660. Approach (IX)
China has changed—yet she has not changed as much as some people think. China is Market-Leninist; for three decades, she let the market off the leash—it is glorious to be rich etc—and she now stands as the world’s preeminent economy. So China has moved to the right, right? This is the thesis put froward by neoreactionaries, by Landians—China has unleashed the market’s spooky potential to transform everything; the Chinese peasant is gone and endless skyscrapers sprout overnight—China builds so many new cities she has forgotten them; and each new city is a means to summon novelty. So China is a place with unlimited potential; she will overtake the sclerotic West through genetic engineering—Westerners being too squeamish for this—and then her lead will become unassailable, mentally-augmented Han overlords will dominate the planet.
China has changed—yet she is still Marxist-Leninist; nothing she has done is novel in Marxist-Leninist terms. When Lenin seized power he went through an infatuation with full Communism, “War Communism”—the bread supply was run like the NHS, free at the point of access. Disaster followed. For the rest of her history, the USSR lived under throttled-back Communism; she was socialist, she was building the preconditions for Communism—she had to catch up with the West, then she would make the jump. In accord with this view, there was a place for a market mechanism. So it has always been normal for Marxist-Leninist systems to operate with some market to some degree—all the Chinese have done is lifted the repression more than any previous Marxist-Leninist regime.
What has not changed about China is that she is Marxist-Leninist—or, more precisely, Leninist. The problem with China is her metaphysics—or, more precisely, her anti-metaphysical stand. China is a perverted society because the market and private property, while important, are not the be all and end all of a healthy society. The market mechanism in China operates in an inverted context—and consequently can only reap perverted results. It is the same as when Lenin let the market run in the early 1920s with the New Economic Plan and the Russian millionaire, “the NEP man”, appeared on the scene. China has only take it further—jettisoned more Marx, yet retained Lenin.
It is ridiculous to call China, as some anachronistic conservatives do today, “Red China”: the PRC is not “Red China”—she is not Communist anymore, we do not operate in a context where we must play the Soviets off against the Chinese (at least, not ideologically). China is not “Red”, but she is Leninist; and Leninism is Machiavellianism—an anti-metaphysical stance that holds “anything is permitted” (not as with H-i-S) to maintain power and force a society “forward” (whatever they mean by that). Indeed, “what they mean by that” can change overnight—so for the past three decades it has been “the market”, but who knows what the enthusiasm will be next decade.
China is supposedly run by technocrats and engineers—a typical Leninist fantasy and an inherently leftist idea. Their “technocratic excellence” led to the one-child policy—an unnatural policy—that has buggered China’s demographics in a way that will impede her future development. Yet to meddle in such a way, under the influence of “scientific Malthusianism”, constitutes a Leninist attitude—and it happened in concert with China’s marketisation, because marketisation is not in itself righteousness.
The Chinese fear the Uighur—and they should. The CIA backs the Uighur for Machiavellian reasons, but the Uighur’s real power is in their blood. Evola recorded that the Uighur, with their Indo-Aryan blood, were prophesied to destroy Communism in China—the esoteric departments of the Chinese secret services know this is so, hence they persecute the Uighur so. Similarly, bin Laden prophesied he would fell the USSR and then destroy the other atheistic empire, the US—the USSR and the US(SR) (same thing, esoterically). The Uighur are another moment in this movement, China is against nature—China will fall.