Category: Briefs

In Brief: Gambling is Feeding a Vampire
Nobody would deny that the internet and smartphones are impressive inventions. The level of computing power and global connectivity that burns in our pockets is one of the most empowering instruments—and potentially democratizing—that has ever been invented.

But sure as every rose has a thorn and every party has a buzzkill, so does everything pleasant become spoiled by capitalist motion. The scenic landscape that becomes clogged by McMansions and parking lots. The nifty neighbourhood that becomes gentrified and sterile. The pretty sky that is filled with brake dust and CO2. The sleek automobile sitting for hours in jammed traffic. The majestic whale with a belly full of plastic. The ultimate communication network at our fingertips, buzzing with intrusive advertising, pornography and weird bets.

One need not be an old fossil to hark back to an age when pornographic acting and prostitution were considered occupations of low reputation. But since we are all now plugged into the socialscapes of corporate behemoths, previously burdensome and unthinkable lines of gig work have suddenly become accessible from the comfort of our own couches.

Indeed, the capitalist economy is conditioning an entire generation of women to trade their skin for online tips. And while the average OnlyFans model endures enormous psychic damage in exchange for a paltry average of $180 per month, owner Leonid Radvinsky exsanguinated $2.3 billion in personal wealth from his kingdom of self-commodifying subjects.

It would be fair to throw shade onto the legions of men that enable this racket, but at least predatory capitalism offers some consolatory gender parity once gambling is counted. Hospital visits are skyrocketing in Canada—with the increase being predominantly men and boys—all courtesy of the explosive uptake of smartphone betting.

Problem gambling has surged in New York and Ohio and Britain—and everywhere else online betting has been permitted. While it takes a certain person to haul themselves over to a physical casino, anyone watching a sports game can now make it interesting while sitting in their living room. DraftKings clocked over $40 billion in bets last year while Kalshi fixed $24 billion to Polymarket’s $27 billion. And that’s only a scant handful of the multitude of available platforms.

Plenty of coverage has been given to the millions of lives shattered by traditional gambling, and the millions more that will be shattered against the wheel of gaming apps, with their siren call of improbable parlay bets. The parlay, of course, links the outcome of multiple bets into a single jackpot—increasing the potential payout while virtually eliminating any chance of winning it.

The parlay is reminiscent of the subprime mortgage crisis. Mortgage-backed securities formed a base layer for financial capital to attach itself to, with outlandish derivatives like collateralized debt obligations and synthetic CDOs functioning as bets on the performance of other bets. The bankers stealthily transformed household debt into horses at the track—but they had plum bailout packages awaiting when their bets turned belly up. Online gamblers have no such backstop.

What we’re dealing with here is free-floating fictitious capital untethered to any actual production. The abstract complications that can be attached to pure money exchange are practically endless. And this is really the root of the problem in Marxian terms:

Money capital appears to have the magical and occult power to create ever more money in and by itself. It ‘distorts’ and ‘mystifies’ the laws of motion of capital with dizzying and dire effects. Capital is therefore perpetually in danger of falling victim to its own fetish forms.¹

Whether it is gambling, pornography or financial speculation, there must always be a real productive economic base feeding the circulation of surplus capital. Even if we can “make money” from a game day bet, racy image or leveraged trade, we are really only managing to circulate revenue created by the production of commodities. When circulation becomes confused with production, it has the odious effect of turning labour and capital away from the real economy that reproduces human society. The productive sector buckles and the unproductive collapses.

What happens when a vampire sucks your blood? There are versions where the victim is overwhelmed by the agony and the ecstasy of the bloodletting and offer themselves up to be bit again and again. This is how addiction operates.

What is pernicious about the rentier economy is the exploitation of the human condition to extract hard-earned wages from value-creating people. And if a biological need cannot be seized upon, a psychological one can always be generated through targeted advertising and addiction. With today’s technology, creating need from thin air has never been easier. The result is the erection of choke points throughout society, whereby rents can be extracted “without any basis in cost outlay.”²

Marx described capital as “dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.” The vampires are growing. It is not only our labour-power they seek—it is our entire means of life. Be safe, friends.

