Is China an Imperialist country by the definition of Lenin’s Scientific Imperialism theory? 2- Theoretical background
Is China an Imperialist country by the definition of Lenin’s Scientific Imperialism theory?
2- Theoretical background
|
Concept |
Marxist-Leninist Definition |
Bourgeois Misconception |
|
Class |
Relationship to means of
production |
Income/wealth level |
|
State |
Organ of class rule |
Neutral arbiter of society |
|
Bureaucracy |
Technical apparatus under party
control |
A "new ruling class" |
|
Professional Revolutionary |
Vanguard serving the collective |
Power-hungry elite |
2.1- What is a class
“Classes are large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in the social organisation of labour, and, consequently, by the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they dispose and the mode of acquiring it. Classes are groups of people one of which can appropriate the labour of another owing to the different places they occupy in a definite system of social economy.” Lenin, A Great Beginning
Class is a fundamental economic relationship defined by ownership of the means of production. A class is a social group defined by its relationship to the means of production. As we all know, there are two fundamental class division; The bourgeoisie-the capitalist class that owns the means of production and the proletariat-the working class, who own no means of production. I will not dwell on petty bourgeois and lumpen proletariat. Various groups between the main classes are called “strata”; lower, upper, middle, top. Bureaucracy is defined as a strata. Petty bourgeois makes up the “middle strata”. Revisionists invent “new classes” to support their arguments. Paraphrasing Lenin; the “new” of communism, criticism of Marxism by these “new” is no less “new” than the “old” bourgeois revisionist and the general counter-revolutionary line.
2.2- What is a state and
state capitalism
Relating to our subject, let’s
keep in mind that “The state is a product and a manifestation of the
irreconcilability of class antagonisms.” The state arises
where, when, and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled.
And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms
are irreconcilable”…it is not an organ for the reconciliation of
classes. Lenin, The State and Revolution
“According
to Marx, the state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the
oppression of one class by another; it is the creation of “order”, which
legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflict between
classes. In the opinion of the petty-bourgeois politicians, however, order
means the reconciliation of classes, and not the oppression of one class by
another.” Lenin, State and Revolution
In order to form a socialist
state and build socialist economy, first of all
"the
proletariat needs state power, the centralized organization of
force, the organization of violence, both for the purpose of crushing
the resistance of the exploiters, and for the purpose of leading the
enormous mass of the population, the peasantry, the petty bourgeoisie, and the
semi-proletarians in the work of organizing socialist economy." Lenin,
State and Revolution
In Marxist-Leninist terms, "state
capitalism" is not a static category; it is a transitional
instrument. Its class character and ultimate trajectory are
determined entirely by which class holds state power.
State capitalism is
used to nationalize strategic sectors, subordinate private capital
to state planning, develop productive forces in backward agrarian countries,
and create the material conditions for the construction of socialism.
So, while a dogmatic person might
call China "state capitalist" as an insult, a true Marxist-Leninist
recognizes that state capitalism is not a final destination; it is
a temporary ladder. Whether that ladder is used to climb upward toward
socialism (USSR-NK-Cuba-China-Vietnam) or to descend downward
into fascist imperialism (Nazi Germany, Italy, Japan) depends
entirely on the political superstructure, i.e., the leadership, the
party, and the class nature of the state apparatus.
For our next brief subject, Lenin
puts it nicely:
“Some began to
say that the working masses themselves have not yet advanced the broad and
militant political tasks which the revolutionaries are attempting to “impose”
on them…Others, far removed from any theory of “gradualness”, said that it is
possible and necessary to “bring about a political revolution”, but that this
does not require building a strong organisation of revolutionaries to
train the proletariat in steadfast and stubborn struggle. All we need
do is to snatch up our old friend, the “accessible” cudgel.
Both these tendencies, the
opportunist and the "revolutionary," bow to the prevailing
primitiveness; …neither understand our primary and most imperative practical
task, namely, to establish an organisation of revolutionists capable
of maintaining energy, the stability and continuity of the political
struggle. Lenin, What is to be done
2.3- Workers (Socialist,
communist) Party – “a new (privileged) class?”
"The
communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class
parties... they have no interests, separate and apart from the proletariat as a
whole... they fight for the immediate goals of the working class, but within
the current movement, they also represent and secure the future of this
movement." Marx & Engels, The Communist Manifesto
The party is a vanguard, a
professional organization of revolutionaries.
The bourgeois argument is
deceptively simple: "Party leaders have access to
wealth and power; therefore they are a 'new class'."
Bourgeois Claims that CCP Leaders have "billions in assets."
