Is China an Imperialist country by the definition of Lenin’s Scientific Imperialism theory? 3- The Economic Transition
Is China an Imperialist country by the definition of Lenin’s Scientific Imperialism theory?
3- The Economic Transition – NEP vs. China's "Socialist
Market Economy"
"It is
necessary to analyze each particular case from the standpoint of its concrete
conditions, without being limited by abstract definitions." Lenin,
Once Again on the Trade Unions
To understand China's
contemporary economic policy, we must first understand the Leninist tradition
it continues. The New Economic Policy (NEP), introduced by Lenin in 1921, was
a strategic retreat from the strict command economy of
"War Communism”. NEP was often interpreted as a return to
capitalism. It was not a surrender to capitalism but a calculated
maneuver to rebuild the productive forces of a devastated Soviet
state. The NEP allowed for: limited private trade in agriculture and
consumer goods, small-scale private enterprises in manufacturing and services, foreign
concessions to attract technology and investment. All under state
control, called "state capitalism, " where large-scale
industry, banks, transport, and foreign trade remained firmly in the
hands of the proletarian state.
3.1- The Leninist Precedent:
What Was the NEP?
"The New
Economic Policy is a special policy of the proletarian state, which guarantees
the building of the socialist economic foundations." Lenin,
various works on NEP
The NEP (1921–1928) replaced War Communism with a mixed economy by allowing private trade, small-scale private industry, and foreign concessions, while the state retained control of the large-scale industry, banking, transport, and foreign trade. Lenin called this "state capitalism" under proletarian control, precisely to resurrect productive forces devastated by civil war.
"We are
revolutionaries, we don't understand business"
In his political report to the
11th Congress of the RCP(b) on March 27, 1922, Lenin sharply criticized the
practice of placing loyal but inexperienced communists in leadership
positions in commerce and industry:
"We need to
structure our entire organization so that the head of a commercial enterprise
is not one of us who lacks experience in this field. ... We often put a communist—an
undoubtedly honest man, tested in the communist struggle, who has been in
prison—at the head of an institution, but this man cannot do business, and
therefore he is placed at the head of a state trust. As a communist, he
possesses all the indisputable advantages. However, the merchant will still
cheat him—and he will be right to do so, because the best and most loyal
communist has been put in a position where what is needed is a shrewd,
conscientious shop assistant. The shop assistant will do the job better than
the most loyal communist. ... How many communists do we have sitting in state
institutions? We have a vast amount of material, solid works that would delight
the most meticulous German, but what is the result? ... We do not know how
to do business!" Lenin, report to the 11th Congress of the RCP(b)
What Lenin was saying in simple words is that revolutionaries understand revolution and struggle, but they do not understand commercial operations. Therefore, they must borrow the expertise of those who do, whether they are domestic "bourgeois specialists" or foreign capitalists and technicians. It is obvious for ML that that applies to the conditions of Russia and similar countries then and now, especially to those colonies and ex-colonies where feudalism is dominant.
Regarding concessions in
resource development to foreign capital, Lenin explicitly stated in his report
on the concession system to the 8th All-Russian Congress of Soviets on December
21, 1920:
“We give him
[the foreign capitalist] 50%–75% of the oil."
In another passage, Lenin
elaborated more systematically on this line of thinking:
"We have a
million dessiatines of virgin land that we are unable to
cultivate because we have no draft animals and no necessary
implements, whereas with tractors this land could be plowed to any depth.
Therefore, it is profitable for us to lease out this land. Even
if we give away half, or even three-quarters, of the product, it does not
matter to us—the main thing is not that..."
Lenin's logic was that it is
better to let foreign capital develop idle resources, even if it
means giving up the majority of the output, because acquiring technology,
equipment, and the opportunity to learn is far more important.
3.1.1- War on another plane
In a recorded speech on April 25,
1921, Lenin systematically explained the meaning of concessions:
"The Soviet
government invites foreign capitalists who wish to obtain concessions in
Russia. What is a concession? It is a contract between the state and
the capitalist, under which the capitalist undertakes to establish or
improve production (for example, timber felling and floating, coal, oil, ore
extraction, etc.), paying the state a portion of the extracted product in
return, while keeping another portion as profit."
