Introduction
Ron Ridenour, journalist-author-editor-activist for peace, equality and justice, wrote a three-part series on how China fails to live up to Marxist-Leninism. [Part 1 – “China Officially Stands for World Peace,” Part 2 – “China Invests in U.S./Israel Wars and Supported Pol Pot’s Genocide and South African Apartheid,” Part 3 – “Artificial Intelligence = Alienation Instructors.”] In part 1 of the series, Ridenour acknowledged that the People’s Republic of China is peaceful and that it has eliminated extreme poverty, whereas “democratic” US America has not.
Ridenour identifies that the United States is focused on undermining the rise of China by cajoling BRICS members to leave or not join the platform, by surrounding China with US military bases, by interfering in Taiwan, and by seeking to hinder China’s trade with other nations.
Ridenour, however, has criticisms of China. He presented his arguments in his three-parter. Do those arguments hold up?
Ridenour, a Communist, questions how Communist China is. It is noted that openness to criticism and self-criticism is a key component of Maoist thought — as it should be with all thought. Ridenour sees the Communist Party of China (CPC)’s relationship with the US as abetting imperialism; as such, he calls on “Members in solidarity with China organizations, for example, could tell their Chinese associates to stop selling war materials to the US.”
*****
Ron Ridenour’s Self-Introduction
First, let me make it clear, I am not an expert on China. I have never been there, and I have not taken up a critical pen against it until this series, nearly eight decades after its alleged “communist” revolution led by the Communist Party.
My understanding of Marxism—and the main reason why I became a Marxist revolutionary in the early 60s—is that it is an analysis of Homo sapiens development, and its ideology is founded upon humanism, acting morally and ethically, and consciously endeavors to confront and eliminate everyman’s alienation.
I have written about this in DV, and Kim has reviewed a book I wrote, Tamil Nation in Sri Lanka, about how the Tamil people underwent genocide by the Sinhalese governments. When Cuba/ALBA supported the Sinhalese, at least in geo-political arenas, I was compelled to criticize my companion nations in many articles and the book for welching on those moral principles. Here is just one such article.
Here is what I wrote for DV about what I mean we must strive to do as Marxists, communists, socialist revolutionaries, and humanists:
Morality is rules we apply to live by, in order to be ethical: that is, to care for one another, to live in harmony, in fellowship and peace. Ethics is necessary for our collective survival and that of our surroundings, the earth and the elements. To accomplish this universal ethic, we must share what we make, share natural resources, assure that the planet breathes life and not chemical death. It is immoral to take from others—don’t we parents tell our children that when we send them to nursery school—to make systems that favor some and exploit and destroy others, that require war-making, which also destroy other life forms.
These are key works that have formed my beliefs: Marx, Engels, Gramsci, Che, and Ho Chi Minh.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/index.htm
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/85942.Prison_Notebooks
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/19948056-socialism-and-man-in-cuba
Vietnamese Dr. Nguyen Thang Loi’s recent writing, “Ho Chi Minh’s thought on democracy”, stressed that Ho had only one goal, to “wholeheartedly serve the Fatherland, serve the revolution, serve the people…upholding social ethics”.
This is also what I remember from my early days of anti-war activism (1961-75), fighting in solidarity with Vietnam. Ho was one of our teachers of what socialism should mean. He did not wait until Vietnam could develop communism to become moral.
*****
Kim Petersen: Ron, I find that some of your criticism of China is somewhat dated; for example, you charge that China supported Pol Pot’s Genocide and indirectly South African Apartheid. Pol Pot initially rose to power in the vacuum created by US bombing campaigns in Cambodia. Then the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia. This caused China to intervene and support Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot who had aligned with precepts of Maoism. It does not absolve China of backing a genocidaire, but the US also backed Pol Pot early on, and that does not absolve China either, just there is blame to go around. Did China know Pol Pot would turn genocidal? After all, many ethnic Chinese were among those killed in Cambodia. Also, it should be noted that China housed Cambodia’s king Sihanouk in exile.
As for Deng Xiaoping’s government supporting the FNLA and UNITA against the Marxist Angolan government, you write that “China thus allied with U.S. … plac[ing] China on the same side as the South African apartheid regime.” This is factually accurate only insofar as China being against FNLA and UNITA, but as Stephen Chan noted in The Morality of China in Africa — at that time: “The Chinese neither understood Africa well, nor did a very good job in projecting what seemed to me a constant underlying but never directly articulated theme, that what China was doing in Africa was moral.” (p ix) China’s diplomacy under the CPC was in its nascent stages; however, that does not excuse the CPC for wrongheaded foreign policy decisions, but it frames it in a different light, and that light is of a China of many decades past when there was factionalism within the CPC.
