Kulturkampf

Trump’s controversial diversity training order is dead – or is it? Colleges are still feeling its effects.

Chris Quintana, USA TODAY

Sat., February 6, 2021, 

An overturned executive order from President Trump focused on banning some forms of diversity training is still sparking debate on college campuses.

Many universities scrambled to comply with the controversial order last year, which would have prevented the federal government and its contractors from offering diversity training that Trump had called divisive. Biden has since overturned the order, but it had already tapped into a live vein of distrust among right-leaning voters who fear colleges are not teaching their students, but rather indoctrinating them.

Look no further than the University of Iowa and its college of dentistry. Back in October, the college emailed everyone in the department condemning the order. But one student disagreed with the university's criticism – and did so by replying all to the email.

"By condemning executive order 13950, does the [College of Dentistry] support using federal funds to promote trainings that include race/sex stereotyping and/or race/sex scapegoating," student Michael Brase wrote.

What followed was a messy debate full of denials and accusations of racism that unfollowed one email at a time.

An excerpt of the email sent by administrators in the college of dentistry at the University of Iowa to everyone in the department. The email sent off a flurry of discussion in the college over race and diversity training.More

An excerpt of the response sent by Michael Brase to the University of Iowa's college of Dentistry tied to President Trump's executive order on diversity training. The email set off a flurry of discussion around race and diversity training.More

The result?

The conservative student recently testified in front of Iowa lawmakers. And the Republicans in the committee praised his willingness to stand up to brain-washing while bashing the university. At the same time, other students, especially those of color, in the program are more vexed than ever. They recently led a protest that, among other things, is pushing the department to require more diversity training. (They also want to revise the email policies so it's harder to reply all.)

"We are protesting for a culture change," said Megha Puranam, one of the student protesters, "and to hold the University of Iowa and College of Dentistry accountable for the diversity values that they claim to champion."

This debate is not new. A Pew Research Center survey in 2019 found that nearly 60% of right or right-leaning voters thought colleges have a "negative effect" on the country. And a 2018 survey showed nearly 80% of right-leaning voters said professors bringing their, "political and social views into the classroom," was a prime factor in what was wrong with college.

Those in higher education, though, fear Trump’s order and antagonism toward colleges more broadly may serve as a guidepost for state or local lawmakers looking to influence their local universities. And students at these institutions fear the attack on diversity training may translate to more overt racism.

“Simply because the federal government has changed positions doesn’t mean state governments are going to follow suit,” said Peter Lake, a law professor at Stetson University that studies higher education law. “The executive order was more than just an executive order. It was a rallying cry.”

And it’s not just in Iowa. In Georgia, a state Republican lawmaker asked the University system of Georgia to catalog which of its professors were teaching courses about white privilege. That lawmaker, Rep. Emory Dunahoo, said his questions came from his constituents. Professors though are already worried about what they see as overreach from the state government.

Trump's repeated attempts to mold campus politics

This is not the first time, however, Trump’s actions would attempt to influence free speech in the American higher education system. Attorney General Jeff Sessions had the Department of Justice regularly get involved in free speech disputes on college campuses.

Trump also signed an executive order in 2019 that sought to “promote free and open debate on college and university campuses.” He threatened to withhold billions in research funding for those that failed to comply, but little was said about it beyond its unveiling. And the order wasn’t clear in how it extended beyond the first amendment.

The Trump administration's focus on race also manifested in college admissions. The Department of Justice had sued Yale, alleging the university of discrimination against Asian and white applicants. That case was dismissed this week though as part of the Biden's administration.

But the executive order on diversity training was more pointed. It would have restricted training that, “inculcates in its employees any form of race or sex stereotyping or any form of race or sex scapegoating,” and it applied to the federal government and its contractors or grantees. Universities weren’t directly mentioned, but they do rely on such forms of federal funding and many tried to comply with the order.