Thanks for reading!
1. David Harvey, A Companion to Marx’s Capital Volume 2 (Verso, 2013): 173. ↩︎
2. Michael Hudson, “Finance Capitalism versus Industrial Capitalism: The Rentier Resurgence and Takeover,” Review of Radical Political Economics Vol. 53, No. 4: 559. ↩︎
24 Sep 26
In Brief: The Myth of Chinese Authoritarianism
The negative media coverage of China has risen almost in perfect correlation with their economic development and relative power. A cynic might say the two are related.

China conjures up the thesis from Chomsky and Herman’s book Manufacturing Consent; repeat anything often enough and it becomes assumed truth without question. Xi Jinping is an autocrat. China has no freedom and especially not freedom of speech. No right to choose leaders. Uyghurs are experiencing genocide. Constant surveillance by the state. Dissent crushed instantly. Beijing is an oppressive regime—and any country the West doesn’t like automatically has a “regime” instead of a government.

The first thing to untangle with China is the nature of a one-party system. The ruling party of a Marxist-Leninist state does not operate like a party in a liberal state. The Communist Party of China is a mass party with 101 million members. 31% are women, roughly a third of members are farmers or workers and another third comprise of professionals and public administrators. There are about eight million cadres working to carry out national programming, implement anti-poverty measures and run community services centres. From this membership base, delegates are elected who, in turn, elect members to higher leadership posts.

State power in China is decentralized, with municipal and provincial governments holding considerable autonomy. There are local, direct elections of representatives who then choose the governors or mayors or congresspeople for the next level up. Aside from local elections, consultative democracy is employed through online government feedback portals, continuous surveying of the population and hot topics of social media discussion.

The data collected from the citizen body are used to define issues that need improving, set a government agenda and establish key performance indicators that politicians must reach in order to hold onto their jobs. Because the main levers of the economy are under public ownership—including banking, resource extraction and construction—the government actually has the necessary tools to fix quality of life issues for those in their jurisdiction.

China does not have multiparty national elections factionalizing society. They have a system of steady citizen input and government redress. The major advantage of this system is the continuity of government; long-term development plans can be seen through rather than getting thrown out the window every four years.

The adherence to long-term economic planning under continuous government is the reason why China was able to eliminate absolute poverty within their borders, guarantee housing and utilities and basic needs for 1.4 billion people, dominate global rare earths production, vertically integrate their strategic industries, and pivot to constructing the world’s first ecological civilization.

With all of these great things the West can’t have under current management, here comes the copium: “China won’t let you speak your mind!” Well, that’s not really true either. Speaking your mind is encouraged to set the government agenda and there are tens of thousands of protests each year in China that result in activists obtaining most or all of their demands.

Western media routinely blames their new favourite boogeyman, the CPC, for very typical Asian norms and legal customs. Asia, and the East in general, approaches politics from radically different philosophical lineages than the West does. Eastern religions along with Confucianism, Legalism and Daoism place heavy emphasis on collective well-being over individualistic impulses. One must also consider that eastern countries including China bear deep collective scars from a past era of brutal colonial subjugation. Additionally, the security threats and military tensions in Asia are far more difficult than anything Western Europe or North America currently faces.

Once the existence of a different social reality is accepted, we can see that the civil liberties and political priorities of Asia are the popular byproduct of unique ancient histories and cultural sensitivities rather than government oppression.

In Thailand, it is a 3–50 year sentence for disparaging the king. In South Korea, it is prison for praising any element of the North’s society and it is prison for questioning painful historical memories. India, likewise, has strict laws against depreciating national heroes. Publicly insulting Indian political leaders or cracking jokes about religion on stage will lead to arrest. Japan, plagued by political apathy, is a de facto one party state largely run by unelected bureaucrats. Political messaging is highly restricted and insulting language is banned from the digital and public sphere. Singapore notoriously punishes offenders with “judicial caning” for everything from bullying to theft to violent crime. They also run one of the strictest censorship regimes in the world against content deemed contrary to the public interest. Taiwan has laboured to silence pro-unification voices like CUPP and CTi and Indonesia has outright bans on a wide range of political activity deemed subversive. These are just a few examples of illiberal policies in nominally liberal Asian states but the list could go on and on.

