Mediaboss Marketing

Its importance and its achievements, however, will undoubtedly find expression in the activity of the women comrades of all countries who sent their representatives to the meeting. And this is what matters. If we examine the outcome of the proceedings in Copenhagen from this perspective, then the female comrades ought to be satisfied with it. The conference broadened and strengthened the relations between the socialist women of the various countries and here and there increased the common understanding of the central features of the movement. For some it shed clear light on the fundamental socialist attitude on many important questions, while for others it led to new, fruitful suggestions for practice. So it was that nobody went home from the meetings empty-handed, and those who had things to offer in one respect benefited in another. The appreciative and uplifting awareness of this interaction can only help to strengthen the bonds that unite the female comrades of all countries in their will to work as uniformly as possible in the service of the great, shared goal of socialism.

If the necessity of international coordination between socialist women had not yet been established, then the Copenhagen Conference did so not only by its sizeable attendance, which speaks of a vividly felt need for such discussions, but also, and above all, by the course of the negotiations themselves. Delegates were present from 17 different nations and it is both understandable and extremely gratifying that the Danish and Swedish women comrades sent a particularly strong delegation. We may hope that from now on the women comrades in the Scandinavian countries - whose work exhibits both so much freshness and a deep, yet controlled, enthusiasm - will have established close contact with the Socialist Womens International. The same is true of the women comrades from America, but it will take time for an organised socialist womens movement to develop in the Romance-speaking countries that will seek connections with the sister movements abroad.[1]

There are many signs that our hopes for this are certainly justified. The trade association of seamstresses and shopfitters in Lisbon wanted to express its solidarity with the comrades at the congress and its desire for constant contact with them, so it gave comrade [Clara] Zetkin a mandate. In the Italian Socialist Party, there is a growing recognition that the women of the working people also must be trained in socialism and united in an organisation. A discussion of the woman question at the forthcoming party congress is to set in motion the related systematic work and draw up guidelines for it. The executive committee of our fraternal party in Italy therefore sent comrade [Angelica] Balabanoff to the conference as a delegate and conveyed its heartfelt congratulations for the work of the congress, which unfortunately arrived too late to be read out.[2] The same happened to two other letters: one from comrade Tillmann, who wrote on behalf of the National Association of Socialist Women in Belgium; and another from a recently founded socialist womens group in Lille (north France). We are convinced that the beginnings of the unified activity of the female comrades in the Romance countries will be fostered by these international links. The next International Socialist Womens Conference will therefore no longer exhibit the gaps and shortcomings that we are so painfully aware of at the moment.

During the discussions on the means of making international relations between the women comrades of all countries more regular and firmer, there were many proposals and suggestions for things that already exist, such as the international exchange of socialist womens publications, the submission of correspondence to a central office for further dissemination, and so on. Of course, such proposals came from women comrades who had only recently, or almost never, come into contact with the International Secretariat [of the womens International].

Much more ambitious was the proposal of our female comrades from the Netherlands to establish an international womens journal that would not only provide information about the state of the socialist womens movement in the individual countries, but would also deal with emerging problems of the woman question from a socialist point of view, taking into account everything that relates to that question. The comrades justified this demand in particular with reference to the urgent need to train women comrades in the fundamentals and to the inadequate treatment of the various aspects of the woman question in the socialist press.

The Dutch comrades withdrew the motion after comrade Zietz had convincingly shown both the practical impossibility of its realisation and that this need should be addressed in another way.[3] Through their correspondents, she said, the comrades of the different countries should bring their desire for a theoretical discussion of individual questions to the attention of the international secretary, who would then see to it that they were dealt with in Die Gleichheit [Equality]. Comrade Zietz rightly pointed out that the articles in question would be useful not only to female comrades abroad, but also to newly recruited women. Her suggestion met with general approval, since - as was stressed by all sides - Die Gleichheit has certainly proved its worth as a central agency and publication for international correspondence.

