Chinese President Xi Jinping delivered an important speech at the Conference Marking the 70th Anniversary of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence on Friday in Beijing.Here is the full text of his speech.Carrying Forward the Five Principles of
Thing is that revolutionary socialism can’t be imposed on others. I think that China’s approach of leading by example is the correct one to take. China does not seek conflict, and it does not seek to dominate countries, or to impose its values on them. However, China will defend its interests, and will push back when threatened. The capitalist world is tearing itself apart, and it will be up to the people living under capitalist regimes to find ways to build socialism domestically.
While supporting revolutionary movements is a principled stance, it necessarily leads to the formation of ideological camps, as demonstrated during the Cold War era. In a world where capitalism reigns supreme, socialists find themselves at a disadvantageous position. This was the predicament that the USSR faced, which made it an easy target for unification among capitalist regimes due to its threat to their collective interests. The Chinese approach, on the other hand, cleverly exploits this division by keeping the capitalist world fragmented and weak, allowing existing socialist countries to thrive without constant threats of annihilation.
Becoming a threat to their collective interests is an inevitable outcome whether they do or do not use their position to put a thumb on the scales of socialist movements around the world.
This is an unavoidable contradiction. At some point or another the collective capitalist world WILL see unify around it. Periods of socialist growth and socialist retraction are going to continually occur until the contradiction resolves itself. Socialists should do everything in their power during the growth periods so that the effect of the retraction periods are lessened.
Capitalist world is in a crisis now, and we can see anti capitalist movements only getting stronger around the globe. Meanwhile, BRICS is a perfect example of the division in the capitalist world. It’s a bigger economic bloc than the G7 now, and it includes a mix of capitalist and socialist countries. Something like BRICS would not be possible with an ideologically driven geopolitical position from China.
Furthermore, as the economic situation in the west continues to decline, we’re seeing people increasingly lose faith in the system. Western powers continue to weaken, and their ability to prevent socialist movements also weakens as a result. Recent events in Bolivia are a perfect illustration of this working in practice.
The contradiction is unavoidable, but it’s possible to create a situation where socialists will be the ones who have the upper hand.
The contradiction is unavoidable, but it’s possible to create a situation where socialists will be the ones who have the upper hand.
It is arrogance to believe that will always be the case. The same arrogance that the capitalists had in believing capitalism had won with the defeat of the USSR and that capitalism would always be in hegemony thereafter.
What China is currently doing has objectively accomplished more to derail global capitalism than USSR was ever able to. It’s not arrogance, it’s making tactical retreats to achieve long term strategic gains. As Lenin very eloquently put it:
To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, a war which is a hundred times more difficult, protracted and complex than the most stubborn of ordinary wars between states, and to renounce in advance any change of tack, or any utilisation of a conflict of interests (even if temporary) among one’s enemies, or any conciliation or compromise with possible allies (even if they are temporary, unstable, vacillating or conditional allies)—is that not ridiculous in the extreme? Is it not like making a difficult ascent of an unexplored and hitherto inaccessible mountain and refusing in advance ever to move in zigzags, ever to retrace one’s steps, or ever to abandon a course once selected, and to try others? And yet people so immature and inexperienced (if youth were the explanation, it would not be so bad; young people are preordained to talk such nonsense for a certain period) have met with support—whether direct or indirect, open or covert, whole or partial, it does not matter—from some members of the Communist Party of Holland.
It’s an all-in strategy that hinges on either winning or leaving absolutely no gains behind (which at least the USSR did) if it fails.
If China ever falls it will have done precisely nothing to advance the cause of socialism at all other than for itself, which will amount to exactly nothing if it fails.
Thing is that revolutionary socialism can’t be imposed on others. I think that China’s approach of leading by example is the correct one to take. China does not seek conflict, and it does not seek to dominate countries, or to impose its values on them. However, China will defend its interests, and will push back when threatened. The capitalist world is tearing itself apart, and it will be up to the people living under capitalist regimes to find ways to build socialism domestically.
I didn’t say anything about imposing it. Supporting revolutions that come from the ground up within other countries is not imposition.
While supporting revolutionary movements is a principled stance, it necessarily leads to the formation of ideological camps, as demonstrated during the Cold War era. In a world where capitalism reigns supreme, socialists find themselves at a disadvantageous position. This was the predicament that the USSR faced, which made it an easy target for unification among capitalist regimes due to its threat to their collective interests. The Chinese approach, on the other hand, cleverly exploits this division by keeping the capitalist world fragmented and weak, allowing existing socialist countries to thrive without constant threats of annihilation.
Becoming a threat to their collective interests is an inevitable outcome whether they do or do not use their position to put a thumb on the scales of socialist movements around the world.
This is an unavoidable contradiction. At some point or another the collective capitalist world WILL see unify around it. Periods of socialist growth and socialist retraction are going to continually occur until the contradiction resolves itself. Socialists should do everything in their power during the growth periods so that the effect of the retraction periods are lessened.
Capitalist world is in a crisis now, and we can see anti capitalist movements only getting stronger around the globe. Meanwhile, BRICS is a perfect example of the division in the capitalist world. It’s a bigger economic bloc than the G7 now, and it includes a mix of capitalist and socialist countries. Something like BRICS would not be possible with an ideologically driven geopolitical position from China.
Furthermore, as the economic situation in the west continues to decline, we’re seeing people increasingly lose faith in the system. Western powers continue to weaken, and their ability to prevent socialist movements also weakens as a result. Recent events in Bolivia are a perfect illustration of this working in practice.
The contradiction is unavoidable, but it’s possible to create a situation where socialists will be the ones who have the upper hand.
It is arrogance to believe that will always be the case. The same arrogance that the capitalists had in believing capitalism had won with the defeat of the USSR and that capitalism would always be in hegemony thereafter.
What China is currently doing has objectively accomplished more to derail global capitalism than USSR was ever able to. It’s not arrogance, it’s making tactical retreats to achieve long term strategic gains. As Lenin very eloquently put it:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch08.htm
It’s an all-in strategy that hinges on either winning or leaving absolutely no gains behind (which at least the USSR did) if it fails.
If China ever falls it will have done precisely nothing to advance the cause of socialism at all other than for itself, which will amount to exactly nothing if it fails.
It is reckless.
Every approach has risk associated with it. I’d argue that trying to do what has already failed is far more reckless than learning and adapting.