Tommy McKearney Over the past few months the public, or at least a section of it, has been watching with interest the trials and tribulations of two high-profile political demagogues.


We refer, of course, to the arraignment of Donald Trump and the British House of Commons voting to censure Boris Johnson.


Yet in spite of what appeared to be damning indictments against both men, they have not been completely ostracised. Mainstream conservatives in both the United States and Britain have deliberately avoided outright condemnation of their actions. It is important to analyse the reason for this reluctance, as it casts a light on significant developments internationally.

The capitalist ruling class, led from the United States and embedded in Western Europe, has had more than two centuries to perfect techniques for retaining power. For the most part they prefer to create the appearance of governing by consensus. They do, after all, control the means of production, giving them enormous influence over employment, thereby facilitating the divide-and-rule strategy used to split working-class communities.

Moreover, ownership of the mass media allows for the creation of a self-justifying narrative. Granting the people a vote every few years lends the appearance of legitimacy to all of this.

Yet since capitalism is crisis-prone, its masters always want to have options if and when the desired equilibrium is upended. At the extreme this means a resort to fascism. Before crossing that particular Rubicon, however, they prefer the option of employing demagoguery, now known as populism. The objective is to bamboozle a critical number among the disenchanted and disadvantaged into supporting right-wing governments, even more so to endorse reactionary policies at home and abroad.

Global capitalism is at present experiencing just such a crisis. Unwilling to prevent price-gouging profit-making by private enterprise, the United States, the European Union and Britain are all, to a greater or lesser extent, experiencing persistent inflation. As a consequence, working-class people everywhere experience hardship. On the one hand they suffer as a result of the ever-rising cost of living; workers further suffer, as economic recession is deliberately induced by central bankers employing the blunt expedient of raising interest rates.

In the process it becomes clear that the free-market system is again faced with major problems. Worse still from capitalism’s point of view is the presence of a viable alternative in the east, that is, the People’s Republic of China.

The influence of China on the global stage is growing almost daily, both in its diplomatic clout and its economic prowess. Reflect for a moment on some of its recent achievements. Most notable was sponsoring an accord between Iran and Saudi Arabia—two major Middle Eastern countries that the United States had managed to keep at odds for years, and now the Chinese-inspired détente has potentially altered the balance of power in the region.

There was also the visit in April of the president of Brazil, Lula da Silva, on a state visit for talks with Xi Jinping, after which Lula criticised the United States for prolonging the war in Ukraine.

Then last year, at a meeting between Chinese diplomats and senior government ministers from several African states, including South Africa, a motion was endorsed reaffirming the One China position in relation to Taiwan.

By any reading of world politics, it is easy to recognise the significance of all this. China has now become a leading influence in three of the world’s most important regions, and has done so without the use of military expansionism—a strategy that has avoided bloodshed, and therefore done without antagonising whole populations.

While undoubtedly of grave concern to imperialism’s strategists, it is perhaps the Chinese economic model that is causing them the greatest worry. In a little over two decades China has become an industrial powerhouse, producing 18 per cent of global GDP, compared with 12 per cent for the United States.¹ It’s not surprising, therefore, that this performance is sustained by one of the developed world’s best rates of return on investment.² Moreover, China is also one of the world’s chief creditors, providing capital for infrastructure and industrial projects to 148 countries. Equally significant is the fact, as recorded by the World Bank, that over the past four decades poverty has been eradicated in People’s China.³

Therefore, it is not just the growing diplomatic influence enjoyed by China that is alarming capitalist super-powers: a deeper concern is that the Communist Party of China has overseen the development of an economic template that is much more successful than that promoted by free-marketeers. For Western capitalism, this raises a disturbing scenario. They fear that, faced with periodic economic recessions, distressed working-class communities will demand the adoption of the Chinese economic model.

Confronted by the spectre of successful “socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era,” the response of Western capitalism has been predictable. Widespread and unrelenting hostility towards China is now the order of the day as the groundwork is being prepared for a new Cold War. An era of McCarthy-like paranoia is being generated by insinuating the existence of an all-pervasive Chinese espionage capacity. Huawei, Tiktok and Wechat, for example, are deemed capable of monitoring the every movement and the correspondence of those using their technology.