Whether these laws offend our western sensibilities or not is irrelevant to the sovereignty of these countries. They enforce laws to maintain social harmony and balance individual rights with collective well-being and security. In this regard, China is no different from any government in Asia.

China even compares favourably to the freedom-loving United States on many issues for which they are criticized. For example, surveillance in China holds an 82% approval rating because it has virtually eliminated the petty thefts and scams that were once rampant in cities. By contrast, in the heavily-surveilled United States, only 38% of Americans support community surveillance while 46% oppose it. Both countries have it but only one wants it. Which is more democratic?

Separately, China stands accused in western media of detaining up to one million ethnic Uyghurs after a spate of lethal terrorist attacks over the course of the Xinjiang conflict.¹ While many western claims about Xinjiang are questionable propaganda, China’s Islamic deradicalization program has been wound down. Long-term solutions have been found with poverty reduction efforts in Xinjiang and the successful implementation of regional development strategies. Compared with western actions in Gaza, it is clear where moral authority lies.

Meanwhile, mass incarceration in the United States persists. There is no poverty reduction effort. Many times more Black and Hispanic people face arrest and imprisonment each year in America than Uyghurs ever have. The same is true of Romani in Europe or First Nations in Canada. Furthermore, the per capita prison population of the United States is almost five times larger than the prison population of China. Being arrested in China is a rare occurrence; a Chinese citizen is far less likely to be arrested in their lifetime than a British, American or Australian is.

One could make a defensible argument that any state government is an inherently authoritarian institution. But to claim that China’s popular socialist system is authoritarian relative to liberal countries in Asia or the West falls apart upon scrutiny.

It’s been said that, in Asia, “many citizens prioritize stability, economic growth and effective leadership over individual freedoms.”² Still, let’s not forget the pernicious fact that liberal tenets in the West are frequently only promoted by capitalist oligarchs as a means to divide public opinion and smuggle corporate dictates into our governing system, much to the detriment of ordinary people and workers.

The East is rising while the West declines. Given the divergent trajectories between the two civilizations, the West should find out what it can learn from other systems instead of fixating on what it can criticize.

Thanks for reading!
1. Carlos Martinez describes the economic motivations behind western propaganda narratives about Xinjiang in chapter five of his book, The East is Still Red: Chinese Socialism in the 21st Century (Praxis Press, 2023): 109–126. ↩︎
2. Diego Fossati, “Beyond the liberal model in East and Southeast Asia,” East Asia Forum, May 26, 2025. ↩︎
03 Sep 26
In Brief: The West Can’t Stop Its Collapse
Last year, Jason Hickel and Dylan Sullivan published an article in Al-Jazeera chalking American belligerence toward China up to two factors: an increase in Chinese wages eroding the profitability of foreign investment and the rise of native Chinese industry threatening western monopolies over advanced digital technology, energy generation, automobile manufacturing, biotechnology and robotics. Since western-dominated global capitalism has shown an uncanny ability to offshore capital and relocate investment in low-wage countries, it is undoubtedly China’s threat to monopoly capitalism that has western governments especially concerned.

The ability to export capital and extract profits from the cheap labour and resources in the Global South has been an extremely lucrative racket for the advanced imperial core countries. $152 trillion was transferred from the developing world to advanced capitalist countries between 1960 and 2021.

This racket has worked for centuries, ever since Columbus landed on Caribbean shores. It has evolved from outright theft of land and gold, into more sophisticated neocolonial arrangements which harness sweatshop labour and mine resources for sophisticated products stamped with western corporate logos and sold the world over.

The result has been a river of profits pouring into Europe and the United States, soaking elephantine financial industries and buoying astronomical stock market valuations. But that river only flows so long as the aggregate of advanced technology, patents, licences, designs and money-capital remains steadfast with western corporate headquarters.

China’s entry onto the stage of high value production does not simply add a new player to the game—it threatens to flip over the board. America is staring down hundreds of billions of dollars worth of potentially stranded assets invested in the AI sector alone.

