Interviews Archives - Invent the Future

China, Brazil, and the building of socialism in the 21st century

During a recent visit to Brazil, Carlos Martinez was interviewed by Flora Villela of Brasil de Fato in Belo Horizonte, where he was taking part in the debate “China and Socialism in the Global Geopolitical Dispute”, organised by the Landless Workers’ Movement (MST).

In the interview, Carlos makes the case for the socialist character of contemporary China; discusses Western media stereotypes and what democracy actually means in Britain and in China; sets out the transition from a US-led imperialist system towards a multipolar world; and addresses what China can and cannot do in defence of countries under attack by the US, as well as the wars in Iran and Ukraine.

An English translation of the interview is reproduced below. It first appeared in Portuguese in Brasil de Fato.

China and the construction of socialism in the 21st century: expert discusses conflicts and prospects

Author, researcher and activist Carlos Martinez defends the socialist character of contemporary China

By Flora Villela

We are living through one of the most tense moments in global geopolitics: not since the Second World War has the planet seen a period with so many simultaneous armed conflicts and wars.

At the centre of these challenges are military arbitrariness and economic policies imposed on various countries by the world’s greatest power – the United States; new technologies represent civilisational challenges for every nation; authoritarianism is regaining ground and eroding democracies; and the conflicts threaten to produce economic crises that would generate widespread poverty.

Despite this scenario, China continues to emerge as the world’s new economic power, following, by all indications, a path centred on peace. And the defence of multilateralism as a solution to the crisis is gaining strength, particularly in the so-called Global South. Nonetheless, “there is a whole campaign of defamation, a propaganda war in an attempt to win public support for increasingly hostile policies towards China, which at the moment take the form of a Cold War with tariffs, semiconductor restrictions, sanctions and unilateral, coercive economic measures”, argues Carlos Martinez.

A co-editor of the Friends of Socialist China website, an author, researcher and activist, Martinez has written the books The East Is Still Red: Chinese Socialism in the 21st Century and The End of the Beginning: Lessons from the Soviet Collapse. His work focuses on dispelling what he considers an “enormous misunderstanding in relation to China”.

“Even on the left, there is an assumption that China is just another capitalist country and that the conflict between the US and China is an example of imperialist rivalry or the so-called ‘Thucydides Trap’. So in my work I try to explain the true nature of China and of Chinese socialism, and at the same time to counter anti-China propaganda”, he explains.

During a visit to Belo Horizonte to take part in the debate “China and Socialism in the Global Geopolitical Dispute”, the author spoke to Brasil de Fato MG. In the interview, we discussed the conflicts under way around the world, the role of Brazil and of this year’s elections, the dispute over global hegemony, and the path of multilateralism and peace.

“It will be a long and painful process towards our post-imperialist world, but I believe that in the end humanity will get there”, says Martinez.

Fidel Castro: the revolutionary America couldn’t kill

On what would have been Fidel Castro’s hundredth birthday, and with Cuba under its most severe siege since 1959, Carlos Martinez joined Radhika Desai on the Geopolitical Economy Hour alongside Francisco Domínguez, a founding member of the Cuba Solidarity Campaign and a specialist on Latin America’s political economy.

The discussion traced Fidel’s revolutionary audacity from Moncada and the Granma landing through his personal command at Playa Girón, the internationalism that sent hundreds of thousands of Cuban troops to help defeat apartheid South Africa at Cuito Cuanavale, and his refusal to follow Gorbachev when 85 percent of Cuba’s trade vanished overnight – and asked what all of this tells us about whether the revolution can survive Washington once again.

The full auto-generated transcript is reproduced below, lightly edited for readability.

Transcript

Radhika Desai: Hello and welcome to another Geopolitical Economy Hour, the socialist and anti-imperialist conversation that illuminates the fast-changing political economy and geopolitical economy of our times. You’re watching Radhika Desai, Geopolitical Economist, and I’m Radhika Desai.

The topic today is extremely socialist and anti-imperialist. It’s Fidel Castro. Last week, along with our two guests here today, I had the privilege of attending the celebration of the life of Fidel on his 100th birthday. That was on the 13th of August. It was organised by the Cuban embassy and it was a deeply, deeply moving affair. Two magnificent speeches were given by former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and the Cuban ambassador, Ismara Vargas Walter. And there was also a beautiful short film on the life of Fidel.

