To: Detroit/Seattle
Workers' Voice mailing list
August 14, 2021
RE: China's Engine of Environmental Collapse
by Pete Brown, Detroit Workers' Voice.
Richard Smith, cofounder of the group System Change Not Climate Change, recently published a book entitled China’s Engine of Environmental Collapse (Pluto Press, 2020). (1) This is a severe indictment of China’s record on the environment for the past 30-40 years during the time China’s government opened itself up to investment and trade with the West and became one of the world’s dominant imperialist powers. In their mad dash to overtake and surpass Western capitalist powers, Chinese capitalists and their cronies in the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party have not only severely polluted the air and water in China, but also damaged – perhaps beyond repair – its agricultural lands. China has become a large importer of lumber, oil, and coal as its own resources are depleted. Smith notes that today China’s contribution to carbon dioxide emissions and hence global warming far exceeds any other nation. Air pollution from China’s coal-fired power stations and gasoline-engine automobiles covers Beijing and the surrounding North China Plain, damaging people’s lungs and spreading around the world.
But Smith’s book goes beyond a tally of the damage; it tries to
explain it by a theory of the kind of political and economic system in
China. He calls it the “Stalinist-capitalist” system, a hybrid that
contains the worst elements of both. According to his analysis there is
no simple fix for the environmental crisis facing China without a
wholesale, widescale revamping of society. Supposedly the Chinese
Communist Party dominates a highly centralized, “command” economy, and
could easily revamp the economy by issuing a few orders. But as Smith
points out, the Party is sunk in corruption and ties to crony
capitalists. Local political leaders are more interested in making
short-time profits than in following environmental proclamations. Thus,
the Party leaders are unable to solve the problems engendered by their
economic development. Even if they wanted to, and took their
proclamations seriously, they are sunk in the mire of corruption
themselves.
Smith’s book has been reviewed by a couple of journals or online publications that call themselves ecosocialist. Following is a discussion of these reviews:
First, the journal Monthly Review (MR) attacked Smith’s book as outdated and wrong. (2) They dismissed the facts presented by Smith and took umbrage at his criticism of the political system in China. It was too much for MR, which looks kindly on state-capitalist regimes.
Smith responded, and the online edition of MR then carried an exchange of views. (3) Smith has some damning statistics about China, illustrating its horrible environmental record. MR doesn’t try to dispute those for the most part but disregards them because of the “ray of hope” offered by Xi Jinping, China’s president and chairman of the Chinese Communist Party. At the latest UN world summit, Xi Jinping declared that China would become “carbon-neutral” by 2060. Grasping onto this straw, MR devotes itself to citing statistics about how bad U.S. capitalism is and how much pollution it has spewed into the air in the past. All this is true. But it’s a glaring example of what rhetoricians call the “you-too” fallacy. When faced with criticism of China, these apologists declare, “You too have polluted the air!” This is nothing but a red herring, a diversion. Smith doesn’t try to defend America’s environmental record or the contribution it has made to global warming – in fact he criticizes it. MR is lowering the level of discussion from a debate over global warming and what to do about it to a juvenile debate over who’s worse, the U.S. or China. Fact is, they’re both worse; and Smith is right to insist on “system change” in both countries. (4)
This is a childish argument by MR, especially since it’s focused on the past. We should worry about present and future problems. If MR’s editors were serious about solving the environmental crisis they might argue: Consider the “carbon footprint” of the average American person vs. the carbon footprint of the average Chinese. Counting that way, Americans contribute much more to global warming than do Chinese. It’s true that China as a whole emits twice as much CO2 as the U.S. (5), but it’s also true that on the average, per capita, the carbon footprint of the average American is twice that of the average Chinese. (6) Then, for the purposes of equity, someone might well argue (and this is what the Chinese government does argue at international conferences) that China should be given a break and allowed to increase its average-carbon-footprint even while America’s is reduced. Well, that’s exactly what has been happening the past few decades: as China industrializes, its per capita output of CO2 has been increasing, while in the U.S. it has been decreasing .
