According to Time “China won”.

Recently, we published an article entitled “China won.”, what won, won against who, observers wondered with reason (1). According to Time magazine, the totalitarian China would have won the trade war that is being waged by the big globalized financial and economic conglomerates. Notwithstanding the fact that the protagonists at war in this affair have changed sides, it is indeed the same inter-imperialist conflict initiated financially and politically during the Great Depression (1929); pursued militarily and diplomatically during the Second World War(1939-1945), continues in the form of a “cold war” (1945-1991) and which would have recently undergone new developments. For the record, remember that 1929 marks the most serious economic crisis that has shaken the capitalist mode of production since its appearance. This Great Depression was less felt in countries that were not very integrated with the capitalist mode of production, such as the Soviet Union and the feudal China (2).

From one depression (1929) to another (2007-2008).

As a result of this economic crisis the world experienced various military conflicts (Manchuria, Korea, Ethiopia, Albania, Spain, etc.) and it was in 1939 that began the Second World War where clashed the totalitarian states of the Axis Berlin-Rome-Tokyo and the liberal States of the Axis Washington-London-Peking-Moscow (3) which extended by the Cold War between the Atlantic-NATO camp called “liberal” and the CMEA-Soviet camp called “totalitarian socialist” (1945-1991). Strangely, during this conflict, following the games of alliances between liberal and totalitarian governments, Moscow was not found in his favorite camp, this is due to the fact that Moscow and Berlin were in direct competition for the control of the countries of Eastern Europe, the area of historical influence of Prussian Germany (Lebensraum or vital space) (4). Moreover, as a consequence of the Second World War in Asia, in 1949, the Soviet-totalitarian camp was joined by one-fifth of the world’s population (at that time China had 500 million people, today it has 1.3 billion).(5) Few people considered the importance of this major historical reversal.

We must recall that Stalin died in 1953 and that Mao Tse Tung died in 1976 taking with him the last tenants of capitalist economic development according to the Soviet-Stalinist model (absolute primacy to heavy industry). The Gang of Four, as they were called the Maoists, remained blocked in the industrial and commercial stage of the state capitalist economic development and the gang leaders were unable to imagine the “Great Leap Forward bank” needed to pass to the globalized financial capitalism.

Under Deng Xiaoping(1978), China experienced its phase of “take-off” and modern industrial emergence, concurrently with its phase of financialization-globalization.

China still maintains its internal settlements (Tibet, Sinkiang, Manchuria, Inner Mongolia) whose demographic and economic weight is negligible compared to the Chinese national set and will probably recover one day its Taiwanese colony after Hong Kong and Macao.

Note that the USSR will know this final break and the collapse of its Soviet-Stalinist-Khrushchevian old guard only in 1989 with the appointment of Mikhail Gorbachev

(6). It is Vladimir Putin (2000) who will complete the work of “financialization, globalization” of the Russian economy after the implosion of the Soviet empire, the dismantling of the USSR and the shedding under Boris Yeltsin (1991) of its cumbersome and expensive interior colonies. Through the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEI), Russia formalized the transformation of its internal colonies into “independent” neo-colonies (7) several years after the “liberation” (sic) of the colonies from the Western powers of Africa and Asia (1946-1975) and their transformation into “independent” neo-colonies entitled to self-determination “(sic).

A new round begins in 2007.

This was followed by the 2007-2008 financial crisis, which began in the United States and spread throughout the world. This systemic crisis was just as severe as that of 1929, but the BRICS “emerging” capitalist powers softened the effects in the West, already indicating that the globalized imperialist development had taken a new globalized tangent (8).

Here we are in 2017 and the prestigious governance magazine Time announces, with bitterness, that it considers that the totalitarian China has won the most recent round of the conflict which for a century has pitted the totalitarian capitalist axis against

the liberal capitalist axis. Suspicion, however, this winning round does not mean that the globalized totalitarian axis has definitely won the war against the globalized liberal axis. Not more than the American victory in the Second World War has marked the end of the conflict between the two imperialist camps; nor the collapse of the Bolshevik-Soviet-totalitarian government has sounded the death knell of Russian imperialist power. In fact, as we will see later, neither of the two imperialist camps can win this war for the survival of the capitalist mode of production. Each of them can only delay the expiry of this moribund mode of production to which the working class will one day have to resign itself to put an end and administer the stab in the back.

Since the beginning of capitalism, we have observed that during periods of economic growth the countries of the liberal axis dominate the scene, they are even credited with the title of “welfare state” for the middle class and the gentrified working class aristocracy. The increases in productivity, resulting from the mechanization of wage labor, allow the large globalized capital to significantly improve the living and working conditions of its wage-earning slaves (China is at this stage at this time). On the other hand, under the capitalist mode of production, a period of prosperity is always preparing a new crisis of relative overproduction (9) which usually breaks out in the form of a stock market, monetary or banking crisis, in short a financial crisis, attesting that it is by his Achilles heel that a system gets bogged down and stumbles.

