Leninist Scientific Concept of Imperialism. Is China Imperialist?
Free read-download PDF
Academia Edu, Archive org, Google Playbook, Yandex
HTML Format (largely unedited- chapter by chapter)
My
main purpose in writing this book is to lay the foundation for the
Marxist-Leninist to return to reading Lenin and Stalin (because their work is resourceful) and shake off laziness. A Marxist-Leninist does not
know “everything”; that is why they constantly study Marxism-Leninism from
its main sources and research to deepen their knowledge, which is a
responsibility and an unending task.
****
Marxist-Leninists do not rely on bourgeois sources for their search for truth. They seek and speak of objective realities and objective truth, and they expose the manipulative, learned-by-rote, or false narratives and “gossip”- based “evidence” fabricated by capitalists, especially US imperialists and their left-disguised lackeys, and disseminated for propaganda. At the end of 1971, two days before 1972, Enver Hodja said, " The difficulty is that we do not really know the internal situation of China; we know it only at the propaganda level. But what can we do?” Now we live in an entirely new era with mind-boggling technology and a web of information at least to be informed and get some objective facts.
****
They
distort the meaning of so many fundamental socialist terms in a way
that will make their arguments convincing: state, bureaucracy, socialism,
fascism, imperialism and various others. I take up the concept of
imperialism in this book based on Lenin’s scientific definition
to clear up the confusion and correct the approach to the constantly repeated
rote “conditions” for the definition. It is not my “opinion”; it is
how Lenin and Stalin define it in its totality. We cannot look for a
“prescription” they wrote that spells out exactly what we want to see,
especially when they already explain it in various articles numerous times.
The second and most important subject is the question of “China” being
an imperialist country, which I was claiming in the early 1970s not
because I had done research on that but just because my comrades I trusted were
calling it so.
***
Theoretically
or practically, an assessment can be equally correct only if
it is based on objective, validated data and considers the
particular and the general through the dialectics of Marxism. That
is, China’s history and concrete conditions in particular, and its dialectical
connections with the world in general, recognizing the ongoing
“ideological warfare” between capitalism and socialism, in
addition to ongoing economic and political warfare.
***
The
question is whether there is enough theoretical and practical concrete
evidence to label China as an imperialist state. The answer is no.
That is the reason arguers rely on cherry-picked quotes and gossip as evidence.
As you will see, it is impossible to prove that China is imperialist based on
theories and gossip. However, an argument that China's government is
social-chauvinist is more plausible, both theoretically and
practically. Social chauvinism, as history has proven, is the only way
for the restoration of capitalism other than a soft or hard
counter-revolution. What does that mean? It means that China's
transformation into social-imperialism is possible. As Lenin and Stalin
advised, we deal with that when it happens, because we deal only with the
current, objective reality. And again, as Lenin and Stalin stated;
“Only blockheads or masked enemies who with their boastfulness want to conceal their hostility and are striving to demobilize the people, can deny the danger of military intervention and attempts at restoration as long as the capitalist encirclement exists.” (Stalin, On the Final Victory of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.)
****
This
book will test China against Lenin's seven conditions for imperialism. As we
will demonstrate, China fails every condition when properly understood. This is
not because we are 'defending' China—it is because the evidence is
conclusive.
****
The
term 'imperialism' has become a catch-all label, applied subjectively to almost
any country perceived as powerful or expansionist. This is not a new error.
Lenin warned in his time that 'the scientific concept of imperialism has been
reduced to a term of abuse applied to those with whom imperialists are in
direct competition.'
Today,
this misuse is compounded by a mechanical approach that defines imperialism
solely by its economic features—monopoly capital, capital export, and global
reach—while ignoring its political essence: militarization, war preparation,
and the use of force as a continuation of economic policy.
This
chapter argues that the scientific definition of imperialism must be
understood as a dialectical unity of its economic and political aspects. Without
this unity, analysis becomes arbitrary, labels become meaningless, and
Marxist-Leninists cannot distinguish genuine imperialism from other forms of
state power.
****
Marxist-Leninists
have their own methodology, which is neither metaphysical nor idealist, but
rather materialist, dialectical, and historical. ML methodology relies on
concrete analysis and takes into consideration the real processes of
history in their development, in all their aspects, in the way that history
has established them. For this reason, they reject any conception that
proceeds from preconceived or utopian models. Applying theories to concrete
conditions with rigorous proof tailored to those specific realities is a
crucial methodology for any serious Marxist-Leninist analysis. ML
analysis is not a subjective abstraction based on sloganized
theories but based on objective realities in connection with
fundamental ML theories.