I find that the title of your section — “China Supported South African Apartheid Against Marxist-Led Angola” — to be misleading. I agree with you that Deng’s Communist government should not have been supporting opponents of Marxism, but that a segment of China’s foreign policy happened to be similar to actors such as Apartheid South Africa does not necessarily indicate support for Apartheid South Africa. China did not support Apartheid South Africa. It was a consistent and vocal supporter of the South African people’s struggle against the Apartheid regime. Early in 1960, China severed all economic and trade relations with the South African authorities. China instead supported Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress (ANC).
It is important to note that even now, China has not reached the stage of Communism. China states that it is in the earliest stages of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.
Ron Ridenour: It is my intention to be “dated”, because when the Chinese Communist Party took power, in 1949, it started a revolution supposedly aimed at establishing first socialism, and developing into communism, which must mean beginning to act morally.
However, already with Pol Pot, at least from 1973 when he took power and began committing genocide, Mao, and his successor Deng, supported Pol Pot. The US also hoped Pol Pot would win over Vietnam, since Vietnam and the Soviet Union were its main enemies. (See academic scholar Peter Maguire, Facing Death in Cambodia. Columbia University Press. The US gave $85 million to the Khmer Rouge between 1980 and 1986 roughly half of which occurred during 1979 and 1980.)
During Mao’s term, CCP fought against Soviet Union’s “peaceful coexistence” calling it “revisionism”. So Mao’s China and the United States of America Racist Military Empire (US-ARME) had the same creed.
“Did China know Pol Pot would turn genocidal?”
It is not credible to think that he did not know. “It is estimated that at least 90% of the foreign aid which the Khmer Rouge received came from China, including at least US $1 billion in interest-free economic and military aid in 1975 alone. Levin, Dan (30 March 2015).” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide
On June 21, 1975 Mao had a talk with Pol Pot in Beijing. Mao said, “We agree with you! Much of your experience is better than ours. China is not qualified to criticize you.”
(The Woodrow Wilson Center is admittedly part of the US-ARME. Nevertheless, my sense is that this information can be verified by other more palpable sources, but I can’t write another dissertation here.)
The very fact that both Chinese Communists and US capitalists supported Pol Pot only shows that much of Mao’s policies, and those leaders who followed him, have been hypocritical. Here is what the NY Times reported about Mao appreciating Nixon and supported his surveillance and tapes polices. Nixon sold Mao Coca Cola and later sold Khrushchev Pepsi Cola.
When Vietnam invaded Cambodia, in December 1978, Pol Pot fled, and Vietnam stopped the “killing fields”.
Deng Xiaoping sent 220,000 troops into North Vietnam, February 1979, and soon doubled that number, to help Pol Pot reestablish himself in jungles close to Thailand. China was forced out within a month by Vietnam’s army. Deng said he had accomplished what he wanted, that is, helping the genocidaire escape Vietnam’s army.
To my understanding, the Vietnamese were not cruel to the Cambodians. Pol Pot, however, continued to kill some Cambodians where he held out into the early 1990s, even after Vietnam pulled out of Cambodia in 1990.
As to why China did nothing to aid Chinese in Cambodia from being killed, this is what I just found. “One mystery in the CCP-Khmer Rouge relationship is why the CCP failed to lend a hand to the ethnic Chinese in Cambodia, even to the Huayun members who had been in service to the cause of the CCP. A significant number perished as a result of the Khmer Rouge’s radical policies. Nicholas Khoo argues “the reason for China’s decision to ignore the ethnic Chinese factor in Sino-Cambodian relations, but to emphasize it in Sino-Vietnamese relations, is geopolitical in nature.” [Nicolas Khoo, Collateral damage: Sino–Soviet rivalry and the termination of the Sino–Soviet alliance (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011).]
“The racial bonds were outweighed by the shared revolutionary zeal between these two parties.”
*****
That China did not “understand Africa well” is a cop out. A moral person, and a morality-based revolutionary government, does not support an apartheid government based on total repression of an entire people. Deng and Chinese leadership generally took/takes “the pragmatic view”, what works to make its economy grow. Pragmatism is also the basis of capitalism, also known as greed.
(When I conduct research, I rarely use Wikipedia, and when I do, I have other sources. I believe that these excerpts from Wikipedia can be proven to be correct.)