"The Soviet
government drove out the Russian landlords and capitalists, and now it invites
foreign capitalists—is this right? Yes, it is, because if the workers'
revolution in other countries is delayed, we will have to make certain
sacrifices, solely to rapidly -even immediately -improve the condition of
the workers and peasants." Lenin, "On the Concession System
and the Development of Capitalism,"
In 1920, Bukharin published an
article in issue No. 4 of the journal “Communist Revolution”, systematically
expounding the strategic significance of the concession
system:
"Through
concessions, we allow individual foreign capitalists to make profits, but we
weaken world capital as a whole, because in our struggle against it, we
strengthen Russia by additionally acquiring technical equipment, and
thus we change the balance of forces—this is the significance of the concession
system (in the economic sense) in the great struggle between socialism and
capitalism."
"For the
sake of the current profit, the 'mess of pottage' (meaning the products
manufactured in Russia and exported abroad that the capitalists need)—the capitalists
sell out and betray the common interests of international capital, which,
in its own interests, should have been a strict and merciless blockade, that
is, completely cutting off Russia from the sources that accelerate its
technological renewal and revival."
Bukharin's argument was that “ concessions
are not a capitulation to capitalism, but a form of warfare;
using economic interests to divide international capital, inducing individual
capitalists to betray the blockade strategy of the international
bourgeoisie as a whole for the sake of immediate profits.
3.1.2- Paying “tuition
fees” to Foreign Capital and "Learning to Do Business"
In his book “Private Capital in
the Soviet Union”, Yuri Larin analyzed the necessity of introducing foreign and
private capital from another perspective:
"It is well
known that we established the New Economic Policy (NEP) with both external and
internal considerations in mind. Admittedly, the external considerations (the
possibility of an influx of foreign capital to boost our economy) have so far
not yielded many results (although the results are gradually increasing).
But the internal considerations have fully justified themselves."
Larin further pointed out that
the core reason for introducing private capital was not a lack of
money, but a lack of skills:
"Allowing
[private capital] was inevitable, not so much because we lacked the funds to
launch state commodity circulation, but because we did not know how to
implement such commodity circulation within the framework of a market economy.
...' We don't know how to do business'—this is what Comrade Semkov
said to Comrade Lenin at the Moscow Provincial Party Conference in 1921."
"What the
bourgeoisie brought was not capital, but the ability to operate within
market economic relations, and we were forced to hand over our
commodity funds and money to them. Production (industry) remained in our
hands... but the market linkages between different parts of the economy (and
often between different state-owned enterprises) fell into the hands of the
bourgeoisie. For this, they naturally rewarded themselves handsomely, and for
us, this was 'paying tuition fees'."
Larin's exposition clearly
articulates the core logic of introducing foreign and private capital during
the NEP period: it was not a shortage of capital, but a shortage of the
ability to "do business".
3.1.3- Scale of Foreign
Investment
On November 23, 1920, the
Council of People's Commissars promulgated the “Decree on the General Economic
and Legal Conditions for Concessions”, which explicitly aimed to attract
foreign capital for "the accelerated restoration of the large-scale state
economy." The government guaranteed that the property of
concessionaires would not be nationalized, confiscated, or requisitioned.
During the Soviet period, there
were over 350 foreign concession enterprises (including both
industrial and commercial). By the end of the 1920s, only 59 concession
enterprises, 6 joint-stock companies, and 27 "operating permits"
remained. 1- (See
note for details)
After 1928, the Soviet government
shifted toward signing individual technical assistance contracts
with Western firms and hiring foreign specialists. On December 27,
1930, the Council of People's Commissars passed a resolution terminating
all concession contracts (with a few exceptions). By 1933, all industrial concessions
had been liquidated.
3.1.4 NEP & State
capitalism
"We are not
afraid of state capitalism in a country where the dictatorship of the
proletariat is preserved." Lenin, various works
Lenin was explicit about his
strategy. He argued that state capitalism under the dictatorship of the
proletariat was a necessary stage to overcome the
backwardness of the Russian economy (one has to consider the
Chinese economy then with a population of 800 million). The purpose
was not to restore capitalism but to strengthen the socialist
state by utilizing capitalist methods.
