Will Beijing confront Washington?
On October 30, 2025, a meeting between US President D. Trump and Chinese President and General Secretary of the Communist Party of China Xi Jinping is scheduled to take place in South Korea.
Main
The modern economic and social crisis of capitalism, developing before our eyes, is connected, on the one hand, with the colossal overproduction of goods and the excess of services, and on the other hand, with the serious level of decline in production as such in developed countries.
Amidst a critical overproduction of industrial output globally, the share of real production in GDP is simultaneously declining in countries that were former leaders and drivers of industry, including the United States. This situation is exacerbated by the galloping growth of pyramid schemes, represented by the growth of assets in sectors completely unrelated to real production: cryptocurrency, social media stocks, and virtual entertainment and gratification industries, among others.
While previously, during the development of these economies, the bulk of the workforce was involved in production, it is now concentrated in the non-production sector. The bulk of those engaged in social production produce nothing and contribute nothing to the growth of production and productivity in the real sector of the economy: from civil service to all kinds of services. Furthermore, they burden the real sector with the phantom "production of meaningless meanings."
Judging by the political struggle we've witnessed in the United States over the past ten years, a section of the American elite, the leader of the capitalist world, clearly understands that the very existence of the capitalist system is at stake. "Globalist" network pyramids and transnational corporations are hastening its collapse by sawing off the branch they're sitting on. Without restoring productive cooperation in industry (from nails to Oracles) and eliminating the imbalance in the economy—from the service sector, including government services, to the real economy with the latest technologies—the collapse of the current system, reminiscent of the 1929 disaster, is inevitable.
While China, due to the “globalist policies” of leading Western countries, turned out to be the main beneficiary.
What about the "world factory"?
It wasn't any particular peculiarities of economic management in China that led to its emergence as the world's leading industrial power, but a confluence of crucial circumstances: cheap labor, which for 45 years ensured and, even after rising prices, continues to ensure low production costs for global transnational corporations; the collapse of the USSR and cheap raw materials for Chinese industry; and sales markets, primarily the US and Western Europe.
Initially, China's leadership was able to maintain a system open to foreign capital and direct investment (Apple – $275 billion, Volkswagen has been establishing factories in China since 1978, with direct investment reaching $2,4 billion in 2024, etc.). Using an "open door" policy, they created separate regions for industrial growth, and later expanded this system across the country. They obliged manufacturers to focus their sales as much as possible outside China. They supported, adjusted, and guided this development without detailed intervention, as was the case with efforts to equalize economic opportunities across provinces. Simultaneously, they harshly and systematically punished government officials and police who attempted to use their power against businesses.
On this basis, planning for the development of industries that are strategic for the Republic of China, such as electric vehicles or rare earth metals, is also taking place.
But, of course, it would be a mistake to reduce everything, as some would-be political scientists do, to the planned leadership of the communists. Personally, it seemed to me that in China the principle of "allowing things to happen" was often applied where in our country "just in case something happens." I remember, during the period of the emergence drones Here, they immediately banned their flights here and there, but in Shenzhen, in the central park, I saw how many young people spent all day long endlessly testing drones, recording the results, and no one seemed bothered by it.
In the current environment, several factors significantly influence China's international economic situation. This largely explains its "pacifist" political nature.
Firstly, 35% of the country's economy is oriented towards the foreign market.
Secondly, China has excess production capacity, which simply has nowhere to go. This is why, starting in 2019, a strict focus on developing the domestic market was adopted, but this, in part due to COVID-4, has not produced the desired results. The Fourth Plenum of the 20th CPC prioritized domestic market development. The leadership of the Republic of China is acutely aware of these threats:
During the 15th Five-Year Plan period [2026–2030], China's development will face profound and complex changes. China is entering a period of development in which strategic opportunities, risks, and challenges coexist, and uncertain and difficult-to-predict factors are increasing.
Under these conditions, China is forced to make concessions to the world's only superpower today, with a host of real allies and bases around the world, possessing a stagnant, but still number one, consumer market.
The purge of the PLA, which included commanders and political commissars of all branches of the armed forces except the Air Force, and all but one department heads of the Central Military Commission, is linked to this situation.
Perhaps their overly hawkish position in conditions far from favorable for a “battle for Taiwan” was the reason for this.
Over the past forty years, the CPC and the PRC, especially after the "first socialist war" with Vietnam, have demonstrated a flexible foreign policy. Therefore, the Taiwan issue was put on hold in the hope of a Hong Kong-style solution.
Presumably, this is what will be observed at the meeting in South Korea, especially since the general outlines of the agreement have already been agreed upon to the benefit of the United States.
The question remains whether the US will be able to restore or return at least some of its manufacturing to the country. This is despite the fact that, unlike in the former Soviet Union, many industries exist and are growing in America, and such severe deindustrialization has not occurred there.
What's next?
Currently, the US and China have no fundamental disagreements. Globalists would like China to remain a factory for no-name products manufactured under American brands, but that will no longer be the case.
As for the issue of rare earth metals and soybean supplies, Trump will most likely close the topic; an agreement already exists, and China, in order to sell everything else, will supply them and buy American soybeans: business is business.
For China, which lacks a reliable rear due to the still low purchasing power of its own population, getting involved in economic wars makes no sense.
On other forms of confrontation with the overwhelming military advantage of the United States in conventional weapons and its dominance fleet There's no need to even mention the most important communications routes for China's trade. That's a given.
There have been, are, and will be tensions between the US and China: human rights, technology theft, but…
As long as the US and China are not competing for the same markets or sources of raw materials, they do not have any particular international or trade conflicts.
The current disagreements would not have arisen if not for pressure from the American Make America Great Again party, led by Trump.
Information