THE bizarre convention, dominant in US media and political circles and increasingly prevalent here, is for every emanation of the government of the People’s Republic of China to be ascribed to the Communist Party of China (CPC).

Now it is absolutely true that the organisation of Chinese communists is present throughout Chinese society. Indeed, the Chinese constitution says: “The People’s Republic of China is a socialist state governed by a people’s democratic dictatorship that is led by the working class and based on an alliance of workers and peasants.”

It goes on to assert that the socialist system is the fundamental system of the People’s Republic of China. “Leadership by the CPC is the defining feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics.”

Britain does not have bilateral relations with the CPC but with the Chinese state. For the slippery politician, our unwritten constitution has the advantage over the Chinese in that the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the centrality of capitalist relations of production are not asserted openly and instead are tied up in an impenetrable bundle of archaic laws, arcane conventions and unspoken assumptions.

Our politics are grounded in the convention — rigorously applied in the media and public life — that any manifestation of hostility between those who work for a living and those who live off of rent, interest and profit must be covered in a miasma of mystification.

In contrast, the Chinese frankly state: “In our country, the exploiting class, as a class, has been eliminated, but class struggle will continue to exist within a certain scope for a long time to come. The people of China must fight against those domestic and foreign forces and elements that are hostile to and undermine our country’s socialist system.”

There is an interesting theoretical discussion to be had about the way in which class struggle expresses itself in Chinese society, and it is clear that there are divergent views on the question, including within the CPC, and it is evident that practical expressions of class contradictions are not an uncommon phenomenon.

The problem for apologists for the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, for practical purposes every party leader from Kemi Badenoch to Keir Starmer, is that on the international stage, the Chinese state is increasingly seen as a benign actor committed to harmonious inter-state relations and a practical advocate of a peaceful resolution of international conflicts.

Yesterday, dozens of states joined with China to set up a mediation-based international dispute resolution forum.

The choice to situate it in Hong Kong is a smart move, for it is in this former British colonial possession that the dictatorship of the proletariat is exercised in a mixed economy in which certain capitalist relations of production and capitalist forms of ownership are evident.

Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s gentle boast that Hong Kong’s rule of law was highly developed, with the advantages of both common law and mainland Chinese law systems is an oblique way of saying that China is well positioned to champion the peaceful resolution of inter-state differences.

The significant feature of this welcome initiative is the widespread support it enjoys from the global South.

We can forgive China’s foreign minister for his justifiable conceit in suggesting that “Chinese wisdom” was worth deploying in the resolution of differences.

“The establishment of the International Organisation for Mediation helps to move beyond the zero-sum mindset of ‘you lose and I win’,” he said.

For the working-class movement in Britain, any move to lessen international tensions is welcome. We can but contrast Wang’s constructive approach with Keir Starmer’s enthusiastic rush to spend billions in the EU’s war preparations and his unceasing efforts to prolong the conflict in Ukraine.