Behind the Farce of the 19th Congress of the Chinese “Communist” Party

The Power and the Frailty of a Great Imperialist Country

Comments in the bourgeois press on the 19th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) all agree when it comes to praising the confirmation of President Xi Jinping, being anointed as the third most powerful president of the People’s Republic after Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. Even a stuffy review like The Economist dedicated its cover to the “most powerful man in the world”.

Once again, an impotent bourgeoisie feels the need to dream about great leaders. Without having to make any political distinctions, everybody agrees about giving importance to the efforts and personal qualities of Presidents and Prime Ministers in influencing both past and future events. Indeed, for the bourgeoisie and its hack writers, the progression of history is governed by brilliant leaders, deceitful or thoughtful in turn. And the hacks get all excited and fawning in reverent admiration for some personality, who, in reality, is pretty trivial. The more capitalist society rots, the more spreads the religious belief that from the great and powerful we can expect either salvation or doom. According to this belief, history is determined by “men of destiny” and by their comings and goings at the world’s capitals, either in the American, the Russian or the Chinese way.

Our Italian comrades would call these ’great leaders’ a bunch of ’battilocchi’. A “battilocchio” is a lad who strives for attention while displaying his own utter emptiness at the same time. Marxism has always questioned the role of individuals in social processes and in particular the role of great personalities. Engels wrote: “for a great man to be born in a certain age and place, naturally is a sheer accident. But, if we dispose of them, the demand for a substitute immediately takes place; and without much further ado, that substitute will be eventually found”. Marxism recognizes the authentic engine of History in the economic material necessities of the classes, in the context of a given production process and their social struggle.

It’s these circumstances which require the arrival and success of certain individuals. It is history which plays with these supposed ’superhumans’, not them with it.

Almost a century ago, in 1924, we asserted that “our theory of leadership is far away from all the idiocies with which theologies and official politics prove the need of popes, kings, “first citizens”, dictators, Duces, all poor puppets who deceive themselves in believing they are making history”.

So it’s obviously for the sake of Chinese capitalism that Xi Jinping’s “political vision” has been added to the Party’s Constitution; a privilege that up till now has been reserved for Mao Zedong. In 1997 “Deng Xiaoping’s theory” was introduced in the Constitution of the Party, though Deng Xiaoping was already dead. From a Marxist point of view, Mao, Deng and now Xi, who are being celebrated as “great helmsmen”, are only representatives of three different periods of the national history of China.

From Mao to Deng, National Independence and Capitalist Development

As a result of the impositions of the imperialist States, which pushed themselves to engaging the shameful Opium Wars, China, which is now characterizing itself as a world-scale capitalistic power, thus capable of sustaining a competition with the old powers which came to their own status by centuries. was in a miserable state at the beginning of the 20th Century.

Unlike India and other colonial countries, China entered modern history as “everybody’s colony”. Soon the export of capital to China prevailed over that of industrial products. To protect their investments, the great powers agreed to partition the country into spheres of influence In Beijing, the foreign diplomatic corps controlled the Chinese state’s finances.

The imperialistic rule, that firstly weakened the imperial dynasty and ended up eliminating it completely, produced in China the dismembering of its land. Indeed, without a centralized power, it ended up under the rule of the so called warlords, that is the military leaders, paid by the imperialistic powers, who detained the rule through the use of mercenary armies made up of landless peasants. A warlord’s regional control corresponded to the sphere of influence of the country which aid them.

The warlords protected the interests of imperialism and the foreign backed bourgeoisie by exploiting the proletariat of both the cities and the countryside and by taking control over the country’s wealth.

The weak national bourgeoisie, while being conscious about the need to get rid of imperialist oppression and reestablish national unity, lacked the needed strength to achieve its aims.

China in the early 1900s was fraught with bourgeois revolution. Ahead of it was not only the the essential task of gaining national independence, but also enacting agrarian reforms – a precondition of for industrial development. Although it was unclear if such a task would need to be carried out by the bourgeoisie or the proletariat.