Between them, these three contributions really brought to life the awe-inspiring political feats of the great Fidel, who was known, as you all know, among Cubans simply by his first name. He made Latin America’s first socialist revolution. He defeated imperialism militarily at the height of its power. He took the revolution to great heights of human development. He practised a legendary internationalism, both militarily and, as many people will know, medically. The revolution he led survived the loss of support of the other great superpower, namely the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. And Fidel also kept up an analysis of the world situation with a diamond-like clarity — and of course also of the situation, often quite dire, of Cuba itself — and shared it on a regular basis with the Cuban people in his legendary speeches, which were listened to with rapt attention even though they often went on for hours.

Appreciating all this when a new assault from the United States is endangering Cuba’s mighty revolution once again was especially poignant. So with me to discuss Fidel’s legacy, and what it means for Cuba today and for Latin America, are two intellectuals with decades of engagement with and commitment to Cuba, Latin America and revolution: Francisco Domínguez and Carlos Martinez. Welcome both.

Responding to left criticisms of China’s foreign policy

In this discussion with Radhika Desai, Carlos Martinez confronts the charge, common even on parts of the left, that Beijing does far too little for Palestine, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela.

The conversation traces China’s foreign policy from the internationalism of Bandung and the Non-Aligned Movement, through its rapprochement with Washington and entry into the world economy, to its pursuit of a Global Community of Shared Future.

Transcript

Radhika Desai: Hello, viewers and listeners. Welcome to the Geopolitical Economy interview, a series in which I speak with prominent intellectuals, scholars, politicians, journalists, activists and public figures to illuminate the fast-changing political economy and geopolitical economy of our times.

I’m Radhika Desai and you’re watching Radhika Desai, Geopolitical Economist. Today’s topic is China’s foreign policy towards the United States and the West on the one hand, and the oppressed — and I should say oppressed and embattled — nations such as Palestine, Cuba, Venezuela and Iran on the other, in the broader context of rising multipolarity. How should the left make sense of it, particularly given that sections of the left have criticised China for not doing enough for precisely these countries?

I can think of few people better qualified to address this question than Carlos Martinez, who joins me today. Welcome, Carlos.

Carlos Martinez: Hi, Radhika. Lovely to see you. Good to be with you.

Radhika Desai: It’s really great to have you today, Carlos. Let me tell our audience that you are an independent scholar and researcher, co-editor of the increasingly important and influential Friends of Socialist China website, and author and editor of many books on China and on socialism — including the one on China, which is called The East Is Still Red, and the wonderfully titled book on the demise of the USSR, The End of the Beginning. You meant, of course, that this was just the end of the beginning of world socialism.

Carlos, can you begin by addressing the criticisms of China’s foreign policy that are quite widespread in some sections of the left — in a sort of overall, summary fashion — before we go on to investigate its particular aspects, and China’s foreign policy towards particular countries?

Carlos Martinez: Sure. I think there are a couple of broad strands of criticism of China’s foreign policy on the left. One of them is more or less hostile; one of them is more or less friendly and sympathetic. The hostile one is that China is an imperialist country, that it’s a state-capitalist country, that its companies pursue private profit as their central motive, and that China’s foreign policy reflects that. This is essentially the United States State Department position, adopted by parts of the left.

So there’s lots of talk about debt traps. There’s lots of talk about expansionism. There’s lots of talk about China being an imperialist power and engaging in inter-imperialist rivalry with the US, with the West. That’s the position of the Greek Communist Party. That’s the position you’ll typically find in Jacobin and other elements of what might be referred to as the compatible left. Then you’ve got a sort of sympathetic critique.

Radhika Desai: And sorry, just to clarify — compatible with what?

Carlos Martinez: Compatible with capitalism.

Radhika Desai: Continue, please.

Carlos Martinez: I mean, I’m painting in very broad strokes there, and perhaps being a little bit unfair, but we can get into that later if you want. And then there’s a sympathetic critique, which comes a lot of the time from people who are pretty close to us politically, who accept China’s socialist foundation, but who express a disappointment that China’s foreign policy isn’t good enough — that China’s not aggressive enough in pursuit of justice, that it’s not doing enough for oppressed nations, that it’s not doing enough for countries under attack.