The claim that Chinese party leaders possess billions in personal assets is
not a factual assertion; it is an ideological weapon. It relies on
the bourgeois presupposition that all politicians are corrupt,
that all power is self-serving, and that collective ownership is
impossible. The bourgeois media routinely publishes "investigations" that
rely on anonymous sources. But where is the evidence? Unverified
documents and “Estimates" based on speculative methodologies. If
these claims were true, they would have come up with verifiable
evidence. Why do these 'investigations' never produce bank statements,
property deeds, or legal documents? They rely on gossip because they
cannot rely on facts. Bourgeoisie and 5th column
“socialists” produce narratives, not evidence, which is
the projection of capitalist cynicism onto a socialist system. They
claim that the party leaders are "privileged" like
the ruling class. However, access to collective
assets is not the same as private ownership. The leaders
serve the state, not themselves.
Under socialism, leaders
are professional revolutionaries; their "privilege" is
access to state resources in service of the people, not for personal
enrichment. The system is not a fake democracy where
leaders come and go every 4–5 years, accumulating personal wealth. It is a
lifetime profession of service, with accountability to the party and the
people.
2.4- Professional
Revolutionaries
"The
worker-revolutionary, in order to be fully prepared for his task, must likewise
be a professional revolutionary." Lenin, What Is to Be Done?
The professional revolutionaries
do not make up a 'new class'. It is a historical
category that has existed for over a century. From Lenin to Stalin,
Enver Hoxha to Mao, socialist leaders have consistently lived modestly,
with no accumulation of personal wealth. Their 'privilege' is
not private property.
The professional
revolutionary does not need to accumulate personal assets because the
state provides for their needs. Their 'privilege' is access to collective
resources—planes, ships, finance, estates—all of which are used in the service
of the people, not for personal enrichment. This is not a
“'new class”'—it is the very definition of proletarian state
power. Historical examples demonstrate that the professional
revolutionary is a real historical category—not a bourgeois myth.
According to bourgeois and
revisionists, the concept of “professional” is a myth due
to “human Nature”.
2.5- “Human Nature” question.
"The human
essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality,
it is the ensemble of social relations." Marx, Theses on
Feuerbach, Thesis VI
Is human nature fixed, inherent,
universal, and thus greed and individualism are "natural.? The
bourgeois claim that human nature is fixed and inherently
individualistic is not a scientific statement; it is an
ideological justification for capitalism. Marx showed that human
nature is the ensemble of social relations. An environment rooted
in collectivism, socialist education, and material conditions will produce a different
human nature than that of the West. This is not a deviation from
Marxism; it is the application of materialism to concrete reality.
Marxism holds that the essence
of human beings is "the ensemble of social relations," not
an abstract, eternal "selfish nature." The historical
practice of generations of revolutionaries itself serves as a powerful
refutation of such abstract theories of human nature. So for
Bourgeois (Idealist), human nature is fixed, inherent,
and universal. Greed and individualism are "natural."
Socialism is "against human nature." For Marxists (Materialist),
human nature is shaped by material conditions, culture, and social
relations. Capitalist social relations produce greed and
individualism. Socialism transforms human nature by changing
the conditions that produce greed and individualism.
The bourgeois narrative of "inherent
human nature" is itself a product of capitalism, which is a necessary
ideology for justifying exploitation by universalizing greed and
individualism, thereby naturalizing its own contradictions.
2.6- Bureaucracy as an
apparatus vs Bureaucracy as a class
"Bureaucracy
is an instrument of the bourgeoisie in the hands of the proletariat—so long as
the proletariat holds power." Lenin, various works
|
Aspect |
Bureaucracy as Apparatus |
Bureaucracy as Class (Bourgeois Myth) |
|
Ownership of Means of Production |
None; administers on behalf of the ruling class |
Claims to own or control the means of production |
|
Source of Power |
Delegated by the ruling class (proletariat or
bourgeoisie) |
Self-generated through control of the state |
|
Purpose |
Implements policy; coordinates production and
distribution |
Serves its own interests; extracts surplus |
|
Character |
Technical and administrative |
Political and exploitative |
|
Under Socialism |
Withers away with the state under communism |
Perpetuates itself as a permanent ruling stratum |
Bureaucracy is not a class
in the Marxist sense. It does not create value itself. Its function is not
productive labor in the sense of generating surplus value through the
production of commodities. Rather, bureaucracy controls the coordination,
distribution, and consumption of the value that has been created in the
production process and its continuation through the social reproduction of
labor and capital.
In other words, the bureaucracy
is responsible for the preparation and implementation of the laws and
regulations governing production relations, but it does so in the interests
of one class or another, depending on the class character of the state
that the bureaucracy serves.
