China’s Global Civilization Initiative, as articulated through its 14th Five-Year Plan and 2035 Long-Term Strategy, represents a profound shift in global politics. It emphasizes a vision of modernization rooted in peaceful development and underscores the importance of a human community with a shared future. This initiative, deeply intertwined with China’s strategic goals and ideological framework, reflects both the country’s aspirations and the global challenges of the 21st century. At the core of the Global Civilization Initiative lies the idea of multipolarity, where power and influence are distributed more equitably across nations. China’s approach, as outlined in the communique of the 3rd Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee, highlights its commitment to an independent foreign policy of peace. This stance is bolstered by the promotion of initiatives such as the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the Global Civilization Initiative itself. These efforts aim to reshape the global governance system and foster an inclusive and universally beneficial economic globalization.
China’s emphasis on modernization as a peaceful process contrasts sharply with the historical trajectory of Western modernization, which was often accompanied by colonialism and exploitation. The West’s “civilizing mission” during and after the Industrial Revolution served as a tool of colonization, asserting cultural dominance and justifying imperialism. By framing its initiative around shared values and mutual respect, China seeks to differentiate its approach from the Western historical model. However, this differentiation invites scrutiny, particularly regarding the nomenclature of “globalization” in the Global Civilization Initiative. Critics argue that “internationalization” might be a more appropriate term, as it implies a more equitable integration of diverse civilizations rather than the potential exploitation associated with globalization.
Western critiques of China’s initiative often draw parallels to historical examples of exploitation masked as progress. For instance, the commodification of civilization under neoliberalism has transformed cultural and social elements into marketable assets. In this context, civilization becomes a product to be bought and sold, aligning with Marxist analyses of capitalism. As Georg Lukacs discusses in History and Class Consciousness, commodification alienates human relations and reduces culture to a mere economic transaction. This critique resonates with the idea that modern civilizational projects risk perpetuating inequalities under the guise of global unity. The clash of civilizations framework, famously articulated by Samuel P. Huntington, provides another lens through which to examine China’s Global Civilization Initiative. Huntington’s thesis posits that cultural and civilizational differences are primary sources of conflict in the post-Cold War world. China’s initiative, with its emphasis on shared values and peaceful coexistence, can be seen as a counter-narrative to Huntington’s pessimistic view. However, skeptics might argue that the initiative’s implementation could inadvertently reinforce cultural hegemony or economic dependency, echoing Edward Said’s critique of Orientalism and Frantz Fanon’s analysis of postcolonial exploitation.
From a Gramscian perspective, China’s initiative can be understood as an effort to build a new historic bloc that challenges the dominance of Western neoliberalism. Antonio Gramsci’s concepts of praxis, popular spontaneity, and conscious leadership highlight the importance of cultural and ideological leadership in shaping social change. China’s emphasis on socialism with Chinese characteristics reflects a deliberate attempt to integrate its domestic socialist principles with its global ambitions. This dual approach raises questions about the balance between ideological consistency and pragmatic engagement in international markets. The tension between socialism and market-driven globalization is evident in China’s internal and external policies. Internally, socialism with Chinese characteristics seeks to address social inequalities and promote collective well-being. Externally, the commodification of civilization as part of the Global Civilization Initiative aligns with the dynamics of global capitalism. This duality reflects the complexities of navigating a capitalist world system while advocating for socialist principles.
Karl Polanyi’s critique of market society in The Great Transformation is particularly relevant here. Polanyi’s analysis of the disembedding of the economy from society highlights the dangers of prioritizing market logic over social and cultural values. China’s initiative, while emphasizing shared values and cultural respect, must grapple with the risk of commodifying civilization in a way that undermines its stated goals. The political economy of heritage provides additional insights into the dynamics of China’s initiative. Jaume Franquesa’s work on the commodification of heritage in Spain illustrates how cultural preservation can be co-opted by neoliberal policies to serve economic interests. Similarly, Laurajane Smith’s analysis of heritage politics underscores the power dynamics involved in privileging certain narratives over others. In the context of the Global Civilization Initiative, these critiques raise questions about whose values and histories are being promoted and whose are being marginalized. David Harvey’s critique of neoliberalism further illuminates the contradictions within China’s initiative. Harvey’s analysis of accumulation by dispossession highlights how neoliberal policies often exacerbate social inequalities and undermine collective well-being. If the Global Civilization Initiative fails to address these structural issues, it risks perpetuating the very inequalities it seeks to overcome. This critique aligns with Paulo Freire’s emphasis on the importance of dialogue and mutual respect in achieving genuine social transformation.
China’s emphasis on global solidarity and shared values offers a potential counter-narrative to the class-based inequalities perpetuated by neoliberal globalization. However, achieving this vision requires addressing the structural imbalances in wealth and power that characterize the current global system. As Ntina Tzouvala argues in Capitalism as Civilisation, the historical linkage between capitalism and civilization underscores the need for a more equitable distribution of resources and opportunities.
The concept of civilization as a commodity also raises broader questions about the relationship between culture and capitalism. The 21st-century neoliberal project, as discussed by Marxist scholars, has commodified civilization, turning it into a product with market value. This commodification challenges the authenticity and inclusivity of civilizational initiatives. By prioritizing market-driven globalization, the Global Civilization Initiative risks reinforcing the commodification of culture and perpetuating economic inequalities. Despite these challenges, the Global Civilization Initiative has the potential to contribute to a more equitable and inclusive global order. By promoting dialogue, mutual respect, and shared values, China’s initiative can foster a more just and sustainable international system. This vision aligns with Robert W. Cox’s analysis of civilizational dynamics in the world political economy. Cox emphasizes the importance of addressing structural inequalities and building a more inclusive global order. China’s Global Civilization Initiative represents a significant effort to reshape global politics and promote a more equitable international system. However, its success depends on addressing the contradictions and challenges inherent in balancing socialist principles with the dynamics of global capitalism. By drawing on insights from critical and Marxist scholars, the initiative can navigate these complexities and contribute to a more just and inclusive global order. Ultimately, achieving global solidarity and ending class-based inequalities will require a fundamental rethinking of the relationship between culture, economy, and politics, paving the way for a more equitable distribution of wealth and opportunities in the 21st century.