Without doubt, the highlight of the conference was the discussion on female suffrage. Once again, it became apparent how, as soon as major questions of principle are fought over, the debates acquire inner substance, strength and momentum. And that was the case here too. Those comrades present who were familiar with the situation and knew that a not inconsiderable number of leading English female comrades - despite all of the resolutions passed by the trade union and party congresses in their own country and the International Socialist Congress in 1907 - unfortunately were fighting alongside bourgeois womens rights activists for a restricted womens suffrage; for those comrades familiar with this situation, it was clear from the outset that the discussions would revolve not around the question of the means, but the goal itself. And so it came to pass. The well-represented English comrades, who belong to the Independent Labour Party and the Fabian Society, warmly advocated that the passage characterising the restricted right of women to vote in a sharp and principled manner should be deleted from the resolution that proclaimed the struggle for universal suffrage for all adults. This characterisation, they argued, was an indirect condemnation of the attitude of those comrades who had initially supported the demand for a restricted right to vote for women in England.

The comrades Murphy, Butcher, Philips and others tried in vain to justify this position.[4] Their reasoning is well-known: the nature and the effects of a restricted suffrage are not as bad as they appear in principle, they said; it could, of course, not be the overall goal of the struggle for the political emancipation of the female sex, but represented an important step in that direction; in England they had to take what could be achieved at this moment in time and so on. The fact that this reasoning was repeated on several occasions did not exactly bolster its cogency. Nor did it become more convincing by the fact that it was combined with a glorification of the good hearts and minds of the bourgeois ladies, as well as of the advantages that could be gained from working hand in hand with the womens rightists: in short, this reasoning lacked a correct understanding of the significance of class contradictions.[5]

It also completely undermined the impact of the speech by Mrs Charlotte Despard, one of the most passionate and energetic leaders of the Suffragettes, in which she defended a restricted franchise for women.[6] To be sure, all delegates were unanimous in holding this distinguished old woman, and the civic virtues she has practised, in the highest esteem. However, the overwhelming majority of them were just as united in regretting that such great, beautiful qualities were being wasted on such a petty and unfortunate matter as restricted female suffrage.

The delegates responded with a virtually unanimous, unflinching no to the proposal to advocate universal suffrage without a corresponding denunciation of restricted female suffrage. The resolution was adopted with 10 votes against, which were cast by a section of the English delegation. Led by comrade Montefiore, the commendable champion of suffrage for all adults, a minority of that delegation sharply criticised the tactic of compromise.[7]

The debate that preceded the vote was a vivid demonstration of how fruitful the Stuttgart conference had been, and how much clarity and consolidation the international socialist womens movement owes to its work.[8] It was a pleasure to listen to the speeches by comrades Twining and May Wood-Simons from the United States, comrades Dahlstrm and Gustafson from Sweden, comrade Gjstein from Norway, comrade Kollontai from Russia, comrades Zietz and Popp from Germany and Austria respectively, comrades Montefiore, Grundy and Burrows from England.[9] In each speech there was the same basic tone but no tiring repetition, because in each address the clear grasp of principles was supported by valuable factual material that outlined the character and the effects of restricted female suffrage and the role of class antagonisms in the world of women [Frauenwelt].

The statements made by our American comrades deserve special mention in this context. They outlined a splendid refutation of the fondly told fairy tale of the sisterhood of the female sex; the fairy tale of the bourgeois womens movement showing sympathy for proletarian interests, wherever that movement is in bloom and its political demands have been fulfilled.

It should be noted that the German comrades resolution on the question of womens suffrage was improved by two amendments from the Austrian comrades. They prevent any misunderstanding of our demand by expressly calling for womens suffrage in the individual federal states or crown lands, and call for the right of women to stand for all legislative and administrative bodies. The proposals on how to develop the most uniform, practical work possible for the introduction of womens suffrage found unanimous approval. Now it is up to the female comrades of all countries to put the resolutions into practice. This particularly applies to the decision to deploy a new means of agitation in the form of Womens Day: we use this new means without any illusions. We know that it does not mean the world for the conquest of political rights for women, but we also have a firm will to give it the practical scope that a well-prepared Womens Day can have and must eventually gain.

