trade with Israel by 21%.
What standard of analysis or what standard of critical thought is employed by Ó Machail and by the CPI when they abuse Ireland for its admittedly token response but ignore China – the subject of the article – that not only traded but increased its trade with Israel?
Imagine the hilarity in the Department of Foreign Affairs at such an argument and imagine how even a junior official would demolish such nonsense with ease. Does anyone in the CPI ever consider these matters?
“I have returned twice—on my own volition—in 2024 and again in 2025. These journeys have taken me far beyond the conference halls and urban centres, deep into the heart of China’s diverse provinces: Henan, Beijing, Shaanxi, Guizhou, Guangxi, and Guangdong. The visits have left a profound impression on me.” And, “I walked through bustling cities, quiet towns, and remote mountain villages.” We suggest that on his next trip he should visit some factories and peasant farms and report his profound impressions on those experiences. That’s if the smoke from all the recently re-opened coal-powered electricity generating stations does not further obscure his already diminished view.
“….China is not simply reacting to global challenges—it is shaping the very future of our world.” And “So much for imperialism’s attempts to curtail Chinese commerce trade and hinder the extraordinary economic growth of the People’s Republic with tariffs and economic warfare.” Oh dear. The CPI sees the future of the world being shaped on the “extraordinary economic growth” achieved by China? Will this vision include an environmental impact study? Is it the position of the CPI that unfettered production and consumerism is the best hope for humanity?
“As someone with a lifelong interest and an academic degree in Social Sciences, I am committed to deepening my understanding of the forces shaping Chinese society: its green economy………” Ó Machail wants to further impress us with his “academic degree in Social Sciences” but his uncritical comments on issues like China’s “green economy” force us to consider whether his analytical deficiencies manifested themselves before or after his academic achievements? There are millions and millions of people who have academic degrees who are communists, fascists, criminals, war mongers, etc and whose citing of their degrees does not impress us one way or the other.
Which takes us neatly to “China has never initiated a war, never occupied an inch of foreign territory…” This statement is simply not correct. The Vietnamese-Chinese border war in 1979, for instance, was a Chinese attack on Vietnam in retaliation for the Vietnamese success in running the Chinese-backed Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge out of Cambodia.
Or, consider the Sino-Soviet war in 1969. Such an omission by Ó Machail and the CPI is quite strange, to say the least. How easily the Chinese attack on the CPI’s former lover – the USSR – is ignored when its current lover was the aggressor. By all means, we could agree to forgive and forget and even consign such examples to history, just don’t tell us that they did not happen.
“It [China] has shown that socialism is not only viable—it is vibrant, adaptive, and capable of delivering real results for working people. In doing so, it has inspired parties and movements across the globe, including our own progressive movements in Ireland”.
It’s not that long ago that any chat within the CPI about the merits of China were summarily dismissed as Maoist and dangerous. Today, any chat within the CPI about applying critical analysis to questions related to China is just dismissed. As for China having “inspired parties and movements across the globe” it should be remembered that China supported and sustained the Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge regime even after its defeat and banishment from Cambodia and recognised, along with the US, the Khmer Rouge seat at the United Nations.
As for China having “inspired parties and movements across the globe” it should be remembered that China supported and sustained the Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge regime even after its defeat and banishment from Cambodia and recognised, along with the US, the Khmer Rouge seat at the United Nations.
It should also be remembered that China supported all sorts of counter-revolutionary movements in Africa against progressive movements and governments.
“Through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, China is building infrastructure, fostering development, and offering alternatives to the neoliberal model that has failed so many countries in every continent.”
Again, this statement is trotted out time after time despite the fact that the evidence hardly ever stacks up. At the very least, a critical analysis should be applied by any outside interest in relation to this issue. And references to socialist win-win cooperation etc should be examined in the light of China having 6.3 million millionaires (US has 23.8 million) and406 billionaires in 2024, (US has 813). Some are in a win-win setup for sure.
Friends of Socialist China has “created a space where truth can be spoken, where analysis can be deepened, and where solidarity can be practiced.” We were tempted to write off Ó Machail’s statement as being mere propaganda, but the fact is that it does not even qualify as propaganda. For propaganda (in its vulgar meaning) to be of any use, the content has to be seen to be believable. The veracity of most of Ó Machail’s statement is highly suspect, and much of it is simply not in touch with reality and some of it proves that he is deluded beyond hope.
What is this “Comandante James Connolly” nonsense? Both Ó Machail and the CPI should skip the dramatics – it serves no purpose except to make them look foolish.
It is undoubtedly true that Ó Machail and the CPI serve neither King nor Kaiser but it looks suspiciously like they would like to serve China.
Unfortunately, for the Chinese, Ó Machail has exposed himself as a political lightweight and the CPI has exposed itself as a collective of political lightweights by endorsing and publishing such misinformation and disinformation. Even the Chinese must be nervous about what idiocy they will come out with next.
China certainly needs and deserves solidarity in the face of the serious aggressions it is being faced with. It also deserves credit for its achievements. It is entitled to develop whatever type of society it sees fit whether they call it socialism with Chinese characteristics or capitalism with Chinese characteristics.
It is not ok, however, for the CPI to uncritically portray China as a socialist country. China may, or may not, want to be socialist – but it isn’t anywhere near that state yet.
As always, we offer Ó Machail and the CPI a right of reply.