Consequently, Washington, London and Brussels are co-ordinating efforts to contain China’s so-called ambition to expand its orbit. Whatever other differences exist between them, they are in agreement on this issue. Moreover, such is the degree of consensus over the entire gamut of capitalism’s apologists that erstwhile political opponents find common ground on this issue. Donald Trump’s hostility towards China is matched, if not outdone, by that of Joe Biden. By the same token, there is no criticism of China emanating from Boris Johnson that Rishi Sunak does not share.

Hence the constructive ambiguity employed by much of the establishment on both sides of the Atlantic in relation to the two loud-mouthed demagogues. They are viewed as an “ace in the hole” to be introduced if required to once again mislead sections of the working class.

There is a lesson in this for the left. The capitalist ruling class and its political front-persons are deeply conscious of the possibility, indeed probability, that we are experiencing a transformative period in world history. Whatever view we took in the past about the Chinese path to socialism, it is incumbent upon us now to give adequate consideration to developments in that amazing country where the East is still glowing red.

1 World Economics, “China’s share of global GDP.”
2 John Ross, “Why China’s socialist economy is more efficient than capitalism,” MR Online.
3 World Bank, “Lifting 800 million people out of poverty: New report looks at lessons from China’s experience.”

Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. 
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney 

A Transformative Period In World History

Tommy McKearney Over the past few months the public, or at least a section of it, has been watching with interest the trials and tribulations of two high-profile political demagogues.


We refer, of course, to the arraignment of Donald Trump and the British House of Commons voting to censure Boris Johnson.


Yet in spite of what appeared to be damning indictments against both men, they have not been completely ostracised. Mainstream conservatives in both the United States and Britain have deliberately avoided outright condemnation of their actions. It is important to analyse the reason for this reluctance, as it casts a light on significant developments internationally.

The capitalist ruling class, led from the United States and embedded in Western Europe, has had more than two centuries to perfect techniques for retaining power. For the most part they prefer to create the appearance of governing by consensus. They do, after all, control the means of production, giving them enormous influence over employment, thereby facilitating the divide-and-rule strategy used to split working-class communities.

Moreover, ownership of the mass media allows for the creation of a self-justifying narrative. Granting the people a vote every few years lends the appearance of legitimacy to all of this.

Yet since capitalism is crisis-prone, its masters always want to have options if and when the desired equilibrium is upended. At the extreme this means a resort to fascism. Before crossing that particular Rubicon, however, they prefer the option of employing demagoguery, now known as populism. The objective is to bamboozle a critical number among the disenchanted and disadvantaged into supporting right-wing governments, even more so to endorse reactionary policies at home and abroad.

Global capitalism is at present experiencing just such a crisis. Unwilling to prevent price-gouging profit-making by private enterprise, the United States, the European Union and Britain are all, to a greater or lesser extent, experiencing persistent inflation. As a consequence, working-class people everywhere experience hardship. On the one hand they suffer as a result of the ever-rising cost of living; workers further suffer, as economic recession is deliberately induced by central bankers employing the blunt expedient of raising interest rates.

In the process it becomes clear that the free-market system is again faced with major problems. Worse still from capitalism’s point of view is the presence of a viable alternative in the east, that is, the People’s Republic of China.

The influence of China on the global stage is growing almost daily, both in its diplomatic clout and its economic prowess. Reflect for a moment on some of its recent achievements. Most notable was sponsoring an accord between Iran and Saudi Arabia—two major Middle Eastern countries that the United States had managed to keep at odds for years, and now the Chinese-inspired détente has potentially altered the balance of power in the region.

There was also the visit in April of the president of Brazil, Lula da Silva, on a state visit for talks with Xi Jinping, after which Lula criticised the United States for prolonging the war in Ukraine.

Then last year, at a meeting between Chinese diplomats and senior government ministers from several African states, including South Africa, a motion was endorsed reaffirming the One China position in relation to Taiwan.

By any reading of world politics, it is easy to recognise the significance of all this. China has now become a leading influence in three of the world’s most important regions, and has done so without the use of military expansionism—a strategy that has avoided bloodshed, and therefore done without antagonising whole populations.

