The Sixteenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China Provided the Ideological and Organizational Basis for the Consolidation of Capitalism in China

(We are printing here a comment by Com. Sudheer on the Sixteenth Congress of CPC. This comment was prepared months back but there has been delay in publication.                – Editor)

The Sixteenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) was held in mid-November, 2002. This Congress got a lot of worldwide attention and media coverage. It framed the ideological and organizational basis for the policy of consolidation of capitalism being practised by the CPC. It also elected a new leadership to pursue these policies with sincerity and stability.

Jiang Zemin, who had come to power as a successor to the revisionist policies of Deng Xiaoping, stated in his Report at the Sixteenth Party Congress, that he had developed the Deng Xiaoping Theory to a new level in the light of his experiences for the past thirteen years. This is now known as the “Important Thought of Three Represents”. The Communist Party of China asserts that this ‘important thought’ is a “continuation and development of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory” and that “it reflects new requirements for the work of the Party and state arising from the changes in China and other parts of the world today.” The report further claims that the practice of the previous years since the establishment of a ‘socialist market economy’, “has helped us acquire a deeper understanding of what socialism is, how to build it, and what kind of Party to build and how to build it,” This understanding, in turn, has crystallized into the above ‘important thought’. This “important thought of Three Represents” is now included in their Party Constitution as the Party’s guide to action, along with Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory. “It is the guiding ideology that the Party must uphold for a long time to come.” – declares the Party Constitution. The Report calls upon the Party to “study and implement the important thought of Three Represents intensively and raise all Party members’ level of the Marxist theory.” It requires that the Party “must achieve unity in thinking and in action” in this regard.

Empowered by this “guiding ideology”, the CPC envisages itself as “the core of leadership for the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics” and that it represents “the development trend of China’s advanced productive forces, the orientation of China’s advanced culture and the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the Chinese people.” In reality, these advanced productive forces now include private investors, high level technical experts and managers working in indigenous and foreign organizations in the country. The CPC even considers the foreign investors in China and the managers working in their concerns as partners in the development of 'socialism with Chinese characteristics’.

The present day revisionists in China are preaching the bankrupt theory of Khrushchov – the whole people’s party – only in a different form, that the party represents “the overwhelming majority of the Chinese people”.

The “Important Thought of Three Represents” tries to make people believe the capitalists (indigenous and foreign) and structure of capitalist system as the socialist structure. The CPC has been implementing the programme of the restoration of capitalism in China for the past 22 years. During the times of Deng Xiaoping the Party called upon its members to “Encourage some areas and some people to become rich first, gradually eliminate poverty and achieve common prosperity.” They preached the philosophy – “It is not important whether the cat is white or black. What is important is its expertise in catching mice.” The aim of all these slogans was to develop capitalism in the name of socialist development. So the Party also directed not to pose questions like – Will this development be in accordance with socialism? Does it aim at making a few rich at the cost of the majority of people? It asked not to pose these inconvenient questions and sidetracked the people saying that development was what really mattered. In the name of socialism, it developed capitalism.

Once, the Chinese Party learnt from the experiences of socialist organization and commenced the building up of socialism in China. Now, it has learnt lessons from the chaos and anarchy caused by the transition from bureaucratic capitalism in Soviet Union to private capitalist system and has been implementing its own transformation from state capitalism to private capitalism in China in a planned manner.

In his report, Jiang Zemin, summarizing the experiences of the past 13 years, said that an in-depth understanding was achieved on “What socialism is, how to build it, and what kind of Party to build and how to build it?” In accordance with this experience, capitalists as a class could join the Party. They could enrich themselves exploiting surplus value; they could put it in stock market and become richer. They could develop industries which invested not only in the country but abroad also. All these CPC calls a part of the development of ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’. Yes, when the Chinese Party now implements its key slogan – become rich and achieve development – with all sincerity, how would it be their mistake?