"State
capitalism would be a step forward compared with the present state of affairs
in our country. If we had state capitalism in Russia, the
transition to full socialism would be easier and more assured." — V.I.
Lenin, “The Tax in Kind”
Unlike the common perception,
Mao’s belief that “political capital,” the economic capital of the
bourgeoisie, should not be subject to total expropriation, at least
until it can serve the development of the national economy, is not
contradictory to Lenin’s approach and precautions.
In October 1920 Lenin declared,
“We want to
transform Russia from a poor and needy country to a rich country”. Lenin,
The Tasks of the Youth Associations
In his 1928 speech, Stalin explicitly
argued that in a transitional socialist state, developing capitalism
under strict state control is not a betrayal of socialism but a necessary
detour to build the industrial base that socialism requires. He
famously said that a certain development of capitalism is inevitable in
a country emerging from feudalism, and that
"whoever
does not understand this understands nothing about Marxism."
Stalin, On the Right Deviation and his comments on Comrade Yurov
The NEP was a dialectical
solution for the proletarian state using the tools of capital to
defeat capital's influence, creating the material conditions for
socialism. It was a tactical retreat that allowed for limited private
trade, small-scale capitalism, and foreign concessions to rebuild the
productive forces destroyed by civil war and war communism. NEP was an
essential tool to overcome the mass poverty and starvation that
followed the catastrophe of World War I and the civil war.
The NEP had nothing to do with
the restoration of bourgeois and capitalist power but was a tool for the
reconstruction of the economy and the development of the productive forces. In
March and April 1918 Lenin stated that
“compared to
workers in the most advanced nations, the Russian is a bad worker”; therefore,
he must “learn to work,” assimilating critically the “rich scientific
achievements” of the “Taylor system” developed and implemented in the North
American Republic. Lenin “The Immediate Tasks of Soviet Power”
Stalin made a similar statement:
“If they really
wanted to be at the height of “principles of Leninism,” they should try to
weave “Russian revolutionary impulses” with “the practical American
approach” (Stalin, The Foundations of Leninism)
The debate, considering the
differences in conditions in each country, should be: “Lenin utilized state
capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviets; whether
China's contemporary policy is a continuation of this Leninist tradition or a
departure from it?”
China comparison
The Chinese Communist Party,
which seized power at the national level in 1949, had already begun
to exercise its power in one region or another since the 1920s.
That's why China, in general, was characterized by the coexistence of
different forms of economy from the start. As early as January 1940,
Mao Zedong clarified the meaning of the revolution taking place at that time:
Although such a
revolution in a colonial and semi-colonial country is still fundamentally
bourgeois-democratic in its social character during its first stage or
first step, and although its objective mission is to clear the path for
the development of capitalism, it is no longer a revolution of
the old type led by the bourgeoisie with the aim of establishing a
capitalist society and a state under bourgeois dictatorship. It
belongs to the new type of revolution led by the
proletariat with the aim, in the first stage of establishing
a new-democratic society and a state under the joint
dictatorship of all the revolutionary classes. Thus this revolution
actually serves the purpose of clearing a still wider path for
the development of socialism.” Mao, On the New Democracy
China's Reform and Opening-up,
starting in 1978 with the slogan “that poverty is not socialism, that
socialism means eliminating poverty,” operated on an identical theoretical
logic: dismantling the ultra-centralized Soviet-style wartime command
economy, allowing township-village enterprises, private firms, and
massive foreign direct investment, while keeping the banking, energy, telecom,
defense, and infrastructure firmly under state/public ownership. In both cases,
the Party/State retained ultimate political control. The bourgeoisie
is not allowed to form an independent political party or take over the
state apparatus. Capital is strictly subordinated to political
directives: industrial policy, five-year plans, poverty alleviation,
technological self-reliance.
