The West is exposed, now what

In a time when the US military is losing its grip in west Asia, the reasons for that weakening should be explored and discussed without the ideological baggage of the war on terror and historical surplus value.

https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/opinion/the-west-is-exposed–now-what

In 1985, Indian scholar Gayatri Spivak asked “Can the Subaltern Speak?” in what would become a landmark essay of poststructuralist theory. Spivak’s answer–ironically enough, mediated through French theory of the 60s, 70s, and 80s–was ‘no’; the answer was negative due to the power over the production of knowledge centered in the Western academy. The use of French poststructuralist theory to describe how the ‘subaltern’ have no recognized and hegemonic theory of their own is not just a sad irony, but shows the power of what Anouar Abdel Malek terms ‘historical surplus value’:

“Thanks to historical surplus value, the scientific and industrial revolutions could take place; geopolitics provided the means to move towards the control of the world through sea-power; while communication technologies acted to disseminate ideas, theories and conceptions, from the centre to the different peripheries. The end result has been a unique accumulation at the centre, a process which ends by concentrating the elaboration of social theory and of schools of thought in general in the Western hegemonic centres. The different peripheries- Asia, Africa, Latin America- could only ‘develop’ along the lines suggested and imposed by the different schools of thought of the hegemonic West.”

While I believe Abdel Malek’s Civilisation and Social Theory and Samir Amin’s Eurocentrism provide much more compelling arguments regarding the production of knowledge as a material structure of imperialist accumulation, the point of this essay is not to debate the merits of historical materialism vs. poststructuralism as an analytical framework. The point of this essay, rather, is to observe how the situation has changed from 1985 until now; we are now in a situation where the subaltern can and is speaking in myriad ways. This essay will observe developments in Chinese political science and international relations theory represented by Zhang Weiwei, and by doing so, will argue for a more intentional approach to knowledge production in the Global South.

Chinese political theorist Zhang Weiwei is an international relations professor and director of the China Institute at Fudan University; his 2015 book The China Horizon: Glory and Dream of a Civilisational State presents a clear, concise, and sharp critique of the Western liberal democratic model of governance and accumulation, while also showing why the Chinese civilisational model is superior in providing stability, economic growth, and political cohesion in such a large society. Professor Zhang identifies three ‘genetic defects’ of the Western model, along with five ‘syndromes’ contracted through these ‘genetic defects’. The defects, as such, are as follows: rational actor theory, an obsession with omnipotent procedures, and absolute individual rights.

The attendant syndromes are: a lack of the spirit of ‘seeking truth from facts’, a lack of a meritocratic mechanism, a lack of strategic planning, a lack of structures for accountability, and a lack of a comprehensive system of checks and balances. Together, Zhang points to the West as a house of cards, floating from crisis to crisis, while China’s rise has also meant the rise of other poles of accumulation within the Global South.

Tracing out and analyzing the three genetic defects of the Western model and highlighting China’s strengths will show how new models and theories are surpassing the traditional Western academic propaganda. On the rational actor model, Professor Zhang points out how people are capable of rationality, irrationality, and hyper-irrationality. He argues that new forms of media, especially social media, push people toward their more irrational side, especially when special interest groups corrupt the political process. One example is the “Israel” lobby, which is able to funnel seemingly unlimited money into advertising and smear campaigns, funding candidates for political positions important to imperialist military accumulation. Zhang blames shortsighted populism and the monopoly of capital and finance for the irrational choices of voters, while emphasizing that the Chinese model is superior.

Reflecting on values and technology in an era of global upheaval

“…the decision making process in China is what’s called the ‘mass line’ or ‘from the people, to the people’, i.e. several rounds of decision-makers going out to consult with the people with a draft resolution until a final consensus is reached on it, which usually takes better care of both individuals’ interests and the society’s interests.”

The interests of individuals in the United States are expressed through the Bill of Rights, and these rights are seen as absolute individual rights. This focus on individual rights, according to Professor Zhang, leaves social, economic, and other types of rights on the table. He laments that the avowed racist and the anti-racist have the same rights, and the organizers of a pride festival have the exact same rights as the religious zealots protesting the festival. In this situation where the class struggle has been subdued and relegated to white noise in the background, Marx’s famous dictum rings true: “between equal rights, force decides”. That force in the US is a government which is obsessed with procedure to the point where the procedure seems omnipotent. Zhang continues, “The dilemma is that if the United States wants to change this situation, it needs to amend the Constitution, yet constitutional amendments have to go through some impossible procedures, which are simply prohibitive”.

The critique put forward by Professor Zhang highlights the need to move past Anglo-American political science and embrace a more robust and effective approach to theorizing international relations, which fits the reality in which we all now live. Western liberal democracy has been laid bare as an inefficient, authoritarian, and corrupt system after the COVID-19 pandemic and especially after October 7, 2023. The elaboration of social theory in the central capitalist states has stagnated to the point of moribundity. Unique social formations and structures of organization have emerged in the Global South which demand our attention and analysis.

The Chinese system of governance, based on the mass line and ‘selection plus election’, has brought about historical poverty reduction, green development, and a socialist market economy which thrives on the stability of 5-year plans. This model is unique to China, but many lessons can be gleaned, and in fact should be from China by revolutionaries inside the imperial core.

In a time when Latin America is being brought under the thumb of US imperialism, structural shifts such as Nuestra America and plurinationalism as represented by the Andean socialists need to be explored as anti-systemic alternatives. The straitjacket of ‘multiparty elections’ and ‘GDP’ needs to be considered as a hindrance to development and democracy. Even such terms as ‘development’ and ‘democracy’ need to be interrogated and broadened to include anti-systemic alternatives. Clausewitz’s theories of warmaking ought to be reconsidered, and the theory and practice of Hajj Qassem Soleimani, Basel Al Araj, and the planners of Al Aqsa Flood should be discussed as the formation of a new theory of war. In a time when the US military is losing its grip in West Asia, the reasons for that weakening should be explored and discussed without the ideological baggage of the war on terror and historical surplus value.

Chinese political science scholarship represented by Zhang Weiwei, along with novel forms of theorizing and governance structures, was presented as an alternative to the narrow, hegemonic forms of thought and practice which developed in the central capitalist states.

In a time of massive changes in the world-system, the anti-systemic movements which have achieved various levels of success amid siege and blockade deserve our attention and critical understanding. How can we apply these lessons to our own context? What is to be done?