What do you think?
Rate this book
The Left in China: A Political Cartography
A timely, ambitious, and unique book that traces the history and present state of leftist politics in China
'Does a great service by shifting our attention to the oppositional movements of Chinese workers, peasants, students, and women who have contested inequality and exploitation' - Manfred Elfstrom
Tracing the history of left-wing, subversive, and oppositional forces in the People's Republic of China over the last seventy years, Ralf Ruckus pulls back the curtain on Chinese politics.
He looks at the labor strikes in the 1950s, the rebel uprising during the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, the democracy movements in the 1970s and 1980s, the struggles of urban and migrant workers since the 1990s and 2000s, and women's forms of resistance until today. Each of these struggles inspired left-wing groups and movements that criticized or challenged the regime of the Chinese Communist Party, from Mao Zedong's rule to the regime under Xi Jinping.
Is the country still socialist today, the Chinese Communist Party a left-wing organization, and the leadership indeed Marxist? The book sorts out the confusion by presenting the fascinating history of social movements and left politics in the People's Republic up to the present day.
'Does a great service by shifting our attention to the oppositional movements of Chinese workers, peasants, students, and women who have contested inequality and exploitation' - Manfred Elfstrom
Tracing the history of left-wing, subversive, and oppositional forces in the People's Republic of China over the last seventy years, Ralf Ruckus pulls back the curtain on Chinese politics.
He looks at the labor strikes in the 1950s, the rebel uprising during the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, the democracy movements in the 1970s and 1980s, the struggles of urban and migrant workers since the 1990s and 2000s, and women's forms of resistance until today. Each of these struggles inspired left-wing groups and movements that criticized or challenged the regime of the Chinese Communist Party, from Mao Zedong's rule to the regime under Xi Jinping.
Is the country still socialist today, the Chinese Communist Party a left-wing organization, and the leadership indeed Marxist? The book sorts out the confusion by presenting the fascinating history of social movements and left politics in the People's Republic up to the present day.
240 pages, Paperback
Published February 20, 2023
3 people are currently reading
139 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
May 24, 2023
This book is pretty agreeable and has some great footnotes, but I just don't feel that it's well argued or sufficiently detailed. I think you'd be better off spending your time reading Rebecca E Karl's work if you want a "left" assessment of China in English. It may be worth checking out the bibliography of this book, if you want sources from academic journals, but other than that it's not that great.
Ruckus goes through a brief overview of social movements that challenge the CCP, and notes their failure to fully challenge the state. Ruckus then gives a brief history of Chinese social movements Vs the CCP.
During the Maoist period there was a constant struggle between popular movements fighting the corrupt bureaucracy and authoritarianism within the state. In the 1970s the Gang of Four were removed from power by a populace who wanted reform. This energy was then picked up on by Deng Xiaoping who used a relatively 'left' language to marketise and privatise much of the country. Then, leftists in Tiannamen Square had their hopes for democracy crushed when the reformist leaders who listened to their demands were pushed aside and replaced by Jiang Zemin. Then, the last two decades have seen a New Left avoid criticising the CCP, whilst feminist, and migrant and ethnic minority worker social movements have taken on the state through strikes and online blogs.
It's a well trod history, and if you've got a basic overview of Chinese history already it won't be too enlightening. I mean if you're buying a book called "The Left in China" you'll probably know much of this stuff.
There's an interesting and notable New Left movement in China since the 1990s and 2000s (intellectuals like Minqi Li for example), but Ruckus doesn't dive very deeply into their ideas, and I'm not sure why. He just notes their existence and that's about it. A more thorough examination of the Left in China would outline the thinkers, fully explain the tensions, and detail the leadership's responses a bit better.
Ruckus goes through a brief overview of social movements that challenge the CCP, and notes their failure to fully challenge the state. Ruckus then gives a brief history of Chinese social movements Vs the CCP.
During the Maoist period there was a constant struggle between popular movements fighting the corrupt bureaucracy and authoritarianism within the state. In the 1970s the Gang of Four were removed from power by a populace who wanted reform. This energy was then picked up on by Deng Xiaoping who used a relatively 'left' language to marketise and privatise much of the country. Then, leftists in Tiannamen Square had their hopes for democracy crushed when the reformist leaders who listened to their demands were pushed aside and replaced by Jiang Zemin. Then, the last two decades have seen a New Left avoid criticising the CCP, whilst feminist, and migrant and ethnic minority worker social movements have taken on the state through strikes and online blogs.
