China: an imperialist power?
By: Taylor Hayes
Tags: Economics, Socialism, China, Communism, Capitalism

One of the most striking features of Chinese imperialism is the export of capital on a massive scale. China stands today as the largest exporter of capital, exporting 24.2% of total capital[15], as evidenced by the chart below. This is one of the best tools in ascertaining their role in the world market as a power of capitalist domination; through this transfer of capital to underdeveloped nations the continuing proletarianization of the Global South is assured, and the rule of profit and capital follows. This is not a “bad” thing, necessarily, as historical materialists we maintain the often necessary development of feudalism → capitalism →socialism. We will maintain, however, that given certain historical conditions socialism cannot arise in conditions unfavorable for its existence, and the rule of competitive capital accumulation must necessarily triumph over ideals. In China, due to the necessity of further capitalist development, imperialism has triumphed over a Communist development, owing to the breakdown of the international Communist movement. Liberalization and the continuance of the capitalist mode of production are incompatible with any sense of proletarian rule. When the proletariat revolts and the capitalist mode of production is seized, they must be in the position to continuously and actively abolish capitalist relations, otherwise the reemergence of capitalist categories is inevitable. In certain states where capitalist development was favorable, such as China, they become powers with large sway over the world market, viz., imperialist powers. We continue with Lenin’s analysis of imperialism.

Capitalism is commodity production at its highest stage of development, when labour-power itself becomes a commodity. The growth of internal exchange, and, particularly, of international exchange, is a characteristic feature of capitalism. The uneven and spasmodic development of individual enterprises, individual branches of industry and individual countries is inevitable under the capitalist system.

Here Lenin affirms what we know to be true, that under the capitalist mode of production (which the Chinese economy definitively constitutes) concentration of production follows, the exchange system becomes increasingly universalized, and that “the growth of … particularly, of international exchange, is a characteristic feature of capitalism.” This is without a doubt the case in China, where the capitalist system has allowed it to become a major trading power.

On the threshold of the twentieth century we see the formation of a new type of monopoly: firstly, monopolist associations of capitalists in all capitalistically developed countries; secondly, the monopolist position of a few very rich countries, in which the accumulation of capital has reached gigantic proportions. An enormous “surplus of capital” has arisen in the advanced countries.

Here Lenin first revisits the aforementioned monopolies that capitalism has fostered, but also that now a select few imperialist powers have developed a surplus of capital. As is the case of China, which is self evident: containing the largest number of billionaires in the world, the 2nd or 1st largest economy (depending on who you ask), and a decisive role in the world market, an imperialist development is not simply a matter of choice or ideology, it is an inevitable development as a byproduct of the concentration of production inherent to the capitalist mode of production and system of private property.

It goes without saying that if capitalism could develop agriculture, which today is everywhere lagging terribly behind industry, if it could raise the living standards of the masses, who in spite of the amazing technical progress are everywhere still half-starved and poverty-stricken, there could be no question of a surplus of capital.

Of course, China has done this, to an extent. Just recently in late of 2020 the CPC announced they had succeeded in ending absolute poverty[16] (less than 2,300 yuan or $350USD a year) and accomplished a goal in the fight to end poverty. It would seem, that with this quality of life increases among the masses, a surplus of capital is clearly evident, as Lenin would argue.

But if capitalism did these things it would not be capitalism; for both uneven development and a semi-starvation level of existence of the masses are fundamental and inevitable conditions and constitute premises of this mode of production. As long as capitalism remains what it is, surplus capital will be utilised not for the purpose of raising the standard of living of the masses in a given country, for this would mean a decline in profits for the capitalists, but for the purpose of increasing profits by exporting capital abroad to the backward countries. (emphases mine)

This passage is what forces us to make a break with Lenin and consider the evolutions in capitalism since the time of writing. While this was a perfectly acceptable theses in 1916, we must not consider this passage an immutable doctrine that would suddenly no longer consider China capitalist despite it retaining all of the categories of capitalist economy. If Xi Jinping’s heroic online defenders would use this passage to consider China a non capitalist power, then we would also be forced to consider Social-Democratic ideologies and regimes non capitalist. Lenin does state, however, that this is only a statement made given the current state of capitalism at the time of writing. While in Lenin’s time, capitalism did contain a “semi-starvation” existence for much of the masses, in the 21st century most developed nations do not encounter this problem, despite clearly being capitalist and imperialist powers. Owing to his time and place in history, this is a passage that should no longer be considered as relevant to contemporary capitalism. Would the Scandinavian countries no longer be capitalist due to their high quality of life?

In these backward countries profits are usually high, for capital is scarce, the price of land is relatively low, wages are low, raw materials are cheap. The export of capital is made possible by a number of backward countries having already been drawn into world capitalist intercourse; main railways have either been or are being built in those countries, elementary conditions for industrial development have been created, etc.

Lenin returns to a statement in the area of what we propose earlier: that the capital export facilitated by China is both a tool of imperialism, but also so that the export of capital and capitalism may be made an easier condition imposed upon the masses. Here we come to another conclusion: the development of infrastructure in Chinese projects, particularly the Belt and Road Initiative, is exposed here by Lenin as simply another facet of imperialism. He then returns to the topic of railroads, which China is actively constructing, as well as the conditions for industrial development China has brought to such countries. In Lenin’s analysis, this is a characteristic of the stage of imperialism. To cite some examples of these Chinese projects, the Institute of Developing Economies[17] illustrates:

China is presently involved in infrastructure project in 35 African countries. A concentration of projects is to be found in Angola, Nigeria and the Sudan. However, China is planning a new range of projects in other countries, especially in the DRC. The country’s activities have been divided fairly evenly among two main sectors: power generation (especially hydropower), and transport (especially railroads), followed by ICT sector (mainly equipment supply). Water projects attracted the least amount of activity. (emphases mine)

Additionally:

China’s foray into Africa really began in large part due to the construction of the Tanzania- Zambia railway in the 1970s, which became to symbolize China’s contribution to African economic development. In recent years, China has made a major comeback in the African rail sector, with financing commitments on the order of US$4 billion for this sector. They include rehabilitation of more than 1 350 kilometers of existing railway lines and the construction of more than 1 600 kilometers of new railroad. To put this in perspective, the entire African railroad network amounts to around 50 000 kilometers.

Returning to Lenin.

The export of capital influences and greatly accelerates the development of capitalism in those countries to which it is exported. While, therefore, the export of capital may tend to a certain extent to arrest development in the capital-exporting countries, it can only do so by expanding and deepening the further development of capitalism throughout the world.

This is simply a summary of the past points we have elaborated on.

A report from the Austro-Hungarian Consul at San-Paulo (Brazil) states: “The Brazilian railways are being built chiefly by French, Belgian, British and German capital. In the financial operations connected with the construction of these railways the countries involved stipulate for orders for the necessary railway materials.” Thus finance capital, literally, one might say, spreads its net over all countries of the world. An important role in this is played by banks founded in the colonies and by their branches.

This passage quite neatly sums up all we have elaborated on, how imperialism ties together as the rule of finance capital in large monopolies exporting capital. China clearly exemplifies these characteristics, and thus we continue to how the world is divided amongst capitalist associations.

V. Division of the World Among Capitalist Associations