China’s Marxian approach to economics has led them to force-feed their supply chain with an abundance of rare earths and critical minerals, renewable energy, steel, electric vehicles and batteries, artificial intelligence platforms, drones, pharmaceutical products and high speed trains. In a bid to transform quantity into quality, China is converting the lucrative monopoly industries of the past into at-cost utilities for the present. And they are squeezing western corporations out of the global market in the process.

This context is the key to understanding the posture of NATO countries as they pursue rearmament in unison: Trump is demanding a 50% hike to an already-bloated trillion dollar military budget, Canada has signed $100 billion contract for submarines, the UK will dispense an extra £63 billion, Germany has approved a 33% rise in weapons spending, France has committed $500 billion more to its military by 2030—it goes on and on like this. With Russia pinned down by the quagmire of Ukraine, it beggars belief that these trillions of additional dollars are being earmarked to counter threats from Moscow. Western leaders hold their citizenry in contempt when making this claim.

If human society was governed by anything but the ruling class interests that Karl Marx described, the dawning reality of a new global economy would have spurred a movement toward cooperation, integration with the Belt and Road Initiative and major political and economic reforms adjusting to the new landscape. After all, the people of the West could benefit from low-cost advanced technology, public banks, renewable energy and rational economic planning at the highest levels. But the momentum behind centuries of imperial accumulation does not dissipate like the heat of lightning when the clouds break.

So long as warfare and financial speculation lines the pockets of the powers-that-be, ungodly sums will continue to be extracted from the working class and put into the service of a western oligarchy determined to break China’s back. Only then can swarms of cheap labour return to East Asia and US corporate monopolies be assured.

The problems with all of this are legion. What worked yesterday is not always destined to work tomorrow and we are fast approaching a night when tomorrow does not come. Western morality was buried under rubble alongside the bodies of Gaza’s children and the illusion of military supremacy was sunk to bottom of the Persian Gulf. If Iran is the canary in the coal mine, it is clear that all of these billions dumped into offensive weaponry will not yield the surplus required for imperial capitalism to maintain itself.¹ In a dialectical reversal for the ages, the quest for self-preservation puts western capitalism on the express path to terminal crisis.

China has been described as the factory of the world and it would be prudent to now call it the world’s laboratory and power plant as well. Never mind that going to war with such a formidable power would obviously be unwinnable and catastrophic—it well could happen given the incredibly low calibre of people running the Occidental show. When it comes to protecting their property, history demonstrates that the oligarchy is always willing to fight to the last working class man. As David Harvey pointed out in The Limits of Capital:

Capitalism is stabilized through the defence budget, albeit in ways that rob society of more humane and socially worthwhile programmes. But the present theory suggests a rather more sinister and terrifying interpretation of military expenditures: not only must weapons be bought and paid for out of surpluses of capital and labour, but they must also be put to use.²

The collapse of the western economy necessarily entails an enormous loss of property on the most rarefied rungs of capital ownership—and this is the good news. If we’re lucky it will happen before an apocalyptic war can commence. Marx wrote that “the violent destruction of capital as a condition of its self-preservation is the most striking form in which advice is given it to be gone and to give room to a higher state of social production.”³ The collapse will not be where the fight for our future ends. It will be where it begins.

Thanks for reading!
1. In Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism (Oxford University Press, 2014): 40, David Harvey recounts other modes of production that have disappeared by failure to generate surplus. ↩︎
2. David Harvey, The Limits of Capital (Verso, 2018): 445. ↩︎
3. Karl Marx, Grundrisse (Penguin, 1993): 749-50. ↩︎
21 Jul 26
In Brief: Revolution is Inevitable
In Capitalism and the Death Drive, the philosopher Byung-Chul Han argues that “revolution is impossible today” because any resistance to the neoliberal order either quickly dissipates or becomes absorbed by corporate mass consumerism.¹ Commodified Che Guevara T-shirts come to mind, as do counterculture movements like punk rock and Burning Man.

In the age of social media our personal absorption into the commercial sphere is even more ubiquitous; we put ourselves under surveillance and freely subject our activity to data harvesting and resale. Han writes:

System-preserving power has now taken on a smart, friendly form, and it has thereby become invisible and unassailable. The subordinated subject is not even aware of its subordination. It believes itself to be free. This technology of rule is a highly efficient way of neutralizing resistance.²

In the absence of polling data, this view is likely mainstream even on the left where it is echoed by Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari, Fredric Jameson and Mark Fisher.³ While nobody would rule out revolutions in economy and culture, it is that all-important political revolution that feels forever achingly out of reach.

It is easy to forget about the movement of tectonic plates once accustomed to the ground under our feet. Even Lenin was once discouraged about the prospects of revolution—with similar doubts over the level of adequate resistance to Russia’s ancien régime. But the absolute monarchy of the Tsar was doomed once industrial production began melting away the feudal relations in countries to Russia’s east and west. This caused Tsarist Russia to lose badly in wars against Germany and Japan. The question of revolution was never an “if” only a “when.”

To understand why revolution is inevitable, we need only turn to one of the most important paragraphs that Karl Marx ever wrote:

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces 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. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.⁴

For Marx, a social revolution is not simply a change of government, policy or cultural norm—it is a complete change of ruling class. Notice that he does not speak of “adequate resistance” when he lays out the conditions of revolution. Revolution appears as a tectonic economic shift away from the existing ruling class, first and foremost.

This occurred in the West when royal authority and the landed aristocracy became an impediment to merchant capital accumulation. It happened in Russia and China after their industrialized neighbours attacked, pecking at the morass of decaying feudal orders. It happened intercontinentally, across the Global South, as colonial regimes experienced diminishing returns from ransacking the economic productivity of their subjects.

The revolutionary potential of the West has been non-existent for almost a century now. The last time it emerged was during Great Depression. This was when the rapidly industrializing Soviet Union garnered the appeal of unemployed masses and western governments swiftly countered with a barrage of social democratic compromises, including public works projects and social security payments.

The next economic catastrophe will not experience the same social democratic outcome. Liberal capitalism emerged as the political analog to economies dependent on territorial expansion and the steady opening of new markets to capital interests. Almost single-handedly, China is now melting down the western dependency on rent-seeking profits. Vertical integration of supply chains, overproduction of renewable energy, suppression of private financial capital, managed deflation and strategic technological development are saturating the world with low-cost goods and medicines and high quality open source software. The addressable market for western conglomerates is shrinking, evermore reliant on debt and speculation to fund operations. Western governments are flailing, pouring money into the furnace of war and doubling down on fossil fuels in the faint hope of maintaining dominance with atavistic 20th century strategies.

The liberal paradigm cannot conceptualize this technological levelling of the global economic pyramid. It is collapsing inwards like a dying star. Drone warfare has seen ragtag armies grind the world’s mightiest militaries to a halt. Cheap solar panels bring miniature power plants to even the most remote of African villages. Open source A.I. is shredding the U.S. Big Tech profit model to pieces. Multiparty “democracy” has factionalized society into camps of superficial enemies, denying even the possibility of long-term strategic planning. Rampant inflation is quietly brandished as an escape from heaving debt loads handcuffing public and private entities. U.S. dollar dominance is declining with the overuse of criminal sanctions. Social media has turned “free speech” into a vector of weird conspiracies, sensational propaganda and pornography. “Free market” ideology has become the ramparts of financial monopolies and homelessness and hardcore drug addiction.

In short, the social relations of the West are in open contradiction with the new productive forces being unleashed. This is the smoke signal for revolution.

The technological levelling described above means that the liberal order will not be able to rejuvenate itself with a social spending package and a war, as it did during the Great Depression. The rent-extracting platforms of the current ruling class of CEOs and financiers are cracking. When they finally break, the only way out will be a political order that subsumes the new powers of production and seizes the means of finance, construction, resource extraction and strategic industries. Only then will it be possible to fix the underlying mechanical problems hampering our historical progression on a livable planet.

As it disintegrates before our eyes, movements rejecting liberalism will grow. We must embrace long-term planning, direct democratic implements, international cooperation, green development, abundant housing and services, livable communities and expedient public infrastructure. The capitalist ruling class will be supplanted as a political authority or else destitution will result. Some countries have discovered this already and some will take fascistic detours before arriving at the right destination. It is inevitable.

Thanks for reading!
1. Byung-Chul Han, Capitalism and the Death Drive (Polity Press, 2019): 15. ↩︎
2. Ibid, 17. ↩︎
3. The inescapable totality of capitalist consumerism is one of the primary focuses for each of these thinkers. ↩︎
4. Karl Marx, Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. ↩︎
24 Jun 26
In Brief: China’s Marxian Paradigm
In China today, the fingerprints of American capitalist excess are hard to miss, as the golden arches and the KFCs stand lined up next to Walmart stores. The history of China’s economic development is a pretty simple story as told in the West: Mao’s Soviet-style economy was abandoned by Deng who swung open the doors to western capitalism and everything we see in China today is the mere culmination of decades of market magic. With this story lodged into our heads by so many western journalists, whose understanding of Marx is even less than their understanding of China, it is no wonder why Beijing’s trajectory is wide open to interpretation.

The sequence of human history is one of modes of production. Societies organize around productive forces and, as these forces evolve, so does a new social formation eventually sublate the previous one existing. The Greek polis represents a sublation of Neolithic communal society, just as Medieval Europe represents a sublation of the Roman Empire.¹

The process is not mechanical and it has varied wildly depending on the region in question. For example, the capitalist mode of production was concretized only after a significant period of violent primitive accumulation driven by erstwhile feudal merchants who amassed vast sums of wealth at the expense of European peasants, African slaves and New World Indigenous clans. What capitalism has allowed us to do by way of revolutions in technology, science and philosophy, is gain a self-awareness of this historical process and ask the question: if capitalism is a sublation of the feudal mode, what might represent a sublation of the capitalist mode?

The capitalist mode of production has brought with it a material abundance previously unknown to humanity. This helps to explain widespread resistance against any effort toward revolutionary change. On the other hand, capitalism has also carried over imperial tendencies toward warfare, environmental destruction and the deracination of the community. It is these noxious aspects of capitalism that have formed the basis of western populist demands and global revolutionary politics.

Marxism-Leninism emerged from an impoverished Russian Empire long-mismanaged by Tsars wielding absolute power. For the Soviet Union, it expressed the post-revolutionary desire for rapid modernization without the capitalist hallmarks of colonial extraction and working class exploitation. With near-universal public ownership of production, these two aims were largely successful and the USSR experienced an improbable rise to superpower status, all the while providing housing, healthcare, free education and employment to all.

Mao Zedong was obviously heavily influenced by the Soviet experience but he recognized that his China of 1949 was even less developed than 1917 Russia, thanks to the compounded effects of Japanese invasion, civil war and a century of humiliation at the hands of European colonial powers. At its founding, the People’s Republic of China was almost an entirely illiterate, agrarian economy suffering from a massive drug addiction epidemic and in a state of chronic famine.

Mao set his modernization program along the lines of mass literacy campaigns, accessible medicine and large-scale irrigation projects. He recognized the feudal landlord class as a vestige of feudalism and a barrier to progress. That class was eliminated with land reforms. But, as a historical materialist, Mao also saw the bourgeoisie as an important ingredient to Chinese modernization. Adopted in 1949, the Chinese flag even includes a star each for the national and petit bourgeoisie, against a red background representing the revolution.

Soviet socialism was a sublation of Russian feudalism that practically skipped the capitalist mode altogether. But it collapsed under a heavy burden of economic embargoes and repeated military confrontations against combined capitalist powers that had centuries of wealth accumulation under their feet.

Relieved of sanctions in 1979, China has been determined to build socialism in the East along the timescale of how capitalism was built in the West: a period of wealth accumulation and technological advancement that will make it possible to transcend the global capitalist economy. Mao’s successor, Deng Xiaoping, rejected western capitalism and he modelled his own reforms on Lenin’s New Economic Policy.

China has not engaged in foreign colonization or the subjugation of other lands. As a Global South country long-preyed upon by the West, they have recognized that their path to modernization must necessarily be different than it was for imperial states. With particular attention to Volumes 2 and 3 of Marx’s Capital, Beijing has instead constructed a public sector designed to capture the surplus value of their capitalist workforce and channel it toward the development of new productive forces.

As Marx described liberal states, the surplus value produced by workers is claimed as rent, interest and profit. In liberal states, the disposal of this enormous surplus is decided by the private whims of financial firms, landlords and corporations—leading to the socially disruptive practice of outsourced labour and the curious phenomena of “dead money.” In addition, the circulation of surplus value in the form of loans, banking fees and debt-financing are tallied as part of the national gross domestic product—despite producing no value whatsoever. This has led the economist Michael Hudson to decry GDP accounting in the United States as “a travesty that credits the financial sector with producing a product, not as imposing zero-sum transfer payments.”²

As a Marxist state, China treats surplus value as a social product rather than a private gain. Because much of the banking, resource, construction and manufacturing sectors are under state ownership, they are able to convert surplus value that is captured in the form of interest and profits and push a dramatic material transformation of the entire country. Where private ownership exists, party cadres operate within the enterprise to ensure compliance with national planning. China’s ability to build at breakneck speed is also facilitated by maintaining an extremely low cost of goods and services through strategic deflation and the “purging of rent-seeking profits” from the economy.³ This conscious suppression of price and profit are virtually unthinkable for a liberal country.

The fault line between China and the West is therefore not one of “capitalism vs. socialism” but “liberalism vs. Marxism.” At this point in history, every country on Earth contains elements of both socialism and capitalism. In liberalism, capital accumulation is treated as an end in itself—and the result is a sprawling financial services sector that cannibalizes national industry in exchange for abstract financial products. In Marxism, capital accumulation is treated as an evolutionary step between industrial capitalism and socialist transformation. The result of this treatment is a country that looks like China.

By compressing surplus value formation into material production rather than financialization, China is betting on a transformation of productive quantity into social quality, one that will eventually lead to a sublation of private capitalism by public socialism. This is not meant as an explicit endorsement of vanguardism, nor is it meant to praise each aspect of Chinese governance or policy decision made by Beijing. We should take lessons from China and adapt them to our own national circumstances. But that can only be done with recognition that their meteoric rise is resultant from the application of Marxist theory at the commanding heights of the economy.

Thanks for reading!
1. John Bellamy Foster explores the communal aspects of antiquity in “Marx and Communal Society,” Monthly Review, Vol. 77, No. 3: 47-64. ↩︎
2. Michael Hudson, “Finance Capitalism versus Industrial Capitalism: The Rentier Resurgence and Takeover” in Review of Radical Political Economics, 2021: 12. ↩︎
3. See: Kevin Walmsley, “Top China execs forecast more deflation and falling profits ahead,” Substack, Nov. 2025. ↩︎
11 Jun 26
In Brief: The Curse of Interesting Times
Nearly everyone has heard the ancient Chinese curse meant to hex foes: “May you live in interesting times.” It is notable for its irony; on the surface, “interesting times” sounds alluring and non-threatening. But what constitutes an age of historical interest is never a mundane era of calm. What makes history interesting is the wars, the plagues, the conquests and the chaos that rupture stability and leave scars for future generations. The saying emphasizes that nobody wants to live through these times, even if they enjoy reading about them.

It is also entirely apocryphal. “May you live in interesting times” is neither ancient nor Chinese nor a curse. Rather, it began circulating in British political circles at the turn of the 20th century before going mainstream in the Anglosphere. The insistence on an ancient Chinese origin is meant to convey a certain banality or cyclicity to the extraordinary modern epoch that succeeded the Middle Ages.

Since Columbus crashed the shores of Hispaniola in 1492 there has been an accelerated rate of change permeating every rung of global society from the royal palace to the peasant village to the hunting camp. Modernity has wiped clean nearly every mode of existence that had previously stood for millennia.

Writing near the time and place where the apocryphal Chinese curse first originated, Karl Marx linked modernity’s dizzying pace to the motion of a capitalist economy fed by surplus value:

Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.¹

Following Marx’s summation, the curse of interesting times is synonymous with life under the capitalist mode of production. In the present age we have seen our lives revolutionized by smartphones and Ozempic and artificial intelligence and the infinite scroll of social media. Without any new land to discover or national markets to conquer, the economic forces devouring profit have blown open digital universes and pierced the sky with rockets. All this, and there are still those among us who remember a time before the “personal computer” and internet.

Marx correctly diagnosed technological revolution and cultural agitation as endemic to capitalism but he undoubtedly underestimated the market’s ability to distract humanity from our sober senses, our real conditions of life, our relationships with others.

Even with the power to connect billions into direct relations, social media is reduced to a horde of vanity projects. The planetary boundaries for pollution are broken in the heat of smouldering summers. Leading nations have become the geopolitical equivalent of mass shooters. The western economy lives on the edge of a stock market bubble inflating by the day. But should any of this concern you—there’s a pill for that. Interesting times indeed.

Rosa Luxemburg said: “The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly what is happening.” Overcoming the curse of interesting times still depends on apprehending its root cause; the suicidal logic of capitalist growth and the corporate suppression of human vitality. The current state of class consciousness is strung-out but the potential to connect, to organize, to educate and to inspire has never been more latent.

Thanks for reading!
1. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto. ↩︎
27 May 26
In Brief: Who Are the Globalists?
Question:

Who are the “globalists” that are referenced so often?

—P. K.

Hi P. K.,

It seems the right will do anything but name capitalists as their enemy. While “globalism” can mean many things—including recognizing the global impact of local actions—the right tends to use the term as a sort of conspiratorial umbrella with which to shade their centrist opponents. In this vein, a globalist is someone who advocates trading off national sovereignty to a multinational governing body, such as the European Union or United Nations. Previous years have seen fixation with the World Economic Forum and their “Great Reset Initiative,” an alleged scheme to end personal property ownership through mind-controlling vaccines and outright seizure.

From a Marxist perspective, the frustrating aspect of the right wing globalist conception is the truth embedded within it. Globalization is characterized by multinational firms outsourcing employment, corporate-drafted free trade agreements, international warfare and the financial takeover of the economy by hedge funds, asset managers and banks. These trends have been a chimera for the left for some decades now, and past protests in Quebec, Seattle and New York attest.

The membership of corporate clubs like the WEF is drawn directly from the global capitalist ruling class. Meanwhile, international trade agreements like the USMCA and political organizations like the UN and OECD are subsidiary to the reality of global commerce and economic interdependence. In other words, “globalism” is a mental image projected by the actually existing liberal capitalist economic order. The right seeks to alter the image while the left wants to smash the projector.

Incredibly, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels perfectly diagnosed the problem in 1848:

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.¹

The “great chagrin of Reactionists” toward globalization during Marx’s lifetime has clearly never gone away—it is the root of the “globalist” slur. Many millions of people around the world rightfully bemoan the loss of local industries and a cosmopolitan economy that rapidly revolutionizes culture. But the right has never wrapped their arms around the problem, as evidenced by reflexive conservative support for corporate-friendly rates of taxation and deregulation that lubricate the globalization machine.

The reason why corporate-funded media and think tanks are so hostile to socialism is because it is the only remedy to what ails the capitalist economy. Unfair trade and the outsourcing of labour and capital is impossible under a system of nationalized finance, rational economic planning, public ownership of strategic industries and worker owned enterprises. Exceptionally low rates of taxation on workers are also possible under a system that allocates public sector surpluses toward infrastructure, as China proves. Facts are stubborn things and capitalism will one day have a final reckoning that puts an end to the contrived “globalist” contention once and for all.

In sols.

Send your questions to the Reclamation: editor@thereclamation.co

Footnotes:
1. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “Bourgeois and Proletarians” in The Communist Manifesto. ↩︎
12 May 26

Category: Briefs

Question:

Hi P. K.,