The Womens Conference was not spared the loss of concentration and freshness, which, as experience shows, tends to follow major debates of matters of principle at all conferences. We regret that the treatment of the questions of social childcare and schools suffered as a result. The discussion of these issues also suffered from other factors, such as the lack of time and the discussion of a matter that had not been foreseen, namely the prohibition of nightwork for women.

As a result, maternity and childcare could not be dealt with in the breadth or depth that the range of the conditions and demands for reform deserved. Comrade Duncker, who spoke to the resolution of the German women comrades, gave a concise, but incisive, presentation on this subject, which, together with the speech of comrades Nielsen12 (Denmark) and Prsinnei (Finland), highlighted just how many factual insights we would have gained from further discussion.[10]

The debate concluded with the adoption of a resolution from the German comrades and a motion from England, which outlined the general principle that society is obliged to care for mother and child. In our opinion, this does not settle this important question once and for all for the female comrades from the various countries. Some of its aspects will need to be dealt with on another occasion: we are thinking in particular of the important social measures to benefit school-age children that are not being provided for. The conference also referred to the next conference two motions from our Finnish comrades on the position of mothers who have given birth out of wedlock and on the punishment for infanticide.

The fact that a socialist womens conference could be called upon to oppose a ban on nightwork for women was a painful surprise to some comrades. This demand was passionately supported by the large majority of Danish and Swedish delegates, and is characteristic of the fact that the movement in these countries has not shed either the influence of feminist views nor the narrow ties of an egotistical guild-professional evaluation of things. It was the feminist platitude of the womans right to work, of the mechanical equality of the sexes, it was considerations that only took into account the circumstances of the small group of women typesetters that led to the demand: No ban on night work for women.

Unfortunately, the majority of Swedish female comrades has already made it difficult for the Social Democratic Party there to advocate this urgently needed reform by organising a protest action. In Denmark, the Social Democratic Party is similarly in the embarrassing position that a considerable number of women comrades are still fighting against the ban on female nightwork.

In light of this situation, a confrontation on this contentious question - which is no longer an issue at all for the women comrades in any other country - became inevitable. At the eleventh hour, female comrades from Denmark put forward a motion opposing the ban on nightwork for women, which, according to the conference decision, had to be dealt with together with social welfare for mother and child. The protest against the ban came in particular from the Danish comrade Frone, a Social Democratic city councillor in Copenhagen, who spoke emphatically and spiritedly and had the strong support of the great majority of Danish and Swedish delegates.

Comrade Vang (Copenhagen) responded to this protest with a declaration in which she, as a member of the Social Democratic Partys executive committee, briefly explained the opposite point of view held by the Danish Social Democrats and the minority of Danish delegates to the Womens Conference. Comrade Hanna, the representative of the Women Workers Commission of the German trade unions, spoke convincingly against the motion.[11] In the vote, all the nations represented came out against the motion, with the exception of the Danish and Swedish delegations, in which, however, there was also a minority against it. We hope that these discussions will help to support the educational work being conducted by this minority and lead the entirety of the Danish and Swedish women comrades to demand a ban on nightwork for women.

The Danish comrades had tabled a second motion to summon the social democratic parties of all countries to support vigorously the legal prohibition of the domestic handicraft industry.[12] However, they withdrew it after the German delegation had responded with a counter-motion, calling for its legal regulation and restructuring.

Two proposals from the League for the Interests of Working Women in England were approved in principle by the conference. One spoke in favour of state insurance for widows; the other in favour of measures to benefit unemployed women. The very different degrees of internal and external development of the womens movement in the individual countries was expressed through numerous motions that demanded what has long existed, and has become a matter of course, wherever female comrades are well organised with a clear awareness of their aims in their ranks.