In 1911, a top down revolution had overthrown the imperial dynasty and established a bourgeois republic under the presidency of Sun Yat-sen. Soon an inconsistency emerged: The newborn republic was immediately killed off by the interference of warlords. The warlords were encouraged by the bourgeoisie itself, proving that class to be incapable of fulfilling even the tasks of its own revolution.

This principally in the fear of not being able to control the powerful forces of the proletariat and the peasants, since a revolutionary process would have inevitably set these forces in motion. So the Chinese bourgeoisie was in conflict with the warlords, but was also tied to them for the sake of repressing the proletarian movement. And in 1911 Sun Yat-sen, President of the Republic, passed over his government’s power to the regional warlords. It was clear, as in Russia, that the national bourgeoisie, with its own forces, would have not been capable of leading its revolution to success.

In the meantime a new fact began to have a decisive influence over world events. World War One caused the outbreak of the Russian revolution. The proletarian victory in October 1917 shocked the world. Each country having to make a choice: revolutionary communism or bourgeois counter-revolution. The strategy of the Communist International theses on the colonial question was to connect class struggle in the main capitalist countries with the national revolutions going on in the colonies. Such a world strategy would have put communist Russia at the revolutionary epicenter, which in a complex cycle, which would have ended up overthrowing capitalism worldwide.

Just like in Russia, the working class, in alliance with the peasants, ripped off their chains – that is the chains of capitalist and landlord power – and put an end to an imperialist war. While in the west, proletarian revolution was on the agenda, in the backward countries, such as China, a struggle for a double revolution, guided by the communists in the form of a soviet regime, was not only feasible, but proper in the point of view of revolutionary communism.

The emergence of Stalinism, and the overthrowing within the proletariat’s own power in Russia put this perspective to an end. A triumphant worldwide counter-revolution, especially in Russia, handed the Chinese proletariat to the bourgeoisie.

Stalinism stood as a dominant force in Russia and the International during the period of 1923 to 1927. The Chinese Communist Party was forced to kowtow to the bourgeois Chinese nationalist party, the Kuomintang. The CPC had lost any chance of the independent struggle needed for a revolutionary victory.

The giant revolutionary efforts of the Chinese workers and peasants were drowned in blood. The tragic epilogue turned out to be in year 1927. In March of that year, the particularly numerous and combative proletariat of Shanghai (the most important industrial and port city in China) rose up and took over the city. For the dominant position Shanghai had in China’s economic life and for the recent developments in the revolutionary workers and peasants movement, this episode could have given the Chinese revolution a totally anti-bourgeois direction. Instead, the Communist Party and the working class organizations who were in power submitted to Moscow’s guidance and handed over their rule to Chiang Kai-shek, who not long after broke his alliance with the communists and turned to full repression, imprisoning and mass killing communists and workers, destroying both their trade unions and their political organizations. The Shanghai massacre was only the first of many more massacres that took the working class and the peasants down.

The year 1927 stands for the victory of counter-revolution and the defeat of the revolutionary proletarian movement in China.

A revolutionary movement shall come back to life only after the second world war, starting with the most backward and rural areas of China, with a completely different class characterization, being nationalist and anti-imperialist, yet not communist.

It was from those regions that Mao’s peasant armies ran rampant and conquered the towns. The following events and the character of the Chinese revolution itself that made China in 1949 turn into an independent nation, can only be explained under the light of the tragic facts that happened in the 20s. The defeat of the Chinese proletariat and the repression it had to face, helped the shifting of the revolutionary movement from the towns to the countryside and the full overturning of its character from a class point of view.

The following revolutionary movement in China featured a completely absent proletariat and may be considered to be a petit bourgeois-peasant movement, enclosed in the frame of its national revolution. The party in the lead of this movement at the time, notwithstanding it continued to label itself Communist Party, didn’t have any more features to qualify as one: in its own words, it became the “authentic Kuomintang”, or conversely, the authentic representation of the interests of the bourgeoisie and the small Chinese nationalist bourgeoisie. The social constituent basis of the CPC was composed by peasants and their main purpose became the achievement of the national unity and independence, not for the sake of the proletarian dictatorship, but of the ’Four classes’ block’, in other words of the bourgeois-driven development.