It's a well trod history, and if you've got a basic overview of Chinese history already it won't be too enlightening. I mean if you're buying a book called "The Left in China" you'll probably know much of this stuff.
There's an interesting and notable New Left movement in China since the 1990s and 2000s (intellectuals like Minqi Li for example), but Ruckus doesn't dive very deeply into their ideas, and I'm not sure why. He just notes their existence and that's about it. A more thorough examination of the Left in China would outline the thinkers, fully explain the tensions, and detail the leadership's responses a bit better.
October 6, 2023
Leaden but clear-eyed and informative.
March 23, 2024
Very useful for a board introduction to the left in China beyond official stances of the Communist Party of China. It is a broad overview and does require some knowledge of modern Chinese history just because of its breadth.
May 22, 2025
Ralf Ruckus’s survey of the last century of China’s political history, focusing on the country's oppositional underbelly, constitutes a stepping stone for those desiring greater insight into China’s popular movements, left-wing strands, and overall political history. Considering the PRC’s reputation for political privacy, Ralf’s cartography helps demystify the highly idealized / ideologized / mythologized images surrounding the garrison state and further flesh out its political policies and opposition. Additionally, as the first title I’ve read from Pluto Press, The Left in China doesn’t disappoint, deserving wider attention from lefty readers the world over.
With that said, boy oh boy, is Ruckus’s writing dry.
As a study of China’s left-wing movements and moments, one would expect the names and words of its revolutionaries to abound throughout the text. However, most direct quotes are anonymous and appear in free floating bubbles at the starts of chapters and subsections, with the bulk of each section consisting of arms-length analyses and historic overviews. Again, considering the concealed nature of PRC political life as well as the academic language expected in a political cartography, this isn’t too surprising, but one can’t help but want more from those faceless voices making up the Hundred Flowers, Democracy Wall, Tiananmen Square, and underground feminist movements past and present.
I’m not arguing Ruckus’s words are sanitized, but they are sanitary. One doesn’t need to be a Chomsky or Moore to present history and politics in a riveting light, but a healthy dose of direct quotation, juxtaposition, irony, and humor can provide exactly that shot in the arm necessary to accentuate the contradictions between state rhetoric and lived reality.
Additionally, an extra editor would’ve had a field day jolting awake some of these sleepy sentences and compounding strings of simple sentences. Again, including more direct quotations, even from official CCP directives and discourse could’ve helped focus in on the irrealities of state policy; more in-depth studies of individuals, like the feminist organizers arrested on public transit in 2015, could’ve helped demonstrate the nightmares many activists face. What did the rustication of millions look like? What did disappearing and reeducation entail? What did the street demonstrations and performances of underground feminists involve?
Beyond the writing style - perhaps due to a modest editing team or looming deadline - the book is pockmarked here and there with typos. While some remain innocuous, other mistakes radically alter meanings, switching subjects. "Soon after the fall of the Gang of Four in October 1976, they [the Democracy Wall Movement?] demanded a revision of the regime's verdict on the April 5 Movement." (56) Usually, conventions are the most boring critique to mention; here, political spectrums and figures are at risk of surreal wife swaps.
Despite my criticisms, The Left in China remains recommended reading for those wishing to learn more on such a diverse and unwieldy subject as PRC politics and the refracted left within. Universal lessons are ripe for learning here, particularly in the closing chapters, which call readers to abandon state nostalgia and mysticism, to measure any government by its record not its rhetoric, and to take a stand “against capitalist exploitation, racism, gender discrimination, nationalism, imperialism, and environmental destruction.” (158)
With that said, boy oh boy, is Ruckus’s writing dry.
As a study of China’s left-wing movements and moments, one would expect the names and words of its revolutionaries to abound throughout the text. However, most direct quotes are anonymous and appear in free floating bubbles at the starts of chapters and subsections, with the bulk of each section consisting of arms-length analyses and historic overviews. Again, considering the concealed nature of PRC political life as well as the academic language expected in a political cartography, this isn’t too surprising, but one can’t help but want more from those faceless voices making up the Hundred Flowers, Democracy Wall, Tiananmen Square, and underground feminist movements past and present.