This
methodology is essential when examining the recurring accusation that China is
an imperialist country. While the term "imperialism" is often used as
a political slur/smear, for a Marxist-Leninist, it is a scientific category
with a precise definition. Therefore, to produce a convincing theoretical
argument, one cannot merely assert the label; one must systematically
prove it. The accuser must meet a threefold burden of proof, which
this paper will argue they have failed to satisfy.
****
On
the question of whether China is an "imperialist" or not, one of the
fundamental requirements to prove is that the Chinese State is
controlled by the capitalist class. This is not a minor technicality;
it is the decisive condition upon which all other conditions depend. Yet
not one argument among the dozens of articles on this subject touches on this
question because, under Marxist-Leninist theory, it is impossible to prove. The accusers
consistently conflate the capitalist state, formed and organized
by the capitalist class to serve its interests, with the socialist
state, formed through the acquisition of political power after
a proletarian-peasant revolution. These are qualitatively
different entities, and conflating them is a fundamental category
error.
****
The
Stalin Quote: A Case Study in Dialectical Reading
Examining whether China is imperialist according to Lenin's scientific definition cannot begin with the accusation itself. It must begin with the method of reading—specifically, a dialectical reading that understands phenomena not in isolation, but in their historical and material context.
****
Aside
from the revisionists, so-called anti-revisionists cherry-pick Stalin’s
statement divorced from its entire context and from the Leninist context.
Stalin said;
“You speak of Sinified
(Chinese) socialism. There is nothing of the sort in nature. There is no
Russian, English, French, German, or Italian socialism, just as there is no
Chinese socialism. There is only one Marxist-Leninist socialism.”
No
one really spends time reading the entire paragraph and the continuation of his
statement. Stalin continues the sentence;
“It is another
thing that in the building of socialism it is
necessary to take into consideration the specific features of a
particular country. Socialism is a science, necessarily having,
like all science, certain general laws, and one just needs to ignore them and
the building of socialism is destined to failure.”
Stalin
did not leave this principle abstract. In his article "Comment on Current
Affairs: On China"—written precisely to refute the Trotskyites who
were demanding that the Chinese revolution follow a rigid, preordained
model—Stalin explained the first tactical principle of Leninism:
"The principle of
the necessity of taking into account the national peculiarities and national
characteristics of each country while working out the guiding
instructions of the Communist International for the working class movement of
that country."
He
then delivered a devastating critique of those who apply theory mechanically:
"Notwithstanding the
ideological growth of our Party, unfortunately there is still
in our Party a certain type of 'leaders' who sincerely believe that it
is possible to direct the revolution in China, so to speak, by
telegraph on the basis of the known and universally recognized general
principles of the Communist International without taking into
consideration the national peculiarities of Chinese economy, Chinese
political regime, Chinese culture, Chinese customs and traditions. These
'leaders' differ from the real leaders precisely in that they always
have in their pockets two or three ready-made formulae that are 'suitable' for
all countries and 'obligatory' in all conditions. For
them there is no question of taking into account the national character and
national peculiarities of each country... Our oppositionists belong
precisely to this type of these miserable leaders."
Stalin's warning is prophetic for our own time. The modern critics of China—who denounce 'socialism with Chinese characteristics' as a deviation while applying abstract formulae to a country they have never studied in concrete detail—are the direct heirs of these 'miserable leaders.' They believe they can judge the Chinese revolution 'by telegraph,' without understanding the conditions of a semi-feudal, semi-colonial nation of over half a billion people (at the time of the revolution) that foreign powers had carved up for a century.
***
There
is another historical fact that most are not aware of and thus
never consider in studying the Chinese revolution and its character....From the establishment of the first rural base area after the Autumn Harvest Uprising in 1927 to the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, CCP-controlled territories expanded from isolated points to contiguous regions....It
successively established over a dozen revolutionary base areas..Stalin,
in his writing “Comment on Current Affairs: On China” , referring to this
era, said;
“It is not easy to bridle and
oppress the millions of peasants who have already gained possession of
the land of the landlords. The prestige of the proletariat among the
working masses ls rising from day to day and its strength is far from
having been smashed.”