“It's more oriented towards viewpoints and content of speech and ideas,” Lake said. “To be that specific is fairly unprecedented.”

The Trump order homed in on critical race theory, or the idea that racism is interwoven into American society and gives some groups of people advantages over others. Supporters of the executive order will say they don’t have an issue with diversity broadly, but they’re against critical race theory.

The order caused many universities to scramble in attempting to comply with the order. John A. Logan College in Illinois even canceled a talk by a Hispanic author in an effort to comply. The University of Iowa was one of the institutions that responded quickly to the order, and suspended its diversity training briefly.

President Joe Biden: Here are all the executive orders Biden has signed so far
What happened in Iowa?

"We encourage people to think and reflect on our history, culture, science, and other matters," read the email signed by members of the college's faculty. "The Executive order undermines fundamental university values and practices."

Brase, a second-year dental student, recalled reading that message and feeling frustrated, he said, that administrators had lent their name and university position to condemning Trump's executive order.

Brase told USA TODAY he is not against diversity training, but that he specifically has an issue with critical race theory. As for responding to what was essentially a listserv, Brase said he wanted his words heard by all given the college's message had gone out to everyone.

Michael Brase, a student at the University of Iowa's college of dentistry, recently lodged a complaint against the university. He claims the institution impugned his free speech rights after he responded to a mass email condemning President Trump's now defunct order on diversity training.

Among other points, Brase wrote in his response that he wanted to know if by condemning the executive order, did the college support using federal money to promote scapegoating?

More replies followed. One faculty member, Steven Kelly, wrote he was frustrated that the college appeared to be blaming all of America's problems on, "white males or the police." And another, Nancy Slach, wrote she was a "conservative Christian," and that she rejected the idea that America is an, "irredeemably racist and sexist country," while saying she could not support Black Lives Matter.

One person even pleaded for the reply-alls to stop, which initially ended the discussion.

Brase said eventually the college in November summoned him to a disciplinary hearing in connection to the emails for "unprofessional" behavior tied to using a "public platform after you were offered other means to continue the conversation." Among the potential outcomes, administrators said Brase might face probation, a recommendation that he be dismissed, or that no action at all would be taken.

It was then that Brase elevated the issue and contacted his Republican lawmakers. Days later, the college had canceled the disciplinary hearing. Its dean, David Johnsen, wrote in a message to Brase they had been wrong in how they handled the issue and that everyone's voice deserved to be heard.

As for Brase? He has a wider audience than ever. He recently spoke in front of an oversight committee where Republican lawmakers lauded his efforts.

"The actual context of that executive order isn't what is still in play here," Brase said. "This whole situation has highlighted what happens when you disagree with official statements the administration has put out."

Many of Brase's peers, though, also feel like he still doesn't understand the issues. And rather than feeling welcomed at the college, they say they feel more excluded than ever. To that end, a group of dentistry students recently held a protest pushing the college for a change in its culture.

Medical school applications surge: COVID-19 inspires Black and Latino students to become doctors

Puranam had even replied to Brase's original email.

"Michael, it seems like you missed the point of the seminar or maybe you have yet to attend it," Puranam wrote. "I am excited for you to take time to understand the core values of [Diversity, equity and inclusion] training while acknowledging your own biases, (the idea that DEI training is to turn a group of people into scapegoats.)"

AJ Foley, a dentistry student, said that as a Black man it was especially difficult to see his professors condemning the Black Lives Matter movement.

What's more, he said he had a hard time wrapping his mind around the fact that one student would takeover an entire email thread to make a point rather than going to a professor or administrators directly.

Foley said he is one of only four students in his class who are Black, and that he had been asking himself, "Is this place really a place for me?"

The University of Iowa, for its part, said that improving the climate on campus requires a "community-wide effort," and a university spokeswoman mentioned its diversity, equity and inclusion plan as an example of its efforts.

"The University of Iowa is committed to fostering an equitable and inclusive environment for everyone in the university community, as well as one where ideas and perspectives can be freely expressed and discussed," the statement read.

