Letters

Hebrew nation

There is much in Carla Roberts’ article that I agree with in respect of the petty-bourgeois nature of the Green Party and its political opportunism (‘Not so bold politics’ April 23). Having seen a mass movement in support of the Palestinians develop, they jumped on the bandwagon and elected Zack Polanski over the more pro-establishment Greens.

However, Zack is no revolutionary nor anti-capitalist. That is why, although he is prepared to go further than the leader of any other political party, call what Israel has done in Gaza ‘genocide’ and support outlawing the Israel Defence Forces as a terrorist organisation, he is not willing to condemn Zionism as the racist, settler-colonial movement it is.

For Zack and the establishment Greens, Zionism has a ‘left’ and a ‘right’. It is remarkable how apologists for Zionism now reach back a century to the Cultural Zionists of Ahad Ha’am, who must have had at least 20 supporters, and the bi-nationalists of Brit Shalom who never numbered more than 100.

However, I disagree vigorously with the attack on the one-state solution and the idea that I am denying the “very existence of a Hebrew nation”, as Carla Roberts claims. I don’t want to get into semantics about what constitutes a nation, but if the Israeli Jews constitute a nation, then it is a settler nation - one that denies the Palestinians any agency or indeed human existence outside that of a guest in someone else’s country.

What unites this ‘nation’ is not Hebrew culture, but antagonism to the indigenous population. I would have hoped that after the genocide in Gaza and the settler terror in the West Bank this obvious truth would have percolated through to the most mechanical and economistic of Marxists. The binding force of Israeli Jews is, if you like, a culture of racism and genocide. That is not a nation in any meaningful sense.

Class politics do not operate within the Herrenvolk. There is an alliance between the working class and its ruling class against the Palestinians. The Israeli working class is a privileged class. Class struggle rarely, if ever, takes on a political character in a settler state.

Roberts says that the Israeli Jewish working class is “written off” by me. I plead guilty. Its slogan from the origins of the Labour Zionist movement in the early 20th century was ‘From class to nation’. They foreswore the class struggle and transmuted it into the national struggle against the Arabs - the struggle for Hebrew labour, which meant picketing Jewish employers who employed Arabs. The Histadrut union federation deliberately broke up the mixed Jewish-Arab railway workers union.

Just as in South Africa, the working class is the most reactionary of classes in a settler-colonial state. It is a bastardisation of Marxism to pretend that the working class in all situations is potentially progressive or revolutionary. So, even when we had the great demonstrations against the judicial coup, mainly consisting of the middle classes, the Palestinians were excluded by all except a small section. And we saw what happened to the threats by members of the airforce not to serve after October 7.

Sixty percent of Israeli Jews are openly genocidal, according to Prof Rotem Sorek’s survey for Pennsylvania State University. This is far higher than the percentage of Germans in Nazi Germany. Open your eyes - 82% want Gaza ethnically cleansed.

The goal of a unitary, secular and democratic state is one revolutionaries should support, as opposed to the reactionary two-state solution. It is a democratic demand. How we get there is the problem. But it won’t be by the Israeli Jewish working class breaking its bonds with its own ruling class. Of that I am certain.

Yes, I resigned from Your Party before joining the Greens. YP has become dead in the water. I joined the Green Party because of the debate on Palestine, not because I consider it has revolutionary potential! My joining the Green Party was the signal for articles in the Telegraph and Jewish Chronicle about how Corbynites were now the Greens!

It is untrue that I supported witch-hunting the SWP or any other sect in YP. I made my position clear to Roberts. In my view, having a large number of sects within YP - each seeking to recruit to their own tendency rather than building YP as a whole - is to repeat the failures of the far left over generations. However, I also made it clear that I opposed a bureaucratic solution to this problem. If Corbyn had not deliberately stifled the growth of YP by inserting his people, like Karie Murphy, into the bureaucracy and failed to recognise branches, whilst at the same time trying to carve Zarah Sultana out of a joint leadership, then YP could have been half a million strong. The left sects would have been swamped and forced to work with others or simply leave. As it is, Jeremy Corbyn has acted as a recruiting sergeant for the Green Party. The truth is, he never wanted to set up a new party.