However, the reaction was not so
much different than that against the Soviet NEP. Lenin in the “Political
Report” sarcastically wrote:
“Seeing that we
were withdrawing, some of them scattered, childishly and shamefully, even with
tears, as happened at the last large session of the Executive Committee of the
International Communist Party. Motivated by the best communist
sentiments and the most ardent communist aspirations, some
friends burst into tears.” Lenin, “Political Report” Lenin
presented to the XI Congress of the Communist Party, March 27, 1922
Similarities lie in the fact that
both the Soviet and the Chinese economic reforms were preceded by widespread
poverty and shortages that could have caused large-scale starvation. For both,
total political expropriation of the bourgeoisie did not equal total economic
expropriation
3.2- How China's EP Differs
from the NEP
"Politics
cannot but have precedence over economics." Lenin, various works
It is expected that China's
practice as an ex-colony differs significantly from the early Soviet policy.
Where do the scale and context
differ? It differs in duration and scope: The NEP
lasted only about 7 years and was relatively small in scale. However,
it continued under a different name (First Five-Year Plan) and form
during Stalin's time when full agricultural collectivization took over,
and by 1931, entire foreign concessions were terminated. China's
EP has lasted over 40 years and integrated a colossal
population into global capitalism. This makes the contradictions of capital,
unequal distribution, regional disparities, environmental degradation, and
commodification of social life much more pronounced and harder to manage than
during the NEP. The NEP operated in a largely isolated global system. China's
reforms occurred during the peak of neoliberal globalization,
meaning Chinese state capital now interacts with, and has to compete
against, the most advanced finance capital in the world. This creates
intense pressure that occasionally blurs the lines, but has not
changed the fundamental class ownership of the state.
The NEP was designed for a
devastated, isolated agrarian state with a small industrial base. China's
contemporary economic policy operates on a vastly different scale,
a globally integrated, technologically advanced, and
interacting with the world capitalist system in ways Lenin could not have
anticipated. However, the “principle” remains identical: “the political
power of the proletarian state subordinates the economic power
of capital. The difference is one of degree, not of kind.
The Soviet Union initially
confiscated all foreign investment; China initially maintained and utilized it,
gradually replacing it through denationalization. Chinese leaders more directly
inherited Lenin's ideas on utilizing foreign investment and capitalism from the
"New Economic Policy." When explaining joint ventures in 1950, Mao
Zedong explicitly cited the fact that "Lenin also proposed and some
concessional enterprises appeared in the Soviet Union after 1921 when it
implemented the New Economic Policy" as evidence. In the early years of
the People's Republic of China, private and foreign-invested economies
were allowed to exist and develop, but ultimately they were transformed
into public ownership through methods such as "socialist
transformation."
Unlike the Soviet Union's early
experience facing imperialist armed intervention, the new China
selectively accepted large-scale aid from the Soviet-led socialist bloc within
the Cold War framework. Therefore, China's early policies on foreign
investment and private economy can be seen as a unique practice within the
framework of Leninist theory, combined with the country's national
conditions and the international environment.
Let’s study the question of
"accounting and control" as a concrete manifestation of the core
question of "who rules" in socialist practice,
especially under NEP conditions.
Similarities in “accounting
and control”
Lenin emphasized that socialist
construction requires "the calculation and supervision of product
production and distribution." The relationship between "political
capital" and "economic capital," as
well as the mechanisms of "accounting and control," are
the key to understanding the economy, especially under NEP conditions. This is
not merely a technical issue of fiscal and tax supervision, but a fundamental
question of how to manage capital and prevent its alienation in socialist
practice.
For state-owned enterprises,
which occupy a dominant position in strategic sectors, the core of supervision
is to prevent insider control and the loss of state-owned assets. The main
means include:
Financial and Accounting
Supervision, Penetrative Supervision, Data Penetration, Standard Penetration, Business
Penetration, Entity Penetration, Budget and Revenue Management, Guiding the
Private Sector, Reverse Mixed Ownership "Reform", Tax Leverage
Regulation, Legislative Norms, Precise Regulation, Foreign Investment
Management, Pre-establishment National Treatment + Negative List, Security
Reviews and Countermeasures. (2-See
note section for details)
In summary, although it has
nuances based on the concrete conditions of each, the "accounting
and control" mechanism used in the Soviet Union and in China is
not a single approach, but a multi-layered, differentiated, and complex system.