In order to promote the movements progress in those countries where this is not yet the case, the conference approved several such proposals in principle. They relate to agitation among the female proletariat, the training of female comrades, affiliations to the party and the trade unions, moral and material support for social democratic womens publications, and so on. Of greater importance was a resolution from the female comrades in Austria - moved effectively by comrade Freundlich - which sought to make the artificial rise in the proletarian cost of living the point of departure for systematic agitation that can enlighten women about the essence of the capitalist social order and lead them to join the political organisations, the trade unions and the consumer associations in which the spirit of the modern workers movement is vibrant.[13]

Two other conference decisions deserve special mention. Before starting its business, the conference agreed by acclamation a resolution tabled and moved by comrade Zetkin, which denounced Russian tsarisms attack on Finlands political freedom and expressed the deepest sympathy for the struggle of the Finnish people for their rights. Likewise by acclamation, the conference agreed the resolution from the German and Austrian delegations and the Socialist Womens Bureau in England, which reminded the socialist women of all countries of their special task in the struggle against militarism and war: to educate the youth in socialist ideas and, through incessant agitation amongst the female proletariat, to strengthen the awareness of the power that women enjoy due their role in economic life that they can - and must - assert. With this resolution, the conference dealt with motions from Sweden and England that were in line with comrade Ihrers splendid remarks on the need to place the maintenance of peace on the conference agenda.[14]

In conclusion, it should be noted that the conference was delighted to receive a letter from August Bebel. The stormy applause with which the delegates met the letter and the proposal to send him the conferences best of thanks and warmest wishes, was testament to the deep admiration that the female comrades of all countries have for this great champion of the rights of the female sex and of the liberation of the working class.

The International Womens Secretariat will continue to exist in its current form. Comrade Zetkin was unanimously re-elected as its international secretary. The Third International Womens Conference will take place after the next International Socialist Congress, which will take place in 1913 in Vienna.[15] In future, a working committee of comrades from different countries will participate in the preparation and organisation of the conferences, so that a preliminary meeting can be held in good time to make the arrangements for fruitful discussions.

This decision, which the experience of the first two conferences has shown to be a practical necessity, is very much to be welcomed. Implementing it means avoiding the disturbances and grievances that made themselves uncomfortably felt at the second international conference. It will also relieve the secretary of additional organisational work, which is absolutely necessary. It would be easy to say a great deal about this deficiency, with which the conference was confronted and that all international meetings are likely to face and which, on top of everything else, occurs during the particularly difficult conditions of organising the womens conference.

But it strikes us as more important to demonstrate the valuable work that has been done in Copenhagen. It will stimulate the further work of the female comrades in all countries, make it more uniform, clearer, and make it an increasingly valuable part of the proletarian struggle for emancipation. Our deepest thanks must go to the Danish comrades, as well as the political and trade union organisations behind them, who made the conference in Copenhagen both possible and successful, and who ensured that the hours of effort and work were enriched by infinitely amiable and warm hospitality.

The socialist womens young international has but one slogan: Forward!

Source: First published in Die Gleichheit, No25 (September 12 1910), first translation Weekly Worker.

Follow this link:
The Second International Socialist Congress of Women in Copenhagen - International Viewpoint

The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan.

The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. Whilst some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.

Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.

This was the brief statement issued by Buckingham Palace on March 9, around 40 hours after Oprah Winfreys interview with Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, and his wife, Meghan Markle, was broadcast on CNN. It combines expressions of sympathy for the couple and an oblique reference to the issue of race with an insistence that these matters should be addressed privately and the caveat that some recollections of events may vary.

This failed to dampen a media-driven debate on the future of the monarchy, centring on whether it can still be reformed to reflect modern cultural norms or should be abolished. It is hard to give the full flavour of how pathetic and out of touch with social and political realities are the statements made on both sides.