I’m not arguing Ruckus’s words are sanitized, but they are sanitary. One doesn’t need to be a Chomsky or Moore to present history and politics in a riveting light, but a healthy dose of direct quotation, juxtaposition, irony, and humor can provide exactly that shot in the arm necessary to accentuate the contradictions between state rhetoric and lived reality.
Additionally, an extra editor would’ve had a field day jolting awake some of these sleepy sentences and compounding strings of simple sentences. Again, including more direct quotations, even from official CCP directives and discourse could’ve helped focus in on the irrealities of state policy; more in-depth studies of individuals, like the feminist organizers arrested on public transit in 2015, could’ve helped demonstrate the nightmares many activists face. What did the rustication of millions look like? What did disappearing and reeducation entail? What did the street demonstrations and performances of underground feminists involve?
Beyond the writing style - perhaps due to a modest editing team or looming deadline - the book is pockmarked here and there with typos. While some remain innocuous, other mistakes radically alter meanings, switching subjects. "Soon after the fall of the Gang of Four in October 1976, they [the Democracy Wall Movement?] demanded a revision of the regime's verdict on the April 5 Movement." (56) Usually, conventions are the most boring critique to mention; here, political spectrums and figures are at risk of surreal wife swaps.
Despite my criticisms, The Left in China remains recommended reading for those wishing to learn more on such a diverse and unwieldy subject as PRC politics and the refracted left within. Universal lessons are ripe for learning here, particularly in the closing chapters, which call readers to abandon state nostalgia and mysticism, to measure any government by its record not its rhetoric, and to take a stand “against capitalist exploitation, racism, gender discrimination, nationalism, imperialism, and environmental destruction.” (158)
June 9, 2024
A slow start with a fair bit of repetitiveness and a few quirks of the writing style that I personally don't really like. The final three chapters felt better than the first, but ultimately I'd agree with the top review (at time of writing) that it just fails to be sufficiently detailed or explored to be that convincing.
There's a brief overview of oppositional left movements since 1949, which Rufus periodises into "socialism (mid-1950s to mid-1970s)", "transition (mid-1970s to late 1980s)", transition/capitalism (early 1990s to early 2000s)" and "capitalism (since the mid-2000s)" - depicted in table 2 in the epilogue, p. 143, with the Rufus' summary of the periods economy, politics, class relations, and "leftist debates". As each of these is explored, however, there's no in-depth look at any movement, no case studies, no analysis of their interplay with factions of the CCP, no consideration of international or even historical context, no discussion of the secondary literature. The description and analysis of the left wing intellectual currents, within or without the CCP, is negligible, meaning the reader will finish the book without actually having an understanding of the titular "Left in China"(!). Similarly, though Rufus says repeatedly throughout that the CCP's protest repression toolkit involves co-opting movements and addressing their material demands (alongside the more often discussed censorship), the analysis of government policy is also negligible, often leaving the reader to guess at what this could mean. All of this results in long sections of chapters coming across as a vague reiteration of the outline that Rufus sketches at the start of each paragraph, which I felt the initial chapters are particularly guilty of.
The lack of engagement with secondary literature was increasingly bewildered me as the book went on. I cannot understand why Rufus made a clearly conscious choice to never discuss the historiographical or ideological trends underpinning the work he references, there being so many very obvious points where the text would have benefited from it. Additionally, at numerous points, an important bit of context is relegated to the footnotes, when it seems obvious, in my opinion, that it would have been worth adding and expanding on in the main text. These two issues are connected, as a proper attempt to give the reader an understanding of the trends within the work Rufus discussed would have entailed the work of better using the many lacklustre footnotes.