And they compare it unfavourably with the Soviet Union in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s. They compare it unfavourably with, for example, Cuba’s intervention in Southern Africa in the 1970s and 1980s. In terms of this first strand — that China is an imperialist country — I think we don’t need to dwell on it too much here. That’s quite an easy question to deal with, and it’s dealt with at some length in a chapter in a forthcoming book on China’s foreign policy that Keith Bennett and I have put together, and that you very kindly wrote an endorsement for. That should be out in August.

Interview: Fighting spirit has allowed the CPC to survive and adapt over a century

The following is the full text of an interview given by Carlos Martinez to the Global Times, marking the 105th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China (CPC). An abridged version was published by the Global Times on 12 July 2026 as part of a special series of interviews with international scholars reflecting on the party’s century-long journey.

In the interview, conducted by GT reporter Xia Wenxin, Carlos explores the meaning of the CPC’s “fighting spirit”, or “spirit of struggle” – a concept he argues is routinely misread in the West as blind confrontation or factional intrigue, but which in fact flows directly from the dialectical core of Marxism. Struggle, in this sense, is not a mood but a method: the recognition that development happens through contradiction, and that a serious revolutionary party must identify the principal contradiction of each period and mobilise the masses to resolve it.

Tracing this thread from Mao Zedong’s 1945 parable of the Foolish Old Man who removed the mountains through to the present day, Carlos discusses how the same method has allowed the party to survive and adapt across a century that saw so many other revolutionary projects defeated. He examines the CPC’s practice of self-revolution and its unrelenting campaign against corruption; the targeted poverty alleviation drive that lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty; and the fundamental difference between the Chinese dialectical understanding of struggle as productive and the Western view of conflict as terminal.

Finally, he considers how this fighting spirit will be tested on the new battlefields of the 15th Five-Year Plan – high-tech self-reliance under conditions of US containment, the green transition, and the assorted domestic challenges on the road to the Second Centenary Goal of 2049. As he concludes, “on the record of the last 105 years, I would not bet against the CPC and the Chinese people surmounting these new challenges.”

The abridged version of this interview first appeared in the Global Times. The full version was first published on Friends of Socialist China.

As the CPC marks its 105th anniversary, it stands as one of the longest-governing political parties in modern history. Looking back at this journey, how do you evaluate the role of the “fighting spirit” in helping the party navigate historical crises and constantly adapt to changing eras?

I think that, for the CPC, “fighting spirit” is closely related to the dialectical core of Marxism: the recognition that development happens through contradiction, that nothing valuable arrives without meaningful effort, and that a serious revolutionary party has to identify the principal contradiction of each period and work to resolve it. Struggle, in this sense, is not a mood; it is a method.

This is not a recent slogan grafted onto the Party; it runs right through its tradition. One of the clearest statements of it is Mao’s closing speech to the Seventh Party Congress in June 1945, “The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains”, in which he retold an old fable. A foolish old man sets out to dig away two great mountains that block the way to his house; when a wise old man mocks the folly of it, he replies, “When I die, my sons will carry on; when they die, there will be my grandsons, and then their sons and grandsons, and so on to infinity. High as they are, the mountains cannot grow any higher and with every bit we dig, they will be that much lower. Why can’t we clear them away?” The two mountains, Mao said, were imperialism and feudalism, and the task of the Chinese people was to dig them out. What turns the parable into a statement of strategy is its ending: “Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they stand up and dig together with us, why can’t these two mountains be cleared away?”

Fighting spirit, in this conception, is not so much heroic individual will as the conviction that an apparently immovable obstacle yields to patient, collective, intergenerational effort, once the masses are mobilised to do the digging.

That method is exactly what has allowed the Party to survive and adapt across a century in which so many of the other revolutionary projects of its generation were defeated. Consider the sheer range of conditions it has had to navigate: a semi-colonial, semi-feudal country torn apart by foreign invasion and civil war; the construction of an entire industrial and social base from near-zero after 1949; the turn to reform and opening up; and then the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European states in 1989–91, when counter-revolution triumphed almost everywhere – but was resolutely defeated in China. As Deng Xiaoping told Julius Nyerere in 1989, “so long as socialism does not collapse in China, it will always hold its ground in the world”.

That the People’s Republic did not collapse was not luck. It was the product of a party willing to struggle on every level: against foreign domination, against feudalism, against poverty, against underdevelopment, against corruption, and against ideological ossification.