Even if we define Mao’s party as reactionary for having forsaken the tactic of the double revolution and the main line that would have brought to the proletariat’s historical affirmation, the final victory of CPC on the Kuomintang, and the installation of the People’s Republic of China, has represented an essential step from the point of view of the installation of the modern capitalism. It in turn has, through a long and tormented process, allowed the humongous development of Chinese economy, and therefore the rising of a modern proletariat, clustered and powerful, which is the forthcoming terminator of bourgeois society.

Since its own beginning, the Chinese national revolution had to fulfil its historical goal of developing capitalism, facilitate commerce and the industrialization of the whole enormous country, since then dominated by an unbounded and backward rural world.

Even though traitors and counterfeiters had announced the “construction of socialism” in China and in other places, our Party has always countered that such “socialism” only meant a further accumulation of capital and the extending of market economy.

Anyhow we underlined the great historical significance of those events, and the figure of Mao was a part of this great historical process. “Mao’s thought” wasn’t other than the expression of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in China and the worldwide anti-proletarian counter-revolution.

The national unification was a necessary material precondition of the process of accumulation of capital in China, for the making of a domestic market between the towns to trade and the countryside, the development of capitalistic economic relations based on waged labour and its associated work and mechanization, in the real perspective of a proper process of industrialization.

Mao’s economic program consisted essentially in nationalizing big companies and banks and actuating the agrarian reform. In spite of Mao’s verbal extremism, that was so passionate about a so called Chinese road to socialism, skipping the capitalist phase, its program was pretty much exactly a democratic-bourgeois revolutionary program. The Maoist program differed slightly to the Kuomintang’s, having added to Sun Yat-sen’s “Three People’s Principles” – i.e. nationalism (Mínzú Zhǔyì), democracy (Mínquán Zhǔyì) and people’s wealth (Mínshēng Zhǔyì) – some other measures such as the eight-hour working day and a agrarian reform defined as “radical”.

The Agrarian Reform

Indeed, the first important act of the Chinese Popular Republic was the Agrarian Reform Law of June 1950. This reform was perfectly compatible with the bourgeois regime. We may cite the first article just to leave no doubt about it: “the system of peasant land ownership shall be introduced in order to set free the rural productive forces, develop agricultural production, and thus pave the way for new China’s industrialisation”.

At first the reform seamed to realize the millenial dream for a egalitarian repartition of the farmland. The new Law ensured each individual under the age of 16 a minimum of 2 to 3 mu of farmland (15 mu make a hectare, around 6 mu make an acre) depending on the region. This meant in practice that a family of five would be given an hectare of land.

Land ownership implied that the new land owner would acquire also the right to buy, sell or rent their own land.

The distribution of land was carried out especially at the expense of the landowners, whose land, draught animals, agricultural equipment, cereal surpluses and rural buildings were confiscated without compensation (though they still had the right to receive 2 to 3 mu of land just like all the rest). Apart some exceptions both the land of the rich farmers cultivated by themselves or with the help of waged labour and the rich farmer’s other possessions were protected and could not be affected; just like the other small plots of land they owned and rented.

Apart some exceptions both the land of the rich farmers cultivated by themselves or with the help of waged labour and the rich farmer’s other possessions were protected and could not be affected; just like the other small plots of land they owned and rented. The land of the average farmers, including the ones better off, was inviolable without any exception. In this way almost half of the area under cultivation (47 million hectares) was distributed among 300 million peasants, who had themselves assigned about 0.15 hectares each, i.e. 2.3 mu.

Yet the distribution of the farmland could not be the definite solution of the agrarian question in China. Since centuries the Chinese farmland was extremely fragmented: indeed the land, even if possessed by a rather small number of landowners, was divided into small plots and rented to the peasantry. The land indeed was already divided, and a further massive division would not solve the problem at all.

This is why until year 1927 the revolutionary proletariat claimed the nationalization of the farmland, since this would have lead to the development of big state companies conducted by waged workers with the use of modern means of farming. The watchword of the division of the farmland was typically the average farmers’, that is of those farmers who already cultivated a small plot of land and who wanted to get rid of the heavy landlord’s rent. With the reform the rent was replaced by a state tax a high as 17-19% of the harvest’s value.

