Blogger’s Note: What I find peculiar about these counter-narratives is that they appear to naively assume that the Western bourgeoisie (controlled as it is by the US) will somehow behave in a “fair” manner toward a) non-Whites, and b) non-capitalists (i.e. Socialists). The US has stated continuously that it will not tolerate the existence, growth, or dominance of any legitimate Socialist country or regime, and has consistently stood-by this anti-worker ideology. Ruthless economic and political sanctions (heavily aimed at China) – as well as blatant military action – has underlined and enforced this US stance. The US continuously agitates via an iron ring of dominance around China through its colonies of the Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. The EU and US (as well as other controlled groupings) routinely place sanctions upon Chinese businesses and hinder exports and imports, and so on, and yet the official position (some say a “third position”) emanating from Beijing is that the US model of capitalist growth is both admirable and preferable. Washington tends to view this Beijing position as a ruse designed to make the West lower its guard and permit the Chinese infiltration and dominance of the Western, capitalist system – usurping its machinations toward China’s internal needs. Of course, from a Marxist-Leninist position, there is no such thing as “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” – there is feudalism, its development into capitalism, and its evolution into Socialism (and later Communism) – where all vestiges of “nationalism” and “cultural bias” are abandoned and certainly not embraced. Some on the far-right of British politics (such as the notoriously racist Nick Griffin) respectfully refer to China as being “National Socialist”). Lamenting unfair treatment seems to be superfluous when it is the expected mode of communication dictated by Washington. After-all, although Deng Xiaoping was “purged” by Mao Zedong for his revisionist attitudes (more than once I believe) – when he ascended to power in 1979 Deng still claimed that his views were “Marxist-Leninist” – and yet there is an obvious ideological gulf between the Mao and Deng years which no one discusses today (due primarily to its uncomfortable nature). Eurocentric racism against China is relentless and permanent under capitalism. It is partly camouflaged by the rhetoric of “anti-Socialism” – but even if China disowned Socialism and allowed its Central Bank to be controlled by Rothchild’s – White anti-China racism would still exist – it would just lose its obvious anti-Socialist hue. Things will not racially improve if China just pretends (or even actually becomes) “capitalist”. As I write, I know Chinese students are being illegally taken into custody and forcibly questioned by the US authorities regarding their association with the Communist Party. China complains here and there about this – but does very little on the practical level as trade is considered more important – and that boat must not be rocked under any circumstance. Karl Marx wrote some very good articles for the US newspapers regarding China and its socio-economic development in the face of a ruthless imperialist domination. All genuine progressives must retain a lucidity and fluidity of thought in all circumstance (exactly what Mao Zedong did – as he literally “thought” outside his own ethno-centric predicament) – as this is the dialectical way. We must not become trapped in the rather childish Judeo-Christian cul-de-sac of a “good vs bad” dichotomy. Just because someone – or some entity – does not like you observing, discussing, or thinking about a certain aspect (or set of aspects) – this should not necessarily mean that you should abide by this imposed limitation of thought. Some Chinese commentators accuse Westerners of “China watching” (when things are discussed that might be uncomfortable) – missing the point entirely – that “China likes to be watched”! As for the current UK Labour Party – due to its own corruption and mismanagement of the country – does not have long for this world. Its continuous attacks on the workers should be criticised by any Socialist country (12,000 have been imprisoned for social media posts) – but China instead celebrates a few lines of platitude emanating from a faceless bureaucrat that no one can recall in England. Grasping at straws and perhaps a manifestation of “England watching” if ever I have seen one (we will say nothing about the alleged Ukrainian rent-boys and their association with a prominent UK politician). ACW (26.4.2026)
Source: Xinhua Editor: huaxia 2026-04-25
BEIJING, April 25 (Xinhua) — Recently, some Western media have been peddling the “China Shock 2.0” narrative, portraying China’s ascent in high-tech sectors as a new wave of disruption to the global economy.
This catchphrase risks overlooking realities. China’s high-quality, competitively priced products have long been a key factor in making advanced technologies more accessible, offering greater certainty in an increasingly uncertain world.
The narrative, in a way, points to growing unease in the West over China’s swift rise, as well as the tangible success of China’s development strategy, according to experts.