China initially backed the MPLA, but later began to support FNLA and UNITA as well. As China’s relationship with the Soviet Union soured, the MPLA’s relationship with the Soviet Union strengthened, and China pulled its support. In 1974, China provided weapons and instructors to the FNLA, as well as arms to UNITA. [Jurenczyk, Lukasz (2020-11-01). “Analysing China’s ‘Angola Model’: A Pattern for Chinese Involvement in Africa?“]
“When Angola descended into civil war, in 1975, China continued to back the FNLA and UNITA, but drew back as the MPLA gained power.”
I believe it fair to say that no matter what China’s reasons for withdrawing support to Marxist MPLA, there can be no moral argument for supporting anti-communist nationalists, who were backed big time by both apartheid South Africa and US-ARME.
It does not matter which side one thinks was better, China or Soviet Union, the facts are such that from the beginning of the Chinese Communist Party perennial government to the present humanism/morality/ethics/combating alienation are not a priority. Nor am I herein discussing whether or not Soviet Union’s policies were so based.
Kim, you say that: “China’s foreign policy happened to be similar to actors such as Apartheid South Africa does not necessarily indicate support for Apartheid South Africa. China did not support Apartheid South Africa.”
You are right that China did not support Apartheid directly, and did materially assist Nelson Mandela and the black people’s opposition. Nevertheless, by backing the same anti-socialist, right-wing FLNA and UNITA nationalists, which South Africa and US-ARME supported, puts them objectively on their side, and sends a signal to Maoists around the world that such immorality is positive in the “pragmatic, geo-political” world. Once again, “the long view” is simply unethical!
*****
Is this some kind of Maoist syllogism? The enemy (Angola’s right-wing nationalists supported by South Africa/US) of my enemy (Soviet Union) is my friend?
Again, that China is, “in the earliest stages of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” does not absolve it for being immoral, for siding with humanism’s enemies, as I have stated above and in my series.
China also supported Mujaheddeen in Afghanistan, which borders both China and Russia. China did so because its main enemy was another Communist government, the Soviet Union, which supported the Communist government of Afghanistan. By so doing, it directly supported the US-ARME, especially its CIA, which had created Taliban along with the Pakistan intelligence agency.
The Chinese People’s Liberation Army provided training, arms organization and financial support. Anti-aircraft missiles, rocket launchers and machine guns, valued at hundreds of millions, were given to the Mujahideen by the Chinese. Throughout the war, Chinese military advisers and army troops trained upwards of several thousand Mujahideen inside Xinjiang and along the Pakistani border. [S. Frederick Starr (2004). (Xinjiang: China’s Muslim Borderland).]
In 1978, the government, led by Marxist Communist Nur Muhammad Taraki, granted equal rights to women, including the right to choose their husbands and careers, and what clothes they wore. The burqa and hijab were not forced upon them.
“The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (1978–1987) and the Republic of Afghanistan (1987–1992), which followed the Saur Revolution that toppled the government of Mohammed Daoud Khan, was a period of unprecedented equality for women in Afghanistan. The Communist ideology officially advocated gender equality and women’s rights, and the communist government sought to implement it – though without success – on all classes throughout both urban and rural Afghanistan.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Afghanistan.
You seem to imply that China’s long approach will eventually lead to transforming from materialism to morality. We have already had to wait for China to begin on the moral path for eight decades and the clock is running.
Che Guevara was head of the Department of Industrialization and President of the National Bank in 1960 when all financial institutions and 84% of industry in Cuba were nationalized. “In no way am I saying that financial autonomy of the enterprise with moral incentives, as it is established in the socialist countries, is a formula which will impede progress to socialism.”
Che was referring to the economic management system applied in the Soviet bloc. By 1966, he concluded that the USSR: “is returning to capitalism”.
I started each article in my three-part series with citations by Che regarding morality and alienation. Che believed that alienation must be actively fought from the very beginning of a socialist revolution, rather than waiting for the economic base to be fully developed.
*****
Not mentioned in my series was how much military aid China gave and sold to Sri Lanka’s Sinhalese genocidaire government in the last crucial years of the civil war, 2007-9, against the Tamil people. You can read about this in chapter five of my book, Tamil Nation in Sri Lanka, 2011, New Century Book House, Tamil Nadu, India.
China’s Poly Technologies supplied $36.5 million in arms, and received in return a 99-year lease for the all-important HambanTota Port for commercial merchant use. In 2008, China gave and sold five times the amount of armament than in 2007. It gave six F-7 fighter jets to replace jets that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LLTE) had destroyed. China also sold an anti-submarine vessel, several gunboats, battle tanks, anti-aircraft guns, air surveillance radar, and provided intelligence.