Nor is it true that I have “given up on the working class”. This is such a simplistic and trite term. If anything, the working class has given up on socialism. Where do you think the bulk of Reform support comes from? Marxists are never good at facing the facts. The old battalions of the working class do not exist any longer - miners, dockers, etc. We have an atomised working class - finance and service industries and IT predominate. That is why we have seen no major strikes since the miners 40 years ago. Manual working class jobs have been exported to the global south. The old proletariat, where political consciousness developed, is no more.

This, of course, poses real problems for socialists, but to fail to recognise that there has been a recomposition of the working class is to simply ignore reality. At the moment, with the strengthening of the state and the attacks on basic civil liberties, we do have to be open to alliances with others in order to confront the state.

The most successful direct action has been the refusal to accept the label, ‘terrorist’, when applied to Palestine Action. This has been the most widespread defiance of the state for years. It is a pity that socialist groups that talk of revolutionary struggle didn’t lead it. Instead it was left to a pacifist group, Defend Our Juries.

The problem is that the CPGB refuses to face up to these problems and finds it easier to label people like me as opportunist and having abandoned the working class. Propaganda is fine, but it should be accompanied by a bit of praxis!

Brighton

Tony Greenstein
Brighton

Hebrew workers

In her article, Carla Roberts attacks the Green Party for suspending Tony Greenstein on the absurd charge of ‘anti-Semitism’. At the same time, she states a political disagreement with Tony:

“[W]e disagree with his unwavering support for the so-called ‘one-state solution’, which, as Moshé Machover has explained, is no solution at all, because it boils down to denying the ‘very existence of a Hebrew nation - a settler nation formed by Zionist colonisation’. Greenstein views them as a single monolithic bloc, in which no significant body can ever be won over to a progressive or socialist viewpoint - so the working class in the Hebrew nation is written off! As such, Tony can only tell them that, in his vision for the future for the region, the poles of oppression will simply be reversed: Israeli Jews will have no right of self-determination. This is clearly not a programme for socialism of any kind, although it is certainly a very widespread position. But he is no anti-Semite” (my emphasis).

Here comrade Carla attributes to me the claim that Tony’s denial of the Hebrew nation’s existence follows from his support for the so-called ‘one-state solution’. This is a non sequitur: they are two distinct issues. Indeed, there are well-meaning bourgeois-democratic versions of the one-state ‘solution’ that advocate equal national rights to the two national groups - Palestinian Arabs and Hebrews: for example, in a federal or binational setup.

I have argued that all versions of the one-state ‘solution’ are illusory, because they presuppose a non-socialist overthrow of the Zionist regime. However, under capitalism there is no way in which this can be expected to overcome the resistance of the Israeli Hebrew working class, for the simple reason that it would mean this class exchanging its present position of an exploited class, but with national privileges vis-à-vis the Palestinians, for a position of being a class still exploited by capital, but without the national privileges. This is not a deal that is likely to have support from the main class force that can overthrow the Zionist regime.

The only chance of the Israeli working class supporting the overthrow of Zionism is in a situation of socialist regional transformation, which would offer this class a swap from its present position as an exploited class with national privileges to a position being part of the ruling class of a socialist region, without national privileges. This deal would make sense and could be acceptable to the Hebrew working class.

Moshé Machover
London

Green accusations

I was amused by the news that Tony Greenstein had been hoist by his own petard when he was suspended by the Green Party for ‘anti-Semitism’ (this presumably because of the slanders against him by the Campaign Against Antisemitism, that Tony was unable to strike down in his libel court case - the judge declaring that to call someone anti-Semitic was basically just a matter of opinion).