One choice which I felt very dismissive of, a feeling exacerbated by the issues mentioned above, is the decision to use "women*". The way this choice is introduced seems bizarrely unhelpful: a sentence unrelated to the discussion of gender/sexual minorities features a footnote that heralds the use of the term later on the same page, with no in text discussion of the term. I'll quote the explanation Rufus offers in the footnotes in full:
Now that a lot of my quibbles about writing style are out of the way, what about the main theses of the text? Rufus sums them up at the end of the conclusion as
Working backwards, I'm going to bluntly say that Rufus is wrong on point 5. Fundamentally this is too short, too vague, and too unhelpfully framed to achieve this goal. Perhaps the conclusion was written prior to the rest of the text and the scope got shortened significantly? Point 4 seems eminently reasonable - despite the issues I'm going to pick with his other points, I think the CCP would benefit hugely from a leftist turn and further engagement with all of the issues causing the protests that this book discusses. However, Rufus doesn't really explain any of these such left groups or currents, or how international leftists may support or understand them, or properly explain their dynamics within Chinese politics. An additional chapter that did this, which would already fit nicely between chapter 5 and the conclusion, seems a painful absence.
Regarding point 3 it seems uncontroversially true that the CCP derives its legitimacy from it socialist past and ideology. Since Deng's 1982 address at the 12th National Congress of the CCP (the second since Mao's death), this ideology has been to "integrate the universal truth of Marxism with the concrete realities of China", forging a "socialism with Chinese characteristics". I think Rufus is accurate to a certain extent in highlighting hypocrisy in how the CCP uses this, right in criticising the variety of patriarchal and capitalist-enabling policies they've passed, and largely right in describing them as pursuing an anti-left line (meaning that they deny space for leftist protest; as Rufus repeatedly mentions but never explores in depth, this usually means accepting and legislating the demands of protestors but arresting and punishing their leaders to limit the formation of any political organisational capacity outside of the CCP). Unfortunately, in failing to address the historical material reality of China prior to the PRC, and evolution throughout the stages he identifies, he fails to convince me that their current verbal commitment to socialism is purely cynical rhetoric rather than actual commitment to an authoritarian line in socialist thought.
For the same reasons, when thinking about point 2 Rufus doesn't present a compelling argument against the work of Carlos Martinez - who argues in The East is Still Red - Chinese Socialism in the 21st Century that we should still understand China as socialist despite the introduction of capitalist and exploitative elements, as the way in which the state wields power is fundamentally different from that of non-socialist countries with the same elements of capitalism (arguably "same" is the wrong word here because China has state control over capital in a way western countries don't). Crucially, Martinez does the work in breaking down the policies of the CCP across both the "socialist" and "capitalist" periods and their effect on the population and the environment (the latter being a topic ignored by Rufus in this work, which means there's no reflection on one of the biggest contradictions within the current CCP line: their green growth, as world-leading as it is, isn't sustainable and meaningful degrowth strategies are unexplored). Martinez's work has notable gaps too - queer politics is missing as in this book, left oppositional factions and censorship isn't covered, etc - but is a both a more convincing whole and a more readable overview.
Wrapping up, I think this text does have some valuable insight into the flexible ways the CCP has responded to protests, but it feels too vague and jumbled. Rufus has brought up important issues to reflect on and highlighted important contradictions within the CCP line, but the gaps are too large to be convincing. In a review to a different overview of modern Chinese history, Martinez has written words that seem to apply equally to point 1:
For Rufus and many others, the answer is a firm no - and certainly the many rightist elements of the CCP make it at times a very unappealing socialism. But as the American empire undergoes it's violent and genocidal death throes, it seems worth trying to better understand the main leader in a push to an alternative, multipolar world. I likely will read Rufus' other, better reviewed, book The Communist Road to Capitalism: How Social Unrest and Containment Have Pushed China’s (R)evolution since 1949 at some point - after all, he references himself constantly in this as a way of justifying brevity on certain points - but expect the same issues re: lack of insight into policy and international context which then limits analysis.
There's a brief overview of oppositional left movements since 1949, which Rufus periodises into "socialism (mid-1950s to mid-1970s)", "transition (mid-1970s to late 1980s)", transition/capitalism (early 1990s to early 2000s)" and "capitalism (since the mid-2000s)" - depicted in table 2 in the epilogue, p. 143, with the Rufus' summary of the periods economy, politics, class relations, and "leftist debates". As each of these is explored, however, there's no in-depth look at any movement, no case studies, no analysis of their interplay with factions of the CCP, no consideration of international or even historical context, no discussion of the secondary literature. The description and analysis of the left wing intellectual currents, within or without the CCP, is negligible, meaning the reader will finish the book without actually having an understanding of the titular "Left in China"(!). Similarly, though Rufus says repeatedly throughout that the CCP's protest repression toolkit involves co-opting movements and addressing their material demands (alongside the more often discussed censorship), the analysis of government policy is also negligible, often leaving the reader to guess at what this could mean. All of this results in long sections of chapters coming across as a vague reiteration of the outline that Rufus sketches at the start of each paragraph, which I felt the initial chapters are particularly guilty of.