But with today’s global warming crisis, every nation must immediately undertake rapid decarbonization of its industries. “Carbon-neutral by 2060” just won’t cut it; civilization may have been overwhelmed by catastrophe by then. A recent report by climate scientists has notified the world that the atmosphere is now absorbing twice as much heat as before. (7) Global warming is accelerating, melting ice sheets and permafrost and causing droughts and wildfires. Instead of throwing stones at advanced industrial nations, cheerleaders for China should learn from the negative experience of older industrialized nations and should be pushing China to industrialize with sustainable forms of power generation, not whining about “you-too.”
With respect to Smith’s analysis of the Chinese political/economic system, MR is mostly silent, but their close association with China and their praise of Xi Jinping shows where they stand. Sometimes they speak of the need for an “environmental revolution”, but by “revolution” they mean taking Xi at his word and hoping things will get better. Overall, they support the Chinese system, which they call “socialist-capitalist”. Because China has a large state sector, they take that as the socialist sector. But the state bureaucrats themselves are one section of capitalists who compete with one another and with private-sector capitalists for resources and capital. Leaders of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) call themselves Marxists but are revisionists, pseudo-Marxists. China is not socialist at all, but state-capitalist. (8)
Smith is more serious than MR about the call for revolution. For him it is not just expressing love for President Xi’s “ray of hope”, but a serious call for upheaval and radical change. Aside from that, Smith does not have much idea of how such a revolution will actually develop. But at least he recognizes the need for change. MR, by contrast, is in love with Xi Jinping, saying Xi “astonished the world by unexpectedly declaring that China would peak its carbon emissions before 2030 and reach zero net carbon emissions (carbon neutrality) before 2060.” They don’t dispute the facts presented by Smith, that “Despite the fact that China has reduced the carbon intensity of its economy … its carbon dioxide emissions are still growing absolutely and as a share of global emissions.”, and his further statement, “China’s carbon emissions have been relentlessly climbing since 1990” and “China is by far the leading driver of global climate collapse ….”
MR’s only answer to these facts is: China has added an amendment to their Constitution incorporating environmentalism into their basic law, and Xi Jinping has called for a “new ecological civilization.” MR regards these nice words as worth much more than facts about what is actually going on. MR actually agrees with Smith on most of the basic facts. They admit that China is the world’s largest CO2 emitter by far; and that the central government has massive problems when it comes to enforcing anti-pollution laws; and that China is largely dependent on coal, a comparatively dirty source of power; and they admit that “an environmental revolution” is necessary (they don’t say how this could take place). But all of that means nothing to them as long as President Xi gives them their “ray of hope.”
Smith’s book has also been reviewed by another voice of ecosocialism, the internet journal Climate and Capitalism. (9) The reviewer, Chris Slee, is much more positive about Smith’s book than MR, concluding: “Smith’s critique of China’s environmental policies is valid and very important.” Slee favorably quotes several of Smith’s observations:
“Long stretches of China’s rivers are officially classed as ‘too
toxic to touch.’ In 2016, the government reported that 80% of tested
water wells across the North China Plain (home to 400 million people)
were ‘so badly contaminated with industrial and other pollutants as to
be unsafe for drinking or home use,’ but urban residents and farmers
have little choice but to drink those waters and irrigate crops with
them. In 2013 the Ministry of Land and Resources conceded that three
million hectares of farmland, an area the size of Belgium, was ‘too
toxic to farm’ because of the over-application of fertilizers and
pesticides, irrigation with toxic industrial wastewater, and the
dumping of toxic waste on fields.”
“[China has] the worst industrial and health safety record of any nation on earth, with more than 100,000 workplace deaths per year in recent decades.”
“In its race to ‘catch up and overtake the U.S.’, soaring carbon dioxide emissions have made China by far the leading driver of global climate collapse. In 2018, China’s CO2 emissions were nearly as much as those of the five next-largest emitters (the U.S., India, Russia, Japan and Germany) combined.”
And Slee also quotes Smith, seemingly favorably, about what needs to be done:
“I contend that given the state of the planet today, the only way to
prevent runaway global warming is to slam the brakes on economic growth
in both China and the U.S., shut down entire swathes of useless,
superfluous, harmful and destructive industries, and replace these
political-economic systems with an ecosocialist world economy based on
public ownership of most means of production, democratically planned
production for need, and democratic management of the economy and
society.