***
Stalin, after outlining the “general laws of building socialism,” states;
“These, in short, are the main laws of socialism as a science, requiring that we relate to them as such. If you understand this, everything with the building of socialism in China will be fine.” Stalin, a meeting with a Chinese Communist Party delegation in 1949
***
In summary, before 1949, the CCP had already engaged in over two decades of localized governance practice in vast regions....
Its governance centered on land reform, while economically it adopted a pragmatic policy of coexistence among public, cooperative, private, and other sectors. This pattern of "coexistence of multiple economic sectors" was precisely based on a deep understanding of China's backward and unevenly developed productive forces at the time, and it provided direct practical experience for the economic system established after the founding of the People's Republic of China.
***
Based on Lenin's distinction: China's bureaucracy remains an apparatus. It is subject to party discipline, mass supervision, and the ultimate goal of socialist construction. The bourgeois claim that it has become a "new class" is not a materialist analysis—it is an ideological projection.
Privileges
are a temporary phenomenon under
conditions of scarcity and socialist construction. They do not
constitute ownership of the means of production, which is the defining
feature of a class.
***
In bourgeois democracies, leaders are incentivized to accumulate as much personal wealth as possible before leaving office—because they know their time is limited. In a socialist state, leaders are professional revolutionaries who serve for life, and do not need to accumulate personal assets because the collective assets of the state are at their disposal—but only in service of the people. This is not a 'new class'; it is the very opposite of bourgeois corruption."
Bourgeois
Democracy leaders come
and go every 4–5 years. Leaders accumulate personal wealth before leaving.
Corruption is structural. The state serves the bourgeoisie.
Socialist State leaders serve for life, accountable to the
party and the people. Corruption is severely punished; the system is
designed to prevent personal enrichment, to serve the collective interests of
the laboring masses.
****
So, this widely
used quote from Stalin does not defy or condemn the Chinese Communist Party; it
stresses that “there is only one socialism,” built according to each
country's conditions but in accordance with the fundamental laws
summarized above.
***
We
must now address the persistent accusation that "socialism cannot have
private capital", “there cannot be huge differences between
the salaries”, etc. This accusation rests on a deliberate confusion
between the two phases of communist society. The accusers conflate the
necessary persistence of bourgeois right under socialism with capitalism
itself.
Stalin
noted as one of the conditions in the above-mentioned article,
“Obligatory use of the following
principle in the building of socialism: from each according to his
capacity, to each according to his work, distribution of
the material goods depending upon the quality and quantity of
the work of each person.”
***
Before
concluding our investigation, we must directly answer the foundational
accusation that underlies all others: "China is not socialist; it
is capitalist." This accusation is the bedrock upon which the "imperialist"
label is built. If China is not socialist, then it could be
imperialist. However, if China remains qualitatively socialist, the
entire accusation collapses. We will answer this question not through
subjective opinion, but through the objective criteria established by the
Marxist-Leninist tradition.
As
we established in Chapter 1.1 through Stalin's direct critique of those who
ignore national peculiarities, the concept of 'Chinese characteristics' is not
a departure from Leninism—it is the application of Stalin's own tactical
principle to China's concrete conditions.
***
Stalin,
in his article, “ Comment on Current Affairs: On China,” refuting the
nonsensical talk of the Trotskyites on the Chinese question, explained several
main tactical principles of Leninism, the first one of which was :
"The principle of the
necessity of taking into account the national peculiarities and
national characteristics of each country while working out the guiding
instructions of the Communist International for the working class movement of
that country."
Stalin then emphasized combining general Marxist-Leninist principles with national characteristics.
***
Russia, with a population of 170 million, a semi-feudal country, acquired state power through a socialist revolution. As of today, Russia is still the only country in history that carried out a socialist revolution, a revolution that didn’t have any precedent to draw lessons from but the only one from which lessons are drawn. This confirms Lenin and Stalin’s theory that the path to revolution in each country will be based on the existing conditions, structure, culture, and character of each country, as well as the “path to building socialism. Each will serve as an example for countries with similar characteristics to draw lessons from, with consideration of semi-feudal structures and the population. Building socialism in a country with a population of 1 million, compared to a country of 120 million or half a billion, will present a different set of challenges. Trial and error, not a prescription that fits all.
***"Commodity production under
socialism is a special form of commodity production, which does
not lead to capitalism, because it is under the control of the
state." Stalin, “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”
The
accusation that China is imperialist is not a scientific observation; it
is a confession. It reveals that the accuser cannot conceive of a power that
does not seek to dominate, because domination is the only language their own
economic system speaks. They project the logic of imperialism onto a
system that has structurally superseded it.