University of Iowa dental students, from left, AJ Foley, Megha Puranam, Jasmine Butler, and Shannon Oslad, hold signs and chant during a protest organized by Action UIowa Task Force to, "Put DEI in DDS," Friday, Jan. 29, 2021, outside the College of Dentistry on the University of Iowa campus in Iowa City, Iowa.

Just asking questions? Or controlling the classroom?

Meanwhile in Georgia, a Republican lawmaker had a simple request framed around themes that would have been home in Trump's executive order.

Specifically, that lawmaker, Rep. Emory Dunahoo, had written to the University System of Georgia requesting to know if any faculty were, "teaching students who identify as white, male, heterosexual, or Christian are intrinsically privileged and oppressive, which is defined as 'malicious or unjust' and 'wrong.'"

Dunahoo, had told The Gainesville Times in January he sent his request to the college based on concerns from his constituents.

Professors in the Georgia higher education system, though, saw Dunahoo's request as an overreach by the government into their classrooms. Matthew Boedy, a professor of rhetoric at the University of North Georgia, said the questions do echo the themes in Trump's executive order.

And he is fearful that Dunahoo's comments may led to professors being singled out. He added someone can disagree with the critical race theory ideas that inform diversity trainings but to be, "labeled un-American because of what one teaches is the key to the frustration and fear of a lot of faculty."

He said he hopes the university administration will explain why professors need to teach about concepts including racism or white privilege in an academic setting. And Boedy added, government oversight is necessary, but, "when it comes to curriculum and the freedom to pursue research and profess certain values as an expert in a field – none of that should mean one has to be a target."

Some states have proposed legislation to ban such teaching. In Arkansas, a Republican lawmaker Mark Lowery introduced a bill that would cut funding to institutions that, "isolate, students based on race, gender, political affiliation, social classes, or other distinctions within programs of instruction." The bill's sponsor told The Arkansas Democrat, he was specifically against, "critical race theory."

Students of color at Iowa say the whole incident shows how they're treated differently. Foley believes he would have been disciplined if he had sent, "insensitive and unprofessional comments" to the entire college.

"That was the most frustrating part about it to me," he said. "I couldn't even put it into words."

KULTURKAMPF

Thesis and Antithesis of Indian Cinema in Past Decade

Aniket Gautam | 11 Jul 2025

Ambedkarite and Marxist filmmakers, especially Tamil, Malayalam and Marathi, are opposing dictates of the ruling Hindutva dispensation in an uncompromising way.

In continuation of its ruthless neo-fascistic onslaught on artistic freedoms and curtailment of freedom of expression and speech, the film certification board (CBFC) has become an active instrument of the ruling Hindutva regime. In the Indian context, the Censor Board has always created constraints before the release of films containing potentialities of disturbing the common sense constructed and manufactured by State power.

However, the existence of the Censor Board itself has always been a controversial subject since its inception. Despite constant objections from the wide circle of the artists to the necessity of the Board's existence, State power continues to manipulate the creative freedoms in accordance with the interests of the ruling classes and big corporations. Therefore, the question remains – why do the ruling classes want to shape, control and interpellate cultural reproduction?

This cannot be answered without concretely analysing the objective conditions of our time.

Recently Phule, a film made on the life and struggles of the social revolutionaries, Jyotiba Phule and Savitribai Phule, who throughout their life collectively waged a war against Brahmanism, feudalism and religious dogmatism, had to face serious outrage from Savarna elites. Even several political organisations of the upper caste elites protested and held meetings against the release of the film.

The film certification board asked its filmmaker, Anant Mahadevan to remove certain words like, Mahar, Peshwai and Matang. Apart from these removals, the board went further to remove dialogues depicting the caste inequalities. Unnecessary cuts and removals hollowed out the radical content and rage of the film.