While undoubtedly of grave concern to imperialism’s strategists, it is perhaps the Chinese economic model that is causing them the greatest worry. In a little over two decades China has become an industrial powerhouse, producing 18 per cent of global GDP, compared with 12 per cent for the United States.¹ It’s not surprising, therefore, that this performance is sustained by one of the developed world’s best rates of return on investment.² Moreover, China is also one of the world’s chief creditors, providing capital for infrastructure and industrial projects to 148 countries. Equally significant is the fact, as recorded by the World Bank, that over the past four decades poverty has been eradicated in People’s China.³

Therefore, it is not just the growing diplomatic influence enjoyed by China that is alarming capitalist super-powers: a deeper concern is that the Communist Party of China has overseen the development of an economic template that is much more successful than that promoted by free-marketeers. For Western capitalism, this raises a disturbing scenario. They fear that, faced with periodic economic recessions, distressed working-class communities will demand the adoption of the Chinese economic model.

Confronted by the spectre of successful “socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era,” the response of Western capitalism has been predictable. Widespread and unrelenting hostility towards China is now the order of the day as the groundwork is being prepared for a new Cold War. An era of McCarthy-like paranoia is being generated by insinuating the existence of an all-pervasive Chinese espionage capacity. Huawei, Tiktok and Wechat, for example, are deemed capable of monitoring the every movement and the correspondence of those using their technology.

Consequently, Washington, London and Brussels are co-ordinating efforts to contain China’s so-called ambition to expand its orbit. Whatever other differences exist between them, they are in agreement on this issue. Moreover, such is the degree of consensus over the entire gamut of capitalism’s apologists that erstwhile political opponents find common ground on this issue. Donald Trump’s hostility towards China is matched, if not outdone, by that of Joe Biden. By the same token, there is no criticism of China emanating from Boris Johnson that Rishi Sunak does not share.

Hence the constructive ambiguity employed by much of the establishment on both sides of the Atlantic in relation to the two loud-mouthed demagogues. They are viewed as an “ace in the hole” to be introduced if required to once again mislead sections of the working class.

There is a lesson in this for the left. The capitalist ruling class and its political front-persons are deeply conscious of the possibility, indeed probability, that we are experiencing a transformative period in world history. Whatever view we took in the past about the Chinese path to socialism, it is incumbent upon us now to give adequate consideration to developments in that amazing country where the East is still glowing red.

1 World Economics, “China’s share of global GDP.”
2 John Ross, “Why China’s socialist economy is more efficient than capitalism,” MR Online.
3 World Bank, “Lifting 800 million people out of poverty: New report looks at lessons from China’s experience.”

Tommy McKearney is a left wing and trade union activist. 
Follow on Twitter @Tommymckearney 

8 comments:

  1. I have said it before on TPQ....China is the blue-print of how the Zionist bastards at the very top of the food chain want this rock we all live on to be.

    The Oil Prince’s Legacy: Rockefeller Philanthropy in China

    "In 1863, John D. Rockefeller sold his first kerosene to China and made his first gift to China missions. He was 24 years old. He could not have dreamed that both his future oil company and future foundation would one day dominate the American commercial and cultural presence in China. Indeed, the Rockefeller China story is America’s China story. The first three John D. Rockefellers were engaged with China from the time of the American Civil War to Deng Xiaoping’s reform era. Across the 20th century, their philanthropic investment in China’s science, medicine, and higher education far outpaced any other American source – upwards of a billion dollars. The Rockefeller interests in China’s commerce, religion, science, and art epitomize the multi-dimensional, non-governmental forces that continue to shape U.S.-China relations today.....(open the link and make your own mind up).....

    Memorandum of Conversation between Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, and Henry Kissinger

    "At 11:00 p. m. February 17, 1973 at a meeting in a villa near the Guest House where Dr. Kissinger and his party were staying, Prime Minister Chou En-lai informed Dr. Kissinger that he and Winston Lord were invited to meet with Chairman Mao Tsetung at 11:30 p.m. that evening. He told Dr. Kissinger that he would come to the Guest House shortly to escort him to the Chairman's residence. Dr. Kissinger and his delegatio11 members at the meeting went back to the Guest House. Prime Minister Chou En-lai came to the Guest House at 11:20 p. m. and rode with Dr. Kissinger to Chungnahai. Mr. Chu, Deputy Director of Protocol, accompanied Mr. Lord. Prime Minister Chou En-lai escorted Dr. Kissinger into the outer room of the Guest House and then through another room to Chairman Mao's sitting room."......