What defines the CPC’s 105-year success? – a CGTN Dialogue

The following is a discussion from CGTN’s Dialogue programme marking the 105th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China. Broadcast in the wake of Xi Jinping’s anniversary speech – in which he hailed the Party’s 105-year history as the “most magnificent epic” of the Chinese nation – it brings together Xia Lu, associate professor at the School of CPC History and Party Building at Renmin University of China; Carlos Martinez, co-editor of Friends of Socialist China; and Radhika Desai, convenor of the International Manifesto Group.

The panel discusses how to evaluate the CPC’s achievements and governing logic; the role of Marxism – seeking truth from facts, the mass line, and the Party’s capacity for self-renewal – in explaining its longevity and legitimacy; and the distinctiveness of Chinese modernisation. Radhika Desai argues that the Chinese revolution, following the Bolshevik revolution, set humanity on a path to socialism, and that amid a declining capitalism China has become an “ocean of stability”. Carlos Martinez stresses that China’s is a modernisation achieved without colonialism, slavery or war – shattering the Eurocentric assumption that to modernise is to Westernise. Xia Lu reads the Party’s six outstanding qualities through the lens of dialectical and historical materialism, and emphasises the mass line and the Party’s vigilance against detachment from the people.

This discussion was originally broadcast by CGTN’s Dialogue. The video and a transcript follow.

Transcript

Host: Hello and welcome to Dialogue. Addressing a gathering marking the 105th anniversary of the Communist Party of China, General Secretary of the CPC Central Committee Xi Jinping hailed the 105-year history of the Party as the “most magnificent epic” of the Chinese nation. He urged the Party to press ahead to build China into a modern socialist country on schedule. So how should we evaluate the Party’s achievements and governing logic over the past 105 years? What does the speech tell us about the Party’s discipline and capacity for self-renewal? And as China moves toward its long-term modernisation goals, what challenges lie ahead? Joining me today from Beijing are Xia Lu, associate professor from the School of CPC History and Party Building at Renmin University of China; Carlos Martinez, author of The East is Still Red: Chinese Socialism in the 21st Century and co-editor of Friends of Socialist China; and also Radhika Desai, convenor of the International Manifesto Group. Welcome to the show. Radhika, I’ll start with you: I’m sure you followed the speech, so I wonder what were your major takeaways?

Radhika Desai: Well, first of all, President Xi’s speech really grasps the fundamentals of the achievements of the Party. I would say that for this party to be more than a century old – 105 years old – while retaining its legitimacy among a billion-strong population, and having essentially transformed the people of China not only into an agent of their own history, giving the destiny of the people into the hands of the people of China, but into an agent of world history – that is a tremendous achievement. The second major event setting the world on a path to socialism after the Bolshevik revolution was the Chinese revolution. And the Bolshevik revolution is no longer; the Chinese revolution is still going. So it set humanity on a path to socialism, and it continues there – at this particular time in history when circumstances have become extremely dangerous, thanks to the decline of that very capitalism. In its decline, capitalism is unleashing chaos, destruction and economic disruption all over the world. In this context, the CPC not only holds great legitimacy among the people of China, but shows the way forward to the rest of the world, and has become a beacon, an oasis of stability, and a visionary path to the future.

Host: Carlos, President Xi said the Party’s endeavours over the past 105 years have fundamentally transformed the future of the Chinese people – as Radhika said, blazed the right path toward the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, demonstrated the strong vitality of Marxism, had a profound influence on the course of world history, and made the CPC a powerful communist party. What do you make of such a statement?

Interview: Can the working class win?

The video below is an interview of Carlos Martinez by Jason Smith, for CGTN’s The Bridge to China podcast. Recorded in the lead-up to the 105th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China, the wide-ranging conversation covers the nature of China’s economic system, the achievements of Chinese socialism, the state of the left in the West, and the transition to a multipolar world.

Carlos argues that China is best understood on its own terms, as socialism with Chinese characteristics: a fundamentally socialist system with a significant market component, in which the state holds the commanding heights – banking, energy, telecommunications, rail and the top levels of industry – and directs investment through national planning. The presence of markets, billionaires or inequality does not make a country capitalist; what matters is which class holds power, and the ultimate measure is the living standards of ordinary working people.