In China:
1. For the state-owned
economy: The core is "controlling". Through
"penetrating" financial supervision and budget management, it ensures
the stability and reliability of its economic foundation as "political
capital."
2. For the private
economy: The core is "guiding". Through market-oriented
means such as state-owned capital participation (reverse mixed ownership) and
taxation, its development is brought into the national strategic track.
3. For the
foreign-invested economy: The core is "delineating boundaries".
While opening up through a "negative list," it safeguards national
security through a security review mechanism. This mechanism technically
answers the question of "how to control," aiming to achieve
"calculation and supervision" of various types of capital to varying
degrees through financial, tax, and administrative means, preventing any single
capital force from challenging "political power."
Contemporary Chinese practice is
precisely seeking a technical answer to this theoretical problem: by
establishing a comprehensive regulatory system covering finance, taxation, and
administration, to effectively guide, supervise, and constrain "political
capital" over "economic capital." China's
"Socialist Market Economy" is the dialectical development of
the NEP in the 21st century. It recognizes that:
1) Productive forces must be developed to their highest potential
before the full transition to communism is possible. 2) Market mechanisms can
be utilized to allocate resources efficiently, generate innovation, and create
wealth. 3) Private capital can be tolerated and even encouraged but
only under the strict supervision and direction of the socialist
state.
The scale of China's integration
with global capitalism makes it a target for accusations of
"imperialism." But the accusation confuses “integration with
the global market” with “domination of the global market”.
China participates in the world capitalist system; it does not seek to control
it for super profits through colonies or subjugating other countries.
3.3- China’s State
Capitalism-– Data on State Control, mechanism of “economic capital” control
"The
transition from capitalism to communism represents an entire historical epoch.
Until this epoch is terminated, the capitalists will stubbornly attempt to
restore capitalism." Lenin, various works
As far as “state capitalism"
is concerned, the difference between a capitalist country and a socialist,
people's democracy country is that, in capitalist countries "state
capitalism" is a phase for the transformation of the major industries to
private industries. This is sharply manifested in the fascistization of
political systems like in Germany, Italy, and Japan. In a socialist and/or
people's democracy, it is the phase to monopolize the large industries under
private control to the State. The purpose of each is contradictory. The same
happened in Soviets and China for the purpose of nationalizing the banking and
heavy industries and (in semi-feudal countries) to increase productivity,
letting capitalism develop under state control.
To prove China is
"imperialist," one must first prove that "the Chinese
state is controlled by the capitalist class" and that "the Chinese
Communist Party is an instrument of the bourgeoisie." From the
perspective of classical Marxist theory, this judgment touches upon fundamental
definitions of the nature of the state (instrumentalism vs.
relative autonomy) and the nature of the party (vanguard vs.
class agent). This is indeed not something that can be easily
falsified or verified through mere data.
There are clear legal provisions
and a complete set of institutional mechanisms to ensure the
leadership of the Communist Party of China and fundamentally prevent
the emergence of an independent political party representing the interests
of the bourgeoisie or for that class to seize state power. This mechanism can
be understood on two levels: first, the fundamental constitutional
and legal guarantees, which provide the highest legal foundation for
the entire system; and second, the specific systems and
organizational structures built and operated on this basis, ensuring
the implementation and enforcement of these principles in daily
political life.
Constitutional and Legal
Guarantees: Establishing Fundamental Principles (3- See notes section for details)
Furthermore, a socialist public
ownership-based economic foundation can fundamentally prevent the
formation of private privileged interest groups. Moreover, unlike
capitalist countries, socialist countries openly declare the
dictatorship of the proletariat and do not allow parties representing
bourgeois interests to share power.
In conclusion, China's
constitutionally established state nature, and party system, along
with the comprehensive political operating mechanisms built upon them, together
constitute a solid legal and institutional barrier against the
bourgeoisie forming independent political parties or seizing state
power.
