Rev Left Radio - In Defense of China as a Socialist State: An Interview with Ajit Singh

Episode Date: March 29, 2018

Ajit Singh is a Marxist, anti-imperialist writer and political analyst. He received his Juris Doctor in Law from the University of Western Ontario in 2014. Ajit joins Brett to give a defense of China as a socialist state. Follow Ajit on Twitter @ajitbirsingh Outro Music: "Shadow Business" by Jedi Mind Tricks Reach us at: [e-mail] Support the Show: https://www.patreon.com/RevLeftRadio follow us on Twitter @RevLeftRadio Follow us on FB at "Revolutionary Left Radio" Intro Music by The String-Bo String Duo. You can listen and support their music here: https://tsbsd.bandcamp.com/track/red-black This podcast is officially affiliated with The Nebraska Left Coalition, the Nebraska IWW, and the Omaha GDC. Check out Nebraska IWW's new website here: https://www.nebraskaiww.org

Please support my daddy's show by donating a couple bucks to patreon.com forward slash rev left radio. Please follow us on Twitter at Rev. Left Radio. And don't forget to rate and review the Revolutionary Left Radio on iTunes to increase our reach. Workers of the world, unite! Revolution! Revolution! Revolutionary left the radio now. Revolutionary left the radio now.

Oppose the system any way you know how. Unite the left against the capitalist lies and liberate the proletarianist mind. Five for the working class. Five for equality. Fight against the right free to fascist ideology. Welcome to hit in and turn it up loud. Revolutionary Left Radio starts now.

Welcome to Revolutionary Left Radio. I'm your host, Anne Comrade, Brett O'Shea. Today we have on Ajeet Singh to talk about China and socialism and the defense of China as socialist. So, Ajit, do you like to say a little bit about your background, introduce yourself, and maybe mention your tendency so people can get an idea of where you're coming from? Yeah, so I'm a Marxist and anti-imperialist writer and activist. I came to Marxism through getting involved in, like, grassroots local struggles where I'm from in Canada. And I'd never really identified as like a Marxist until after I got involved in like struggles against high tuition, against privatization, against police brutality in my city. And then I came to Marxism through that. And so, as

As I developed as a Marxist, one issue that seemed to be very important that I thought, at least in the Western left, there was like a lacking understanding and engagement with the topic of the People's Republic of China. And given its importance, regardless of what you think of it in the world, today I felt like something that I wanted to focus on for my own understanding and to become a better Marxist and become more knowledgeable. And then as I engage with the topic, I came to, based on engagement with a whole eclectic source of people like Samirameen, people like Domenico Lacerdo, communist parties from India, the Communist Party of Cuba, trying to engage with China's history. I came to the position that China still is a socialist country in contrast to, I think, what is the dominant view amongst Western leftists and progressives today, and that it plays a progressive role in the world.

And so my focus has been trying to provide accessible analyses and writings on the topic because it's such a huge topic, and I think it's really intimidating to engage with. At least I found that, and I still find that. There's so much to talk about, so much to cover, so many contradictions. And I think one of the things that I focus on in contrast to, I think, most Marxists, is that I try to focus more on China's social practice. So, like, what's going on? Like, what are some of, like, the manifestations and social phenomena in China

and try to form my position from that? And I think that's informed because I didn't come to Marxism as, like, oh, I read all these stuff and then I became a Marxist. It was because I got involved in activism first. Similarly, I'm interested in what does China actually? doing as opposed to like specific texts while I still do focus on texts and like ideological statements but that's sort of been my approach and where I'm coming from yeah awesome and and that's why I wanted to have you on to to discuss this because you know on the left this is a controversial topic

but here at rev left we really were dedicated to kind of opening up the field of discussion for everybody on the left to get out their views and even if people don't ultimately agree with whatever we happen to be covering this week I still want people to critically engage with this idea and I really want people to move beyond the simplistic dismissals of the idea that China is socialist or is building socialism that we often find online

or in sectarian debates online and actually engage with it meaningfully so if you're going to agree or disagree with an idea at least have a legitimate and proper understanding of the position that you're dismissing or agreeing with And so that's why I think these discussions are incredibly useful, and I'm really excited to have you on to discuss it. So let's just go ahead and get into it. I mean, to start off, I think the best and biggest way to approach this is just to talk about the controversy.

So many people on the left, they reject the idea that China is building socialism and think that China is a capitalist state and that the Communist Party is deeply revisionist. Can you lay out your argument as to why you think China is a socialist state? First, I just want to say, as I reiterate that this is a huge topic, you could probably base your whole show on just, or an entire podcast just on, is China a socialist or capitalist, and you can talk for hours and hours and still be just scratching the surface. So I'm just going to try and touch on some stuff, but there's obviously going to be all sorts of stuff that I won't be able to touch on or whatnot. I think, yeah, the general view amongst Western leftists is after Mount Setung passed away,

and when China initiated reform and opening up, economic reforms in 1978, they abandoned socialism for capitalism. And my position is that China is still a socialist state. It is still pursuing socialist construction and that its Communist Party is a revolutionary Communist Party. And also aside from that, I also try to engage with as broadly as I can progressive people and argue that even if you're not concerned with whether China is socialist or if that's like not relevant to you I think it's still a progressive trend regardless of what you think of it in the world so I think first I'd like to talk about like just so everyone's at least on the same page what is a socialist society and not there's very like there's hundreds of different sources you could get a quote from or from

whatever but I think in I refer to the critique of the gothic program by Marx where he says between capitalist and communist society, there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of one into the other. Corresponding to this is the political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, in contrast to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie under capitalism. Also, what we deal with is a communist society emerging from its own foundations, or in like this free, perfect world. We're dealing with a socialist society, as it emerges from capitalism, from feudalism, from imperialist domination. And in every respect, it's marked by this, Marx says. It's still, quote, stamped with the birth marks of the

old society from whose womb it emerges. And we don't reach the higher phase of communist society until we build the material basis for it, until the productive forces have also increased such that we can reach from each according to their ability to each according to their need. And I think In 1978, while China had made tremendous contributions in national liberation, in international solidarity, in improving the living standards of its people, I think a lot of people don't know average life expectancy in China in 1949 at the time the Communist Party came to power and declared the People's Republic of China. Average life expectancy was 35 years.

