By Andrew Martin

Over the last decade or more, popular discourse has depicted China as a “strategic threat” to Australia, so great that it imperils its very existence. In defence and intelligence circles China is seen as Australia’s primary adversary. The mainstream media has consistently stoked up fears that China intends to takeover Australia and is already doing so.

China is “the Devil”

For over a century, Australians have been primed to see China through a lens of fear. Today’s headlines may speak the language of ’shared values’ and ’democracy,’ but the story is the same old propaganda — crude, simplistic, and dripping with sinophobia. From the “yellow peril” scares of the last century to the Cold War’s red baiting, this narrative has always cast China as a barbaric threat and the West as a noble saviour. It’s a calculated lie with deep roots, and it still works because it taps into an inherited fear of an “Asian invasion.”

The largest foreign investors in Australia are from the U.S. or the U.K., but most mainstream media will have you believe China is buying up everything and that this is part of a nefarious scheme to control Australia. Its trading relationship is described as economically vital, but politically fraught. The anti-China narrative is directly transplanted from the U.S., with China’s drive to prosperity framed as “the creeping ambitions of one of our top adversaries”.

The Daily Mail recently published an article quoting a Chinese dissident that went as far to claim, “cruelty is the policy” of China and, “we are just conveniently forgetting China is a state that prioritises the CCP’s rule above all else, and individuals don’t matter in that system.”

As with the Republicans and Democrats in America, Australia’s two ruling parties differ little beyond rhetoric. The Australian Labor Party takes a slightly more nuanced approach to serving the ruling class, favouring a smoother trading relationship with China, but it still marches in lockstep with the U.S. on most foreign policy. The difference is one of tone, not direction, but there are contradictions.

Think tanks like ASPI are nervous that prime minister Anthony Albanese overplayed his hand by visiting China and has voiced concerns over what it sees as a lack of defence spending and “force readiness”. ASPI represents a hawkish section of the Australian ruling class that sees Australia “drifting into China’s orbit”. In a media release issued by ASPI on Albanese’s visit they refer to China as literally the devil: “We share next to no values with the Chinese Communist Party. And what, exactly, is this next step beyond stabilisation that Albanese mentions? If the devil is asking for the next dance, Australia needs to think very carefully before it heads onto the dance floor and makes its traditional partner jealous.”

As the U.S. empire tightens its grip ever further on the Asia-Pacific, this demonisation of China will become ever more relentless. The contradiction between the strategic benefit of Australia’s military alliance with the U.S. and the economic benefits of its trading relationship with China will fracture the whole political spectrum from right to left. As Australia reckons with both world powers, its strategic ambiguity will become increasingly absurd.

The “security risk”

As China has become more prosperous and its economy has grown, it has expanded its military activities into the South China Sea (historically under the suzerainty of the Qing). The activities of the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) and its presence in the Pacific is seen as a threat to regional stability. Australia routinely engages in “Freedom of Navigation” exercises that patrol territories of China to ensure this “stability”.

China sees this as a provocation and often responds aggressively. For instance, in February a PLA‑AF J‑16 fighter released flares near a RAAF P‑8A patrol aircraft over the South China Sea. China responds this way because it is threatened by the encirclement of U.S imperialism – it is compelled to show the world that it will defend itself.

Australia’s Socialist Left on China

There’s a very sparse analysis of China on Australia’s left. This is mostly because there is a great historical and cultural divide between Australia and China and the traditions of class struggle are markedly different. China’s success at carrying out a (ongoing) socialist revolution and the way it has done so has made it a target of criticism.

China is a paradox of the modern age: a market-driven giant that has become the greatest manufacturer in history, yet still not wealthy per capita. Inequality runs high, but unlike in the U.S. or Australia, the poorest are not simply left to rot. China uses its resources to lift from the bottom as it climbs — a fact its critics prefer to ignore.

Since the late 1970s, using the World Bank’s international poverty line of US $1.90 per day (2011 PPP), China has lifted nearly 800 million people out of extreme poverty. This reduction accounts for approximately 70–75% of global poverty reduction over that period. This monumental achievement is completely dismissed by the left in Australia.

Almost every formation in the Australian left rejects the idea that China is socialist, describing it as capitalist, bureaucratically authoritarian, and increasingly “imperialist”. The largest group, Socialist Alternative, views China as state-capitalist, a misuse of a term originally employed by Lenin to describe the market reforms adopted by the Soviet Union.