Generally, those who join the ranks of a Communist Party hail from the working class, the peasantry and the middle classes. Rarely some individuals, hailing from feudal and capitalist classes, join the Party, with political and ideological consciousness. Such people distance themselves from exploitative activities (grabbing surplus value). They oppose such exploitation and participate in struggles waged against it. Only when they could conduct themselves in such a manner i.e., undergo declassification, there would be a possibility for them to become and continue as members of a Communist Party. If on the other hand, they actively participate in exploitation, enrich themselves and continue in the Party, then it would never be a Communist Party. It would be a social democratic party or a revisionist party. In this regard, we have experiences in the world Communist movement as well as at home.

The CPC has amended its membership clause in its Constitution. The Article 1 of Chapter I of the Constitution of CPC states, “Any Chinese worker, farmer, member of the armed forces, intellectual or any advanced element of other social strata who accepts the Party’s Program and Constitution and is willing to join and work actively in one of the Party organizations, carry out the Party’s decisions and pay membership dues regularly may apply for membership in the Communist Party of China.” The amendment is the introduction of the phrase “other social strata”. Here “other social strata” means different kinds of investors, capitalists and managers of the industry and none else. CPC’s major tasks are stated in Jiang Zemin’s Report: “The three major historical tasks: to propel the modernization drive, to achieve national reunification and to safeguard world peace and promote common development, and in bringing about the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation on its road to socialism with Chinese characteristics”, i.e., peace and development. This development includes the development of capitalists. It is not banned. The government in China provided all opportunities for the free development of industries of indigenous investors, industries under joint partnership of private capitalists and the government, industries under joint partnership of indigenous and foreign capitalists and the industries run entirely by foreign capitalists. Workers’ unions should not be formed in such industries, particularly in industries lying in the special economic zones. The government does not interfere at all in matters like workers’ appointments, removal, decisions on salary and payments and other such matters. Because of the policy followed by the government of China, it is now being lauded by the World Bank and other international institutions as the best government that attracts foreign capital. China is one of the few countries, which has attracted most of the foreign investment. It is to be mentioned here that according to the CPC “At the present stage, the principal contradiction in Chinese society is one between the ever-growing material and cultural needs of the people and the low level of production”, which is to be ‘tackled’ through their so-called socialist modernization.

According to Marx’s theory of Surplus Value, capital runs to the place where more surplus value is available. It has no national, regional, racial or “our or your” differences. What is required is the possibility to secure greater rate of surplus value.

The amendment to the Constitution to allow party membership to capitalists of China, is effected as a part of the policy of restoration of capitalism being followed by the CPC. But there is no rule that forbids capitalist members of the party from exploiting others. Capitalists can live as capitalists and could also develop. Elucidating over the amendment, the CPC said that it would help to extend the party base, develop it and contribute to achieve unity between classes on wider scale. There is no doubt that the Party there has been gaining strength more and more for the past 22 years by admitting the newly developed capitalists as a class into the Party. The partnership of these forces in the management of government and party affairs will become legal now. Naturally, they will actually come to power. The Party, which is hitherto in the hands of bureaucratic capitalists of government-sponsored industries, will gradually go into the hands of the private capitalists.

The amendment defines the nature of the present Communist Party of China. In the past the Party in China was described as the vanguard of the Chinese working class. Now the amendment declares in the very beginning of the Constitution – “The Communist Party of China is a vanguard both of the Chinese working class and of the Chinese people and the Chinese nation.” Its meaning is that the party belongs to all the Chinese people. Party of the whole people indeed means that it is a bourgeois party. According to Marxist principles, any political party represents a class of people. It is not possible for a party to represent all classes. The declaration that it would serve all classes is to cheat people and nothing else. All bourgeois parties declare that they represent all classes of people. And in practice they serve only the bourgeois class. Only a working class party declares that it represents only the working class. Now the CPC has taken up the practice of bourgeois parties. It preaches one thing and does something else.