***
As
the Qualitative Criteria of Socialism, Marxism-Leninism defines socialism not
by the “presence or absence” of markets or private property, or by
the degree of socialist economic development, but by
the “class character of the state”. The key criterion
is: “Who holds political power?” As Lenin stated:
“The transition from
capitalism to Socialism will certainly create a great variety
and abundance of political forms, but their essence will
inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat.” Lenin,
The State and Revolution
***
This
brings us back to the Kafkatrap outlined in our introduction:
If
a socialist country is underdeveloped →
"Socialism is incapable."
If
a socialist country develops → "Then it must be capitalist/imperialist."
The
trap is designed to validate their anti-Leninist “socialism in one country
is impossible” theory, and ensure that socialism can never succeed in any
country in the eyes of its accusers. But the trap reveals more about
the trappers than about the target. It reveals that their
worldview cannot process the existence of a non-exploitative hegemon.
***
As
a student of Marxism-Leninism for over half a century, I have come
to believe that four fundamental indicators determine the
development or direction of socialism in a country. The Socialist
State is the living foundation and the four
pillars on which socialism is built and
sustained. Revolutions cannot be realized without the participation of
large masses of people. Similarly, revolutionary governments cannot be
sustained and strengthened without the trust, belief, and supportive participation
of large masses. The path to gaining the belief and confidence of large
masses can only be realized through the four pillars of
socialist practice.
1-
Free and compulsory education as an investment in the future.
2-The
provision of basic medical insurance for all.
3-The guarantee of work as a matter of state policy.
***
Who
owns the lands in a socialist state?
Looking
specifically at the constitutional ownership of rural and urban land across
these six socialist states, they actually split neatly into two distinct legal
models, rather than a spectrum.
Model
1: The "Unified State/Public" Model (State is the sole legal owner)
In
this model, the law makes no distinction between
urban and rural ownership. The state (or "the people" as represented
by the state) owns 100% of the land, and rural cooperatives or farmers are
strictly users granted rights by the state.
Model
2: The "Dual-Track" Model (State owns Urban; Collective/Cooperative
owns Rural)
In
this model, the law recognizes two distinct legal owners: the state
for cities/industry, and a collective legal entity (villages/cooperatives) for
farmland.
***
Anyone who calls himself a Marxist-Leninist but resorts to using bourgeois gossip, manipulated data, and imperialist-funded "research" to support his subjective, rote, or sectarian arguments cannot honestly be called a socialist. At best, such a figure is an ultra-leftist—incapable of understanding that the construction of socialism is a long, uneven, contradictory process, not a static ideal to be measured against abstract perfection.
One of the most widespread gossip items (even used by some leftist writers is: “Xi Jinping” is a multi-billionaire. The evidence? None. Under current Chinese laws and Party regulations, the specific asset declaration records of individual Party leaders are not public information. Strict legal and disciplinary provisions prohibit unauthorized access to, leakage of, or public dissemination of these internal records to protect national security and social stability.
Because the law explicitly restricts public access to this data, the public cannot verify any specific figures or claims about "billion-dollar assets" circulating online or through unofficial channels, and they inherently fall into the category of unsubstantiated speculation and gossip. Because no legally permissible channel allows an ordinary citizen to obtain this specific data, no external claim can be backed by legally admissible evidence.
****
China’s stock market, Billionaires in China
The stock market in China has no overall economic significance, yet it is too large to be insignificant. It is “not” a primary indicator of national economic health, unlike the US, where the S&P 500 is closely tied to consumer spending and pension funds. (9- See notes for details)
Due to harsh regulations, the billionaires in China have stocks in real tangible industries, rather than in a 'stock Market'." Concrete Data:
***
Cracking down on financial investments on 'money, preventing a rentier economy in the private sector. Since 2020, the CCP has waged a deliberate war on "financialization without industri-alization." Important examples:
***
According to the Hurun China Rich List, the combined wealth of China's top 100 billionaires peaked in 2021 at $3.1 trillion and has since declined to ~$2.2 trillion (as of late 2025). Over the same period, US billionaire wealth (Forbes) has increased from ~$4.5 trillion to over $5.8 trillion.