This case of the film Phule not only revealed the Brahmanism embedded and camouflaged in the caste society itself, but also exposed the fact that any artistic creations concerned with the caste, gender or class, will be either partially censored or completely banned. They will be subjected to the consent from the state power.

Another film, Santosh, which dealt with the caste inequalities and sexism rooted in the Indian social fabric and bureaucratic apparatus, is completely banned in India. The Censor Board, not limiting itself to these films, has also created hurdles before the upcoming film Dhadak 2. This upcoming film is the Hindi remake of the Tamil masterpiece, Pariyerum Perumal. The board has asked the makers of Dhadak 2 to remove certain dialogues associated with caste exploitation. One of them being the “three thousand years of caste slavery”.

Read Also: How Indian Films Are Shaping Politics of Exclusion

One of the commonalities in these films, is that the “caste question” is central to these films around which the entire plot revolves. Furthermore, director Honey Trehan’s film Punjab 95, based on the life of Punjabi human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, is almost uncertain to be released. The board persons have initially asked to make 21 cuts in the films and all the references to the Punjab Police. Later on, the Board extended the number of cuts to 127, making it almost impossible for it to be publicly released.

Beyond these cuts, unsurprisingly, the film certification board has asked for removal of the name of “Jaswant Singh Khalra”. For people unknown to the name, Khalra was a human rights activist from Punjab, who wrote a report on the enforced disappearances of the thousands of civilians in Punjab at the height of insurgency. Unfortunately, Khalra was murdered by the nexus of State apparatus in Punjab. His investigation about the enforced disappearances in the Punjab region posed serious challenges to the violence concealed in the actions taken by the state power. The ruling regime does not even want the name of this martyr to be known among Indians. It is an attack on the collective memory of the survivors of State violence in Punjab.

Film Censorship: Cultural Hegemony of Ruling Class

Italian Marxist revolutionary, Antonio Gramsci, who himself had faced the fascist regime of Benito Mussolini, wrote 29 notebooks under harsh conditions in prison. Gramsci's notes were being censored by the authorities during his long incarceration. Keeping that in mind, he successfully smuggled the notes to his comrades. Therefore, he subsequently found different ways of passing his notes and political opinions to the outside world. These notes, later named and concealed in his Prison Notebooks, provided profound insights about politics, culture and hegemony.

Gramsci’s concept of Cultural hegemony is central to his theory. So, what does he mean by cultural hegemony and how it is reproduced by the State? In the simplest sense, cultural hegemony is the domination of the ruling classes produced by both coercion and consent. In Gramsci’s theorisation, civil society was an important sphere of ideological struggle.

Institutions, such as CFBC, operate as the arm of the ruling class to shape the discourse and control masses in nuanced and subtle ways. Belonging to the same tradition, philosopher Louis Althusser elaborated how conditions of consent to the ruling ideology are constantly reproduced by the ruling material force. In Althusser’s conceptualisation, ideology has a material existence and it is manufactured through the ideological state apparatus that interpellates masses into subjects of the ruling ideology and simultaneously everything appears “common sense”.

Both Gramsci and Althusser wrote about how culture plays a dominant role in creating common sense and interpellating masses. If we consider the immediate effect of film censorship in India, it proves that CBFC is one among the many State apparatuses of the ruling Hindutva regime. Only films that serve the interests of the Hindutva ideology are promoted and appreciated whereas films depicting social, historical and cultural realities are either partially censored or banned from public release in India. Artists have neither freedom “from” nor “freedom to do”. This onslaught by the ruling dispensation is also against the rich heritage of the progressive cultural movement in India.

Where Does Hope Lie?

A close friend of the German writer and philosopher Walter Benjamin and symbol of the revolution, playwright Bertolt Brecht famously said, “In the contradiction lies the hope”. Therefore, this is where hope lies. The objective condition of the present times does not strike pessimism, instead it ignites the spirit of optimism. The contradictions between the Censor Board and filmmakers have also led to productive interaction of cultural diversity. However, conditions have certainly intensified against the interests of the films concerned with the social, historical or political content in a definite sense.