This is following China's century of humiliation during which it was dominated by foreign powers, particular Western imperialist powers in Japan. That life expectancy nearly doubled by 1978 to about 67 years. But in spite of this tremendous social and political achievement, China was still severely economically underdeveloped. It was pursuing, as Marx said, not socialism on its own foundations, but within a deeply unequal world, within a world dominated by imperialism and emerging from its own history of domination. China was subjected to severe economic and political isolation by the Western powers, primarily the United States following its socialist revolution.

And the imperialist powers considered China to be something that they, quote unquote, lost as if they owned China. For example, China didn't assume its rightful seat in the UN until the 1970s. For the first 20 or 30 years, it was the province of Taiwan and the Republic of China and Western-oriented capitalists that were granted international recognition. China was also subjected to a brutal blockade, similar to what we see Cuba still subjected to. And so at this time, it didn't have access to foreign direct investment. It didn't have, in the same way that it does now, it didn't have access to advanced technologies. it didn't have access to advanced technical knowledge

and there were lots of difficulties in regards to trade and economic engagement. And so the basic thinking of the Communist Party at this time can be summed up simply in at least this quote, basically their thinking was, as Deng Xiaoping put it, our country must develop. If we don't develop, we'll be bullied.

And development is the only hard truth. So they were in a really difficult position. Their per capita GDP was actually lower than India, a country which was still capitalist and never had a really radical revolution of national liberation. It was marred by all sorts of contradictions. It's still 542 billion people in 1980 in China lived on less than a dollar a day. And so while there were great leaps in egalitarianism, in improving living standards, it was still a very, very poor society given where it started from.

This is due to imperialism. And so one would expect if these reforms constituted a counter-revolution that this should look like a counter-revolution. And what we see in terms of counter-revolutions in the former socialist countries in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union is the greatest population loss in modern history as the economy was hollowed out, privatized, social supports were cut back. you had issues with people's lives becoming just far more brutal and living standards decreasing. You also had lots of migration contributing to this because this decrease in living standards. And so in China, what do we see? We see a country that has average nearly 10% GDP growth per year for 40 years straight without crisis, without the capitalist boom and bust. You have a country that's risen to the second largest economy in the world, which is expected to overtake

the United States in the Kong decades, a country which since 1978, according to the World Bank, has lifted 800 million people out of poverty, which is more than the rest of the world combined. In fact, if you take out China's contributions in poverty alleviation, the world would have gone backward in poverty alleviation since 1978. There was a recent study, which I thought was really interesting. I think it sort of highlights the qualitative difference of China's social formation from capitalist social formations. It was a study by the, I think, the World Inequality Report. It was conducted by a series of economists, including Thomas Piquetti.

It found that in China, while inequality also increased, the living standards of the vast majority of people also increased reflecting this poverty radiation. In fact, real income for the bottom of 50% of wage earners increased by 401% since 1978, In comparison in the neoliberal United States, that's for that same strata of the population, real income decreased by 1%. We also see wages soaring in China. Across the labor force as a whole, hourly incomes now exceed every major Latin American state except for Chile.

They're approaching the levels of the weaker European countries. Social security and social supports in health care are constantly expanding, and the Communist Party at least states. And if we, it's also seemed to be demonstrating an action that it's moving towards universalizing health care, universalizing education, social supports. Infrastructure construction is really tremendous. They invest more in infrastructure than the U.S. and Europe combined. They've built the world's largest bullet train network. Anytime you look at China, you see constant innovations, really staggering infrastructure projects. Greenpeace recently reported that China installs more solar.

panels, enough solar panels to cover a football pitch every hour of every day. And it's becoming a world leader in environmental sustainability. It leads the world in renewable energy production, renewable energy employment. It's making these technologies more affordable worldwide because of the scale of their investment. And I think all of this together indicates that this is a country which still is able to prioritize social and political needs of its population of the vast majority of people over capital. Like capital does not go above political authority in China. It still constitutes this, what Marx calls the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I don't think this has changed, and I think this social practice indicates this. So one way to kind of summarize that broad argument, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but it's this notion that China realizes that it has to build up the material basis for a more robust transition into socialism and given their starting points, they've had to do a lot of work to build up that material foundation. And so you're kind of taking this Marxist perspective on history that says, or on building socialism that says certain conditions need to be built up before you can make the leap into higher stages of political and economic development.

Is that a correct way of thinking about what China is doing? Yeah, I think that's a really good way to put it. But if you want to achieve these greater social welfare, if you want to improve living conditions, you need the material base to do so. You can't liberate people off of air. You need food. You need technology. You need infrastructure, industry, especially a country like China, where you have one-fifth

of the world's population approaching one and a half billion people. Yeah, and what role just kind of quickly does central planning play in that? Because, you know, in the U.S. development and economic growth is left up entirely to the free market. And the political class is dominated by the bourgeoisie. What role does central planning play in China's development? And why does that lead to a situation where they haven't had crises in the way that, you know, the U.S. and other capitalist states have? Yeah, I think central planning is really an indispensable part of China. socialist development, like just reiterating some of the things I mentioned, like it's infrastructure projects, it's comprehensive green energy plan or environmental sustainability plan, its ability to alleviate poverty. All of these are like monumental social projects that can't be accomplished without central planning, without serious prioritization of these needs. I think if you look at like a capitalist country, even the wealthiest capitalist country in the world, like the United

States, and similar capitalist countries, like, I'm from Canada, like, it takes, like, three hours to get sometimes something that only takes, like, 40 minutes to get to in a car on public transit. Like, you can't really get from point A to point B, like basic things that you'd expect in one of the wealthiest places in the world, popular, really popular demands, like taking significant action on climate change. like universal health care, things that are broadly supported by the population in these countries, there's no action done upon it. They're all subjected to like the anarchy of capitalist production and their needs are just

sort of completely ignored. I think China sort of, if you look at China and if you really study it in a comprehensive way, it sort of increasingly becomes clear that this is a country that operates in a completely different manner, a big part of that is because of its central planning. Yeah, I think that's extremely fascinating. And I would just point out, you know, the sort of discrepancy between, you know, Western states, especially the U.S. and China when it comes to climate change, because the U.S. is dominated by bourgeois rule, you have an entire political party dedicated to the notion that climate change isn't even real, let alone how we're going to address it,

but just that it's not real. It's a Chinese hoax. Yeah, it's a Chinese hoax, exactly. And that just lenses, that just shows you how the reason that that line is even in existence is precisely because the notion that climate change is real would affect certain industries and segments of bourgeois profits.