The Ill Effects of Capitalist Policy

After the CPC started following the capitalist path, it could achieve economic growth at an average rate of 9.3% per annum. It is claimed that it is the highest economic growth rate in the world. It is natural that growth rate of capitalism is uneven worldwide. Similarly, even in China, economic development has widened the gap between the rich and the poor and that between different regions. While the coastal regions have developed, the western regions have remained backward. The gap between the incomes of the urban and rural people has greatly increased. Even in rural areas, while some have grown to the level of rich farmers and also to the next higher level, the majority of people have been rendered poor. Finding no means of livelihood there, they are migrating to urban areas. Unemployment has risen to 10%. Because of the closure of government enterprises in towns, lakhs of workers are jobless. The Labour Minister declared that the government could provide employment only for a few on retraining them.

The Secretary of the CPC, Jiang Zemin, has said in his report that corruption is the greatest problem that they are facing. We see news items which describe scams in which members from the central leadership to the lowest ranks are involved. Different kinds of money churning methods of capitalists like cheating, prostitution, gambling etc. have found a fertile ground in China. Scams have appeared in the stock market. However, the CPC answers that there is no need for the people to panic because its windows are opened and along with good air even worms and bacteria enter the country.

Presently China has been developing mainly based on its own market. This development could be achieved utilizing the wider base facilities accomplished during socialist regime under the leadership of Mao. Once the Chinese economic system merges with world capitalist system, its conditions of depression and turmoil would inevitably enter China. The ‘Asian Tigers’ – South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore and other countries – which had achieved a fast progress in the past based on imperialist capital, collapsed suddenly. It is a well known fact. Since the Chinese economic system has been at present developing, we do not observe the impact of world capitalist crisis much on it. It is but natural that countries which have adopted capitalist system undergo the economic cycle of rapid development for a definite time, falling down, becoming bankrupt and then recovering. China is no exception to it.

The Chinese Foreign Policy has Abandoned Proletarian Internationalism

The CPC declares that Marxism-Leninism-Mao Thought is its guiding principle. It also assures it is the advanced detachment of “the Chinese working class and of the Chinese people and the Chinese nation”. The least duty of a government under the leadership of working class should be to follow proletarian internationalism in party and government foreign policy. But in the foreign policy of today’s China no such words could be found. Even words like imperialism and capitalism find mention nowhere. Who are the enemies of the world people today? Who have endangered world peace? There is no anxiety over these and on other issues also, nobody there opens their mouths. Moreover, this is the way the international situation is described for misleading the people: “The growing trends toward world multi-polarization and economic globalization have brought with them opportunities and favourable conditions for world peace and development.” That is why, they say, the goal of Chinese foreign policy is to see that peace prevails and joint development is achieved. Is it the real portrayal of the world? Is it not aping US estimate? Even the institutions like the World Bank submit figures that the gap between the rich and the poor has widened, as has that between the rich and poor countries in the world as a result of globalization. They preach that this is a dangerous situation and as a remedy reforms with a human face should be followed. Because of the bad results of globalization, people of different countries are moving towards struggles.

While facts are as cited above, the CPC writes thus about globalization: “We will promote the development of economic globalization in a direction conducive to common prosperity, draw on its advantages and avoid its disadvantages so that all countries, particularly developing countries, can benefit from the process.” What experience has China got by the practice of globalization for the past 10-20 years? How did China stall the disadvantages of globalization? Which poor countries did it help? Nowhere do we get such examples. It has followed only the bourgeois, narrow and selfish policies with the only aim of its own interests and never has it stood up for other developing countries.

They say something, as part of their external policy, thus: “We stand for establishing a new international political and economic order that is fair and rational. Politically all countries should respect and consult one another and should not seek to impose their will on others. Economically they should complement one another and pursue common development and should not create a polarization of wealth.” They talk of very good morals on relations between nations. Does China work in that direction? How and where did it stall the centralization of wealth? When the rich countries put forward arguments that were useful and profitable to them at the WTO Conference in Doha, what did China do, except supporting them? When did China oppose the rich countries where they have exploited the poor countries? Nowhere did it do so. It is a fact that any criticism by China remained within the sphere that did not jeopardize its interests, friendship and cooperation with rich countries, particularly the USA.