Under capitalism, bureaucracy
serves the bourgeoisie: it enforces property relations, regulates labor
discipline, and administers the legal framework that protects private ownership
of the means of production. Under socialism, bureaucracy serves the proletariat:
it administers state-owned enterprises, allocates resources according to plan,
and ensures that production serves the needs of the people, not the
accumulation of private capital.
Class character of bureaucracy is
determined entirely by which class holds state power. To argue that
bureaucracy constitutes a "new class" is to confuse the
function of administration with the ownership of the means of production—a
fundamental category error that abandons the materialist basis of class
analysis for subjective idealism.
The bourgeois critique of
socialist bureaucracy rests on a category error: it confuses an apparatus
with a class. Lenin was explicit: bureaucracy is an instrument for
policy, not a policy for the apparatus. China's bureaucracy remains
subordinate to the party, which remains subordinate to the proletariat. It
is not a 'new class', it is a transitional institution that
will wither away when the conditions for its existence have
been abolished.
Lenin puts this fact bluntly by
saying that;
“The economic
foundations for the withering away of the state”: in this case we also
have the “economic foundations” for the withering away of bureaucracy,” Lenin,
Plan of The Pamphlet, The Tax in Kind
The withering away of the
state is a long-term process that depends on the abolition of classes,
the development of productive forces, and the transformation of consciousness.
China is in the socialist stage; the state apparatus is still necessary to
suppress counter-revolutionary forces and organize socialist
construction. (There is no claim in China that socialism is
constructed)
The bourgeois and revisionist
narrative deliberately conflate "bureaucracy" with
"class" to delegitimize socialist states.
Bourgeois and revisionists
claim that the party becomes a new ruling class,
bureaucrats serve their own interests, and the bureaucracy will perpetuate
itself. Marxist-Leninist Reality is that the party is
a vanguard, a professional organization of revolutionaries. Bureaucracy
is a technical apparatus for the implementation of party policy. it
serves the interests of the proletariat, and the bureaucracy will wither away
with the state apparatus under communism.
Based on Lenin's
distinction: China's bureaucracy remains an apparatus. It is
subject to party discipline, mass supervision, and the ultimate goal of
socialist construction. The bourgeois claim that it has become a "new
class" is not a materialist analysis—it is an ideological projection.
Privileges are a temporary
phenomenon under conditions of scarcity and socialist construction.
They do not constitute ownership of the means of production, which
is the defining feature of a class.
This establishes that the state
apparatus—including bureaucracy is a tool of the proletariat, not a class
unto itself.
2.7-Party leadership in
contrast with Bourgeois Democracy: incentives for corruptions
"Without a
party of iron, hardened and tempered in struggle, it is impossible to maintain
the dictatorship of the proletariat." Stalin, Foundations of
Leninism
In bourgeois democracies, leaders
are incentivized to accumulate as much personal wealth as
possible before leaving office—because they know their time is limited.
In a socialist state, leaders are professional revolutionaries who
serve for life, and do not need to accumulate personal assets because the
collective assets of the state are at their disposal—but only in service of the
people. This is not a 'new class', it is the very opposite of bourgeois
corruption."
Bourgeois
Democracy leaders come and go every 4–5 years. Leaders accumulate
personal wealth before leaving. Corruption is structural. The state
serves the bourgeoisie. Socialist State leaders serve for
life, accountable to the party and the people. Leaders do not need to
accumulate wealth; they have access to all collective assets. Corruption
is severely punished; the system is designed to prevent personal
enrichment, to serve the collective interests of the laboring masses.
2.8- What is socialism
"The
dictatorship of the proletariat is a state which is organized
to suppress the resistance of the exploiting classes." Lenin, The
State and Revolution
There is a difference between “socialism”
as a political power - socialist state and “constructing socialism-carrying
socialism to everyday life” through economic and social developments.
Once the Communist Party acquires political power and built it’s dictatorship, it
is a socialist state regardless of the degree of its economic and social
development, which takes different paths, back and forward steps depending
on its own conditions and historical characteristics. Lenin has more than once
pointed out that the transition from capitalism to Socialism, taken on a world
scale, shows “a diversity of forms of democracy and forms of
transition from capitalism to Socialism.”
As the Qualitative Criteria of
Socialism, Marxism-Leninism defines socialism not by the “presence
or absence” of markets or private property, or by the degree
of socialist economic development, but by the “class
character of the state”. The key criterion is: “Who holds
political power?” As Lenin stated:
“The transition
from capitalism to Socialism will certainly create a great
variety and abundance of political forms, but their essence will
inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat.” Lenin,
The State and Revolution
The dictatorship of the
proletariat is the forcible coercion of the exploiters, but the forms of
this coercion can and will inevitably be different.