And so it has to be just discarded as a myth and as a hoax in order for the ruling class to continue profiting off of basically destroying and polluting the earth. So that's just an interesting way to kind of show the dichotomy between the U.S. and China on that front. But let's go ahead and move on. We've got a lot to

cover. And I think it's an important way to highlight what you've been saying is answer the following question. How does China's development compare with other developing formerly colonized countries in the global South? Yeah, I think that's something I really focus on in my writing and in the way I view China, because I think Michael Prenti made a comment about this. When you analyze a socialist country, you should analyze where. it's coming from and what it's able to actually achieve given these conditions. And I think it really demonstrates China's achievements when you compare it to countries that face, while all of these countries face different national conditions and histories, they face similar

significant challenges like histories of foreign domination, of colonialism, of being in the periphery of a world capitalist system. In particular, I think it's, I think it's, in insightful to look at China compared to India. These are countries that achieve their independence from colonial domination or imperial domination around the same time, 1947 for India, 1949 for China. India pursued capitalist development since then. China's pursued socialist development. And if you look at these countries, so many people today say China is neoliberal or China, the economic reforms that enacted in 1978 were near. neoliberal reforms and roll back to capitalism.

If you look at a country like India where neoliberalism was without a doubt, there's no argument implemented in the early 1990s or maybe a bit earlier, also in the 80s, you see that this has led to a complete destitution for the vast majority of the people, staggering levels of inequality and absolute impoverishment. The Marxist economists, Indian Marxist economist Utsipatnaic, and Prabat Patnayak have both written about how in India, following the introduction of neoliberal reforms, you've seen absolute poverty increase. You've seen the per capita caloric consumption, so the amount of food that average citizens eat,

that citizens eat on average, has decreased during this period, which is an indication that people are literally going hungry in this country. You've seen neoliberalism lead to really a subordination to U.S. increasing subordination to U.S. imperialism as opposed to an increasing strength of this country. You've seen really across the country really harrowing levels of poverty, destitution, really brutal and unsafe, dangerous infrastructure. and crumbling infrastructure. And in contrast, you see China where, as I've mentioned, the achievements in poverty alleviation, its national strength, its ability to withstand imperialism, its ability to improve the quality of its people's lives, to become a leading power in technology, science, and innovation.

It really, it's like looking at apples and oranges. It's night and day completely different. I think it really highlights that China is pursuing a qualitatively distinct path from the vast majority of the global south. I find that argument illuminating and persuasive because I do think that by comparing India and China, you can really see whether you think China is socialist or not. You can see two very distinct paths that each country has taken. And India has certainly taken a far more capitalist road than China has. and so you see what the results are.

But one of the biggest sort of foundations of any socialist or progressive society is how they help the poor and working people. So what have been China's biggest successes with regards to helping poor and working people in that country? So as I mentioned earlier in 1980, despite the really tremendous achievements during the first part of China Socialist Revolution during the Mao era or whatever you would like to call it. China was still an overwhelmingly rural economy with over 500 billion people living on less than a dollar a day.

Since then, they've lifted 800 million people out of poverty. They're on track to eliminate extreme poverty by 2020. Real income for the bottom 50% of wage earners have gone up 401% since 1978. Wages are soaring. Social security, health care, also soaring, expanding. They've also been able to create the material basis for higher forms of socialist economic organization, which I think we'll touch upon later in the interview in terms of like where the current leadership is at and where China's heading under Xi Jinping.

And they've been able to, that's, I think that's something that's often overlooked amongst Western leftists. It's sort of seen, like the reform is sort of seen as a concession to a quote unquote capitalist road or to capitalists in China or something like that. Whereas from China's perspective, reform was a necessary step to strengthen socialist construction because of opening up, removing its isolation, being able to attract while from the Western corporations' perspective, they'd be able to access China's market and cheaper labor. From China's perspective, they'd be able to acquire their technology and eventually become

independent and no longer dependent upon Western economies and on imperialist economies. And I think the practice has demonstrated that that's what they've done. No one can say that China is going towards a neo-colony today. China is not a compradour state. It's becoming increasingly independent, which is leading to increasing hostility from Washington. And most recently, we're seeing with these tariffs from Trump and the potential for a trade war, And also China's achievement in environmental sustainability. As we know, environmental degradation affects by far the most around the world working class

poor and oppressed people. It doesn't affect the ultra-rich. And so I think China's achievements in environmental sustainability are absolutely an achievement for working in poor people. Not just in China, Bloomberg recently wrote an article, which I thought was interesting, where the scale of China's investment in renewable energy technology is making these types of technologies more affordable worldwide. And also, because China is not an imperialist state, it demonstrates and practices the principle

of non-interference. So if a country wants to pursue a socialism or capitalism or any independent path, whether it's Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, North Korea, et cetera, China doesn't impose conditions on those countries, like the Western feigned concern for human rights. so-called human rights. They don't put any conditions on countries. They just expect countries to respect their own territorial sovereignty, and they'll engage with them. And so these countries are able to access advanced technologies from China.

They're able to engage in commercial relationships, and this weakens the impact of Western sanctions, embargoes, blockades, attempts to isolate these countries. And I think this should also be understood as a contribution. to working in poor people around the world and oppressed people. Absolutely. Yeah, and I think you touched on it a little bit in the last answer, but let's go ahead and flesh out even more. So recently, we did an entire episode on Maoism. We talked about, you know, the Chinese revolution, the cultural revolution, etc.

How do you view the Chinese revolution under Mao and the reforms which China initiated in 1978? And do you view China today as a continuation of the broad path that the Maoist era set forth for China? Yeah, I think, to put it briefly, like the Chinese Revolution is maybe one of the most, arguably, the most successful social project in history in terms of how brutally impoverished and dominated this nation was for so long.

And Mao led the Chinese Revolution in 1949, as he said, the Chinese people stood up. And as I mentioned before, life expectancy was, 35 years old in 1949, this severely impoverished country, electricity availability outside of small urban areas was nearly zero.

Literacy rate below 20%, immunization rate virtually non-existent. By the time Mao died, life expectancy nearly doubled. China had built the framework of basic industrial infrastructure, electricity coverage had increased to about 60%.

