Marx in Action: False Ideologies in the West’s Struggle with China

This article describes a change in the dynamics of power on the international stage. The historically disengaged West and East appear to be reversing direction and showing signs of increasing integration in years to come. More specifically, Britain has begun to grow closer to China by allowing heavy Chinese investment in British infrastructure, in exchange for British access to China’s domestic market. Infrastructure requires enormous amounts of capital and has traditionally has been seen as important indicators of national strength and prowess. China’s entrance into the British energy scene with its nuclear technology has abruptly reminded many that the socio-political landscape is constantly subject to change. The strong growth and potential of China considered, many developed nations that have traditionally enjoyed exclusive global status now view China as a large, practical threat. Many pundits have begun to use the coined term the ‘Osbourne Doctrine’ which refers to Chancellor George Osborne’s ambitions to create a ‘golden era’ for Britain and China. An analysis using the logic of Marxism reveals interesting insights into both this phenomenon and it’s treatment by media.

In many cases, careful observation reveals that conversations regarding matters of economy and nation take place in two different spheres. One sphere is defined by sensationalism and blatant appeals to ethos. This sphere generally avoids discussing dry empirical facts and analysis, instead pandering to a commercial audience through polarizing caricatures and reductive representations of more complex economic realities. The second sphere is more or less divorced from the first, and involves a more sober evaluation of current economic changes. The existence of these two spheres of national conversation concerning the rise of China and China’s changing relationships with the Europe and America, can be understood through Marx’s conception of the ‘superstructure’ within the German Ideology.

Much mainstream media skips over the economics and jumps directly into a rhetoric of human interest. Rather than understanding China’s rise, they dramatize the political state as a secretive, aggressive, and non-human dictatorship with countless human rights violations. This is in contrast with the elegant, more than just prosperity, ‘value centered’ United Kingdom. The tone of the article clearly pits the two countries against one other on an ideological level. Within the article, Carrie Gracie writes, “For the UK, the “prosperity agenda” has eclipsed the “values agenda” in relations with China.” Gracie presents national foreign policy as driven by commitment to certain values and traditions. This paradigm is strikingly similar to a Hegelian perspective, which recognizes political and intellectual ideas as agents of change in themselves. Under this perspective, Sino-British relations truly are a test of values and morality. Yet, a Marxist analysis dramatically departs from this sort of conception.

To Marx, political and intellectual ideas were components of the ‘superstructure,’ which was solely the consequence of the means of production and the relations of production, “The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life.“ (Tucker 4)

Marx understood ideology as fluid and continually changing with its surroundings. Under this view, it becomes clear Gracie fails to recognize the economic realities that underpin the Osbourne Doctrine. As Britain’s own population continues to age rapidly and grow at insignificant rates, there are no alternatives but to engage in trade with the growing, expansive Chinese. Pundits may frame the shift in policy in a way that emphasizes ‘values,’ and yet realistically, the decisions have been made as a consequence of economic mandates.

Marx’s description of the superstructure is a piece of his larger understanding of human history. A thorough Marx analysis would understand this phenomenon as an example of historical materialism. The true driver of history is economic events. Gracie devotes a portion of the article to Xi’s opinions on the Soviet Union. She casts China as similar to the Soviet Union except with stronger ideology and superior decisiveness. A revival of ‘the Red scare’ may be occurring, modified so as to be the ‘Yellow Scare.’ Democracy and communism under Marx’s perspective are political ideologies that can be used to cloak the real economic dynamics of the situation. This perspective is bolstered by examining the large divide between Britain’s ‘value agenda’ and it’s own imperialist history, defined by a remarkably efficient exploitation of it’s various colonies. Marx understood a nation’s ideology to be a component of the superstructure which is dependent on the health and status of the nations’s economy, “The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.” (4)

Marx’s understanding of social relations as a product of the means of production leads to the argument that the State is an entity appearing to be distinct, but in reality is an alternative representation of the bourgeois. Applying this perspective to the article, it is clear that Marx’s theories must be applied in a more nuanced fashion. The article describes David Cameron’s 2012 visit to the Dalai Lama, a blatant political message to China. In this case, the British State acted against bourgeois interests as the incident resulted in a long lasting political freeze between the nations. It appears that while the bourgeois remain influential in the proceedings of the State, the State still acts in its own interests at times. Yet this perspective can be similarly refuted, as it is possible that British multi-nationals merely understood that business would be unaffected and chose not to act. In matters of real economic significance, the bourgeois might be expected to exert considerable more pressure to prevent policies that may damage business relationships. Marx’s view that, “ The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie”(475) generates an image of the State as the exclusive instrument of businesses. Considering David Cameron’s visit to the Lama, the State may be less an instrument, and more an independent body severely prone to business influence.

Marx’s theory of history specifies that class struggle is the specific agent of change, depicting history as one class versus another, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed,” (473) But a frank look at international relations today demonstrates that social structure organizes itself in forms other than class. An intersection may have to be considered. The Chinese state represents the companies as well as its working class. The two opposing forces are nation states. It is difficult to imagine Chinese laborers and British laborers entering into a collective agreement and exerting pressure on their respective bureaucracies. The tone of the article has faintly xenophobic tones, creating consciousness rooted in nationality as opposed to class and relation to the means of production.