“The
necessary earmark, the essential condition of dictatorship, is the
forcible suppression of the exploiters as a class.” (Lenin, The
Proletarian Revolution, and the Renegade Kautsky.
It is on the one hand, the
distinctive features of the internal development in a country, the
correlation of class forces and the intensity of class conflicts in
the country and on the other the distinctive features of the international
situation which, above all, determine the forms, methods, and
the scale of the violence of the proletariat against the exploiters.
“But the essence
of the proletarian dictatorship does not lie in force alone, or even
mainly in force. Its quintessence is the organisation and discipline of the
advanced detachment of the working people, of their vanguard, their
sole leader, the proletariat, whose object is to build Socialism,
to abolish the division of society into classes, to make all members of
society working people, to remove the basis for any kind of exploitation of
man by man.” Lenin, A Great Beginning
“The dictatorship of the
proletariat,” says Lenin, “is a special form of class alliance between the
proletariat, the vanguard of the toilers, and the numerous
non-proletarian strata of toilers (the petty bourgeoisie, the small
proprietors, the peasantry, the intelligentsia, etc.) or the majority of
these; it is an alliance against capital, an alliance
aiming at the complete overthrow of capital, at
the complete suppression of the resistance of the bourgeoisie
and of any attempt on its part at restoration, an alliance aiming at
the final establishment and consolidation of Socialism.” (Lenin,
quoted by Stalin, Problems of Leninism, p. 133)
“Thus, on the
whole, we have a formally non-Communist, flexible and relatively wide and very
powerful proletarian apparatus by means of which the Party is closely
linked up with the class and with the masses, and by means of
which, under the leadership of the Party, the dictatorship of the class
is exercised.” Lenin, “Left-Wing” Communism,
In developing this concept of
Lenin, Comrade Stalin said:
“Leadership is
ensured by the method of persuading the masses, as the principal method by
which the Party influences the masses. This, however, does not preclude, but
presupposes, the use of coercion, if such coercion is based on the
confidence and support of the majority of the working class for the Party
if it is applied to the minority after the Party has convinced the majority.”
(Stalin, Ibid., p. 151)
In his work, On the Foundations
of Leninism, Stalin generalizes and develops the Leninist characterizations of
Soviet power. He lays down the following as its distinctive and characteristic
features:
” the Soviet
power has a most pronounced mass character and is the
most democratic State organisation of all possible State organisations while
classes continue to exist; it is the arena of the bond between the
working class and the peasantry directed against the exploiters, and basing
itself on this union, the Soviet power is the power of the majority
of the population over the minority, “it is the State of
the majority, the expression of its dictatorship.” (Stalin, On the
Foundations of Leninism
So, Socialism is defined by:
1. The Dictatorship
of the Proletariat: Political power is held by the working class, led
by its vanguard party.
2. Public Ownership of
the Means of Production: The decisive industries of the economy are owned and
controlled by the state, which represents the proletariat.
3. The Planned
Development of Productive Forces: The economy is directed toward
meeting the needs of the people, not the accumulation of capital.
Here now, we can go back to
Stalin’s quote on China and his explanation;
What are
these general laws of building socialism?
1. Above
all, it is the dictatorship of the proletariat, the workers’ and
peasants’ State, a particular form of the union of these classes under the
obligatory leadership of the most revolutionary class in history, the class of
workers. Only this class is capable of building socialism and suppressing the
resistance of the exploiters and petty bourgeoisie.
2. Socialised
property of the main instruments and means of production. Expropriation
of all the large factories and their management by the state.
3. Nationalisation
of all capitalist banks, the merging of all of them into a single state
bank and strict regulation of its functioning by the state.
4. The scientific
and planned conduct of the national economy from a single centre. Obligatory
use of the following principle in the building of socialism: from
each according to his capacity, to each according to his work, distribution
of the material goods depending upon the quality and quantity of the work of
each person.
5. Obligatory
domination of Marxist-Leninist ideology.
6. Creation
of armed forces that would allow the defence of the accomplishments of
the revolution and always remember that any revolution is worth anything only
if it is capable of defending itself.
7. Ruthless
armed suppression of counter-revolutionaries and the foreign agents.
These, in
short, are the main laws of socialism as a science, requiring that
we relate to them as such.