    China’s blueprint for the new world order Dated JUNE 21, 2023 ...

    "What do Beijing’s Global Development Initiative and Global Security Initiative mean for the future of the US-led international order?".............

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tommy, I fail to see an how
    The Chinese Communist Party's surveillance capitalist model can be seen as a progressive alternative to the neo liberal one. A model where independent unions and civil society organisations are suppressed. And that's before we get to the persecutions of the Uighurs a d and Tibetans, threats to Taiwan, repression in Hong Kong and COVID cover ups.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Frankie, so who are 'those Zionist bastards at the top of the food chain?'

    ReplyDelete
  4. Frankie, you have failed to establish any connection between those articles never mind develop a theory and test for evidence to. And why does the Z word have to be dragged into everything?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Barry,

    so who are 'those Zionist bastards at the top of the food chain?'

    The short version...They are the very same people Tommy is talking about....

    The capitalist ruling class, led from the United States and embedded in Western Europe, has had more than two centuries to perfect techniques for retaining power. For the most part they prefer to create the appearance of governing by consensus. They do, after all, control the means of production, giving them enormous influence over employment, thereby facilitating the divide-and-rule strategy used to split working-class communities.

    And if you go back and watch any of the three documentaries I linked in Murder Incorporated(9th comment---5th paragraph), you will understand in detail who Tommy is talking about.

    you have failed to establish any connection between those articles never mind develop a theory and test for evidence to.

    You could start with Yale Archives and start reading what Mao was promoting when he took over the 'student rag' in 1919 when he was studying at Yale-China. And research what Zionist bastards were funding in China from the late 19th Century onwards. You are sitting in front of a computer/device that gives you the internet.....

    And why does the Z word have to be dragged into everything?

    I don't 'drag' the Zionist bastards who are banking & oil cartels into everything. Your problem is you don't like the term. Thats your problem, not mine. You have no choice but learn to live with it and accept the fact...I don't like them....

    ReplyDelete
  6. Frankie, since the capitalist ruling class has ruled for over two decades how does Zionism come into it as it only came into being as an ideology at the end of the 19th century and since the State of Israel came into existence in 1948? Better still, in your opinion is there a banking, oil or any other cartel that is not Zionist inspired or controlled?

    What your scattergun, cutting and pasting from the Internet MO does not take into account is post-Mao, post-Tiananmen massacre Chinese Communist Party strategy in building in building "socialism with Chinese characteristics" or perhaps capitalism with Chinese National Socialist characteristics. Through the modern Silk Road, East India Company type commercial colonialism in Africa and the insidious undermining of democracy in the service of Chinese Communist Party interests by the establishing of Confucian Institutes in Western universities, think tanks and overseas Chinese institutions. For an understanding of President Xi Jinping's global agenda start by reading Bill Hayton's "The Invention of China" London: Yale University Press, 1992. Understanding modern China requires serious literary engagement; not the ability to click on Internet sites which reinforce prejudices and conspiracy narratives and then spew out the most superficial of analyses.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And I do not like the term "Zionist cartels" or Zionist banking systems because what you really mean (though you will disingenuously keep denying it" is Jewish bankers and cartels and by your persistent use of this trope is legitimising antisemitism.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If NATO isn't expansionist then why did it set up shop in the South China Sea? In May 2023 The Diplomat had a piece called "Why NATO’s Planned Liaison Office in Japan Is a Bad Idea" the piece says...

    Although Indo-Pacific countries are seemingly receptive to the idea, NATO’s greater involvement in the region may well do more harm than good to security and stability.

    A few weeks later The Diplomat carried another piece titled "A NATO Office in Japan: Much Ado About Not Much" and it says the total opposite...

    Speculations surrounding the impact of the proposed NATO office in Tokyo are wildly overhyped.

    In a recent interview Glenn Beck recently explained to Patrick Bet-David, why he thinks some of the political elites are pushing for China to invade Taiwan and if China does invade it will happen soon after the DNC select the person (at the latest 1st week in Sept) to run against The Donald both also talked about the effect it'll have on semiconductor chip production for the United States....

    ReplyDelete