The Tamil people represented 17% of Sri Lanka; Sinhalese have 74%. When Britain left Sri Lanka, 1948, the Sinhalese came to rule cruelly against Tamils and Muslims. Britain used divide and conquer strategy during its colonial rule. Most Sinhalese are Theravada Buddhists; most Tamils are Hindu or Christian. Tamils were not granted equal rights; many were not even granted citizenship. They protested in the Gandhi fashion.
A civil war broke out in 1983 when the LLTE began fighting the government’s military.
The next 26 years were filled with violence, and both sides committed atrocities, but the majority of Tamils were still pacifists. There is not room to go into depth here, however I wish to note that while China does not conduct war itself since 1979, it has supported militarily several country governments that have acted murderously, cruelly and immorally against many other people. They have often sided with the US and Israel (certainly in Sri Lanka), and their allies instead of with oppressed peoples.
KP: First, as is the case with warring anywhere, the warring in Sri Lanka is regrettable. Britain was the cause of this by bringing in indentured Tamil laborers from India without the blessing of the Sinhalese. Morality in this case demands that Britain be responsible and provide full financial aid to relocate the Tamils to Tamil India or provide the means such that the Sinhalese and Tamil cultures could live together respectfully, peacefully, and in cooperation.
I did not wish to get involved in issues not detailed in your 3-part series. I’ll just state, to find oneself on the same side of an issue or conflict with another entity does not necessarily indicate siding with that entity, in this case, the US and Israel. However, insofar as China is involved in arming one side or another in fighting, it speaks poorly to any pretense to genuine peaceful intentions.
The solution, though, is far from simple. There are important geopolitical considerations at play from engaging in or abstaining from selling armaments to foreign actors. What would happen if China did not protect its investment in Sri Lanka and allowed imperialist entities like the US to swoop in and arm the Sinhalese alone? That would be consolidating US hegemony in South Asia. It would be allowing the US to further militarily isolate and surround China. It would situate the US near the forefront of entry to the narrow Strait of Malacca where much of China’s oil shipments pass. You may call involvement in arming the recognized government of Sri Lanka a case of immorality, and to a certain extent you have a point. But there is a moral precept that holds the needs of the many outweigh the few. China has first and foremost a responsibility to the security and welfare of its own people. You are, in essence, blaming China for a situation thrust upon it by imperialist Britain and the imperialist US, and these two entities bear the greatest blame and, I submit, that is where it should be placed.
And to my next query:
You ask, “Why should China buy commercial aircraft from a major United States warmongering corporation?” China has recently entered the market with its own commercial aircraft, Comac, but it cannot produce enough aircraft to meet the needs of its own market. Boeing (US) and Airbus (Europe) are capitalist countries largely supportive of the NATO-provoked war against Russia and Israel’s ongoing genocide against Palestine. This begs the question of who should China buy from to meet the needs of its people or should Chinese people stay at home? There is a moral argument to be made for the latter.
RR: My argument dealt with China buying from Boeing, which is a leading military aircraft corporation. They have their own military airline, China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, started in 1999, and expanded into commercial airlines in 2013. They could expand that.
They could find a different commercial airline producer that is not making weaponry to kill. They could expand their COMAC, which started in 2008. They could rejoin the China-Russia CRAIC joint venture commercial airline company. There are options, but to be just “pragmatic” with the “long view” is a dreadful immoral cop out, once again.
KP: You criticize that China continues to sell rare earth minerals “used to make weaponry and surveillance satellites also used for war purposes, … by the U.S. war machine.”
Yet rare earth mineral exports to the US have markedly dropped. Stockstar reported in March 2026 a five-month consecutive decline of rare earth minerals and a year-on-year drop of 30.6%.
You acknowledge that “China has cut back on the quantity of these metals, but say it is still supplying the product used for “American fighter jets, satellites, guided missiles, and submarines all [of which] rely on high-performance magnets built with rare earths like neodymium, samarium, and dysprosium.”
China’s Ministry of Commerce announced that export applications for rare earths that meet relevant requirements, including those for genuine civilian use, will be approved in accordance with the law. This is designed to meet “national security needs, while providing a clearer regulatory framework for enterprises engaged in legitimate foreign trade.” [emphasis added]
You write, “I ask Wang Yi and Xi Jinping: Why do you sell vital and extremely rare minerals to the warmonger U.S. when you know it uses them to murder innumerable people in many countries? Are you not complicit in murder?”