During these periods of recurring systemic crises, the totalitarian axis of global imperialist alliances becomes stronger and the bourgeois states of the liberal axis are radicalized on the right, the reformist “democrat” go-left (having had the chance to discredit itself), is removed from the direction of the paralyzed bourgeois state. This alternation of the left and right bourgeois staffs tells the service writers that China has indeed invented the most economically efficient totalitarian economic model only because we had the stupidity to let it invade our countries with its products, whereas it would be enough to have some customs duties as it was before to be preserved from the voracious hands of our Chinese friends“. “The new predominance of the model of centralized capitalism undermines the Western view that all these emerging economies would have had to embrace the liberal democracy, start “market reforms”, “open up” their economies, evolve their institutions to a multi-party model. In reality, the state capitalismin which political power is coupled with that of the economy, is that it is imitated by Western powers, who defend their national interests more openly than ever“(10).

Should I remind this expert that it is under liberal and decentralized capitalism that 150 global mega-companies have centralized 50% of the international industrial market value? Should I remind this cacique that China has opened its borders to the free market and that it is the Western multinational companies which, having relocated their production units to China, then demanded that their Western governments open the borders to their cheaper products?

Should I remind this sycophant that if tomorrow the Western bourgeois states would raise their tariffs they would provoke a terrible inflation of which the consumer proletarians would make the expenses, causing by implication demands for wage increases vis-à-vis the multinational companies which would be pushed to leave the national “home” (sic)? Should I remind this specialist that the raising of tariff barriers would cause the collapse of international trade currencies (dollar, euro, yen, yuan) (11)? Anyway, it is ridiculous to try to share the responsibilities between companies according to their “nationality” because in this globalized world the multinational shareholders are capitalizing their capital in multinational conglomerates chino-Iranian-Western or Russian-German Swiss or other transnational combinations of profitability. Subsequently, all the profits of these stateless consortia transit through tax havens without smell or national flavor. In the meantime, let the anti-globalist suckers and the reformist go-left sign petitions of protest against the tax shelters that will end up at the bottom of government consultation closets.

The Chinese model already existed.

We must remind the media literary hacks that China has invented nothing and that the Chinese imperialist model is economically and politically very similar to the German, Spanish, Portuguese, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Chinese and Soviet models of the interwar period, in which the national state capitalism (socialized in the USSR, it was said) was the form of social relations between the hegemonic economic power and the political power in its exclusive service. What the Petain, then Gaullist and British, then Canadian and American state imitated during and after the war (economy of war, it was indicated). Given that a new world war is brewing, the experts should not be surprised that beyond the cracked democratic electoral facade, the two competing imperialist camps are tightening their grip on the social relations of production, on the proletarian class, stakes of this endless war, and on the conditions of valorization of the capital, the object of this more or less liberalized competition and of this war to come, and to finish.

According to the expert Marc Vandepitte, “The Chinese economy is and remains a hybrid system where the State exercises a strong control and authorizes the market within certain limits. It is the socialism called “with Chinese characteristics“. The markets must play “a decisive role” in the allocation of resources, but at the same time the authorities must play “a greater role” in the economy (…). The expression “decisive role” was aimed primarily at reassuring the markets financial. (11). When one prunes the sophism of this bureaucratic language of wood, one finds that the economy of all capitalist entities is “hybrid” that is to say that the States exercise a control and authorize (integrate) the markets, in particular financial. Thus, in France, in 1946, 75% of the French national economy was under government control, then this rate was reduced for being increased again during the Joint Program (Socialist-Communist) and so on. Sometimes the bourgeois state socializes the capital-intensive losses, sometimes the bourgeois state privatizes the capital-intensive gains. China follows the traditional capitalist model.

We assert this already for some years, Lenin went astray when he announced in 1916, prematurely, that the capitalist mode of production, in the imperialist phase, had completed the sharing of the whole world and realized the totality of the development of the productive social forces that he was able to generate (12). The Chinese development is just beginning, like that of India, with its 1.3 billion producer-consumers who will be called upon to contribute to the globalized imperialist expansion immediately after 800 to 900 million Chinese proletarians under state capitalism (like the other states subject to the capitalist mode of production).

It must be said that the economic statistics of the so-called “Chinese model” are eloquent. Concretely, we have to go back to 1942-1945, the war economy in the United States, to find comparable statistics. Already, as China begins its economic take-off with just 300 million proletarians, the statistics are extraordinary. “In the last 35 years, the growth has been phenomenal. The GNP per capita has been multiplied by 17, yes you read well, by 17. By comparison, that of India has quadrupled during the same period. Between 2003 and 2013 the economy of the industrialized countries grew by 16%, in China it was 165% and in India by 102%. Moreover, it was no longer “more of the same things”, because the same productivity has jumped forward.