While Hindi-speaking cinema is on the brink of getting saffronised in the complete caste and class interests of the ruling ideology, Tamil, Malayalam and Marathi cinema have produced milestone films in the past years.

Resistance can be seen in the films of these regions. The Ambedkarite and Marxist filmmakers have refused to bow down to the dictates of the ruling dispensation with the neo-fascist characteristics.

The film, Court, released in 2014 and is a profound artistic and political creation because it doesn't tie itself in the boundaries of a particular language. It is a multilingual film. The story of the film revolves around the court as the title is named, wherein the Ambedkarite cultural activist, Narayan Kamble is tried. Kamble is accused of inciting a Dalit sewage worker of committing suicide with his protest songs. The movie was legendary in many senses because it captured the terrible conditions of Dalit cultural activists and how they are seen as a threat to State power. Their cultural expression challenges the Hindutva-corporate nexus.

Dissent as the nucleus of Dalit performative arts often makes them vulnerable to seditious laws. We are not unknown to the names of Kabir Kala Manch artists kept behind the bars for their cultural and artistic expressions.

The relevance of Court and its artistic expression can be realised from the fact that Kabir Kala Manch activists Ramesh Gaichor, Jyoti Jagtap, Sagar Gorkhe and Sachin Mali are behind the bars for the past five years and there is no positive sign of them getting bail soon. They are the “Narayan Kambles” of present day India.

Under the same paradigm of Court, are the films Fandry and Sairat (Marathi). Both these films directed by the Ambedkarite filmmaker Nagraj Manjule have dealt with caste and class inequalities predominant in rural Maharashtra. In one of the scenes in Fandry, viewers can see the wall portraying the images of Babasaheb Ambedkar and Savitribai Phule. This particular frame is not a usual expression in Indian cinema. Sairat remains the greatest ever Marathi hit.

Cinema in the South is far ahead in exposing the social realities of our society. The influence of Babasaheb Ambedkar, Periyar and Karl Marx can be seen easily in their films. The way social questions are dealt in Tamil and Malayalam cinema is unmatchable. Material questions of land, class struggle and systemic inequalities are beautifully depicted in their artistic creations.

The emergence of Marxist and Ambedkarite filmmakers like Vetrimaran, Mari Selvaraj and Pa Ranjith have democratised cinema with incredible artistic creations. Films such as Vaada Chennai, Kaala, Kabali, Pariyerum Perumal, Viduthalai, Thangalaan, Karnan, Asuran and Kabali are a never-ending list of treasures of Indian cinema.

In Hindi cinema, the director of the Masaan, Neeraj Ghaywan is a lone Dalit artist, who is able to depict social and material realities of the marginalised sections and reflect on the social and political conditions of our time. His latest film, Homebound, got a nine-minute-long standing ovation at the Cannes film festival this year. Ghaywan is the only person in Bollywood who has publicly embraced his Dalit identity. From being fearful of his Dalit identity to embracing his identity, Neeraj has gone through a long journey. Apart from Masaan and Homebound, his contributions in Geeli Puchi are not unknown to us.

Conclusion

It is evident that the past 10 years in Indian cinema have been decisive in many ways. The three things visible in the contemporary discourse on Indian cinema can be defined as increased film censorship, films oriented towards the ideological interests of the ruling classes, and the emergence of the Dalit-Bahujan discourse in Indian cinema.

Only a dialectical understanding of the cinema discourse can provide concrete insights into the development and decline of popular culture itself. Cultural production is not spared from cultural discourse in contemporary India.

From the abolition of the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) to banning of films like Santosh, the state power in its objective manifestation in the CBFC has unleashed an ideological war against any artistic creation having the potential to break the “common sense” created by the Hindutva dispensation.