If the agrarian reform eliminated the landlords and a small part of the rich farmers, with the distribution of all the former’s farmland and of part of the latter’s, making the peasants free to cultivate without having to pay a rent to the landowner, such undeniable advantages could not minimally change the relations of production in the countryside, because of the excessive fragmentation of the farms and the extreme backwardness of their farming technology and their farming methods who both carried jarred with the needs of capital accumulation.

The division of the farmland, brought to better living conditions for the peasants, yet it did not imply any growth of the productive forces and did not make agricultural surpluses available. The peasants were all worried about reaching a better living conditions and methods of farming of the small plots stayed the same around for thousands of years. So when the bourgeois state asked for money, the farmlands ignored the state’s call, since the agricultural surplus amounted to 30 million tons of cereals, so it was all absorbed by the peasants. Yet already significant signs of social polarization appeared such as the buying and selling of farmland, loan sharking etc.

The boundless small farmer family lead production became the swamp which blocked the projects of rapid industrialization. The low productivity of the parcelled agricultural property out of lease was unable to fully absolve the bluntly bourgeois task of forming and developing a national market, it was not capable of supplying surplus value to the cities and excesses of agricultural products necessary for the industrialization and to feed a grown army of proletarians. Industrialization was slowed by the underdeveloped countryside, without machines and capital.

Both to overcome such unfavourable material matter of facts and for fear of not managing to control the social differences that were emerging in the countryside, in the mid 50s the regime launched the cooperatives’ and Communes movement. The disturbing mass campaigns that were being organized were inspired by old principles that have always been present in the thousands of years lasting Chinese history: collectivity is higher than the individual and the state has an indisputable supremacy. But the fundamental point over which such initiatives were based on is the fact that such initiatives could count on the only wealth that a backward country such as China could have, that is millions of men. The energy and direct interests of the peasant masses were used as a leverage to deal with a new immense task: now it was not a question of supplying the central state with surplus value and more food for the sake of developing the industrial sector, instead, it was a question of substituting the industrial sector itself with a small village industry that would have used the available technical resources around and the workforce that exceeds the work at the fields and the stalls.

Yet the toil of the peasant communities to meet such a new task not only produces exceeding capitals, it also ended up in complete failure. Also for the bad meteorological and climatic conditions, such a toil resulted just in misery and famine. The productive forces, which do never abide by the domination nor of the governments, neither by the personality of men, the latter great or not, imposed their own rhythm: a sudden recoil shook a regime that used to be in office, safe and sound until then. The failure of these gigantic mass campaigns, the Great Leap Forward and the Commons movement had as their consequences a first harsh crisis in Peking’s regime, but, maybe still on the trail of the great victory of the previous decade, which meant power and prestige, it was able to keep the structure of the Party and of the State both solid and united. Mao Zedong had to leave Liu Shaoqi in charge of the Presidency of the Republic, which didn’t have the meaning of a simple substitution of men: at the opposite, it was the initial display of the clash of enormous social forces, which would have pervaded the immense space of China for the subsequent 20 years, with more or less memorable facts, including the so-defined Cultural Revolution

The failure of that first Maoist mobilization granted new power to theses which had already been conceived in the 50’s and disregarded as “right-wing”. The deepest problem, and yet the most dreadful for the growth and development of China since the Republic’s foundation was a social structure still revolving around agriculture for the most part of it. According to the industry’s own needs, the productivity of the rural world had to be increased and the latter should have focused on producing for the market, not for direct consumption. Likewise, the national industry was powerless about stocking the countryside with necessary tools to meet such expectations of mechanization and modernization, which would have allowed such productivity increase, because of its insufficient development at the time.

The overcoming of China’s belated industrial development had in its premises the expropriation of tens of millions of peasants, therefore obliged to leave the land, and once depleted of their basic goods, to flow into the outskirts of the cities, thus starting their proletarization. But, a quick process of this kind awed the Communist Party in office, because of the necessity to carry out both its management and control, all the above avoiding to throw the constituted order into hazard.