Tony similarly accused me of “anti-Semitism” in 2023 in an open letter on his blog, which he persuaded many pals and activists to co-sign, when he called for my ostracism from the Palestinian solidarity movement. Yet Tony was there when Labour Against the Witchhunt adopted the Merriam-Webster definition of anti-Semitism as “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic or racial group”. I maintain that I have never advocated hostility or discrimination against Jews; and the Consistent Democrats refuted Tony’s allegations in its open letter in my defence, which 27 activists co-signed (see it at www.tinyurl.com/petegregson).

So why did Tony call me “anti-Semitic”? Because I had observed that “the people who foisted the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism upon us were the Jews in the UK who support Israel”. However, it is clear that I was talking about Zionist Jews, not Jews irrespective of politics - as proven by the role highly vocal Zionist Jewish organisations played in getting the IHRA adopted by all political parties - and in bringing down Jeremy Corbyn, because of his criticisms of Israel.

Tony also attacked me for saying: “Right from the outset, rich Jewish bankers such as Lord Rothschild backed Zionism. It is unlikely we would have Israel now were it not for his influence.” But the current Lord Rothschild, writing in the Jewish Chronicle in 2017, noted the Balfour Declaration was addressed to his great uncle because “… Walter had been deeply involved in the Zionist movement … He was fired by his very first meeting with Chaim Weizmann, when he became convinced that the future of the Jews lay in Zionism and dedicated himself to the cause. After the Declaration, Weizmann wrote to him: ‘May I offer you our heartiest thanks in making this possible - I am sure that, when the history of this time will be written, it will be justifiably said that the name of the greatest House in Jewry was associated with the granting of the Magna Carta of Jewish liberties ...’”

Tony also denounced me for observing that “… until 1940 most Jews refused to move to Israel on religious grounds. These were the people that Hitler gassed. With Zionist support. Proof? Over the period 1942-44, Rabbi Weissmandl of Hungary made a deal with Adolf Eichmann whereby the Germans would ‘sell’ the Jews to him.”

But anybody who reads my website at www.onepalestine.land will see that what I go on to say was not that I was accusing this (non-Zionist) rabbi of being involved in the extermination, but very much the opposite … I noted that the rabbi tried to put together a scheme to buy the freedom of Hungarian and Slovakian Jews from the Nazis. There were over 720,000 Jews in Hungary at that time, including tens of thousands who had fled from Slovakia, and another 100,000 or more Christian ex-Jewish converts. Weissmandl became an impassioned anti-Zionist, because Zionists leaders refused to help with the scheme. Quite how it is ‘anti-Semitic’ to mention this defies belief.

In fact, in Tony’s own book, Zionism during the holocaust, he made the same accusation against the leading Zionist in Hungary, Rudolph Kasztner, who, knowing full well that Jews who were deported to Auschwitz were being gassed, systematically hid this from the bulk of Hungarian Jews, and indeed made deals with the Nazis, with Adolf Eichmann as his chief interlocutor, to allow a small minority of wealthy Zionist Jews to emigrate to Palestine in exchange for offering no resistance to the deportation (to gas chambers) of the majority. Kasztner clearly worked with the Zionist leadership in Palestine and its agents in doing this. Tony notes that “Hungarian holocaust survivors testified that if they had known the truth about the holocaust then they would have tried to escape …” It seems that Tony is flinching from the logic of his own argumentation, whilst throwing abuse at me.

The Greens’ leader, Zack Polanski, now acknowledges that anti-Semitism was weaponised against Corbyn. It is sad though that he cannot see that it has been weaponised against Greenstein too. And, if Tony hadn’t weaponised it against me in turn, then my Palestine activism would not be suffering as well. It’s an example of what the left does best: the circular firing squad.

Pete Gregson
Edinburgh

Green Lefts

The article, ‘Not so bold politics’, is black-and-white thinking, which I don’t agree with. I’ve been a socialist for over 20 years and I was an active member of the Green Party between about 2011 and 2019, so I can speak with personal experience. I do have serious criticisms of the GP, but it’s not “petty-bourgeois through and through”, any more than any other political vehicle for the working class. That’s just what political parties are: vehicles. You need to drive them where you want to go.

The Green Party is a social democratic party, which welcomes (unaffiliated) socialists to its ranks. It has reactionary strands, but the majority of members in many parts of the country are genuine socialists. It’s a mixed bag though, and it depends very much on where exactly you are. I’ve also been in the Labour Party and I would confidently say that the average GP member is slightly more leftwing than the average LP member was (even in Corbyn’s time), although it’s pretty close and the membership demographics are very similar. General political attitudes of the grassroots are also very similar.

Looking at policies, the GP has a very well worked out roster of very leftwing policies, which are thoroughly socialist in character - well to the left of any other mainstream party. I am sceptical, however, as to how much of that policy programme would actually make it onto statute books in the event of a Green government, but in theory it’s a good policy programme.

The main problem with the Greens is the same as any other leftwing political party: it is sectarian, focused solely on electoralism, and it is not a mass movement, rooted in working class communities. This makes it vulnerable to ruling class cooptation. But you could say that about any of the various leftwing sects that try to stand in elections, including whatever it is that YP has now become. The GP is currently a better bet than any of them.

However, that is not good enough. The reactionary tendencies of the GP’s bureaucracy are there to be seen and the left needs something better. The GP is part of the left, but it is not the whole of the left, and that will continue to be a serious problem. The working class needs a unifying movement, which should include the Green Party or at least its socialist factions (probably the majority of GP members now). We need a movement that crosses sectarian lines, so just bad-mouthing the Green Party doesn’t help - unless it’s measured and constructive criticism that points the way forward.

Chris Anthemum
email

Stalinist kitchens

Eddie Ford’s article on the bureaucratic suppression by the Communist Party of Britain of its own youth wing reminds me (at least superficially) of Australia’s own experiment in youthful neo-Stalinism (‘Style is everything’ April 23).

Back in 2019, the Communist Party of Australia (originally the Socialist Party of Australia) - our own Brezhnevite party, which had split from the Eurocommunist ‘official’ CPA in the 1970s and taken its name from the gutter, once the original party dissolved in the 90s - experienced a brief factional conflict and then split. The CPA’s general secretary, Bob Briton, along with the youth wing, pioneered a new strategy of running soup kitchens in order to “reach the youth and masses”. In what I understand to be a combination of bureaucratic suppression and restraining Briton’s own dubious leadership of his initiative (according to CPA members, Briton had declined to gain the necessary permits to serve food publicly), the CPA leadership attempted to force Briton to end the kitchens. Following this, Briton and his supporters split to form the Australian Communist Party (ACP), deleting the old organisation social media accounts as a final act of vengeance.

Briton and his supporters saw some initial success. Evidently sick of playing second fiddle to a gerontocratic leadership that seemed mostly to use the organisation for free holidays (sorry, conferences of the international meetings of communist and workers’ parties), many in the CPA’s youth wing followed Briton into the bright future of anarchist praxis, packaged with neo-Stalinist politics.

Politically, the ACP seemed to follow Mao’s old creed to ‘support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports’: where the CPA longed for a return to the era of the popular front, the ACP seemed to look to the third period; where the CPA supported China unreservedly, the ACP unreservedly regarded it as capitalist. Organisationally the ACP seemed to tap into an online revival of ‘Stalinism’, or at least some sort of facsimile. With socialist politics on campus long dominated by Trotskyism (and for the past decade by Cliffism at that), a politics that unapologetically endorsed the Soviet Union and the leadership of Stalin and Mao seemed chic, proud and anti-establishment in a way that Cliffism, which seemed at times ashamed of most of the history of the communist movement, was not. Here was an organisation that was doing something (feeding people on the street a few times a week). That had vitality and pride, compared to the gerontocratic CPA and the meek Trot establishment.