On that measure, China stands apart: it is the country that has eliminated extreme poverty, effectively ended homelessness, and pursued common prosperity, a world-leading renewable energy build-out and the saving of lives during the Covid pandemic. If China is socialist and succeeding, Carlos contends, that vindicates the project of the global left – which is precisely why the West’s new cold war is aimed at preventing a socialist alternative from succeeding.

The interview surveys the scale of China’s transformation – some 800 million people lifted out of poverty, the “seven guarantees” that underpin poverty alleviation, life expectancy rising from around 35 at liberation to over 79 today, near-universal mortgage-free home ownership, and the most extensive public infrastructure in the world. Comparing China with India – liberated within two years of one another, from similar starting points – Carlos draws out what a revolution and Communist Party-led planning have made possible: sovereign development free of IMF discipline, coherent five-year plans, and the capacity for mass mobilisation, exemplified by the three million cadres deployed in the poverty alleviation campaign.

Turning to the West, Carlos describes the long retreat of the left under the neoliberal counter-revolution – de-industrialisation, the rise of the precariat, and a social peace bought with the super-profits of imperialism that are now drying up. He points to the crisis of confidence deepened by Gaza and to the Corbyn moment as signs that material reality is shifting, and to a growing openness to China – from “Chinamaxxing” and the RedNote migration to the surge in inbound tourism. The dogmatism that still leads much of the Western left to withhold recognition of China’s decidedly socialist achievements, he argues, plays into a US grand strategy whose core is the encirclement and containment of China.

The lesson for developed and developing countries alike, Carlos concludes, is that public ownership is not inefficient but the precondition for any serious industrial policy, that long-term planning beats short-term shareholder value, and that the West must come to terms with an inevitably multipolar world – starting, at a minimum, with adherence to the United Nations Charter.

A full transcript follows below. Individual answers will also be posted as separate clips on the Invent the Future YouTube channel.

Transcript

Jason Smith: Socialism, China, and the West. Hey everyone, I’m Jason Smith, originally from sunny California, now living in beautiful Beijing. Joining us today is Carlos Martinez, a British Marxist writer, researcher, and anti-imperialist activist. He is co-author of The East Is Still Red: Chinese Socialism in the 21st Century, and co-editor of Friends of Socialist China. Welcome back to The Bridge to China.

Carlos Martinez: Hey Jason, great to be with you. I think this is the third time.

Jason Smith: I think it is. I really wanted to have you on because the 105th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China is coming up, and I wanted to get your thoughts on socialism, Marxism and Western perspectives of Chinese socialism. But before we get there — people may not have seen our previous interviews, or may not be familiar with your work. Can you tell us a little bit about your experience with China and how you got into studying it?

Iran, China and the multipolar moment

Recorded in Changsha, China, this wide-ranging conversation between Carlos Martinez and Danny Haiphong focuses on some of the most urgent questions in contemporary world politics: the Iran ceasefire, the Strait of Hormuz, the collapse of US military credibility, and what it all means for China and the multipolar world.

Carlos argues that Iran is playing a sophisticated and restrained game – responding precisely and proportionately to every US provocation, never escalating beyond what the situation requires. The IRGC’s recent seizure of Israel-linked vessels attempting to bypass Iran’s Hormuz regulations was not aggression but enforcement: Iran exercising sovereign control over its territorial waters in response to a US blockade that itself violates the ceasefire terms. With 34 Iranian oil tankers having bypassed the blockade and reached global markets, the attempt to economically
strangle Iran is visibly failing.

The military picture for the US is stark. Drawing on Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) analysis, Carlos and Danny detail the extraordinary depletion of US munitions – nearly half of Patriot and THAAD interceptors, 45 percent of precision strike missiles, 30 percent of Tomahawk stockpiles – expended in just 40 days of hostilities. Replacing these systems will take years. Meanwhile Iran has been rapidly replenishing its stockpiles of missiles and drones. The asymmetry is decisive: Iran has more cards to play, more escalation options unused, and a population of 93 million ready to defend their country. A land invasion, Carlos notes, would be the greatest US military defeat since Vietnam, and perhaps in history.

The conversation turns to the deeper strategic logic of the conflict – which is not only about Iran, but about Palestine, regional hegemony, and the long-term objective of suppressing China’s rise. Control of Venezuelan oil, disruption of Iran’s energy relationship with Beijing, dominance of the Strait of Hormuz: these are moves in a long game aimed at encircling China before a potential hot war in the Pacific. The irony, Carlos argues, is that the war has achieved the opposite – depleting US military capacity, accelerating the multipolar trajectory, and motivating the countries of the ‘intermediate zone’ in Europe and elsewhere to engage more deeply with China as a stable and responsible global actor.

Interview: Why does the West fear China?

The video below is an interview of Carlos Martinez by Jason Smith, for CGTN’s The Bridge podcast. In this wide-ranging discussion, touching on a range of issues from the war in Iran to the nature of China’s whole-process people’s democracy, Carlos opines that “democracy” is not an abstract universal but always has a specific class content. What the West calls liberal democracy is more accurately described as capitalist democracy: a system in which the ruling class – those who own and deploy capital – dominates political life, and government is fundamentally oriented towards preserving existing production relations and expanding capital. As Marx observed, the oppressed are permitted once every few years to choose which representatives of the oppressing class shall govern them.

China operates a different democratic model suited to a different social system. The capitalist class cannot organise politically, cannot direct state power in its own interests, and cannot dictate to the government – for example, Huawei does not tell Beijing what to do. The Communist Party, with over 100 million members, is a party of the working class and its allies, obliged to maintain legitimacy by actually delivering – on poverty alleviation, healthcare, pollution control, housing, renewable energy and more. The result, borne out by polling data including a Harvard Kennedy School survey showing 94 percent government approval, is that Chinese citizens report far higher levels of satisfaction with their democracy than citizens of the US or Britain. The Two Sessions – the annual meetings of the National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference – give concrete institutional expression to this whole-process people’s democracy, translating debates from across society into national policy, including this year’s 15th Five-Year Plan.

The US-China rivalry is not a conventional geopolitical contest between two comparable powers. The US helped integrate China into the global economic order in the late 1970s on the assumption that China would remain permanently at the bottom of the hierarchy – making cheap goods, opening up to Western capital, abandoning its socialist orientation through peaceful evolution. The reality has been entirely different: China is now the world’s largest economy, the leading force in renewables, telecoms, advanced infrastructure and space exploration, and is advancing an alternative model of modernisation that operates entirely outside the paradigm of imperialism – without war, occupation, austerity or the Washington Consensus. That is the real threat: not military aggression, but the ideological and material demonstration that another development path is possible. The hybrid war against China – sanctions, tech controls, military encirclement, demonisation – is aimed at preventing China’s further rise, weakening its global relationships, and ultimately reversing the Chinese Revolution. China, for its part, simply wants to develop and to cooperate.

The multipolar project is in essence a demand that the principles of the UN Charter – sovereign equality, non-interference, peaceful coexistence – be actually observed, not merely invoked rhetorically. The record of US-led imperialism in the postwar period, from the Korean War to the 1953 coup in Iran to the current wars on Venezuela and Iran, makes clear these principles have never been adhered to by Washington. Institutionally, multipolarity means strengthening the UN, building out BRICS, the SCO, the NAM and the G77+China, developing alternative financing, and expanding south-south cooperation backed by China’s economic weight and the Belt and Road Initiative. This project increasingly has institutions, momentum and a trajectory – though it faces the enduring obstacle of US military hegemony and the reckless aggression of a declining empire.

For those in the West who want to engage constructively, the starting point is to resist the war propaganda that saturates mainstream media, tell the truth about China, and actively participate in anti-war movements – making the case for maximum global cooperation on climate, peace and development.

Below the video of the full interview is a selection of clips with individual answers, which have been posted on the newly-revived Invent the Future YouTube channel.

The rise and fall of the Soviet Union – lessons for socialists

In the first part of a new series on BreakThrough News, Carlos Martinez was interviewed by Brian Becker about the Russian Revolution; the popular basis for the revolution; the war of intervention; the extreme backwardness of pre-revolutionary Russia; and the world-historic achievements of the Soviet Union. The 70-minute video is embedded below.

Extended interview with Carlos Martinez about all things China

On 25 September, Carlos Martinez was interviewed on the Rebirth of Communism YouTube channel about China, discussing the following questions:

What is the nature of the propaganda war being waged against China?
What’s really happening in Xinjiang?
Why does much of the Western left support this propaganda war?
What are the reasons for the different levels of economic and social progress in India and China since the late 1940s?
Will China suffer the fate of the Soviet Union?
What does China’s project of being a ‘great modern socialist country’ by 2049 entail?

The video is embedded below.