Since the early 1950s, In order to provide a solution to this problem, two main lines already emerged in the CPC. The first had a firmer resolution to rapidly offer a solution to the rural issue by putting the necessary reforms into action, to implement the capitalist system into the context of agriculture also. The second was more concerned about any possible effects such reforms could be able to cause, more conservative and with less impatience of rendering them effective. The latter tendency kept into proper consideration that the recent rise to the power of the CPC was made possible by the support accorded by the peasants, of which the approval couldn’t afford to be lost. Through the Great Leap Forward, such tendency attempted to reach the goal of industrialization by the “peasant” path, resorting to forced and gratuitous mobilizations of workforce. Not out of aesthetic nuances, but basic necessity, these mobilizations required a society with a strong egalitarian connotation, absolutely collective, to fight back against every kind of “individualism” and thwart social polarization.

The so-defined “right-wing” tendency, more conscious of the necessity to introduce reforms, argued that, since the State was not able to finance the intake of capitals in the countryside, if not in a way that would have deemed utterly insufficient, it was to be a part of the peasant themselves to deal with such historical duty, thereby thriving on land, machinery and capitals. It would have been necessary then to invite the peasants to trade and thrive such that the State could have the chance to reinforce its control structure, and keep in its hands the formidable leads of the monopoly over the dairies’ commerce, the allowances for residence and transfer to the population to prevent an excessive and uncontrolled urbanization from happening.

Both of these conflicting lines, even if they were given off as left- and right-wing, were corresponding to the needs of the national economy, to the necessity of developing capitalism and both if them were bourgeois lines. Notwithstanding their differences, they were in accord upon each other on the need of devolving every resource to the capital’s reproduction and the accumulation. Afterwards, we can say that the so-defined “right-wing” line was likely envisioning one safer and quicker perspective of industrialization, resolved to hastily precipitate a large fraction of the immense peasant class in the hell circle of the proletarization and the salary work. It held the meaning to barely come back to the private business in the countrysides, with the including freedom to sell land, buy it, rent it, in order to favor a relatively quick ruin and expropriation for the majority of the peasants, with the final constitution of a modern, mechanized agriculture, based on privately run large businesses.

The Cultural Revolution taking place in the second half of the 1960s held the meaning of an attempt of the most conservative line to stop the reformists in their track, so that they got expelled by their directive duties. The propagandist affirmations and famous sentences must be put in the context of the struggle between economic forces into place back then: it went by the name Cultural Revolution, because it was the small bourgeois and the teachers who were the most receptive, so they put themselves at the hands.of the Maoist fraction of the Party and the State.

For the definitive predominance of the “reformist” line, China had to wait until the 11th CPC Congress in August 1977, which saw the rise to the power of Deng Xiaoping. That way, the romantic heroic deeds of the Chinese national revolution, that had shaken the enormous country for more than 60 years long came to an end. It was the time for China to be faced with more pragmatic issues. After dropping myths and illusions, the one and only remaining thing was the categorical imperative to produce as much as possible, to carry out the development of production forces, to decrease times and costs of production, and of extending the capital constantly and safely in the unfathomable rural world, still to be subverted and proletarized for the most part. In absence of a victorious movement of the proletariat in other countries, equipped with a fully mature capitalism, his stage has represented a necessary step for the disruption of those pre-capitalistic production reports and property forms that were bothersome to a further development of the productive forces, but this eventually came at the price of a painful, blood-dropping path for the proletarian generations who were affected by it.

Xi Jinping and Chinese Imperialism

Present day China has concluded this awesome development process of its productive forces, thus becoming ’the World’s factory’, the largest exporter in the entire world. China can today project is economical and military power far beyond its own national borders, and it portrays itself on world market as a freebooter among other freebooters, looking for raw materials and new markets. It has begun to review its relationships with other States, not just with close ones: it will be sufficient to mention the tensions in the Southern and Eastern Chinese Sea, but it’s posing even a threat to the dominance of the greatest world-scale imperialism, the United States of America. Chinese imperialism is trying to redefine the entire world’s power balance, seeking to expand itself: it’s not doubtful that this powerful force corresponds to ideological reflexes, thus requiring new forms to be theorized by the Communist Power in charge in China.

The last CPC congress has then reconfirmed Xi Jinping to the role of guide of the Party and the State, even contributing to grow its myth. But, exactly as his illustrious predecessors, Xi is nothing else than the product of a certain social situation, of a certain development level of the productive forces, to which he cannot hold any opposition, no matter his personal virtues.

The so-called “Xi’s thought” cannot but put itself into accord with the powerful historical process that testifies the end of the age in which China was forced to “hold a low profile”, and the beginning of a new historical phase, the third after the ones of Mao and then Deng: the Chinese imperialist interests’ outburst phase.

Xi’s thought, as stated in the Congress, is summarized into “14 Principles” which clearly express the imperialistic maturation of China, as well as its desire to become a world-scale power. The “Chinese dream” of the “Nation’s resurgence”, a rhetoric tool characterizing all of China’s leaders from Sun Yat-sen onward, is today intended as the return to a role as world-scale power after the humiliation suffered between 19th and 20th centuries: The “Xi’s Jinping thought” about a “Socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new age” revolves around this very concept.

The New Silk Road

An enormous importance is acknowledged to the New Silk Road Project (Belt and Road Initiative, BRI), which refers to the new commercial routes which, from China through Asia, will reach the heart of Europe. This project has been explicitly included into the Party’s Statute, among the “14 Principles”, in order to elicit its relevance for the “Chinese dream” of the “Nation resurgence”. But nowadays China should not only find markets for selling the humongous amount of goods it produces, it also need to make abroad investments with the capital accumulated and already exceeding. Thus, its foreign money reserve are, at a rough estimate, 3’000 billion dollars. BRI project would allow a fraction of this capital to be invested for building infrastructures in many of the 65 traversed countries, who host more than half of the world population, three quarters of the energetic supplies, and a third of the global gross domestic product. According to Morgan Stanley, the enormous project requires 1’200 billion investments into roads, railways, ports, electrical supply networks. BRI would be the likely candidate for the largest project of investment ever attempted, Taking inflation into account, it would surpass the notorious Marshall Plan of at least 12 times.

Through the creation of the Silk Road Fund and of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, China has equipped itself already with the necessary financial tools, but whatever public or private entity in the world having an interest is called to take part to the project, for example, during the Trump’s visit in China an agreement was signed between the American General Electrics and the Chinese Silk Road Fund.

In addition to the terrestrial link between China and Northern Europe, with its branch from Central Asia to Middle East, with the development of a commercial zone throughout the whole Asia, a sea route, the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, has been also envisioned. It’s a pool of backing ports which will connect Chinese ports to those of Southern Europe through the Chinese Southern Sea and the Indian Ocean. These infrastructures would cut the transportation time of goods, from Europe to China and backwards, of a significant fraction.

In the present day, they amount to 19 days by rail and 29-35 by sea.

Recent Tensions

Will China manage to complete their project?

For starters, China’s expansion gets in friction with the American imperialism. Chinese projects do not invest only economical aspects, but they have large scale strategical side effects, since Chinese investments in other countries, as well as the financing of pompous infrastructures allows China to expand their abroad economical interest, consequently attracting the involved countries in its political sphere of influence.

Clearly, this is the answer to Pivot to Asia, the United States’ strategy applied to the containment of the economical and military rise of China in the Far East, envisioning empowered relationships between the US and the countries which perceive China as a threat. These include Japan, India, South Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, Australia.

With its own projects, China does not just address the Eurasian continental area. As we mentioned in various previous articles, Peking claims to seize control over a large part of the Chinese Southern Sea, disputing its sovereign over the other coastal states: Vietnam, Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia. For this purpose, China is building artificial islands, in the Paracel and Spratly islands, for military use in these waters. The goal is to provide coast with protection from various attacks, and to control the transit of merchant ships towards China. A rising China cannot indefinitely stand an obtrusive US military presence in those waters. On the other hand, the United States are opposed to China in the area, both maintaining a substantial military force in their bases in the Pacific, and striving to reinforce their long running relationships and alliances with those Asian countries who feel threatened by China.