It is a moral question that deserves serious consideration. But China has put in place safeguards so that such materials can only be used in “legitimate foreign trade”and, therefore, supposedly, cannot be used for murder? [emphasis added]
RR: You state that selling these minerals used for weaponry, “is a moral question that deserves serious consideration. But China has put in place safeguards so that such materials can only be used in ‘legitimate foreign trade’ and, therefore, supposedly, cannot be used for murder?”
“Supposedly,” you admit. You gave no source. What are these “safeguards”? Why is Trump so anxious to buy more of these rare earth minerals than China is currently selling IF there are such alleged “safeguards”?.
I just read, “China’s expanding export controls on critical minerals: A questionable legal rationale and significant impact for EU supply chains.”
“Since 2023, China has designated several critical minerals…as ‘dual-use’ items, thereby subjecting them to export licensing requirements in order to ‘’. China first introduced export restrictions for rare earth minerals in April 2025 in response to the US’ imposition of additional tariffs on imports originating from China.”
I could not find in this article anything that states China has made it definite that whatever it sells cannot be used for weaponry and satellite surveillance for war-making purposes. Even if China eventually stops selling war materials to humanity’s enemies, how do you justify the decades that it has been doing so?
This is what I found from a banking source.
“As early as the 1980s, rare earths were included in China’s broader reform process that involved the opening up of the economy to overseas trade and investment …often selling tens of thousands of these lethal minerals annually.”
KP: I admitted nothing. If intentions bear out, then Chinese safeguards should protect the peaceful usage of rare earths. “Supposedly” only points to the fact that future situations cannot be predicated with 100% accuracy. This is especially so when it appears a third world war is about to be lit by US and Israeli imperialists in the Middle East.
And two sources were provided for the security of rare earth usage were provide by me in my query; to repeat: export applications for rare earths and designed to meet.
Next: You write that “China’s Pragmatism Ignores Venezuela’s and Iran’s Plight.” And, “China did nothing to assist its Venezuelan ally.”
I disagree that China ignored Venezuela’s plight. The Chinese response was militarily nil but forcefully diplomatic: “China is deeply shocked by and strongly condemns the U.S.’s blatant use of force against a sovereign state and action against its president. Such hegemonic acts of the U.S. seriously violate international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty…” The Chinese Foreign Ministry “expresses grave concern” about the kidnapping of Maduro and his wife, a clear violation of international law. It is not ignoring Venezuela’s plight but could be described as feeble. But what do you suggest China should have done?
You wrote, “Not coming to Iran’s aid to a significant degree is ‘not a story about morality. It’s a story about material constraints, imperial geography, and a world order transitioning in ways the U.S. ruling class cannot control.’”
Not sure what you’d consider “a significant degree,” but enough that Trump is upset with China, according to CNN, for providing satellite imagery and intelligence to Iran. However, since China rejects war, it will not become directly involved militarily.
That does not prevent China from helping Cuba overcome Trump’s mean-hearted blocking of energy to Cuba. China is rapidly expanding its solar and battery infrastructure in Cuba, helping to fill the critical energy void left by US oil blockades as traditional Western and Canadian economic interests lose ground.
China plays the long game. And what do the results from that long game reveal? China has become stronger and stronger while the US is perceptibly weaker. The stronger China becomes vis-à-vis the US, the better poised China is to extend protection to allied countries.
RR: How can you possibly imagine that “forcefully diplomatic” will move any capitalist, any US president. Trump just laughs. Maybe it is not naivety but playing devil’s advocate?
This is what William Murphy, a former Yankee war-maker turned peace-maker Maoist, says about why China is not about to help Venezuela.
“Venezuela is a flashpoint of imperial anxiety, not strategic necessity. Military restraint is not weakness—it’s allocation of resources.” “No Chinese leadership is going to risk trade disruption, capital flight, supply-chain shocks, or military escalation with a peer rival to defend a state with internal economic instability, limited state capacity, and no formal defense treaty.”
“That’s not betrayal. That’s how states behave under capitalism.”
So, Maoist Murphy admits it. China is capitalist, not socialist.
I am not proposing that China go to war against the US, which is what the US might want. Agreed. I am asking it to stop all trade and investments with and in the US, and buying Treasury bonds, and, instead, build BRICS into a real competitor. Build their own banks and currency, and stop just talking about it.