They argue the Communist Party of China (CPC) oversees a brutal, exploitative capitalist economy, suppressing workers’ rights and democratic dissent. One of their leading theoreticians described China this way in Red Flag:

It is commonplace to analyse the Chinese Communist system as an entirely different beast to the West. But that is a fundamental misunderstanding. Its economy increasingly moves in sync with the rest of the world. Its foreign and military policies are designed to advance China’s position in a world system of competing imperialist powers. Its environmental problems mirror those of many other countries and result from the same logic of putting profit before planet. And its working class is subject to the same injuries as experienced by their brothers and sisters elsewhere.

Their main rival, Solidarity, shares the same analysis, and this seemingly common-sense view is held by most of the Western left, from Australia to the northern hemisphere.

Although not well organised, there are a number of Maoist trends that, perhaps ironically, are even more critical of China than either Socialist Alternative or Solidarity. They define China as “social-imperialist” and these groups view China post-1976 as capitalist (not even “state-capitalist”), with the Deng reforms marking a counter-revolution. They generally support Mao-era policies, reject the current CPC, and frame Xi Jinping as a bourgeois autocrat.

To summarise: most of the left in Australia view China in much the same way as the mainstream media, right wing think-tanks and the intelligence and security departments of the government: they see China as the devil.

The Paradox of China – the Mixed Blessings of Foreign Investment

The CPC describes the Chinese system as “Socialism with Chinese characteristics,” meaning it has charted its own path, distinct from past or present socialist projects. Whatever one thinks of it, something is working — the system has endured. Yet these defining features are often lost on the West, where ignorance about China remains widespread.

According to some, China has built a system of socialism on customs and traditions that pre-date most of Western society but are complimentary to moving beyond capitalist social relations. In The New China Playbook, economist Keyu Jin describes a system of Guanxi that intersperses the functioning of Chinese society.

A core concept of this is building relationships through reciprocity. This means cultivating relationships over time through trust, loyalty, and mutual obligations. Jin describes a social system where institutional strength can be quite variable and complex and where this system of Guanxi is the key to getting business done.

The fundamental concept of Guanxi, a cultural framework of powerful social networks reveals the contradictions and strengths of government and the ruling CPC. Power is not as uniform or as centralised as depicted in the west. Local government plays a major role in the economic and social development of China as well as the establishment of private enterprises.

Capitalism is a global system and spreads its tentacles everywhere and it has gained a firm foothold in China. Every Fortune 500 company is doing business in China. As local governments embraced economic expansion, China’s rapid industrial development has been accompanied by state-private collusion, cronyism and kickbacks. State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) formed joint ventures with almost every big business under the sun. Even McDonalds was able to do business in China and form a joint venture with an SOE.

But capitalism doesn’t get its way all the time in China. While private firms receive government support, they are heavily regulated. Multi-national corporations (MNCs) must rely on all levels of government for licenses, contracts, land, financial access, permits and there is a rapidly changing legal framework they must navigate. This relationship of government to foreign investment is subject to control and is always changeable.

The Leadership of Xi Jinping

At the turn of the 21^st century the CPC became concerned with growing levels of corruption in China. They realised the level of kickbacks, perks and outright bribery was limiting the potential to build a stable economic framework for the prosperity of China. State officials exploited control over land, permits, contracts, and enterprises and corruption was becoming endemic. While there were some high-profile prosecutions, the CPC struggled to tackle it in any systemic way. As public concern grew, so did the possibility of change.

In 2013, the CPC launched a sweeping anti-corruption campaign under the leadership of Xi Jinping, shortly after he became General Secretary of the CPC (2012) and President of China (2013). This marked one of the most extensive transformations of the Party’s history, with profound effects on politics, governance, and power dynamics in China.

Xi recognised the legitimacy of the CPC was being eroded and sought to restore public trust in the government. The campaign also helped reinforce party discipline and loyalty. The campaign was effective in clamping down on corruption, cracking down on luxury spending, banquets, gifts, and abuse of office.

Xi famously pledged to go after both “tigers and flies” — meaning high-ranking officials and low-level bureaucrats alike. His campaign was effective at discouraging unfairly lavish lifestyles among officials.