Literacy rate was nearly 90%. and hundreds of millions of people were immunized, nearly 100% of infants. And there's a really strong record of international solidarity, international solidarity around the world, with Palestine, with the African-American struggle for national liberation, with nations on the African continent, with countries in Latin America, other countries in Asia,

a really sterling record. But on the whole, there was also differences within the Communist Party towards the end of Mao's life and the Maoist era and I think while on the whole Mao I consider Mao

to be a great revolutionary figure who made immeasurable contributions to the Chinese nation and the Chinese revolution there were also within the Communist Party I think there are some criticisms that can be made in terms of the period before the economical forms where there was great strife in the party during the cultural revolution. I think while there were definitely respectable aims that different tendencies in the party were going for,

there was also issues of like volunteerism or thinking that an over-emphasis on the notion of individual will or subjective actions in terms of being able to just leap into higher stages of socialism and leap into full communism or something like that. There's a degree, there's serious issues of sectarianism, something that's generally recognized internationally in terms of how the People's Republic of China engaged towards the Soviet Union calling it a social imperialist country, its reprochement with the United States, and its sort of foreign policy decisions during that time. I think there were issues with sort of hyper-antagonistic approach to all contradictions. that existed, and this is tied to the sort of sectarian attitude, and I think this was also reflected in the party. And so there's a great strife, and people like Deng Xiaoping, who is sort of, can be considered the chief architect of China's reform at opening up was called

a capitalist rotor, lots of people being evicted from the party. And so I think there are legitimate criticisms to be made. I think by far on the whole, I consider, and I consider the period of the Chinese Revolution before 1978 to be a revolutionary period, but not necessarily a perfect period. And I think similarly, I view the Chinese revolution post-reform and opening up in 1978 as a revolutionary period and not also a perfect period. I think there's a tendency amongst Western, particularly Western leftists, to sort of really take reductive and simplistic analyses on certain situations. And so the pre-1978 period is all the true revolutionary period, the quote-unquote true revolutionary period and the post-1978 is all the fake capitalist

rotors and these people are all liars and cheats and the most odious people. And I think that isn't really helpful. And I think regardless of what you think, whether you think China's revisionist and has a socialist structure to its society, but it's moving towards capitalism or whether you think China's revolutionary socialist, I think it behooves anyone to engage with China more seriously than simply saying, well, these were the revisionists and these were the revolutionaries. I think it does more to, I think it's more useful to actually engage,

like, okay, what are the contradictions of this period? What are the limitations? What mistakes are made? And then what are the successes? Because you can throw out really, you can really take any unflash, fact about anyone or any social phenomenon to make any social, any conclusion you want, if you take it out of context.

But I think what's more useful is to look at a situation from a broader perspective and really follow Mao's idiom of seeking truth from facts, seeking truth from reality, from practice, from as much information as you can get, as opposed to coming in with preconceived notions, coming in with like ready-made conclusion and sort of just labeling these periods as this is the revolution, this is the counter-revolution, especially when you have to account for huge social phenomenon, like China's great social achievements, its achievements in national development, which have to be grappled with regardless of what position you take. Yeah, absolutely. I totally agree with sort of the dislike of simplistic narratives that make

certain leftists feel good about what they think is going on, but they don't actually do the work of learning all the nuance. And they often don't even take a materialist approach to trying to understand history and how these certain countries have developed. I will say that we have done an episode on Marxism-Leninism, and we've done two episodes on Maoism. So if people want to learn more about the differences between Maoists and Leninists on this front and the differences in what happened before and after 1978, we have a back catalog of that information. And I really want people to engage in those ideas and study those different perspectives in a really genuine and interesting intellectually curious way and not in just the simplistic ways that so often online especially

these arguments devolve into sectarian nonsense and it just it's so it's so sort of annoying to me when do i see these wildly complex histories and and events and revolutions be reduced to memes or to sectarian infighting where the people on both sides of the situation might not have any idea what they're talking about, but still feel arrogant enough to talk endlessly about it. So a big part of this show is always encouraging people to actually go out and engage with these ideas and issues in a genuine, authentic way. But let's go ahead and move on to some criticisms because that's part of this general project as well. So some leftists point to the Chinese crackdown on Maoists inside their borders, including past example.

of China shutting down leftist websites as an indication that the Chinese state is objectively revisionist, if not full-blown counter-revolutionary. How do you respond to this criticism and why has the Chinese state actively worked against Maoist and other leftist movements, in your opinion?

One, what we do know about internal Chinese political dynamics is very little, and so it's hard to really form conclusions based on some random internet report on a website of people claiming to be leftist, or malists or whatever, so I would preface it with that.

But I think, like, regardless of that, I think how you view the situation depends on how you view the People's Republic of China and the Communist Party of China. If you consider the Communist Party of China and the People's Republic of China to be capitalist or revisionist and counter-revolutionary or imperialist or not a progressive force, you're going to think that people who identify the people that are trying to maybe undermine, that party or even some of these malice call for the overthrow of the Communist Party of China, you're going to think that's a progressive thing if that's your analysis of the situation. But if you think China, the Communist Party of China is socialist and China's pursuing socialist

construction and is a revolutionary society, you would think that people that are in universities trying to call for the overthrow of the Communist Party of China, I don't think you'd consider them revolutionary. Western leftists, I think, do have to grapple with their own histories of paternalism, of chauvinism, holier than thou, idealism, frankly, that they've generally attributed towards actually existing socialist states. This is something we see not only in China, but we saw it with the Soviet Union. We see it with nearly every country that says it's pursuing socialism, about how it's not really pursuing socialism, about how it's not really pursuing socialism, about how it's not really revolutionary.

That should be acknowledged in terms of how Western leftists engage with the situation. I think also, like, a lot of times you'll see someone share a website or some statement that says, like, 20 Maoists in this university in China signed this statement. Well, there's a 90 million member Communist Party in the country. Why would you put weight in a statement that you have no real understanding of the context of

as opposed to like something that you know exists and its achievements can be attested to. I would say if there are revolutionaries in China, my own view is that they're going to be found in the Communist Party of China. They're not going to be found outside of that agitating against it. I think Western leftists should maybe take a step back from sort of their tendency to like find the quote unquote true. revolutionary rebels or forces in China, whether it's in China, but also we see this thing happen time and time again in any country in the global South where there's turmoil, there's a tendency of a segment of the Western Left to say, well, these are the real revolutionaries over here and the state is all bad guys. I think Western Leftists should take a step back and sort

of just evaluate what their role is in the world, that their role isn't to sort of foment and agitate amongst people in the global south, that their goal is to sort of give space to nations of the global south to conduct their own affairs. And so that's sort of the approach I take to it. Yeah, super interesting. One of the things that Mao and Maoism presented is this idea that even during the construction of socialism, class struggle still exists. So can you talk about the class struggle that exists in China today? What role do capitalists play in the Chinese system, and how is the Chinese state addressing wealth inequality and corruption in a way that is different from capitalist states? Yeah, I think this is a very important question.