Repeating to remind the “context”
of his words that followed the necessity to consider each country’s
conditions and his relevant words to Chinese Communists;
“If you
understand this, everything with the building of socialism in China
will be fine. If you won’t, you will do great harm to the
international communist movement. As far as I know in the CPC there is a thin
layer of the proletariat and the nationalist sentiments are very strong, and if
you will not conduct genuinely Marxist-Leninist class policies and not
conduct struggle against bourgeois nationalism, the nationalists will
strangle you. “ Stalin; From the Conversation with the Delegation of
the CC CP of China in Moscow
It is important to note that,
aside from the given eclectic quote, the text is usually published in a summary
form. In his full conversation, Stalin states;
Due to the conceit
of the leaders of the revolutionary movement in Western Europe, after the
death of Marx and Engels, the social-democratic movement in the West fell
behind in its development. The centre of the revolution in the West
shifted to the East, and now it has moved to China and East
Asia.
I say that you
already play an important role, and you certainly should not become
conceited. But at the same time I would argue that the responsibility
entrusted to you rises higher. You must fulfil your duty to the revolution
in East Asia.
Perhaps, on
the general questions of the theory of Marxism, we Soviet people
are stronger than you. However, if we talk about the application
of Marxist principles in practice, then you have such a great
experience that we should learn from you. In the past, we learned a lot
from you.
One nation
should learn from the other. Let it be a small nation – it still has a lot to
teach us.” Stalin; From the Conversation with the Delegation of the CC
CP of China in Moscow
So, the widely used quote
from Stalin does not defy or condemn the Chinese Communist Party, but
stresses the fact that “there is only one socialism” built according to
the conditions of each country but in accordance with the above summarized fundamental laws.
In addition to cherry-picked
quotes, gossip, and subjective narratives, most argue that the wage
difference and “market economy” are indications of a capitalist society. We
should touch on those subjects briefly.
2.9- Socialism vs. Communism-
the distinction consciously overlooked. Difference between socialist society
and communist society
"What
is usually called socialism is what Marx called the 'first' or lower phase of
communist society." Lenin, The State and Revolution
"In the
first phase of communist society (socialism), the principle of 'from each
according to his ability, to each according to his work' applies." Marx,
Critique of the Gotha Programme
We must now address the
persistent accusation that "socialism cannot have private capital",
“there cannot be huge differences between the salaries”, etc. This
accusation rests on a deliberate confusion between the two phases of
communist society. The accusers conflate the necessary persistence of
bourgeois right under socialism with capitalism itself.
Stalin noted as one of the
conditions in the above-mentioned article, “Obligatory use of the
following principle in the building of socialism: from each according
to his capacity, to each according to his work, distribution
of the material goods depending upon the quality and quantity of
the work of each person.”
Socialism and communism are
often used interchangeably in some settings, and thus are oftentimes
confused. Lenin had foreseen this danger and pointed out in his
speech;
"We
have actually been using the adjective “communist” very frequently, so
frequently that we have even included it in the name of our Party. But when you
give this matter some thought, you arrive at the idea that together with the
good that has followed from this, a certain danger for us may have been
created.” Lenin, Report on Subbotniks
Lenin specifically warns on the
subject of the use of the term and says: `
“the
scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear….
“communism” is applicable and acceptable providing we do not forget
that this is not complete communism, "- communist
society…. “in the first phase of communist society
(which is usually called socialism). Lenin, The
State and Revolution
Characteristic of both phases of
communist society is the absence of exploiting classes and of
the exploitation of man by man, of national and racial oppression. The purpose
of production, in both societies, is the maximum satisfaction of material
and cultural requirements of the whole society.
Stalin in his speech at the 16th
Congress states;
“We are for
the withering away of the State (transition to communism EA).
And yet we also believe in the proletarian dictatorship, which
represents the strongest and mightiest form of State power that has existed up
to now. To keep on developing State power in order to prepare the
conditions for the withering away of State power –
that is the Marxist formula. It is ‘contradictory’? Yes, ‘contradictory.’ But
the contradiction is vital, and wholly reflects
Marxian dialectic...
“Whoever has
not understood this feature of the contradictions belonging to our transitional
time, whoever has not understood this dialectic of historical
processes, that person is DEAD to Marxism.” Stalin, speech
at the 16th Congress states
As far as the “wage “ differences
are concerned, in socialist society it is “incentive labor”, “according
to one’s ability”, that only transforms in communist society to “voluntary
labor” and “according to one’s need”.
The easiest victims of bourgeois
and revisionist narratives and pontifications are those who lack of
knowledge and are lazy in researching and reading, with the assumption that
“they already know everything and they don’t have to read,” whom Lenin called
the “worse kind of communists”.
Let’s study and compare the
Soviet NEP and China’s EP.