In its visit to Asia last November, Trump has made stops in Japan, South Korea, China, Vietnam and Philippines, having as a goal the reassurance of his allies and restate America the engagement in the region.

Trump has even made a stop in China, where he met Xi Jinping. But, other than the deployment of the honor guard, the menu of the banquet and the itinerary of the visit to the Forbidden City, the two “great leaders” had little to no chance of affecting the course of the events. The Asian-Pacific region represents the pulsating heart of the world’s economy. It’s in this area that the contrast between the imperialist countries will become fiercer, and it’s here that the direct clash between China and the United States will spark.

In the present moment, these contrasts are at a risk of an explosion because of the North-Korean issue. The United States are trying to oblige China, under the threat of commercial sanctions, to put North Korean nuclear ambitions to stop. But, if one hand Peking cannot push too much the barrel into putting severe measures into action against North Korea, because it doesn’t want the crumbling of that regime, on the other hand Pyongyang goes on with their missile and nuclear tests in order to put their safety under warrant.

The latest missile test occurred the 28th of November. Having made the test only two months after the previous launch, this made tensions grow in the region, to the point that an imminent war was mentioned. Many have referred about Chinese military preparations in the perspective of a possible conflict between North Korea and the US. China continues to promote talks between the two countries, but nevertheless it also prepares countermeasures at the Korean border. In the last months there has been a significant growth of activities going on in that part of the country, including the growth of military personnel and training. In the meantime Chinese media talk about a possible imminent conflict in the Korean peninsula.

The fundamental problem is that the birth of a new, great imperialism has put on the top of the agenda the issue of a new division of the world, in which context the Chinese imperialism aspires to supersede the United States. First and foremost, this is what the “Chinese dream” is about. And in order to fulfill it, Chinese proletarians will be called to spill their blood for the Nation.

The constant rumors of an imminent war in Korea fostered by the mass media of several involved countries, even if they may just be regarded as propaganda, serve anyway the purpose to prepare the workers to the moment when they will be called to “sacrifice themselves for the Nation” when the latter will call them to arms. Chinese proletarians, as well as those from all the other countries, must not side with their own imperialism. The “dream” which the Chinese leaders brag about, is nothing but an illusion to distract the proletarians from the struggle in defense of their own interests, in order to stop retaliatory struggles that are more and more increasing. Conversely, they should continue to extend the struggle for salary increase, the shrink of working hours, the freedom of association and strike, fueling class organization, the rebirth of class-wide workers:unions and the rejoicing with the program of revolutionary Communism.

The young Chinese proletariat has a glorious tradition to rejoice with. It should resort back to the methods of struggle and organization, which were proper of its first working class generations. Albeit its inconsistency in numbers respect to the peasants mass, the Chinese proletariat put itself in the lead of the revolution in the 1920s.

The workers’ unions, which were nearly nonexistent in China before the 1920s, have been created in those years, leading either struggles and strikes which were authentic class wars, which left on the field a lot of worker’s blood, but also yet another historical confirmation that the proletariat can fight for power and win, exactly as it happened for the victorious Shanghai insurrection of ninety years ago.

Today in China capitalist development has decomposed the Chinese countryside, piled the proletarians in hundreds of gigantic industrial metropolis, giving life to hundreds of Shanghai-like cities. The “Chinese dream” of the “Resurrection of the Nation” just translates into the nightmare of the exploitation for the sake of the Capital and proletarians may safely assume that tomorrow the Nation will call them to shed sweat and blood.

The answer shall be like Shanghai in 1927: class war for the overthrowing of the capitalist regime and the overtake of the power. No illustrious name worth of commemoration have make it into History out of that revolution, let alone a “great leader” to idolize.

Anonymous proletarians fought, with their class organization and their Party having their backs. Let’s leave to the bourgeoisie, coward and powerless, the cult of their minions.

In order to win, the proletariat doesn’t have to wait the coming of any great leader of sort. As we have repeatedly stated, the revolution will rise its head once again, anonymous and dreadful.