Alas, it was not to last. Soup kitchens, as it turns out, are not a particularly effective tool for organising! Those who work on them often feel good in the immediate term, but they are very labour-intensive for negligible political gain. The promise of the soup kitchens was by far their strongest power for recruitment. But the reality was not so bright, and eventually burnout among key cadres set in. The kitchens, section by section, gradually failed.

Aside from the ultra-activist orientation, however, the ACP faced numerous political shortfalls. Briton, a rogue member of the old CPA leadership, did nothing to break the ACP from the bureaucratic centralism of the old CPA. In fact, not only did the ACP retain a functionally identical constitution: it amplified the lack of openness and democracy, going so far as to forbid members from communicating with one another across branch lines. The leadership of the ACP apart from Briton also left the organisation wanting: paranoia (the membership of the central committee was kept secret from most members) and intimidation (including threats of physical violence from central committee members) contributed to one of the worst internal organisational cultures on the Australian left. Briton and close comrades were caught in a row over transphobic comments. The ill-fated endorsement of a “progressive no” vote on the ‘indigenous voice’ referendum in 2023 (perhaps another attempt to counter the CPA, who called for a ‘yes’ vote) was another political debacle.

Ultimately however, the forced segmentation and federalisation of the communications blackout inevitably resulted in a split. When the ACP decided to change its name (intent on removing the word, ‘communist’), the Adelaide branch took this as its cue to jump ship in early 2025, forming an independent ‘Adelaide Communist Collective’, which still runs the Adelaide kitchen to this day. Since then, though the ACP nominally remains in existence, it is a non-force on the Australian left.

The seeds of the ACP have blossomed in several places. On the one hand, shards of the ACP have gone on to form two of the most odious organisations on the Australian left: the progressive-identitarian Black People’s Union, a functionally anti-communist, indigenous nationalist group; and the Eureka Initiative, an organisation politically in-line with Haz Al-Din’s American Communist Party, and its conservative-socialist revival of ‘LaRouchism’. On the other hand, a number of members of the ACP have gone on to join Communist Unity, with many of them demonstrating themselves to be valuable cadres (though some retain some attachment to the activist approach of their old organisation). In the absence of the ACP as a viable organisation, the younger wing of the CPA has seen something of a resurgence, though my understanding is that these members’ proposals were largely rebuffed by the leadership of Andrew Irving at the CPA conference this year (one can hardly expect them to have much more luck than Briton did).

The surge in Young Communist League membership in Britain under Johnny Hunter reminds me of the experience of the ACP: a revival of Stalinism among the socialist youth, manifesting in their bureaucratic suppression by the old Brezhnevite leadership. In spite of my scathing assessment of the ACP as a whole, the growth of a tendency within the CPA that chafed against the bureaucratic and gerontocratic leadership was nonetheless a positive development. Red Wessex’s stand against transphobia and Zionism in the CPB is indeed altogether more encouraging than the mutual aid project of Briton’s gang. The interview of Red Wessex by Lawrence Parker is encouraging, in that it seems to show the leadership of the project grappling with the problem of democracy in the CPB.

Nevertheless, key political questions remain: is it valuable to ‘revive the Marxist-Leninist tradition’ in a period where Marxism-Leninism has so thoroughly degenerated theoretically, where its guiding light (the whim of Soviet foreign policy) no longer exists? What does it even mean to simultaneously describe yourself as ‘non-sectarian’, while positioning yourselves against Trotskyists and orthodox Marxists? Is the localist and regionalist approach that these comrades are seemingly inclined towards correct, given conditions in Britain, or is it a nice-sounding shibboleth like the ACP’s vaunted kitchens? Will Red Wessex repeat the ACP’s mistake of viewing the problem of the left as over-theorisation (looking for those ‘perfect positions’), rather than thorough under-theorisation and the lack of a robust intellectual culture?