***
In summary, the CCP actively suppresses 'rentier capitalism' by penalizing financial speculation, canceling speculative IPOs, and forcing private billionaires to anchor their wealth in tangible manufacturing and R&D.
***
History
teaches us that
revolutions are not made in laboratories. Socialism is built in the teeth
of imperialist encirclement, economic blockade, and
ideological subversion. The task of the genuine Marxist-Leninist is not
to police the purity of socialist states from a comfortable distance, but
to study their concrete conditions, learn from their successes and
failures, and defend them against imperialist attack—while offering
fraternal, constructive criticism where it is due.
***
This
study began with a deceptively simple question: Is China an imperialist
country by Lenin's scientific definition of imperialism? The answer
required far more than a superficial comparison of economic indicators or a
repetition of learned-by-rote slogans. It demanded a comprehensive
application of the dialectical method—a method that, as Lenin insisted,
"proceeds by means of a thorough, detailed analysis of a process in all
its concreteness." The question could not be answered through abstract
formulas; it required the full weight of Marxist-Leninist
methodology: dialectical materialism, concrete analysis of concrete
conditions, scientific definition, and proletarian internationalism.
The
significance of
this question extended far beyond academic debate. The
accusation that China is imperialist has become a weapon in the
ideological warfare waged by capitalist states against the socialist
world. It is used to divide the anti-imperialist camp, to discredit the largest
and most powerful socialist state, and to obscure the true nature of
US-led imperialism. For Marxist-Leninists, therefore, the
question is not merely theoretical—it is a question of class duty.
***
The
Bourgeois Kafkatrap
The
accusation against China is a perfect example of what can be called a
"bourgeois Kafkatrap"—a closed system of logic from which the
socialist country cannot escape.
If
China were poor and underdeveloped,
the accusation would be: "See, socialism does not work." Now that
China has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty and achieved rapid
technological and economic growth, the accusation flips: "See,
it must be capitalist, and therefore imperialist."
This
dual-bind is the hallmark of bourgeois ideology. It cannot conceive
development without exploitation because exploitation is capitalism's only historical
experience. It cannot imagine a power that rises to global significance
without seeking to dominate, because domination is the only language of
imperialism.
The accusation against China is not a scientific observation; it is a confession. It reveals that the accuser cannot conceive of a power that does not seek to dominate, because domination is the only language their own economic system speaks.
***
The
specific accusations of "imperialism" against China are rooted
in a deeper theoretical assault: the revival of anti-Leninist theories
that were supposedly settled decades ago.
"If
socialism cannot be built in one country," then the existence of
China, a socialist state that has survived and developed for over seven
decades, is a theoretical impossibility that must be explained away.
"If anti-imperialist struggles are obsolete," then any
resistance to US/NATO hegemony is by definition illegitimate or
retrograde.
If accepted, these two bourgeois theories would disarm the socialist movement completely.
***
The accusation is not about China—it is about the accuser's own inability to see beyond capitalism.
***
The dialectical rule is that nothing remains static; the only constant is change, for everything moves either backward or forward. The conflict between opposing forces drives all change, and nothing exists in complete isolation from its surroundings....This means change is inevitable for China, but we cannot predict whether it will move backward or forward; changes in fundamental principles and practices may be the only indicator of its direction...The economic indicator is never the ultimate arbiter; it is the class content of growth.
***
If the principle is the dictatorship of the proletariat and the use of state coercion in the transition period, then the fundamental question for any concrete assessment is not "has the policy changed?" but "whose class interest does the state coercively enforce, and in whose interest is the coercion suspended or redirected?" That is the immutable question underlying the changing conditions.
If the coercive apparatus of the state -its
legal system, its security organs, its economic planning mechanisms- begins to
operate increasingly in the interest of a new propertied class, then that is
not a "tactical shift"; it is a qualitative change in the
principle itself, even if the old terminology is retained.
We
cannot predict; we can only analyze the concrete conditions at hand,
and the most concrete condition of all is the real relationship between the
state's coercive power and the working class. The direction is not
written in the stars, nor in the GDP curve, but in the daily
material reality of who gives the orders, who obeys, and who
benefits from them.
***
The original paragraph is: "No account of capitalist ideological warfare is complete without recognizing the role Leon Trotsky and his followers played. Trotsky's theoretical contributions to the revision of Marxism are undeniable. His post-exile writings—particularly after 1928—provided capitalists with an arsenal of narratives that have been weaponized against socialism for nearly a century."