The Report further says: “We oppose all forms of hegemonism and power politics. China will never seek hegemony and never go in for expansion.” They say that they do not try for expansion or hegemony. Good. But at many places they have said that they would oppose all kinds of high handedness and hegemony. What has China done in practice? When US has been leading a series of invading wars, has China criticized? Has it opposed? Nowhere has it opposed the US, but rather has supported it in the name of suppressing terrorism. For the past ten years, the US has been harassing Iraq with sanctions. Now, it publicly says that it would invade the country. In this respect, China supported the resolution proposed by the US in the Security Council of the UNO. It did not use its power of veto. By keeping quiet, it supports the US for its threatening of and war-preparations against Iraq. Is it opposing the hegemony? Never. It is a stark demonstration of submission before high handedness.

Portraying North Korea, Iran and Iraq as the axis of evil, the US threatened them everyday. Has China ever criticized the US over this? No. On some pretext or other the US threatens, imposes sanctions on Libya, Cuba and other nations. Has ever China condemned the actions of the US? No.

On relations between nations and development, the report further observes: “Countries having different civilizations and social systems and taking different roads to development should respect one another and draw upon one another’s strong points through competition and comparison and should develop side by side by seeking common ground while shelving differences. The affairs of each country should be left to the people of that country to decide.” What is the difference between the understanding of these sentences and Khrushchov’s false theory of peaceful coexistence and peaceful competition? Nothing, except the change of words. When they say that theirs is a socialist country, they should speak of the advantages of the socialist path and its progressive characteristics. Nowhere do we find such words. Is there no need to say which is the correct path – the capitalist or the socialist? Now, there is no future for socialism in the world; capitalist system and multiparty democracy are great ideals and they are permanent – so say the capitalist intellectuals and theorists day in and day out. What does the CPC, which profess itself to be a party of working class reply to such propaganda?

They say that they fight against all kinds of terrorism and we have to promote international cooperation in this fight against terrorism. They say that we should eliminate the root causes of terrorism. Who is responsible for the growth of terrorism in the world today? It is the US. Everywhere it follows the hegemonistic and exploitative methods. Terrorism has grown from the dissatisfaction and anger against it. China does not criticize imperialism, the root cause for terrorism, nor its stooges – the despotic governments, but argues that it shall eradicate terrorism by joining hands with them. Is it scientific or practicable? No. It is stating that it would eliminate terrorism along with the US and other rich countries and furthering the cooperation amongst those countries in this respect is not at all for the eradication of terrorism. It amounts to strengthening its foundation. It is nothing but joining hands with the imperialist countries against poor countries and the exploited people.

CPC says that it put in efforts to actively participate in the multiparty, diplomatic activities, to promote China’s role in the UN, other international organizations, and in regional organizations and to protect the rights and interests of developing countries. But in practice, the role of China in these bodies has never been in tune with the above. Even ordinary political analysts say that the UN is now more or less in the hands of the US. If in the UN, China had played its role independently and against high handed and hegemonistic politics, would the US behave in such an arrogant and unchecked manner? No, never. That is why what China says is one thing and what it does is another. China is not on the side of the poor countries; it is putting in more efforts in the direction of multipolar world, formed of different groups of rich countries. It is a part of its policy to protect and extend its interests. That is why China is no longer a socialist country. It is a capitalist country.

Some 'arguments' in support of ‘Socialist Market Economy’ of China

Some parties in our country, like the CPI and the CPI(M), support the CPC saying that socialist market economy is nothing but the building up of socialism; the same is the case with the invitation of China to foreign capital or its giving permission to start private capitalist industries. For this they cite the example of Lenin. When he had taken up new economic policy in Russia, he invited foreign capital and also permitted private industries to some extent and all these, they claim, helped in building up socialism. They support China that its party is following the path of Lenin since it is a developing country now.