It's something that requires a lot of serious engagement because it's a really complicated issue. So I think, as I mentioned earlier, there's a tendency to treat like every mention of the word reform or market or investment in China as, oh, that's the capitalist forces speaking. And anytime you hear the word state, that's the socialist forces speaking. I think the role capitalist play in China is a contradictory one. So on the one hand, the reason China's pursued reform and opening up, the main thrust of the policy was that it would help the country overcome the isolation imposed upon it by the much stronger imperialist powers. And so capitalists allow China to generate foreign direct investment. They engage in joint ventures and

transfer technologies to China. They allow China to integrate better into the international. national economic order and avoid being isolated, avoid blockade, something that's far more difficult for China to withstand than a country like Cuba because China has 1.4 billion people. A little goes a lot further in a smaller country than it does in a country that is the size of China. So even under a condition of blockade, it's not the same to simply compare China to like a country like Cuba because they're in very different national conditions. And I think also capitalists play a role in helping China build internationally competitive firms, firms that are able to help China build relations and economic engagement with other countries in the

world, which it considers a real pillar of its ability to withstand imperialism's attempt to undermine it, to isolate it. So China is able to, for example, build railway and infrastructure in countries across the global south at far cheaper prices than countries from the West. And countries in the West generally aren't interested in that because they want to get an immediate and as maximize profit as they can. So they generally aren't interested in the actual projects that countries from the South actually need. China, I think, places a lot of importance on managing the contradictions because China's always, since the Communist Party has always been managing a multi-class alliance between workers, peasant,

in the dominant position, but also national capitalists, that was something that's a feature of China's revolution from the beginning. And so I think one of the things that post-1978, the parties tried to do, is manage these contradictions as it can in a non-antagonistic manner. I think that's informed by its own history and the leadership's experience of that, and also the international situation in balance of forces where any sign of instability or weakness or any wedge is used by imperialist powers to undermine independent countries. And so I think they're very wary of that and want to maintain stability. Their main focus is trying to overcome what they call the dream of national rejuvenation

or completing its national liberation. And I think what they're interested in is getting to a point where they, as they're expected, to overtake the United States. And then that would create a situation where the balance of forces, it's hard to predict what will happen, but they'll likely be radically, different. We've never lived in a world where a developing country was the world's largest economy, where a socialist country was the world's largest economy. That would completely change the ability of other countries around the world to pursue independent politics.

But there's also the point that it's demonstrated that the progressive potential of third world nationalism, even amongst capitalists. There are a lot of capitalists, there are a lot of capitalists in the Chinese diaspora who are living in the West, who while not communist, still have patriotic feelings. And even if they don't like the Communist Party of China, even if they don't like the leadership, they won't support imperialism's attempts to undo it because they still are completely opposed to the country's history of humiliation, the country's history of foreign domination. And I think China's wanting to exhaust as much of that potential as it can. But it's definitely a contradictory thing, which leads to corruption.

it creates the basis for opportunism, for counter-revolution, for forces which are Western neoliberal oriented that are profit-seeking. And that's something that is a constant dynamic that the People's Republic of China has to respond to. On the whole, I think what's distinct from the way China manages wealth inequality and corruption in its society is that there exists a communist party. There exists a dictatorship of the proletariat. So whereas in a capitalist country like the U.S., like we saw during the 2008 financial crisis,

when capitalists cause huge problems for working in poor people, they're usually bailed out handsomely. In China, when capitalists violate the sort of limits set out to them by the Communist Party, they're jailed or executed. There was a recent article in, I think it was the Atlantic magazine, and it was citing a study where there's an annual list of the wealthiest people in China. That list is often called the death list or the quote, kill, kill pigs list. Because according to the study, 17% of those on a list are soon after found in jail or even executed.

And I think that really shows that there's a completely different dynamic going on there. an essay I recommend lots of people read I think it's probably the most insightful essay in English that I've come across is by Domenico Lacerdo about China and capitalism and socialism. I think he wrote it last year and he sort of I think it's useful to compare China to not exactly but there's some useful and interesting and illuminating things to see if you compare China with the NEP period in the Soviet Union in the early 1920s when the same Soviet Union opened up its economy to like a sphere of capitalism, but it was managed by the Communist Party. There's some interesting observations that were made at that time, which I think

sort of are relevant to how we view what's going on in China. I think he quotes Gramsci in the essay, and Gramsci's observations, Antonio Gramsci, the Italian Marxist, his observations of the Soviet Union at the time. And he says, it's one of the only times in human history where you see that the politically dominant class lives in inferior conditions to the economically, though dependent and dominated class, meaning like the small amount of capitalists in the Soviet Union having maybe more economic privilege, but the dominant class was actually the class that was economically inferior, the working class. It's really interesting. In China, I think that study I mentioned about the wealthy people subject to execution and Jim.

and the rule of law is a manifestation of that. But even there are many things you can look at. Even private corporations don't operate exactly in the same way as private corporations in capitalist countries. A lot of them have Communist Party branches within them and are subjected to the authority of the Communist Party. There's a relevant example from the past year. China's been cracking down on what it calls quote-unquote irrational overseas investment

by private Chinese companies. It places lots of restrictions on over. overseas investment in things like real estate, entertainment, I think arms, and there's a whole list of things. But there have been companies a couple years ago that sort of went ahead and made lots of overseas purchases. And over the last year, they've been absolutely cracked down upon, like in terms of the amount of pressure that's placed on them by the Chinese government halting new loans, freezing their accounts, forcing them to get rid of these investments that China does not want them to engage in. And I think the government's even

overtaken some of these huge conglomerates to force them to do this because they weren't happy with how they were conducting themselves. And I think it sort of shows that even these economically privileged strata of the population are really subjected to the authority of the Communist Party. And this operates in a completely different way from capitalist countries. And I think it's showing in effect. There are also some, this past year, China's top legislative body, which just finished its first session, the National People's Congress, representation of the wealthy in this legislative body dropped by 20%. It was already like a minority within the legislative body,

but it dropped like 20%, which is pretty significant. Also, a recent study by economists in Cornell University and Peking University, which is a university in China. I've shown that income inequality has been falling in China since 2010. It plateaued in 2010 has been steadily declining since. I think this is a reflection of the sort of focus that the Communist Party has had under the era of Xi Jinping, and also something that started before Xi Jinping under Hu Jintel and the previous leadership of sort of combating

some of the contradictions and challenges posed by the reform period inherent to the whole process and the anti-corruption campaign and the sort of reinvigration of Marxism and trying to build socialist culture in the country. Yeah, I mean, just in my humble opinion, the notion of a kill pigs list is pretty refreshing. But if I If I were to summarize that, because I think you made it really interesting points, and a lot of people I don't think, I've thought about this a lot. But basically the idea is that it's constructing socialism, it's creating the material basis for further, you know, evolutions of the political and economic system. In the meantime, it allows for capitalists to exist, but basically that those capitalists are kept on a leash and are held accountable for their crimes in a way that in a bourgeois society, they wouldn't be. I think a lot of people, whenever we talk about China, the first thing people want to throw out is billionaires.