From my reading of the Lawrence Parker interview, Red Wessex and Red Sussex seem to be encouraging projects. As relatively latecoming products of the M-L revival of the late 2010s, I would implore them to learn from the political shortfalls of previous projects which emerged from that period. A clear and informed strategy of organisation (and, yes, eventually party) building will only be gleaned from learning from the mistakes of the past.

I wish them luck.

David Passerine
Communist Unity

DSP schema

Max Shanly has, as per his tweets, finally exited Your Party. It is hard to deny Shanly’s towering role in the struggle for a democratic, socialist YP. It is his articles, a little under a year ago, that initiated a lot of enthusiasm for the potential of Your Party as something different - a pan-left workers’ party - amongst a large number of socialists. His works proved central to the formation of the Democratic Socialists of Your Party, which itself became a pole against the Murphy-run, Corbyn-cultist bureaucracy, from the days of the regional assemblies that weren’t, to the elections of the central executive committee.

It is my understanding that the DSYP has resolved to organise itself into a ‘Campaign for a Democratic Socialist Party’, seeking to fulfil the mission Your Party failed at. It is a noble mission, but in order to successfully execute it, the following steps must be pursued.

Firstly, Zarah Sultana must be onboard. The only way to prevent the prospective DSP from becoming a sect, for it to be a pole for at least the activist left, is for it to have an MP on its side, one amenable to its aims. And Zarah has shown great commitment to being a true tribune of the people, unbowed against parliamentary incentives to conciliate or become a turncoat. The only Your Party MP must no longer remain so, and that is essential.

Secondly, the sects are insufficient. Taking from the theory of the CPGB, and the lived experience of the Democratic Socialists of America, the DSYP and associated neo-Kautskyist organisations have sought to render the sect form redundant, ideally by merging them all into a unified, deliberative entity. But they have focused too much on formal collaboration with the leadership of the sects - the same people who have the least incentive to make any changes to the status quo of individual fiefdoms. They have also ignored that the Trotskyist sects are not even close to the only constituent parts of the organised left. Now more than ever, the left consists of, amongst others, YP proto-branches, caucuses and other formations: Palestine organising groups, climate justice groups, and so on and so forth. No true workers’ party shall simply involve the top-down fusion of Trotskyist sects.

Thirdly, decisiveness (and a programme!) are paramount. Eleanora, the Green Party member who runs the twitter account, @StatsForLefties (and was also prescient enough to correctly diagnose the fate of Your Party back when it was announced), has correctly argued that parties are not typically formed out of an ether through a months-long discussion process, with nothing decided prior. They are usually announced on the basis of an already decided programme, after which members are recruited. This ‘basic programme’ does not need to be a classical minimum-maximum programme, but it must be a basis for unity on a political basis, rather than on a tactical one. The paramountcy of decisiveness necessitates a publicly announced break, with a roadmap for the future already laid out. The break must have true gravity behind it, and must not be one of many, for the absence of such a break will only lead to the haemorrhaging of members from YP-associated branches and organisations and a weakening of the position of the left.

This is what necessitates the involvement of Zarah Sultana, which is paramount. She shall serve as the megaphone of the movement: a tribune and a rallying point, and a source of legitimacy.

The DSYP already has a constitution for a party. In the form of ‘Workers deserve the Earth’, it already has an interim political programme. There is no time to waste. DSYP must not spend months seeking to come to a consensus from scratch, where an interim basis for collaboration exists. With Zarah Sultana onboard, DSYP must secede, formally, from YP, on a political basis. It must announce the formation of a Democratic Socialist Party, and a founding conference in 75 days. Proto-branches and other organisations must be allowed to affiliate to the party. This affiliation must mean nothing but a recognition that the members of the organisation are the members of the party, and must be accompanied by a membership data transfer, so that members can pay dues to the party. It does not privilege the organisation itself, except for recognising it as a constituent, in any manner.