There is a lot of qualitative difference between Russia of Lenin’s times and present-day China. During the times of Lenin the economic system of Russia was totally in ruins and one had to begin from scratch. Secondly, it was the time when the working class had just acquired state power. Thirdly, Russia was alone internationally. Because of these reasons, history proved that the strategy of Lenin was apt and befitting. But present day China had completed the New Democratic Revolution in 1949, and successfully built up the socialist structure. It could secure cooperation from the Soviet Union. The socialist camp gave it support. Later on, revisionist Khrushchov refused to help China, and withdrew cooperation and technical expertise. On the other hand, the US put China under arrest from all directions. China overcame all these problems and progressed in building up a socialist structure. So there is no need for China to permit a ‘new economic policy’ like Russia. Even if there are conditions for such allowance, there is a lot of qualitative difference between the policies followed by Russia and the present day China. In this context, it would be better to recall the short story of compromise related by Lenin:

“Imagine that your car is held up by armed bandits. You hand them over your money, passport, revolver and car. In return you are rid of the pleasant company of the bandits. That is unquestionably a compromise. “Do ut des” (I “give” you money, firearms and a car “so that you give” me the opportunity to get away from you with a whole skin). It would, however, be difficult to find a sane man who would declare such a compromise to be “inadmissible on principle”, or who would call the compromiser an accomplice of the bandits (even though the bandits might use the car and the firearms for further robberies). Our compromise with the bandits of German imperialism was just that kind of compromise.” (Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, Chapter 5)

There are two strategies involved in the short story of compromise related by Lenin. The first one is the compromise to protect yourself and then put an end to the enemy. The second strategy is to compromise with the bandit, join him, and become a partner in the loot. Lenin followed the first kind of strategy, while the second was followed by the then revisionists and opportunist parties.

Lenin’s new economic policy was a kind of backward step. Still it was the need of the day. At the same time, when Lenin followed the new economic policy, proletarian internationalism was not abandoned. He declared complete support to the working class struggles carried on in different countries and national liberation movements in colonial countries. Later, undeterred that this might isolate the socialist state, he castigated in severest terms the exploiting and invasive policies of the imperialist countries. He put in efforts for the building up of Communist Parties worldwide and the Third International.

If at all the CPC feels that there is a need to permit capitalist development at present and capital is required for the development of socialism since the country is backward, and if the feeling is genuine, that could be permitted. But, is such a condition still existent in China after the building up of a socialist structure? Let us assume, for argument’s sake, that such conditions still exist. Even then, where is the necessity to compromise with imperialist countries, particularly the US? If such a compromise is not struck, will they give capital? It may be that you cannot prevent the exploiting, looting and invading policies of the imperialist countries spread over the world, under the leadership of the US. But you could surely oppose and criticize. At least that could be done. Is there no need to support the working class and the exploited people’s struggles? Should not the people in the world be explained the need of and the superiority of the ideology of scientific socialism? Do not we need to tell the people which path – the socialist or the capitalist – is useful to the people? There is such a need, particularly from a vast country which speaks of building socialism, when the capitalists propagate widely that globalization and capitalism are the only systems for the world to follow. Should China not say that the real alternative to this is socialism? The Communist Party of China has not been performing its duty, nor will it do so.

So, what the CPC is building up is not a socialist but a capitalist system. It started in the name of allowing capitalist development in a particular condition in China. Now it fully develops the capitalist path. That is why the compromise and adjustments worked out with the imperialist countries by the CPC are all against the strategy adopted, preached and implemented by Lenin. They cause a great loss to the people of China and to the world as a whole.

People know how the policies pursued since the time of Khrushchov in the Soviet Union in the name of building up socialism have actually built capitalism and how the socialist structure in East European countries had been gradually transformed. These experiences could never be forgotten. Until the open transformation into capitalism, after its development in the name of socialism in those countries, parties in India like the CPI and the CPI(M) had been supporting these countries claiming that socialism is flourishing there. They had argued that there was progression not regression there for the socialist system. When the communist revolutionaries argued that capitalism had been restored in the USSR, they ridiculed them that it was against the principles of dialectical materialism. Finally, the consequences in the Soviet Union and the East European countries proved that what Com. Mao had said was correct. In the light of these experiences, the situation in China should be understood. We should not have illusions that socialist structure would be developed in China. We have to enlighten the revolutionary ranks, our sympathizers and the people on what is happening in China and expose the revisionist policies of the Communist Party of China.