Look how many billionaires they have. The fact that they have billionaires means that they can't possibly be socialist. But what you're saying is they do have billionaires. They have a small capitalist class, but that ultimately that exists inside the confines of the dictatorship of the proletariat and that that overarching government structure keeps those capitalists in place and uses capitalists for their own ends as opposed to the roles being reversed as it is in bourgeois societies. Yeah, I think that's a really good summary. So I want to move on a little bit because we've talked about class struggle.

We've talked about helping poor and working people. We've talked about development. But another core value of socialism is anti-imperialism and internationalism. So how does China uphold these values and how does their foreign policy differ from imperial states like the U.S. or countries in Europe? There's a tendency to look at internationalism and anti-imperialism as something subjective, as something that's like a belief of a government or a, like a subjective feeling. Whereas the way I think it's more useful to look at it

is that it's a objective characteristic of socialist states as opposed to capitalist states. I consider socialist states to be internationalist because I think in pursuing their own interests, like every state does. It's not like socialist states are some sort of charities or benevolent societies, they're working-class states that pursue their own interest, as opposed to capitalist states where the bourgeoisie pursues their own interest.

But I think what makes these states internationalist is that in pursuing their own development, this is compatible with other states pursuing their own national interests, as opposed to capitalist, imperialist states where, in pursuing their own development, they come into contradiction with the vast majority of nations who wish to appreciate. pursue their national interest and oppress these nations. And so I think China's internationalist in this regard, it also subjectively engages in a lot of respect and aid and charitable and really commendable acts towards other countries of the world.

China's foreign policy dictated by the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. So it doesn't impose conditions on its relations, unlike the U.S. and West, which if you don't follow their rules, they'll engage in destructive foreign intervention or impose a quote-unquote structural adjustment program and really hollow out and destroy these countries militarily and economically. China abides by the principle of non-interference and the foundation of its strategy is trying to sort of, and it's informed by I think its domestic practice, is trying to form as broad

of an alliance as it can amongst socialist countries, amongst capitalist countries of the global south or third world or developing countries. And it sees that by pursuing this strategy of a broad an alliance as possible and sort of tapping into the progressive potential of third world nationalism, they're trying to build this counter-hegemonic front to the United States' ambition, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union or overthrow of the Soviet Union. Union, they're pursuing this counter-hegemonic strategy to the U.S. aspirations for unipolar dominance or preventing any other rival from or any other threat to its domination from ever reappearing. And I think this is its approach in the current period because if it's able to overtake the United

States, as I mentioned earlier, it's going to create a completely different set of international conditions, a completely different arrangement of balance of forces. And it's not exactly clear what exact things will happen, but their approach is in the near term and medium term is to pursue this strategy, and that's their sort of approach. So they'll, they want to engage in as many productive relations with as many countries as possible and maintain good constructive relations because the United States' attempt is to isolate China, is to keep it alone because in that way it's able to put a lot more pressure on China. Whereas if China has, China's never going to achieve military parity with the United States and it views an arms race as being a totally unproductive, like unsuccessful,

strategy, like it won't lead to anything good for China, they won't be able to keep up, and they'll be diverting too many of their resources away from what they need to. This abuses futile, and so it's trying to build up this broad alliance or this united front against U.S. imperialism, and that's its broad strategy. Individual relationships, we can see that China, in fact, does respect the self-determination of other countries, and I think this is most apparent when you actually look at countries, whatever you think of them, whether you think they're socialist or capitalist, they can at least be agreed to be fiercely independent. Countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Zimbabwe, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and

others, countries across the global south, China's really an indispensable partner for these nations to resist foreign domination, to have more space and flexibility to pursue independent development. And China really provides a crucial source of investment, infrastructure construction, technology transfers, debt forgiveness, loans on favorable terms, and diplomatic support to these countries. And these countries really attest to it quite enthusiastically, countries like Cuba, where Fidel said that China is the most promising hope for the third world, where their relations with the People's Republic of China, China have infinite potential.

Recently, the foreign minister of Venezuela stated, quote, I'm quoting him, thank God for the People's Republic of China. Thank God humanity can count on them. Because of the space and breathing room, it gives them in a world where they're facing so much pressure from the United States. I think this is a reflection that China operates to a completely different logic from imperialist states from states which are not internationalist. China's rise is completely compatible and even strengthens the position of countries across the world that are pursuing

independent development just by its very existence. In addition to all of the concrete actions and support it provides these countries, I think we should look more at what it is actually doing than maybe looking for maybe the romantic revolutionary sounding rhetoric we might like. Because we have to remember all the time, a lot of things that, a common thing that I encounter is a leftist being like, oh, well, why doesn't China just make these huge denouncing statements against imperialism or these huge things saying whatever we would like to say to the United States, why isn't China saying this? Or why isn't China saying this against capitalism? And you have to understand, like, the world as it exists and the need to maintain this broad

alliance and diplomatic relations and not be isolated. Like if a country in the global south that maybe doesn't even have a revolutionary leadership or doesn't have even a progressive nationalist leadership, here's China saying, we're going to overthrow socialism everywhere, we're going to overthrow imperialism everywhere, that country is going to be like, whoa, I want to go towards the West and I want to go away from you. And that would be really, while it might be cathartic to make statements like that, I think they should be viewed by, we should view them from the perspective of what do we need to do to actually be successful. And I think in the long term, using the potential of third world nationalism in even capitalist countries is more useful than maybe making these short term, these statements or rhetoric that feel good in the short term. And I think what we should focus on is the concrete actions and the impact of China as opposed to, again, getting caught up in, like, superficial things.