Politicians and celebrities in the US, including tennis star Serena Williams, Beyonc and lesser-known figures, lined up to express their disappointment that Meghan was not welcomed by the House of Windsoras if a black princess would prove that an institution rooted in hereditary and class privilege and imperial subjugation was fit for the 21st century. Their every stupid comment was presented as of immense interest.

US first National Youth Poet Laureate Amanda Gorman declared pathetically, Meghan was the Crowns greatest opportunity for change, regeneration, and reconciliation in a new era. They didnt just maltreat her lightthey missed out on it. It was, she added, Unclear if this will change the royal family, but Meghans strength will certainly redefine family elsewhere.

US President Joe Biden limited himself to a statement by his press secretary, Jen Psaki, praising Meghan as someone who came forward to speak about her struggles with mental health and tell their own personal story, that takes courage and that's certainly something the president believes.

Easily the most nauseating statement came from Hillary Clinton, who found the interview heart-rending to watch. It was also heartbreaking to see the two of them sitting there having to describe how difficult it was to be accepted, to be integrated, not just into the royal family as they described, but more painfully into the larger societies whose narrative is driven by tabloids that are living in the past.

This is said during the tenth anniversary of the Libyan war, which saw an eight-month bombardment by the US that left the country in ruins. When then Secretary of State Clinton was told of the torture and murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, this supposedly sensitive soul, who cannot bear the suffering inflicted on the Duke and Duchess, laughed and said, We came, we saw, he died.

Open calls for abolishing the monarchy have been very rare and most often equally delusional. The Guardian, for example, featured an opinion piece by Nylah Burton, a lifestyle writer at Bustle magazine, that combined fawning on Harry and Meghan with a supposedly radical message. She wrote, Lashing out at the Windsors is the appropriate response, but its my hope that those who were outraged at hearing how Meghan was treated will further interrogate the nature of this institution, and become radicalized into being anti-monarchists and anti-imperialists.

Burton felt compelled to clarify that these arent the Sussexes political stances there is nothing to indicate that theyd like to abolish the system. Nevertheless, If that interview chilled us, we should examine whether we believe a monarchy can or should exist in a just world we dont need them to be radicalized for us to use this moment to question everything we thought we knew about this elitist system.

In the real world, the response of those in power was far more cautious regarding an institution that still occupies a central role in British constitutional and political life.

Internationally, accusations of racism were decried as a political blow to brand Britain, especially in the 54 Commonwealth countries, of which Queen Elizabeth is the head of state of 16, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand. But the response was mainly limited to calls for carefully calibrated changes only after the queen steps down.

Former Australian prime minister and leader or the Australian Republican Movement, Malcolm Turnbull, said the interview bolstered his case for breaking away from the British monarchy. But he told ABC, After the end of the Queen's reign, that is the time for us to say, 'OK, we've passed that watershed.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern put her republican posturing to one side and said there was no likelihood of a break from the British monarchy in the near future. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the interview should not have a bearing on Canadas constitutional status.

Domestically, things were also muted. The Guardians editorial, Heavy is the head that wears the crown, made the only hint of constitutional change, meekly suggesting, Whether a hereditary head of state is required today ought to be considered in a programme of reform that the British state clearlyand urgentlyneeds.

Elsewhere, Good Morning Britain news presenter Piers Morgan was forced to resign after saying he didn't believe a word Meghan said in her interview.

Ian Murray, executive director of the Society of Editors, was also forced to resign after organising an open letter stating that Harrys description of some British tabloids as racist and bigoted and a large part of why he and his wife had left the UK was not acceptable without providing evidence.

Labour MP for Halifax Holly Lynch is one of a number reported to have made preliminary enquiries to see if a House of Commons debate could be held on racism in the media, the mental health strains of persistent press coverage and on further press regulation.

While the media focuses on blanket coverage of the doings of the royals at Buckingham Palace and Montecito California, Britain is in the grip of a social and economic crisis of unprecedented dimensions. Figures published by the UKs statistics agencies for deaths where COVID-19 has been mentioned on the death certificate show there have now been over 144,000 deaths involving coronavirus in the UK. Over 4 million have been infected, often with serious and long-term consequences.