“Capitalism, democratic capitalism, or even ‘green capitalism’ is no solution for China’s environmental crisis. … No amount of tinkering with the market can brake the drive to global environmental and ecological collapse. … we need a wholesale system change, especially in China and the United States.”
This last quote is the kind of view that MR finds so objectionable, since Smith sounds serious about the need for revolution in China.
But in other places throughout his book, Smith seems to prefer some features of the free-market system of the U.S. to the “Stalinist-capitalist” hybrid in China. Slee picks out one point to disagree with Smith, his defense of intellectual property rights and patents. This is a bone of contention now between the U.S. and China, and Smith comes down hard on the side of the U.S., charging China with theft. Slee points out that latecomers to capitalist development have always taken technology from former industrialized countries, and that insisting on patent rights can hold back technological progress. It can also be downright dangerous, as the present pandemic and the withholding of vaccines illustrate.
Smith later responded to Slee’s review and said he agreed with the
questioning of the whole concept of intellectual property. But that is
only for the socialist future. In the meantime, he said, “given
capitalism,” – and Smith then proceeded to a fierce denunciation of
Chinese “gangster capitalism” that steals technology: “Quishi, the
Party theoretical organ, justifies tech theft from the West. Huawei …
has been based on tech theft since it started.” Here, as in many places
throughout his book, Smith promotes the West’s “rule of law” as the
thing needed in China. Smith plays with the concept of worker rebellion
at various places, but sometimes he also promotes the Western system of
free-market capitalism as a model. But American “rule of law” often
amounts to the fierce suppression of striking workers (Haymarket
Square, etc.), anti-imperialist protesters (Kent State, etc.),
anti-pollution (XL pipeline, etc.) and anti-racist protests (last
summer after George Floyd, etc.). In America the laws are made by the
monopoly corporations and their lobbyists, while “order” is maintained
by the capitalist police and military. Smith himself notes that Chinese
princelings who are due to inherit the regime are actually groomed at
American Ivy League universities and learn their trade at the side of
American financial aristocrats. It’s simply silly to promote American
“law and order” as the alternative to state-capitalist destruction of
the environment.
(1) A short summary of Smith’s book is available at SCNCC’s website:
Richard Smith, “Climate Arsonist Xi Jinping: A Carbon-Neutral Economy
with a 6% Growth Rate?”, November 22, 2020, System Change Not Climate
Change.
(2) The Editors, “Notes from the Editors”, Monthly Review, Vol. 72, No. 2 (March 2021)
(3) Richard Smith, Simon Pirani, and Eds. “China and climate change: an exchange.” MR online, posted Apr. 12, 2021.
(4) And the
same could be said of other industrialized countries in Europe, Japan,
India, etc. Fred Pearce notes that political leaders in India are so
touchy about discussion of air pollution in their country they have
banned discussion of it at scientific conventions. They too give the
argument, “Why pick on us? Western nations have polluted too!” Thus,
they try to divert serious discussion of environmental problems into a
juvenile rock-throwing melee. See p. 116 of Pearce’s book, With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change (Beacon Press, 2007), Chapter 19, “A Billion Fires: How brown haze could turn off the monsoon.”
(5) https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/092915/5-countries-produce-most-carbon-dioxide-co2.asp
(6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_person
(7) https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/17/us/earth-trapped-heat-doubled/index.html
(8) For more discussion of state-capitalism under a "socialist" banner, see the collection of articles linked to at https://www.communistvoice.org/00LeninistTransition.html such as "State capitalism, Leninism, and the transition to socialism", Part One, in Communist Voice#8, June 1, 1996, and Part Two, “The anarchy of production under the veneer of Soviet revisionist planning” in CV#12, Vol 3, #1, March 1, 1997.
For more on state-capitalism in China in particular, see these articles from CV:
https://www.communistvoice.org/19cChinaHinton.html
https://www.communistvoice.org/17cChina.html
(9) Chris Slee, “Review: ‘China’s Engine of Environmental Collapse’”. October 14, 2020. Climate and Capitalism. []
Back to main
page,
how to order CV,
write us!