Yeah, I mean, I think what you're articulating is this really practical, rational, strategic approach to things that, you know, regardless of what you think is a, I think, a superior way to promote one's program than to be as belligerent as possible. Because regardless of how you would like, you know, certain states or certain societies to act, they're inside the confine. this broader real politic world that they have to operate in and there's good ways and bad ways to go about it. You're talking about China being a source, a sort of refuge for countries that the U.S. would otherwise be hyper antagonistic towards

in some sense, and this may be a broad generalization, but I do kind of feel like China has started or is playing a role similar to the Soviet Union in parts of its development where it would really try to prop up and help out other societies, especially like Cuba. And in a world where the Soviet Union and China doesn't exist at all, you have just an unencumbered U.S. hegemony over the entire world. And that means societies like Venezuela and Cuba are just going to be left out in the cold with no counterbalance to rely on to U.S. imperialism.

We've talked about China's accomplishments. What challenges and obstacles does China face today and going forward in your opinion and what mistakes have been made in your opinion? Yeah, I think the main challenges they face right now are dealing with, when they pursue the policy of reform and opening up, inherent in the process are contradictions because you're going to have a sphere of capitalist development, you're going to have the development of domestic capitalist elements, you're going to have the influence of Western corporations, and that's going to create all sorts of challenges and contradictions in your society. You're going to have different elements of the population that are interested in becoming super subordinate to the West and Western-oriented. Or you're going to have segments of the population that are just solely interested in maximizing profit and completely undermining the socialist project. And I think this has created a number of challenges. I think the principal challenges they face right now are combating inequality, environmental degradation, and corruption in the party and government

as a result of these contradictions in the reform process. Those, I think, are the challenges domestically. Internationally, the biggest challenges they face are withstanding, I think, increasing U.S. hostility, which is only going to get greater, which we're seeing, especially in the era of Donald Trump.

And we've seen begin under Obama with militarization of the Asia-Pacific and with this, now we're seeing on the economic front, this attempt to form a united economic bloc, putting pressure on China, with tariffs, with suits against it in the World Trade Organization, et cetera. But domestically, to start with, they have huge challenges they have to face in terms of environmental degradation, in terms of income inequality, and in particular the impact of income inequality on their political process, and how it's related to corruption in the party and the potential

of undermining and leading to the dissolution of the Communist Party of China and the dissolution of the People's Republic of China. I think that's why the party, as it says, considers its anti-corruption campaign or the struggle against corruption to be the most important task it has because corruption in its, as it states, form is what it considers to be the greatest threat to its system and its leadership. In the past five years now, since 2013, probably the signature domestic policy of Xi Jinping, the current Chinese president and general secretary of the Communist Party of China, has been the anti-corruption campaign, which has really what it says is it's sought to improve the quality of the party by combating what it calls formalism, bureaucratism,

hedonism, and extravagance. There's been an implementation of a lot more strict requirements on party work, on party discipline, and trying to really reinvigorate and strengthen the connection of the Communist Party to the needs of people and combat the sort of tendency to be pulled away from that by the contradictions in reform and opening up. Some of the concrete things they've done are, I think they've disciplined about 1.5 million people, 1.5 million officials since 2013. There have been lots of stories. They're usually broadcast in the West as, oh, China's returning to Mao or China's something

hardlining Xi Jinping, and what they've really been doing is reinvigorating Marxist education in the party and also Marxist education in public institutions and throughout their society and trying to build what they call a socialist culture to really reaffirm and strengthen their path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Some interesting things that they've done is, for example, is tie promotions of government officials to things like to people-oriented policies, example, like environmental protection or raising living standards in the village or community or city or town you work in. And I think that's an interesting approach they've taken, like a behavioral thing in addition to simply like education. One thing that they seem to be stating is that they

want to build the capacity such that the party is constantly able to have things in place to prevent something like a strong degradation of the party or wrought in the party or from a really strong corrupt element from forming. And we've seen the anti-corruption campaign, which was launched during the first term of Xi Jinping, has been solidified now into a national supervisory body. So it's really being entrenched in China's legal system, in its government institutions. And I think that's probably the biggest challenge they face domestically. internationally, they're facing increasing hostility about China, which has been what I've

been focusing on recently. While the trend of China's rise is not new and the trend of U.S. decline is not new, I think during the first year of Donald Trump's presidency, this has sort of become accentuated or really become highly noticed, especially by the U.S. ruling class, Donald Trump's America first politics has resulted in the country's reputation around the world plummeting. I think a recent poll by Pew Global Research, a U.S. research institution, found that the respect for Trump's decision-making as U.S. president is now about 20% because the Trump administration engages in such like flagrant open bigotry, unilateralism, and disrespect towards other countries, particularly

in the global south. So this trend isn't new, but it's really been brought into sharp focus under Trump. And I think in Washington, they're growing really anxious about their diminishing global dominance. In a series of recent policy statements, the national security strategy, the national defense strategy, the state of the union address, the Trump administration has repeatedly said the economic and military ascendance of China is the number one threat posed to the United States, with countries like Russia and North Korea and Iran, in saying that interstate strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern to U.S. national security.

Trump's pursuing a massive military buildup. Lots of people high in the Trump administration are saying, and in the military are saying the country's greatest threat is China. We must prepare for the potential of war with China. And this is really an escalation of the pivot to Asia of moving 60% of their naval assets to the Asia Pacific, which is big. begun under Obama. And we've seen, as I mentioned, the potential for trade war on the economic front, what

China presents, regardless of what you think of it, regardless of whether you think China's capitalist or socialist, for Washington, China presents is what it is explicitly sought to prevent from happening since the fall of the Soviet Union. This was explicitly outlined in the infamous defense policy guidance paper in the early 90s by Paul Wolfowitz, which stated that the principal objective of U.S. foreign policy, is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, what it calls a new rival. And so we've seen around the world since that time, regime change efforts anywhere where anyone does something outside of their rules, and now they have 900 military bases

around the world. But despite this, China's continued to rise. And I think really we're entering a dangerous period where all progressive people, regardless of what you think, need to, I think, at least be aware and challenge this really hyper hostility and antagonism, which is building up in. Washington against China, not only as a matter of international solidarity with China, but also around the world, like the potential of a war between these two giant powers would have destructive effects for Americans just as much as anyone around the world.

Yeah, and I think regardless of where you fall in the political spectrum, the world would be objectively worse off if China, you know, gets destroyed one way or another and is brought low and the U.S. retains its position as an unchallenged. superpower in the world. I mean, it would just be an empirically worst world. And when you have people like the recent national security advisor, Donald Trump, John Bolton, an absolute bloodthirsty war hawk, when you have those sorts of people, you know, littering the administration of any president in the U.S., you have a real, real threat of violent war. And China certainly doesn't want war. As you were saying earlier, it doesn't want to take its resources and put it towards fighting

and losing so many of its citizens and having this horrible war, it wants to have its resources to put into its own material development. So I think all leftists, instead of spending your time just tearing down everybody, try to really think about

what the world would be like if China was totally defeated or knocked off the scene because it would be a worse world for everybody. But final question, what is the future of China? Where do you see it going if it continues on this path?