3.4- China’s stock market,
Billionaires in China
The Soviet Union did not have a
conventional stock market for private company shares during most of its
existence. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks abolished private
enterprise and shut down all stock exchanges, replacing the economy
with a state-controlled central plan
The stock market in China has no
overall economic significance yet it is too large to be insignificant. It is
“not” a primary indicator of national economic health, unlike the
US where the S&P 500 is closely tied to consumer spending and pension
funds. (9- See notes
for details)
China is focused on economic
growth, reinvesting in the tangible economy, not in the stock market.
China’s Gross Fixed Capital
Formation (investment in infrastructure, factories, machinery) averages ~42% of
GDP annually, compared to the US at ~21%. China reinvests its surplus
directly into physical production. Conversely, Chinese companies pay very
low dividends (average dividend yield is ~2.5% vs. the US ~5.5%) because profits
are legally required or strongly encouraged to be reinvested into Research and
Development and capital expansion rather than returned to
shareholders.
China’s policy favors labor
over capital, especially in state-owned enterprises. SOEs are mandated
to maintain employment stability. During economic downturns, SOEs are ordered
to over-hire to absorb unemployment, prioritizing social stability over profit
margins.
Cracking down on financial
investments on 'money, preventing a rentier economy in the private sector.
Since 2020, the CCP has waged a deliberate war on "financialization
without industrialization." Important examples:
Ant Group (2020): Jack
Ma's fintech IPO (Initial Public Offering) was valued at ~$300 billion, but it
was canceled hours before listing. The company was forced to
restructure as a financial holding company, dramatically reducing its
valuation and preventing a "shadow banking" empire.
Private Equity
Crackdown: In 2023-2024, regulators forced hundreds of private
equity firms out of business and banned "club deals" where
billionaires used leveraged buyouts to extract profits without creating
new factories.
Regulation on "Chaotic"
Capital: The official "Common Prosperity" campaign explicitly
targets "excessive capital expansion" in internet platforms (Tencent,
Alibaba) that prioritized financial gaming over industrial innovation.
Fines exceeded $10 billion USD cumulatively, with directives to pivot
spending toward "hard technology" (chips, AI, biotech).
Due to harsh regulations, the billionaires
in China have stocks in real tangible industries, rather than in a 'stock
Market'." Concrete Data:
Of the top 20 Chinese
billionaires, the majority derive their wealth from manufacturing, EVs
(BYD), batteries (CATL), solar panels, and consumer appliances. Contrast
this with the US, where the top billionaires derive wealth
from financialized tech platforms (Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia) whose
valuations are driven by stock market speculation, not physical
production of goods. Key example: The world's largest EV battery maker,
CATL, has a massive market cap, but its billionaire founder (Zeng Yuqun) made
his money by supplying physical batteries to automakers, not
by financial engineering.
Anyone who tries to create
financial alternatives has been penalized. As a result, the direction
of private billionaires is decreasing rather than increasing compared
to the US-West.
According to the Hurun China Rich
List, the combined wealth of China's top 100 billionaires peaked in 2021 at
$3.1 trillion and has since declined to ~$2.2 trillion (as of
late 2025). Over the same period, US billionaire wealth (Forbes)
has increased from ~$4.5 trillion to over $5.8 trillion.
The CCP has openly stated it will
"guide" billionaires to donate more to the state's
"Third Distribution" (charity) and to reinvest
profits into state-designated strategic sectors. Those who attempt to move
capital offshore or create unregulated digital assets (cryptocurrency)
have faced asset freezes and legal prosecutions (e.g., the
2024 crackdown on over-the-counter crypto brokers, imprisoning several
financiers).
In summary, the CCP
actively suppresses 'rentier capitalism' by penalizing financial speculation, canceling
speculative IPOs, and forcing private billionaires to anchor their
wealth in tangible manufacturing and R&D. Consequently, while
US billionaire wealth has surged through stock market financialization,
China's billionaire class has seen a net 30% decline in collective
wealth since 2021, as the Party rigorously redirects capital toward
physical reinvestment and labor-stabilizing SOEs, preventing the
emergence of a Western-style, stock-dependent rentier economy.
3.5- Question of the
Dictatorship of the Proletariat
"The
dictatorship of the proletariat is the struggle of the proletariat, which has
conquered power and taken the means of production into its own hands.". Lenin,
“The State and Revolution”
The question of the dictatorship
of the Proletariat occupies a central place in Marxist-Leninist theory.