NARRATIVE BORN FROM UNEASE
“For some, China’s rapid rise in high-tech sectors where Western economies have long held a clear lead has proven difficult to reconcile,” said Bai Ming, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, a think tank under the Ministry of Commerce.
Against this backdrop, the notion of a “China Shock 2.0” appears less an analytical framework and more a narrative shaped by unease, Bai added.
China’s success in the high-tech sector has been underpinned by its long-accumulated industrial strengths and sustained push toward innovation-driven growth. High-tech innovation has long been central to the country’s policy agenda, with its 15th Five-Year Plan targeting to increase its total research and development spending by an average of more than 7 percent annually, and raise the value added of core digital economy industries to 12.5 percent of GDP over the next five years.
The effects are already visible. In 2025, the country’s high-tech manufacturing showed strong momentum, with profits rising 13.3 percent year on year, 12.7 percentage points faster than the overall industrial sector.
Some critics attribute these gains entirely to extensive state subsidies, accusing China of creating “unfair competition.” Such claims, experts said, tend to frame China’s success narrowly as achieved via distortionary state intervention.
Mao Keji, a policy expert at the International Cooperation Centre of the National Development and Reform Commission, said China’s support mechanisms are structured differently from what is typically described as subsidies in Western analyses. Such support is broad-based, embedded across the broader economic system, rather than direct financial transfers, Mao said.
He cited the government’s investment in infrastructure, education, healthcare and social protection as an example. During the 14th Five-Year Plan period (2021-2025), China allocated nearly 3.4 trillion yuan (about 495.09 billion U.S. dollars) in central budget investment to support public sector projects. It also issued roughly 16 trillion yuan in local government special bonds to finance infrastructure and related development projects.
These investments have created conditions conducive to business development, improving labor quality and strengthening overall productive capacity, ultimately enabling large-scale, high-quality supply, Mao said.
“Reducing this model to ‘subsidies’ is not only misleading, but it also obscures the underlying drivers of China’s competitiveness,” Mao noted, adding that such an accusation does little to address structural weaknesses in Western economies, and risks slowing their own technological progress.
A BOON, NOT A SHOCK
China’s rise has taken place within a deeply interconnected global economy and is rooted in mutual benefit, according to experts.
“The country’s development has not been directed at squeezing out other economies, but instead generated broader benefits for the global economy,” said Dong Yan, a researcher at the Institute of World Economics and Politics under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
China’s products are providing more affordable alternatives for many developing countries, helping them upgrade industrial capabilities while supporting infrastructure development and technological progress, she explained.
This trend is reflected in China’s expanding trade ties with emerging markets. In the first quarter (Q1) of 2026, China’s trade with Belt and Road partner countries went up 14.2 percent year on year, accounting for more than half of the total. Trade with ASEAN and Latin America both rose 15.4 percent during this period, while trade with Africa increased by 23.7 percent.
Growth has been particularly strong in exports of high-value-added products. For instance, China’s exports of photovoltaic products to sub-Saharan Africa regions surged approximately 2.5-fold in Q1, while exports of inverters, wires and cables increased by 56.1 percent.
The power projects built by Chinese companies in sub-Saharan Africa are providing stable and reliable electricity to local communities, said Wang Jun, deputy head of the General Administration of Customs.
Beyond robust exporting, China has also become a vast market in its own right. As the world’s largest trader in goods and the second-largest consumer market, China has become a major trading partner for more than 150 countries and regions. Platforms such as the China International Import Expo have further contributed to global demand by expanding access to the Chinese market.
While some still portray China’s rise as a challenge to the existing trade order, many countries are treating it as an opportunity and moving to capture new sources of growth.
For example, the British government has signaled that it “should not fear” the rise of Chinese imports, after a plug-in hybrid compact SUV produced by Chinese automaker Chery became the country’s best-selling new car in March, the BBC said.
“I don’t want to prevent UK consumers from having access to the cars of their choice,” Peter Kyle, British secretary of state for Business and Trade, told the BBC. He added that the government is also focused on the “significant opportunities” for jobs and investment as Chinese automakers consider setting up factories in the country.
Experts have noted that in an increasingly fragmented world, cooperation is more critical than confrontation.
“A clearer understanding of China’s development, alongside the use of complementary strengths, could offer a pathway for countries around the world to achieve more sustainable growth,” Bai said.
SANGHA KOMMUNE (SSR) 