Yeah. The one thing I would add is we have a historical precedent for it. We can see lots of people didn't like the Soviet Union, lots of leftists and progressives and even Marxists, but we saw what happened after the Soviet Union left, or after it fell or was overthrown or whatever you want to characterize it as. Things got very worse for the vast majority of people around the world, particularly in the global south. It also led to increasing inequality in the West, in the U.S., because there was no longer the

socialist alternative, which challenged capitalism. I think the future of China, it's hard to exactly tell. It's hard to predict the future, especially in a world as contradictory and with so much up in the air as ours. I think really what they're trying to do right now, the current leadership is trying to manage this period, which repeatedly is highlighted as a strategically important period, a critical period for the country and for its project of national rejuvenation or national liberation, and for it to embark on a higher form of socialist construction. It has several like centenary goals and then intermediary goals.

The centenary of the establishment of the Communist Party, the 100-year anniversary is in 2021, where they seek to have eradicated extreme poverty. By 2049, which is the 100-year anniversary of the establishment of the PRC, they seek to establish what they call a modern, advanced socialist country, and so really overcoming completely their legacy of underdevelopment and having what they call higher quality development, so much more balanced development. At the recent party Congress last October, which is the highest governing body of the Communist Party of China, the leading party in China, they

indicated what I think is a historic shift of the party's orientation. So the things, the theoretical basis of reform and opening up, which was initiated in 1978, was that underdevelopment was the main challenge or main contradiction for China's national development and to improve the lives of its people, like its big impoverishment, its low level of productive forces. Now they said the principal contradiction is no longer under development, but it is the principal contradiction, the main challenge is unbalanced development and inadequate development. I think this is a reference to the challenges and contradictions that I highlighted in the previous question, things related to inequality, corruption, environmental degradation. I think being able to meet those challenges and being able to meet the growing needs of their population, which are growing steadily as they improve, they then grow greater.

Being able to meet those are going to be critical for the Communist Party and critical to the support of the Communist Party going forward. and transitioning to this new era and meeting these centenary goals is going to be a critical thing for the Communist Party. And I think it's success in being able to meet these domestic challenges and also withstand the foreign hostility led by the United States and the West is really going to dictate where China ends up. If China is able to withstand this hostility and meet these domestic challenges, I think it could create a lot of interesting possibilities, a lot of positive potential not only in China, but also for the world progressive, anti-imperialist and socialist movement, because as I said, has the potential to really transform the international

balance of forces, which for so long has been dominated by Western powers in the U.S. Well, Aegee, thank you so much for coming on. This has been incredibly informative. It's educated me. I mean, you've single-handedly developed my perspective and my thoughts on China, so I really seriously appreciate it. Before I let you go, can you please let listeners know where they can find you and your work? Yeah, I guess the best way you can find it is if you follow me on Twitter, which is my handle is at A-J-I-T-B-I-R-S-I-N-G-H. And there you'll see a link to my writings or if I engage in interviews like this one or elsewhere.

I think that's probably the easiest way. Yep, and we'll put all that in the show notes, and when we post on Twitter and Facebook, we'll link to your page so people can find you even easier. So, thanks again for coming on. I really appreciate it and keep up all the good work. Thank you so much. When you were over in American Samoa, what surprised you the most? I guess what hit me the most is the conclusion of the factory that the workers were in. The factory was surrounded by fans and barbed on top and on the bottom,

and they have a chain-link fence around the whole factory and dormitory compound. The gate has a guard shack where the guard sit-down control. The worker movement in and out of the factory. The factory are made of tin panels. with tin roof, it's really hot. The temperature over there is regularly 90 degrees and inside the factory or the dormitory it reached way over 100 degrees.

Yeah, it's a contemporary form of slavery, they call it slave labor, but they don't prosecute them because it's how they make paper. When you rockin that fly shit that's made in China, by an eight-year-old child trying to feed his mama. He exposed to contamination and disease, and only 55% of them will get the ground. Senator will get degrees, and the women have to try to placate the boss, because it's sex discrimination in the labor force.

The slave master only let them speak in sign language, and they suffering from lung disease and eye damage. 14 hour shifts, seven days a week, two shitty meals a day, very little sleep. Human life only worth three sets an hour. All human rights lost, no sets of power. What did 400 years in the grave passers, only the improved cleverness of slave masters. It's life worth living if you're living in hell. When the mine is confined to a prison cell And the lies they devise in the system that fell

But I expect the system to fail Is life worth living if you're living in hell When the mind is confined to a prison cell And the lives they devise in a system that fell But I expect the system to fail Many Chinese workers are forced to sign secret agreements Known as shadow contracts Before they leave China severely

And in some ways illegally Restricting their activities while on American soil Workers are forbidden to participate in any religious or political activity or to ask for a salary increase or even to fall in love or get married. It's 1.6 million people locked in jail. They the new slave labor force trapped in hell. They generate over a billion dollars worth of power and only getting paid 20 cents an hour. They make clothes for McDonald's and for Applebee's and working 40-hour shifts in prison factories. And while we sit around debating who the whack them sees, they have to work when authoritative.

Pain attack the knees, slavery's not illegal, that's a fucking lie. It's illegal unless it's for conviction of a crime. The main objective is to get you in your fucking prime and keep the prison full and I give you a fucking dime. But they're the real criminal keeping you confined for a petty crime, but they give you two to nine. And ain't nobody there to protect you, except a bunch of incompetent human rights inspectors. There's life work flipping if you're living in hell, when the mind is confined to a prison cell. In the lives they devise in a system that fell, but I expect the system to fail. The press use only, baby ground records.

When the mind is confined to a prison cell, and the lives they devise in the system that fell, but I expect the system to fail. The stress shop situation kind of covasive and kind of take advantage on the people that are poor and at an economic disadvantage. at the factory until she became pregnant. I was pregnant. They tell me to have abortion.

Tusha Mae says she refused to have the abortion. It has now been barred from entering the factory. Allowing to bring that all the U.S. soil is a very deep concern. We've now documented the facts that management coerces female workers to become pregnant into having abortion. Human rights workers say it's common practice. Inside the factory, Chinese law applies. And Chinese law is supreme.

is supreme. Even though it's the United States of America. That's right. The flag doesn't fly inside there.