If China pulled totally out of US, its economy might well collapse. Then, China, Russia, Cuba and many other countries could build their economies and societies as their people wish. If Murphy, and whomever else, think I am foolishly naïve, because the US would make world war and would use nuclear weapons to prevent its economic collapse, I can only reply, maybe so. However, the US would also go down with the rest of us, and a lot of Yankee capitalists, politicians and many generals know that too. Trump could push the button but it still takes military personnel to do the sending. Would they risk that? We will never know until and if?
If that is the main argument about why China would not really confront the US by withdrawing from its capitalist, war-making economy, what makes one think China will succeed with eventually building communism otherwise, by continuing to be immoral to please Yankee Imperialism?
Regarding China’s aid to Cuba, yes, I wrote what China has been doing to assist Cuba by sending solar panels. Nevertheless, only 9% of Cuba’s electrical needs are fulfilled by solar panels to date.
Kim wrote: “China plays the long game. And what do the results from that long game reveal? China has become stronger and stronger while the US is perceptibly weaker.”
Yes, “the long game”—the competition of two capitalist giants—but nothing to do with socialism, communism, ethics. Just more hypocrisy, more immorality, more anti-humanism, more profiteering, just like any other capitalist country, just like where you were born, Kim, and where I live, Denmark, where the war queen prime minister of Europe vies with other war queens and war kings alongside with their sister/brother ally, “Communist” China.
As I was closing down my anger for the day, I saw this nature program pop up on the TV, China’s Wild Secrets.
What does it tell us? “Survival of the Fittest”, “Law of the Jungle”! Maybe misanthropy is the real and final solution!
KP: You omitted context in quoting Murphy:
No Chinese leadership is going to risk trade disruption, capital flight, supply-chain shocks, or military escalation with a peer rival to defend a state with internal economic instability, limited state capacity, and no formal defense treaty.
That’s not betrayal. That’s how states behave under capitalism.
Murphy does not state China is capitalist as you deduced. The predominant economic order in the world is capitalism. That is the system China finds itself in. Capitalism is characterized as a system where the means of production is under private ownership. In China the means of production largely belong to the people or are controlled by the people through the state. (See “China Is Not Capitalist and It Is Not Yet Communist.”)
To iterate: China follows its own brand of Marxist Leninism that it calls Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.
Moving on: You wrote, “While China criticizes Israel for its invasion of Beijing’s ally Iran and genocide against Palestinians, it continues to trade with Israel. In fact, it even sells more while buying less.” I concur that there is room for criticizing China on this matter. I also find that investing in and trading with an odious entity is morally repugnant. China does provide modest aid to Palestine through UNICEF.
RR: As I pointed out in my series, China continues to trade with Israel—even reaching record heights in 2025 during full genocide mass murder—while it complains, maybe even “forcefully”, about its partner’s genocide.
The only comment I need to add here is that given what has been written in my series and in this interview about how immoral China’s “long game” is shows that China has not been led by “communist ideology” as defined by those works I presented at the beginning of this interview.
KP: In a title you write, “China Invests in U.S. Treasury Bonds to Relieve Debt/Owns U.S. Land and Businesses.”
Your main “argument … is that China is a partner in U.S. wars!”
China was not investing in US wars. It was securing market access for exports parking the profits from the trade in treasury bonds. It has proven to be a successful long-game strategy that has borne fruit as China is now the preeminent world economy.
You note, “… the latest trade figures between the U.S. and China for 2024-25, according to the U.S. government. U.S. goods and services trade with China totaled an estimated $658.9 billion in 2024, up 2.6% ($17 billion) from 2023.”
In 2024, China had a trade surplus of $309 billion with the US. China exports to the US were $453 billion while it imported $145 billion from the US. That is a pretty position for China. There is much China could do with $309 billion for its population and strengthening its position in the world.
In 2025, China-US trade declined 25.1 percent. In 2025, China’s exports to the US accounted for 11% of the US’s total exports (9.1% for Hong Kong).
Since 2013, China has been steadily reducing its direct holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds, dropping to an 18-year low of approximately $652.3 billion by early 2026 according to a report from CNBC. Currently, the holding of US Treasury bonds has fallen to $618 billion. Clearly, China is reducing investment in treasury bonds and trading independently and judiciously.
RR: So “judicious” means accepting “fluctuating morality”, that is, by donating less war-making investments instead of investing in even more for killing? That is an odd way of defining morality for “communists”—the term founders of Marxism have defined for all of us, or so I have hoped.
You made no comment or questioning of China’s ownership of a great deal of agricultural land farmed with capitalist procedure. That has not changed.