Fully 1.3 million children under the age of five are living in poverty. The number of people on Universal Credit benefits has doubled in just a few months to 5.7 million. Another 2 million are still waiting to get on the list.

Payroll numbers have already dropped as much as 5.5 percent in London. Going forward, 274,720 jobs are at risk of being lost following the end of the furlough scheme, according to insolvency analysts. A survey by the Office for National Statistics found that 15 percent of businesses that had not stopped permanently trading had little or no confidence that their business would survive the next three months. That figure rises to 53 per cent in the hospitality sector.

At such a point in history, there is nothing radical whatsoever about calls for an end to the monarchy when not framed within a call to mobilise the working class against capitalism and for socialism. Policed and safely presented by the mass media, they act as one of many mechanisms through which social and political discontent is directed into safe political channels that do not threaten the ruling class and the profit system. As the saga is played out to mind-numbing effect, ever more people will see through this bogus debate.

More:
Crisis of monarchy over Harry and Meghan dominates UK media - WSWS

by: JOSEPH WILSON, Associated Press

FILE In this Monday, Oct. 12, 2020 file photo, Spains Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, left, welcomes Madrids regional president Isabel Diaz Ayuso, center, and Madrids mayor Jose Luis Martinez Almeida during an event to commemorate the Dia de la Hispanidad or Spains Hispanic Day in Madrid. Spains central region of Madrid will face snap elections after regional vice president Ignacio Aguado announced Wednesday, March 10, 2021 that its right-wing coalition government has dissolved. Aguado, of the liberal Citizens party, told Spanish media in an impromptu televised appearance that regional president Isabel Diaz Ayuso had decided to break up their coalition. (Kiko Huesca/Pool via AP, File)

BARCELONA, Spain (AP) Spains powerful central region of Madrid will face an early election after infighting between two right-wing parties caused the capitals coalition government to collapse on Wednesday.

Regional president Isabel Daz Ayuso, one of the rising stars of Spains conservative Popular Party, dissolved the regional legislature after breaking with her governments junior party, the liberal Citizens party.

The rupture came just hours after Citizens had announced it is withdrawing its support for the Popular Partys regional government in southeast Murcia and presenting a no-confidence vote along with the Socialist Party. If successful, that would give Citizens the regional presidency of the rural region that the Popular Party has ruled for over 25 years.

The institutional instability provoked this morning by Citizens and Socialists in Murcia has forced me into this situation, Ayuso said, while claiming that Citizens and the Socialists were preparing to join forces and oust her from power.

Ignacio Aguado, the Citizens leader in Madrid and a regional vice president, said he urged Ayuso not to end their partnership, calling an early election during a pandemic terribly rash.

The Socialist Party and the leftist Ms Madrid party did register motions to present no-confidence votes against Ayusos government on Wednesday, but only after Ayuso had dissolved her government.

Ayuso has been one of the leading critics of the handling of the coronavirus pandemic by Spains central left-wing government led by Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Snchez. She has consistently pushed back against health restrictions and lockdowns, saying they are bad for the economy.

Ayuso said the new regional election, whose date she did not announce, would be for Madrids residents to choose between socialism and freedom.

The region surrounding the capital accounts for nearly 20% of Spains economy and is the focus of its political and administrative power. It has been in the hands of the Popular Party since 1991, although it needed to team up with Citizens to keep left-wing parties from taking control in 2019.

The breakup of the Popular Party and Citizens could cause more political shockwaves across Spain, where other regions and municipal governments including Madrids town hall depend on deals between the two parties.

Both parties are struggling to stop the surge of the far-right Vox party, which surpassed both in recent regional elections in Catalonia.

Citizens distancing from the Popular Party, which leads the opposition in Spains national Parliament, could push the party closer to the ruling coalition and give Snchez more options when seeking support on key votes.