Lenin restored and developed still further the Marxist teaching on the smashing
of the old, exploiting apparatus of State power, and explained how this
smashing should be carried out in practice. Lenin pointed out that the
smashing of the bourgeois state is inconceivable without a series of actions, breaking
up the economic power of the landlords and the capitalists,
As Stalin pointed out in the
Foundations of Leninism that, the new that Lenin contributed to the
teaching on the dictatorship of the proletariat consists in that he
(a) pointed to Soviet power as the State form of the dictatorship of the
proletariat (b) disclosed in the formula of the dictatorship of the proletariat
a special form of the class alliance of the proletariat and the
peasantry with the leading role of the proletariat in this alliance;
(c) elaborated the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the
highest form of democracy in a class society, a proletarian democracy that
reflects the interests of the majority (of exploited), as opposed to bourgeois
democracy which reflects the interests of the minority (of exploiters).
Stalin defended the Leninist
teachings on the alliance of the working class with the peasantry and the
leading role of the working class in this alliance as the principle of the
dictatorship of the proletariat. Stalin pointed out that the main
thing in Marxism-Leninism is the question of the dictatorship
of the proletariat, and he gave a brilliant definition of its three
aspects.
The utilisation of the power of
the proletariat; (1) for the suppression of the exploiters, for the
defence of the country, for the consolidation of the ties with the proletarians
of the other lands, and for the development and the victory of the revolution
in all countries, (2) in order to detach the toiling and exploited masses
once and for all from the bourgeoisie, to consolidate the alliance of the
proletariat with these masses, to enlist these masses for the work of Socialist
construction, and to ensure the State leadership of these masses by the
Proletariat, (3) for the organisation of Socialism, for the abolition of
classes, for the transition to a society without classes, to a society without
a State….” Stalin, The Foundations of Leninism
Comrade Stalin teaches;
“only
all these three aspects taken together give us a complete and finished
concept of the dictatorship of the Proletariat.” (Stalin, Problems of
Leninism,
In 1933, when the foundations
of a Socialist economy had already been laid, Stalin came out against
the enemies of the people who were preaching the ‘abolition’ of the Soviets in
the field of all-out collectivisation and against those who sowed confusion by
representing the question of the withering away of the State in an
oversimplified manner.
“Some comrades
interpreted the thesis on the abolition of classes, the establishment of
classless society, and the withering away of the State to mean a justification
of laziness and complacency, a justification of the counter-
revolutionary theory that the class struggle is subsiding and that State power
is to be relaxed. Needless to say, such people cannot have anything in
common with our Party. They are either degenerates or double-dealers and must
be driven out of the Party. The abolition of classes cannot be achieved
by the subsiding of the class struggle, but by its intensification. The
State will die out not as a result of the relaxation of the State power, but as
a result of its utmost consolidation, which is necessary for the purpose of
finally crushing the remnants of the dying classes, and of organising defence
against the capitalist encirclement which is far from having been done away
with as yet and will not soon be done away with.” Stalin,
Report on the Work of the Central Committee to the Seventeenth Congress of the
C.P.S.U.(B.),
3.6. The Dialectical
Conclusion: State Capitalism Under Proletarian Control is Not Imperialism
"The
dictatorship of the proletariat is the power of the working class, exercised in
alliance with the peasantry." Stalin, various works
The comparison between Lenin's
NEP and China's EP reveals a continuous Leninist tradition: “the proletarian
state can utilize capitalist methods to strengthen socialism.”
The data on "power
capital" and "private capital" proves that China's state
dominates capital, not the reverse. This is the inversion of
imperialist finance capital. The purpose of China's economic policy- domestic
welfare, resource security, and mutual development- proves its anti-imperialist
character.
Those who call China
"imperialist" do not understand Lenin's definition but
confuse: " participation in the global market” with “domination
of the global market, State-regulated private capital” with
“imperialist finance capital, and investment for domestic welfare and
mutual benefit” with “investment for super profits and exploitation.
This confusion is not a
scientific error; it is the result of ideological warfare. "