The lack of engagement with secondary literature was increasingly bewildered me as the book went on. I cannot understand why Rufus made a clearly conscious choice to never discuss the historiographical or ideological trends underpinning the work he references, there being so many very obvious points where the text would have benefited from it. Additionally, at numerous points, an important bit of context is relegated to the footnotes, when it seems obvious, in my opinion, that it would have been worth adding and expanding on in the main text. These two issues are connected, as a proper attempt to give the reader an understanding of the trends within the work Rufus discussed would have entailed the work of better using the many lacklustre footnotes.
One choice which I felt very dismissive of, a feeling exacerbated by the issues mentioned above, is the decision to use "women*". The way this choice is introduced seems bizarrely unhelpful: a sentence unrelated to the discussion of gender/sexual minorities features a footnote that heralds the use of the term later on the same page, with no in text discussion of the term. I'll quote the explanation Rufus offers in the footnotes in full:
"The gender asterisk (*) following the word "women" serves as a reference to the constructed character of gender. Going beyond binary and heterosexual gender concepts, women* refers to all who are described as women and all (trans*, inter*, or queer*) who interntionally choose a femme gender expression. "Men" with an asterisk (*) is used for a similar reason, while keeping in mind that cis men are not to the same extent subjected to patriarchal violence in capitalist (and socialist) countries as women* are."So what's the problem with that? It seems like a reasonable reflection on how to address gender, and the key point raised about the constructed nature of gender is obviously true in a way that is important to remember when discussing gender and sexual politics. The problem is that, like the decision to dump this explanation in a footnote (itself confusingly placed!) rather than the main text, the actual use of "women*" and "men*" within the text is bizarrely and frustratingly bereft of actual reflection or insight that would benefit the reader. It struck me that, every time Rufus used either, what he's really discussing is cis, straight people who either conform or resist patriarchy through that lens. There is absolutely no discussion of queer identities or politics within Chinese culture, history, or politics - and even the discussion of gender and feminism seemed incredibly shallow. With this in mind, the use of the asterisk seems a hollow acknowledgement that essentially serves as a way to sound like a progressive acknowledgement of queer issues without actually doing any work to understand, analyse, or represent them.
Now that a lot of my quibbles about writing style are out of the way, what about the main theses of the text? Rufus sums them up at the end of the conclusion as
"In effect, the CCP uses a socialist or leftist costume to cover up capitalist, nationalist, racist, and patriarchal policies that characterize any rightist regime. Some leftists understand and still endorse the CCP's rightist policies and should be called out. Other leftists still fall for the costuming, or simply do not know enough about the PRC's past and present and the transformations of the CCP. This book is meant to provide the necessary information and analysis for them to make up their mind."Breaking that down, we can describe the theses as: (1) the CCP is a rightist regime shaped by capitalism, nationalism, racism, and patriarchy; (2) this is a result of a shift occurring in roughly the late 80s; (3) despite this shift the CCP relies on socialism for its legitimacy, so undergoes leftist "costuming" to launder its reputation both at home and abroad; (4) leftists internationally should support the left opposition instead of the CCP; (5) this text provides at least the minimum necessary information to understand points 1-4.
Working backwards, I'm going to bluntly say that Rufus is wrong on point 5. Fundamentally this is too short, too vague, and too unhelpfully framed to achieve this goal. Perhaps the conclusion was written prior to the rest of the text and the scope got shortened significantly? Point 4 seems eminently reasonable - despite the issues I'm going to pick with his other points, I think the CCP would benefit hugely from a leftist turn and further engagement with all of the issues causing the protests that this book discusses. However, Rufus doesn't really explain any of these such left groups or currents, or how international leftists may support or understand them, or properly explain their dynamics within Chinese politics. An additional chapter that did this, which would already fit nicely between chapter 5 and the conclusion, seems a painful absence.