Read more:
Madrid region to face early election after coalition split - KHON2

One thing Oren Jacobson got right is his warning, "The threat to democracy has only begun, (Feb. 14).I agree most heartily, except for the fact the danger is coming from the socialists who have profoundly mistaken the opening battle for the hearts and souls of mankind in this Republic to those infailed socialist governments in Europe and South America.

Trump's presidency was nothing more than a skirmish filled with mistakes of a non-politician. Nonetheless, "We the People" saw immediate results in the economy, new trade deals, businesses returning to the United States, the end of unfair tariffs that had been put into place at the end of World War II to rebuild Europe and Japan, as well as strengthening of the NATO treaties and much more.

Trump's downfall was his inability to choose his battles and keep his mouth shut. The Republicans control two-thirds of the state governments, 2,800 of the 3,200 county governments and 75% of the gography of this Republic.Jacobson's claim "we only have one party committed to democracy" will certainly lead us towards the likes of Hungary, Turkey, Russia, Venezuela. Perhaps this happy socialist would name onesocialist experiment that did not turn its citizens into indentured servants?

Times up!

James L. Miller

Salem

See the rest here:
It is socialism movement that threatens democracy - News from southeastern Connecticut - theday.com

Is Xi Jinping more Hitlerian or Stalinist in his view of Chinese socialism? The answer to that question is important because it bears on the policy choices Chinas adversaries will need to make.

George Kennan, the godfather of Americas policy of containment of the Soviet Union, made clear in his 1946 long telegram that Adolf Hitlers vision of national socialist modernity wasnt a force that could be contained; the reason was that Hitler had a timetable according to which the Third Reich was to achieve global domination and his strategy could be thwarted only by annihilating Nazism by means of total war. The Soviet Union, in contrast, could be contained through Western domestic resilience and a resolve to counter territorial revanchism. That was because Joseph Stalin had in mind no specific time by which the world would need to reach the communist phase of development.

Precisely where Xi Jinping sits on the spectrum of totalitarianism is a matter of dispute. Elements of Xis ideology are notably Hitlerian. His ambition to achieve the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation introduces a nationalist character to the Chinese Communist Partys understanding of socialism. Unifying China and Taiwan is one revanchist mission driving Xis great rejuvenation, but revanchism is only one part of the nationalism Xi has begun to emphasise in CCP ideologymilitarism and capitalism are the others. Writing in the CCPs premier theoretical journal, Seeking Truth (), staff from Chinas National Defense University argue that a rich nation and a strong military are two cornerstones of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Chinese socialism seems not to be driven by the Marxian desire to secure a path to communism, but by the militarist ambition for armed strength and the capitalist will for material prosperity. Xis new era for Chinese socialism undermines traditional Marxism-Leninism, which views those nationalist forces with contempt.

Does it matter whether Chinese socialism becomes more nationalist than Marxist under Xi? According to Hitler, the distinction between national socialism and Marxian socialism was of paramount importance. Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning, Hitler declared in a 1923 interview with George Sylvester Viereck. To Hitler, Marxisms rejection of both the legitimacy of the nation-state and the capitalist forces of production was a fundamental error. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic, Hitler said. His embrace of nationalism and of capitalism had important implications for the Third Reich. Our socialism is national, he argued. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.

Hitlers distinction between national and Marxian socialism has important implications for the CCP under Xi. The party has allowed China to undergo capitalist industrialisation since Deng Xiaoping, having repudiated Maoist collectivisation, but remained committed to a strong supervisory state. The political economy Xi has inherited is thus similar to the economic structure Hitler presided over in the Third Reich. The problem for the CCP, however, is that Chinas state-supervised yet market-oriented economy necessarily repudiates any notion of socialism being driven by Marxism. To a political party that supposedly follows traditional Marxism-Leninism, that contradiction constitutes an existential threat. The way to negate it, for Xi, is to unify state and race by integrating nationalist notions of Chinas great rejuvenation into CCP ideology. Chinas economic model has forced Xi to take a leaf out of Hitlers book.