The campaign was popular amongst ordinary Chinese, many of whom were frustrated by everyday graft, the luxuries to which government officials were privy, and unequal access to services. It helped boost Xi’s image as a reformer and protector of Party integrity, especially early in his tenure. Systems of audit, internal review, and reporting were strengthened throughout China.

The effect of this was to politically stabilise China, provide a stronger basis for economic growth, strengthen the CPC and prepare the country for the inevitable encroachment of the U.S. empire. It was coupled with Xi’s vision of the “Chinese Dream” which is aimed at modernisation and the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation”.

Underdeveloped?

Debate rages on the Australian left as to whether China is an imperialist power. One argument against it is that China is an underdeveloped country that is caught in the stranglehold of U.S. imperialism. There is a strand of academia that supports this theory and to buttress their arguments they describe China as “third world capitalism par-excellence” – that is, a subordinate capitalist model never closing the gap with the imperialist core, despite its rapid growth.

This theory posits that China’s success stems from aligning with imposed FDI, foreign contracts, and subordinate world‑market positioning rather than independent industrial dominance. It claims there is limited innovation in China and that it is still stuck in a framework of dependency, that even where there are successes this is only to “catch-up” to the West and China’s advances are exceptions rather than the rule.

This altogether derogatory view of China sees it not so much as a devil, but as a subordinate demon in the imperialist system. Its great mistake is its central idea that China can never catch-up and will always be underdeveloped and subordinate to U.S. imperialism. As such, this body of thought increasingly looks like a broken clock; it appeared correct only once before time marched on.

It is true that in the most recent phases of its industrial revolution, whatever extra surplus China has generated, foreign monopolies have extracted a disproportionate share of the wealth. However, what is missing from the theory that China is an underdeveloped country is an understanding of the dynamics of interdependence. Unequal interdependence creates the paradox where the dominant power relies on the periphery for manufacturing and market expansion, while the weaker side uses this access to “catch up.”

China has allowed FDI to fuel its growth and has for many years been locked in an asymmetric position. This obviously comes at the cost of increased exploitation of its workforce. But by doing so, Chinese firms gained exposure to cutting-edge technologies and production standards, and China was able to rapidly raise GDP, strengthening and expanding social services. China became the “workshop of the world” by integrating into global value chains. Initially focused on low-end assembly (e.g., Foxconn assembling iPhones), Chinese firms gained exposure to cutting-edge technologies and production standards.

Skills not easily written down or codified were absorbed through practice. This “learning by doing” allowed firms like Huawei, Xiaomi, or BYD to eventually move up the value chain. Even in an unequal role, being embedded in these networks allowed domestic talent and management to internalise best practices in R&D, logistics, and systems engineering.

Interdependence

A good example of its progress through interdependence is the automotive industry. Since 1993, China has become the largest manufacturer of motorcycles in the world. Almost all of them have been developed by or from the simplest Japanese designs or built as imitations of them. But today’s manufacturers are flipping the script. Manufacturers like CF Moto and QJ Motors are extremely competitive on cost with in-house high spec designs. Aimed towards youth, they have been described as Honda’s worst nightmare. CF-Moto is already winning races on the world’s racetracks against its Japanese rivals.

QJ Motors is owned by the Geely group which also owns Lotus, Volvo and a number of small Italian motorcycle firms and has a stake in the oldest car manufacturer in the world, Mercedes-Benz. This acquisition of extensive R&D capabilities has fuelled its rapid technological development and laid the basis to train up a whole new generation of engineers within China.

China’s electric vehicles (EVs) are now among the most technologically advanced in the world, particularly in areas like battery innovation, supply chain integration, and mass-market affordability. China leads in lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, which are cheaper, safer, and increasingly efficient—and guess who else uses them: Tesla (it uses Chinese LFP batteries in many of its models).

Chinese firms are pioneering solid-state battery research, energy density improvements, and battery-swapping infrastructure (led by NIO). It is an indisputable fact that China completely dominates in this area. China doesn’t just produce batteries—it controls the upstream supply chain: mining, refining, and processing of lithium, cobalt, and rare earths; the world cannot progress towards zero emissions goals without China.

This pattern of progress is not unique to the motorcycle or car industry. It dominates battery and energy storage technologies for industrial and domestic use. It controls over 75% of the global battery cell manufacturing capacity. It dominates refining of critical materials: lithium, cobalt, and rare earths. It is pioneering grid-level energy storage and battery recycling systems.