Today, an average Chinese worker produces five times more than twenty years ago. To make this push of modernization more concrete: every two years, China produces as much cement as the United States throughout the twentieth century. China now produces as much steel as the rest of the world. In 15 years China has laid 20,000 km of railways for high-speed trains, more than the rest of the world. By 2025 it is still 15,000 km longer. Two-thirds of all airports under construction are now in China. By 2020 there will be 240 airports. It took 150 years for Britain, where the industrial revolution began, to double its per capita income. In the United States it took 30 years. In China this is the case every seven to ten years, and on a much larger scale.

Today, China’s GNP is higher than that of the entire economy of 154 countries. In 2005 the services sector accounted for 41% of GNP, in 2016, 52%. In 2005, exports accounted for 37%; in 2016 they had dropped to 20%. In addition, China is no longer a transit country where goods are assembled with little benefit for the same country. Today China adds 76% of value to its export products. In the EU this figure is 87%. China is currently at the peak of innovation: 40% of all patents in the world are Chinese, more than these three countries combined: the United States, Japan and South Korea. (13).

And the expansion of the “Chinese” multinational Big Capital has just begun along the “New Silk Road” (the name which the Chinese capitalists give to their imperialist expansion plan on the model of the Dutch empire of 17th century), unless the alliance of Western pseudo democratic liberal states, or crazy enough, to provoke the Chinese dragon and the Shanghai Alliance in a nuclear war (14). Then there you will understand why a bastard like Donald Trump has been placed at the head of the dilapidated and in distress American tank (15).

The revolutionary proletariat

For us, revolutionary proletarians the problem is not the choice of a stooge (Trump, Macron, Merkel, Trudeau, Putin or Xi Jinping) who matters, but to understand well the direction that the big international capital will be forced to take for its survival and to develop tactics of struggle to counter it without being distracted by ecology weathervanes, electoral masquerades, nationalist shirkers, feminist or anti-racist leftists, anti-free trade protests, petitions for equity fiscal and other rearguard fights that will never be decisive in the confrontation to be ended between the Big capital and the proletarian wage labor (16).


  2. After that of 1873, the 1929 Great Depression

  1. We call totalitarian capitalist camp, the states that do not submit to the bourgeois democratic electoral ceremony. In these countries the big capital, not having enough confidence in its capacities to control the political game, prefers to designate itself its political buffoons without electoral masquerades. We classify among the liberal capitalist campthe States that submit themselves to the bourgeois electoral masquerades and where the big capital allows the country bumpkins to choose between two or several political puppets presenting itself under appearance of left, center or right. The go-left, participating enthusiastically in this free-for-all where she discredits herself cheerfully.
  1. BRICS for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa
  1. We specify “relative overproduction” because, of course, while half of humanity lives below the poverty line with barely $ 2 per day and famine outbreaks are rife in Africa, there is certainly no absolute overproduction of food, goods and services for the populations, but there is overproduction of goods according to the purchasing power of the solvent customers.
  1. That’s why Donald Trumpdoes not want to isolate the US market from the rest of the world at all. He tears up free trade agreements to better renegotiate them for the benefit of US big capital.
  1. Lenin (1916) Imperialism supreme stage of capitalism. Beijing editions.
  1. According to Marc Vandepitte In total China wants to invest no less than 4,000 billion dollars in 64 countries, for a population of 3 billion people. This represents about 30 times the annual development aid of the rich countries. It is therefore by far the largest program since the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe after the Second World War». Http://
  1. Marc Vandepitte  (2017) “A recent report quotes four countries that are potential targets for military action: Iran, Russia, North Korea and China. Despite drum rolls against North Korea and rhetoric about Russia and Iran, it is now primarily China that is at the center of the viewfinder. All around this country, the United States has more than thirty military bases, points of support or training centers (small balls on the map). By 2020, 60% of the total US fleet will be stationed in the region. Seen on a map, it is not an exaggeration to say that China is surrounded or encircled».


  1. Robert Bibeau (2017) National question and proletarian revolution under modern imperialism. L’Harmattan. Paris. 145 pages. ORDER ON AMAZON Robert Bibeau +

  1. Order the eBooks version or in English or Italian for free ENGLISH BOOK FREE



Traduction   by  Claudio Buttinelli.  Roma

Éditeur du webmagazine

THE WORLD IS DIVIDED INTO TWO ANTAGONISTIC CAMPS. CHINA WOULD LEAD THE WINNING CLANultima modifica: 2017-12-21T17:44:40+01:00da davi-luciano
Reposta per primo quest’articolo