The CCP can never disclose the national socialist forces behind Xis vision for China. Leninism remains crucial to the partys identity as a revolutionary agent for historical change, while Stalinism remains critical to the CCPs organisation as a vanguard party securing a path to communism. As Xi said to the partys 18th National Congress in 2012, To dismiss the history of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Communist Party, to dismiss Lenin and Stalin, and to dismiss everything else is to engage in historic nihilism, and undermines the [CCPs] organisations on all levels. Xi cant acknowledge the national socialist character that his ideology has taken on, lest he be accused of undermining the legacies of Lenin and Stalin.

Nor can he repudiate the legacies of Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. Many commentators note that Xis response to his family being sent to labour camps during the Cultural Revolution was to become redder than red. That experience drilled into Xi a deep respect for Mao as the inheritor of Stalins legacy and as the father of the CCP. But the unique position Deng occupies in CCP historiography is also relevant. As the cadre who introduced market-oriented reforms at the Third Plenum of 1978, Deng kicked China out of agrarian feudalism and pushed the country closer to the communist phase of development. Xi can repudiate neither Mao nor Deng, lest he be accused of the very historical nihilism he says he abhors.

How might Xi interpret his own place in CCP history? Lenin and Stalin may have been the worlds first true socialists, but the early leaders of the CCP believed that socialism had to be indigenised in China. Mao and Deng, being true Marxist-Leninists, saw that process of indigenisation as a necessary by-product of Chinas relative lack of social development. For Mao, the nationalisation of socialism was a necessary part of winning a revolution in Chinas largely agrarian society. For Deng, nationalising socialism was but the petit bourgeois result of capitalist industrialisation. Xi, however, views leadership in terms of a sacred bloodline and believes nationalism to be essentially ethnic. He probably sees the nationalisation of socialism as his personal mission on behalf of the Chinese nation.

National socialist images of a sacred bloodline have now become a feature of CCP ideology. Su Jingzhuang (), from the Central Party School, recently wrote an article on Xi Jinping thought in the Study Times (), arguing: Red genes are a genetic factor that has taken root in the body of our party and flows through the blood vessels of CCP cadres; they [form] the spiritual lineage of the Chinese races coexistence and co-prosperity, and [they are] a core political advantage in realising the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. The national socialist mission of unifying race, party, nation and state seems to have taken on singular import for the CCP, while its Leninist role of securing a path to communism has been subordinated. Nationalism is no longer a necessary step on the road to communism, but the driving force behind Chinese socialism.

Under Xi, the CCP has proven all too willing to incorporate aspects of Hitlerian national socialism into its mode of governance. Carl Schmitt, known as the crown jurist of national socialism, has been cited by legal advisers to Chinas leadership to rationalise the CCPs imposition of a new national security law on Hong Kong last year. Schmitts central argument was that the sovereign, as someone who decides on exceptions to rules, has a necessary power to suspend civil liberties. That the CCP is now incorporating Schmitts fascist jurisprudence into its legal regime indicates that Chinas ruling elite has been influenced not only by the ideological elements of national socialism but also by Nazisms governmental aspects.

How long Chinese socialism will continue to nationalise under Xi remains an open question. But one thing has become clear: the CCPs role in securing Chinas path to communism is being subordinated to Xis vision for Chinas nationalist resurgence. The likeliest result of this phenomenon is a less patient, more erratic and risk-hungry foreign policy. Indeed, the prominence of Beijings wolf warrior diplomats and the CCPs track record of economic coercion are good indicators that Chinese foreign policy is already taking on that distinctly Hitlerian quality. Yet, the CCP itself remains steeped in Marxism-Leninism and retains a deep respect for Joseph Stalin. Ironically, it may be those Stalinist traditions that could save the world from a Xi Jinping who has started to flirt with the Hitlerian ideas that drove Nazi Germany.

Read the original post:
Xi Jinping's conception of socialism | The Strategist - The Strategist