Within 20 days of the announcement, which must be accompanied by a membership portal, allowing individuals to join, affiliates must be compelled to merge into regional branches (while being allowed to maintain their own organisation if they seek to) on the basis of interim bylaws released by the party, and their leadership must be elected on the basis of single transferable votes by all members eligible. Once branches are constituted, and membership numbers are confirmed, elections to conference must be held in branches. Delegations must be proportional to membership, and also elected by STV. This should occur in no more than 35 days since the announcement of the party.

In the next month or so, motions and resolutions, and then amendments to them, from all members should be solicited, contingent on a nominations process based on the practices of the DSA, and the interim constitution of the party. When the conference happens, it must be of a spirit antithetical to the Liverpool conference last year, and cement the position of the new party as a mass, democratic organisation of the whole left.

Decisiveness is the need of the hour, comrades. Success may seem distant, but if we play our cards right, it may be a hop, skip and jump away. I look forward to whatever the DSYP and other partyist forces do next. Just remember, you guys can win.

David Rüper
email

Spart China

I experienced mixed feelings reading the Spartacist League’s recent contribution to the Weekly Worker (‘Just so stories’ April 23). On the one hand, I appreciated their staunch opposition to the left’s reduction in status to a pressure group within capitalist politics - a point which can never be made strongly or often enough. Unfortunately, the piece went on to become somewhat muddled about China’s status as an imperialist power, in a way that risked obscuring the nature of the modern capitalist order.

The main issue is their implicit adoption of a liberal definition of imperialism. It’s as if, to paraphrase Richard Wolff, ‘imperialism is when a country does militarism and, the more militarism it does, the more imperialist it is’. For the Sparts, America’s status as an imperialist power is proven by its foreign adventures, overseas bases and naval might. On the other hand, China couldn’t possibly be imperialist, as it hasn’t been to war since the 1970s. So imperialism is presented as a policy choice - one pursued by the bloodthirsty Americans and abstained from by the noble Chinese.

This framing presents imperialism in moralistic rather than material terms. In actuality, China’s relative restraint comes not from some kind of innate moral superiority, but from its particular economic and geopolitical position. As Lenin would point out, the primary driver of America’s militarism is its need to protect the interests of American capital overseas, with its extensive foreign investment characteristic of developed capitalist economies with restricted domestic headroom. Chinese capital is relatively less developed, meaning it has a greater capacity to absorb domestic investment and a lesser need to look further afield. Secondly, its weaker military and diplomatic position means that China is, for the time being, simply not able to match the US, when it comes to strongarming the world’s smaller nations.

Nonetheless, China’s growth is increasingly rebalancing both terms of this equation. China is now the world’s third largest exporter of capital, with foreign direct investment outflows in excess of $170 billion as of 2024. The Sparts cite a 200:1 overseas base ratio as evidence of China’s non-imperialism (is the ‘1’ a non-imperialist base?), but this obscures its increasing attempts to back up these investments with coercive force. Since opening its Djibouti base in 2017, China has pursued multiple avenues for further expansion. See, for example, its leaked 2022 security agreement with the Solomon Islands - which contained provisions for troop deployments and prompted delirious threats of military action from Uncle Sam - or its presence at Ream Naval Base in Cambodia, where satellite images show People’s Liberation Army Navy vessels docked on a semi-permanent basis.

These covert attempts at base building are supplemented by a variety of other measures, some of which the Chinese government is quite open about: for instance, recent plans (from the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation) to provide the equivalent of $140 million in “military grants” to African nations, whilst pledging to train and outfit 6,000 African troops (with a further 500 officers to be trained on the Chinese mainland). Doubtless some will try to position this as altruism on the part of China - reminiscent of neocon posturing about the honourable purposes of Nato - but this is again related to a faulty conception of imperialism. Do we seriously think China is doing this out of the goodness of its heart, rather than to protect its material interests? When imperialism is understood in moral rather than material terms, it simply becomes a matter of cheerleading for one’s preferred jackboot.

Kieran Jeffs
email