Regarding point 3 it seems uncontroversially true that the CCP derives its legitimacy from it socialist past and ideology. Since Deng's 1982 address at the 12th National Congress of the CCP (the second since Mao's death), this ideology has been to "integrate the universal truth of Marxism with the concrete realities of China", forging a "socialism with Chinese characteristics". I think Rufus is accurate to a certain extent in highlighting hypocrisy in how the CCP uses this, right in criticising the variety of patriarchal and capitalist-enabling policies they've passed, and largely right in describing them as pursuing an anti-left line (meaning that they deny space for leftist protest; as Rufus repeatedly mentions but never explores in depth, this usually means accepting and legislating the demands of protestors but arresting and punishing their leaders to limit the formation of any political organisational capacity outside of the CCP). Unfortunately, in failing to address the historical material reality of China prior to the PRC, and evolution throughout the stages he identifies, he fails to convince me that their current verbal commitment to socialism is purely cynical rhetoric rather than actual commitment to an authoritarian line in socialist thought.
For the same reasons, when thinking about point 2 Rufus doesn't present a compelling argument against the work of Carlos Martinez - who argues in The East is Still Red - Chinese Socialism in the 21st Century that we should still understand China as socialist despite the introduction of capitalist and exploitative elements, as the way in which the state wields power is fundamentally different from that of non-socialist countries with the same elements of capitalism (arguably "same" is the wrong word here because China has state control over capital in a way western countries don't). Crucially, Martinez does the work in breaking down the policies of the CCP across both the "socialist" and "capitalist" periods and their effect on the population and the environment (the latter being a topic ignored by Rufus in this work, which means there's no reflection on one of the biggest contradictions within the current CCP line: their green growth, as world-leading as it is, isn't sustainable and meaningful degrowth strategies are unexplored). Martinez's work has notable gaps too - queer politics is missing as in this book, left oppositional factions and censorship isn't covered, etc - but is a both a more convincing whole and a more readable overview.
Wrapping up, I think this text does have some valuable insight into the flexible ways the CCP has responded to protests, but it feels too vague and jumbled. Rufus has brought up important issues to reflect on and highlighted important contradictions within the CCP line, but the gaps are too large to be convincing. In a review to a different overview of modern Chinese history, Martinez has written words that seem to apply equally to point 1:
"The valid critique of terrible inequality isn't meaningfully balanced by a discussion of how the lives of the vast majority of Chinese have improved in the reform era. Deng Xiaoping and his successors are criticised for a strategy in which the 'ends' of development justify the 'means' of inequality. And yet, development isn't an 'end'; it's a proxy for improving people's lives and for breaking out of backwardness. The reform period has achieved extraordinary successes in poverty alleviation, to a point where extreme poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition and homelessness have been all but wiped out. Is it impossible to see something socialist in this?"
For Rufus and many others, the answer is a firm no - and certainly the many rightist elements of the CCP make it at times a very unappealing socialism. But as the American empire undergoes it's violent and genocidal death throes, it seems worth trying to better understand the main leader in a push to an alternative, multipolar world. I likely will read Rufus' other, better reviewed, book The Communist Road to Capitalism: How Social Unrest and Containment Have Pushed China’s (R)evolution since 1949 at some point - after all, he references himself constantly in this as a way of justifying brevity on certain points - but expect the same issues re: lack of insight into policy and international context which then limits analysis.
April 6, 2023
A compelling history of the Chinese left from 1949 to the present. Ruckus presents a history of social struggles that I had little knowledge of, such as ‘economist’ rebel struggles in the Cultural Revolution and democracy movements in the 70s. I only wish the author had gone into more detail. Would recommend.
July 29, 2024
A nice and insightful, if brief and sometimes repetitive, overview of the Left in China that’s important for leftists to read before they make any assertions on ‘socialist’ China, and hopefully the starting point for building solidarity with people in the PRC as well as building movements that learn from the mistakes of previous leftist revolutions
May 3, 2023
A bit dry at times but overall very interesting, and very well structured. The final thoughts shared in the epilogue remind me of a Beckett line: "Try again. Fail again. Fail better."
September 6, 2024
useful overview, even better if read along with Chuang Collective (1. https://chuangcn.org/journal/one/sorg... 2. https://chuangcn.org/journal/two/red-...)
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews