Illustration: Chen Xia/GT

Editor's Note:  

When it comes to China or the Communist Party of China (CPC), Western perspectives are polarizing. Wolfram Adolphi (Adolphi), a German political scientist, who was head of the Berlin chapter of the Party of Democratic Socialism, a forerunner to the current Left Party, has researched Chinese politics for as long as 40 years, has been sticking to his stance on objectively understanding the CPC. What makes him speak highly of the CPC? Why is Marxism, a Western ideology that came from Germany, thriving in China? Adolphi shared his views with the Global Times (GT) reporter Li Aixin.

GT: In your previous articles and interviews, you have spoken highly of the CPC. What is the major reason to make you think the CPC is worthy of approval? 

Adolphi: The CPC was founded in 1921. This year it celebrates its 100th anniversary. The achievements of the Party in the past centenary are of overwhelming importance not only for China herself but for the mankind in whole. The CPC has led China out of the ashes of World War II, to a place among the economically and socially most successful countries in the world. 

Because of the size of China's population and the economy as well as of her long history and cultural tradition there can't be any doubt: A stable, economically strong, ecologically responsible and peaceful China is essential for the ability of mankind to solve the big questions it is confronted with: secure peace, stop the climate change, protect natural resources, find a way of digitalization which helps to make the world a better one for all, and overcome the growing rift between the rich and the poor.

Wolfram Adolphi Photo: Courtesy of Adolphi

GT: In recent years, quite a few narratives of the West, including those in Germany, have avoided objectively covering CPC's positive role in China's social progress and the world's economic development. What do you think is the biggest misunderstanding the West has about China? What caused such misunderstandings?

Adolphi: This has a lot to do with history. Western imperialism is unthinkable without the conquest and semi-colonization of China beginning with the Opium Wars some 200 years ago. Since then, China was seen as a field of almost unrestrained economic exploitation and - as was shown in the war against the Yihetuan in 1900/1901 - military and political oppression. In the 1920's and 1930's, Western imperialism didn't hesitate to get together with Japanese militarism in conquering large parts of China. With China in 1941 becoming part of the Anti-Hitler-Coalition this fundamentally changed, but only for a short time. 

When the People's Republic of China was founded in 1949, the West fell back in the old scheme of regarding China as an enemy and nothing else. And that's the situation until now - despite the big changes in Chinese society and despite the totally different level in economic and scientific exchange, the flow of people between China and the West and the cultural contacts compared with - let's say - the 1960's or even the 1980's, when China's opening to the world was already under way. That leads me to the opinion that there is no "misunderstanding", but an unwillingness to understand the fact that the role the West has played in the world during the last 200 years has come to an end. The West must find a way to learn that it needs a new approach to the world as a whole, and that includes the acceptance of different ways to the solution of the big questions of our common future.

GT: You once suggested it is hard to imagine whether Germany could bring up a 100-year national strategy like China does. Making long-term planning is one of the advantages of China's system, but it is often misread by the West. So in your opinion, what made many Westerners hard to objectively understand China' long-term planning?

Adolphi: The lack of long-term planning in the Western societies is evident: China's kind of planning seems to be one of the biggest challenges for the West. In my view, the ruling circles in Western societies should use this Chinese challenge for a review and reform of their own social concepts. These concepts in all their complexity are bound to a certain stage of social development or - to say it with Marx - to a certain level of the development of the productive forces, and it seems to be clear that the revolution of digitalization demands a new development of social organization, too. 

Now, Chinese cultural traditions obviously allow other approaches to these questions than Western ones. This is a serious and deep-rooting problem not suitable for superficial discussions or consequences. That's why I deplore that some Western ruling circles instead of seriously reconsidering the whole and very complex problem, prefer to retreat to simplified and confrontational "explanations" like authoritarianism. 

This behavior - by the way - has not only to do with today's development of China, but with the history of socialism in Europe, too. Especially in Germany, there is a fundamental unwillingness to discuss the experience of socialist planification in the German Democratic Republic 1949-1989 openly and seriously. Almost every approach ends in the same "conclusion" as in the case of China: authoritarianism. 

GT: In Chinese people's eyes, we tend to think that Western political parties only place importance on pursuit of short-term interests. Do you think Western countries will earnestly address the issue and find a way to overcome the shortcoming in their electoral system? 

Adolphi: The Western electoral system has a long and successful history, and it would be wrong to sacrifice it frivolously. On the other hand, as a Marxist I know how critically socialists saw this system almost from its very beginning. They pointed out the shortcomings of the system and thought about other forms of democratic participation of the people in social development and decision-making. Nowadays, apart from the political parties there exist different social grassroots movements that - critically regarding the shortsightedness of the parliaments elected for only four or five years - call for long-term planning especially in the fields of fighting climate change and handling the digital revolution. This simultaneousness of different approaches opens a chance for constructively reviewing the electoral system.

GT: Marxism is a Western ideology that came from Germany. How would you comment on the practice of Marxism in China? What role does Marxism play in the West's politics today? 

Adolphi: I look with great interest into the practice of Marxism in China. I'm very curious how the CPC will adopt Marxist thinking and practice to the Chinese conditions of social development, and I'm deeply impressed by the efforts undertaken by the CPC to newly translate and publish the works of Marx and Engels and to translate and publish such works as the Historic-critical dictionary of Marxism which is published in Germany step by step for almost 30 years and uniting Marxist authors from all over the world. 

Again, I have in mind the whole of mankind: The Chinese approach to Marxism is of importance for all the planet's populations. The development of the productive forces and - based on that - the development of a social system which guarantees social progress not only for a part of the society but for the society as a whole. This is the great task, and I hope that the CPC will be successful in solving it.

Speaking about the role of Marxism in the West's politics today it must be said that this role is a very small one. With the crash of the Soviet and East European socialism in 1989, West European communist and Marxist parties experienced a crash of their influence and political standing, too. The ruling political circles found a way to use the setback of socialist societies for a fundamental discrediting of Marxism in general. Now, it will be interesting to see whether and how younger generations open their mind to Marxist thinking, recognizing the universal character of its essentials.

GT: It seems that Western societies strongly resist concepts of socialism and communism. Are there any historical and social causes for Westerners to be so resistant or vigilant against these concepts of governance?

Adolphi: The key point of Marxist thinking and practice of socialism in the world of the 20th century was formed by the question of who owns the productive forces. Common ownership vs. private ownership - this was the decisive question. Based on common ownership, the socialist countries experienced the development of a quiet different type of social organization and administration, inclusive of education, health care, culture and sports. The importance of that was clearly shown in 1989/90 when socialism crashed down. In a very short time, common ownership was liquidated and replaced by private ones. This process was greeted by most of the people because it helped to overcome different shortcomings in daily life. Socialist planification based on common ownership could easily be identified as the root of these shortcomings, and in connecting all that with the question of limited freedom and restricted democracy, Western ruling circles had no difficulties in demonstrating the superiority of their private-ownership-based system.

But interesting enough, the overwhelming victory of the years 1989/90 didn't lead to an unstrained attitude towards the ownership question or different types of governance. The situation in the 20th century aside: It is today that we witness the emergence of new challenges in development of the productive forces and social organization. Old models face a severe crisis - nationally and internationally - and the Western ruling circles fear the loss of all what they have reached in the past. That's why the intensity of their resistance, that's why their saying that the West and China are confronted in a new system conflict. 

GT: In an article published last year, you suggested the West drop its arrogance and stop containing China through imperialistic approaches with tools like "Western democracy." How many German scholars and politicians share your view? Has your view about China brought you any trouble?

Adolphi: My attitude is based on the conviction that the worldwide challenges of the 21st century can only be met by worldwide - and necessarily peaceful - cooperation. Such a cooperation demands the abandonment of all arrogance and of all concepts of other people or countries which evoke feelings of hatred or fear. Western democracy has brought a lot of advantages to Western societies. At the same time, it has never produced a foreign policy without war, without export of weaponry, without concepts of enemies. 

The outcome of the 20-year-long "War against terror" in Afghanistan is a striking example of the insanity of these politics. Containing China through old politics will not help overcome worldwide crisis. It only creates new tensions and a new danger of war.

Concerning Germany, I see a growing number of scholars who share my view, and I see the power of economic interests which forces people in economics and politics to look for a peaceful and cooperative climate in the bilateral relations. Obviously, there is a political fight underway. The outcome seems to be open.

For myself, I cannot state any trouble or disturbance because of my approach to the China question. But I'm a retired person without any institutional role, doing my research privately. My professional career in China research was bound to the German Democratic Republic (GDR) and ended in 1990 when the social sciences of the GDR in general were liquidated. 

GT: Germany's general election is rapidly approaching. Observers say that political pressure is building in Berlin to get tougher on Beijing, no matter who will be elected next. How do you predict China-Germany ties in the post-Merkel era? 

Adolphi: To answer this question is very difficult. Undoubtedly, there is pressure especially from the United States - but from others too - to get tougher on Beijing. But it's not the question of China politics alone. It comes to the very old and substantial question of German foreign policy at all: How does the country shape its place between West and East? 

Seen by her geography, Germany could play a role of a bridge, of a mediator. History has seen such attempts under Bismarck at the end of the 19th century and during the Weimar republic in the 1920s, and in the times of Cold War between West and East in the second half of the 20th century when the two German States belonged to both sides of the conflict - a situation which, at the beginning of the 1990s, led to the hope that with the overcoming of the partition of Germany there could be reached the overcoming of the partition of Europe and the world, too. This hope died in new wars in Iraq and Yugoslavia and in new worldwide partitions. But now, may be, it's time for a new beginning?

GT: Nils Schmid once noted that Merkel's China policy is behind the times. What's your take on his view? 

Adolphi: I'm not aware what Nils Schmid had in mind when he spoke of Merkel being "behind the times". I believe that Merkel, being forced to act under difficult international circumstances like the harsh changes in US foreign policy and consider very different economic, political, and ideological interests inside Germany, was successful. Merkel held a certain balance which allowed for the development of the bilateral relations with China in a sense of mutual advantage. 

Looking into the time after the elections of September 26, it will be important to keep this balance and to avoid any escalation of tensions. In the field of ideas and ideological approaches, I find it essential to contribute to de-escalation, to a better mutual understanding, and, to curiosity instead of arrogance.