Huawei and ZTE are leaders in 5G infrastructure, offering cheaper and more integrated networks than Western rivals like Nokia or Ericsson, and they are already moving on to 6G technology. Western bans on Huawei were as much about geopolitical fear as actual technological threats. China’s space program (CNSA) is second only to the US; it leads in low-Earth orbit satellite deployment through firms like GalaxySpace.

China is making leaps in Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology, in medical diagnostics, in implementing “smart cities”, and is applying AI more rapidly to manufacturing. It is the world’s leading precision manufacturer of drones (DJI controls 70%+ of global market) and electric machinery. It is also rapidly automating via industrial robotics, with companies like Siasun Robotics and Huawei’s factory AI platforms.

As well as zero emissions vehicles, China is leading in other Green technologies. China has created entire renewable energy supply chains, leading the world in wind and solar power. China also leads the world in High-Speed train technology, becoming a leader in setting safety standards and setting global benchmarks for performance with a network over 40,000kms in length.

It is competitive with the U.S. in quantum computing hardware, gene editing and synthetic biology. A deep dive into any of these areas reveals a country that is not just achieving parity but is standing on its own two feet. There are some areas where China lags behind, such as microchip technology, but it has proven it can make technological leaps enabling it to catch up to and in some cases surpass the West.

A Multilateral Future

China’s technological advancement is crucial, because it is tied to its national development goals. State-led initiatives like Made in China 2025 and the 14th Five-Year Plan target sectors that can raise living standards, modernise infrastructure, and address social needs such as healthcare, rural development, and green energy.

Under its socialist framework, technology is seen not just to generate profit, but as a public good essential for collective progress. The Communist Party uses state planning and investment to keep core technologies under collective control, preventing them from being monopolised by private interests and ensuring they serve the broader needs of society.

Even though the CPC does not consider itself to have built a model for all the world to follow, the Global South looks to China to resolve their own problems and move beyond a unipolar world. Meanwhile, the U.S. is in decline, its infrastructure is crumbling, its military is over-extended, and its political stability and prestige are in ruins. It is desperate and it sees China as a threat, not because China has built any military bases that threaten the U.S., but because it is advancing and creating the infrastructure that will enable it to break free of imperialism.

It is true that, in comparison to the U.S., China is a poor country in terms of GDP. It is far from being a wealthy country. It must work much harder with what little expenditures it has and life for most people is not easy. But it has the advantage of a well-educated workforce instilled with a strong work ethic and pride in their country. Where there are billionaires there is poverty and all the evils of inequality, but no one is abandoned like masses of oppressed in the U.S. or the growing numbers of homeless in Australia.

Just consider, even the richest cities in China, have a much lower GDP per capita than Philadelphia in the U.S ($76,700). The size of wealth the U.S holds is incomparable. Yet nowhere in China is there the same level of social decay, despair or trauma that there is in the U.S. cities that have suffered post-industrial decline with their racial inequality, shootings, real estate speculation, unemployment, mass incarceration, squalor and opioid epidemics. The American Dream has become a harrowing psychosis.

It is certainly true that foreign monopolies have extracted a disproportionate share of the wealth surplus generated by China, and that China has passed through a long period of subordination which the Chinese refer to as the ‘Century of Humiliation’. But socialists must be careful not to construct false paradigms that remain static and rigid. Neither should they provide schemas that dovetail with ideas that China is a “strategic threat”. The political-economic dynamics of China change faster than the most learned Western attempts to analyse them.

It is, at this conjuncture in history, a grievous error to demonise China. In the race for the future, China must make many decisions that are not ideal. Its revolution carried out in the conditions of imperialist stranglehold made many errors and it has not continued in a linear direction. But that is the nature of revolution; it is carried out by millions of people (in the case of China, over a billion!) that must strive towards social ends with the material reality bequeathed to them by imperialism – it can never be perfect.

The Chinese people have the collective wisdom of carrying out a revolution that has lifted the most amount of people out of poverty in all of human history, solving the riddle of technological advancement in a way the Soviet Union could not and providing a vision of hope for its people. It is not a devil. We must push back against all attempts to demonise China, because such attempts lay the basis for war. We must look ourselves in the mirror very deeply should we ever find that our enemies are also the enemies of our ruling class, as is so often the case in the Western left. Socialists in Australia have a responsibility to not only defend China from imperialist attack, but to understand it and learn from its rich history of struggle – and its advances.