Artists, filmmakers and writers are also keeping the dissent alive against the cultural hegemony of the dominant classes. Ambedkarite and Marxist filmmakers are opposing the ruling dictates of our time in an uncompromising way. This phase in the history of Indian cinema is the period of Ambedkarite assertion.

If State-sponsored and -promoted cinemas is a thesis, then Ambedkarite-Marxist cinema is the anti-thesis. Rather than being applauded by the Hindutva-corporate neoliberal dispensation, artists like Nagraj Manjule, Neeraj Ghaywan, Vetrimaran, Pa. Ranjith and Mari Selvaraj have decided to serve the collective interests of the toiling masses and ensure that their stories are expressed on the big screen.

The writer is pursuing a Masters in political science at the Department of Political Science, Delhi University. The views are personal.

Green capitalism is not dead yet

By Philipp Köncke

Published 25 September, 2025

Email

First published at Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung.

In the EU, the Green Deal has collapsed. By contrast, China is continuing to invest massively in ecological modernization. How did the country become a technological leader and what geopolitical tensions have resulted?

Germany’s automobile industry is in crisis, as the export-oriented growth model is eroding. Green-capitalist modernization efforts are now blocked. Meanwhile, the trade war among the “new triad competition” — the US, Europe, and China — is escalating. The tariff war is above all the expression of a rearrangement of power relations within global capitalism.

For while the West is in danger of failing to create “green capitalism”, China is managing a rapid rise in “green” technologies. The three so-called new industries — E-cars, batteries, and renewable energy — already contribute an estimated 40 percent to China’s GDP growth. China’s “green” capital dominates not only the country’s important domestic market, adding significantly to the crisis of Germany’s automobile industry, but is also pushing its way into Western markets with full force: corporations such as CATL are already producing in Europe, BYD is starting production in Hungary and is even already considering another European plant.

China shows that “green” capitalism is not dead yet. However, the reshuffling of power relations is not ending with e-cars, but reaching into the heart of “green” capitalism — the energy sector.

Shifting winds

In terms of the West, the best one can say is that the energy transition has been slow. In the US, it is true, the share of renewables — spurred on by the subsidies of the Inflation Reduction Act — has increased slightly. Nevertheless, fossil fuels and nuclear energy still represent almost 80 percent of the electricity mix.

The share of renewables has grown in Europe as well, especially through wind power. However, fossil fuels and nuclear energy still account for half of all electricity production. Investments in gas and oil infrastructure increased massively after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, while coal phase-out has been slowed in countries like Germany or France. In addition, there is a danger of fossil backlash due to the undiminished power of fossil capital, the radicalization of conservatism, and the rise of far-right parties: Trump’s energy policy with the motto “drill, baby, drill” is focused on the promotion of domestic oil and gas production through offshore drilling and fracking, with its attendant damage to health and the environment.

But even in Germany, Chancellor Friedrich Merz of the Christian Democrats (CDU) sees wind turbines as a transitional technology, for “they are ugly and do not fit into the landscape”. Alice Weidel of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), at her party’s congress in Riesa, added her voice to the anti-wind power chorus: “We’ll demolish all wind-power plants! Down with these windmills of shame!”

While renewables in the West are thus developing into the terrain of a (right-wing) Kulturkampf, China, as the “system rival” is unrestrained as it pushes its build-out forward, the tempo of which is unparalleled. If the global market for solar and wind energy was still dominated by the US and the EU up to the 2010s, it is now firmly in Chinese hands: in 2024, at 358 gigawatts (GW) in newly installed wind and solar energy capacity, China surpassed EU increases by a factor of five. In 2024 alone, China’s build-out surpassed the entire wind and solar energy production capacity of the US. Seven of the top ten global solar module producers and six of the top ten wind turbine producers are based in the People’s Republic. They dominate entire value chains: 85 percent of all solar cells and 60 percent of rotor blades for wind farms are made in China. This means that even if solar electricity’s share of the electricity mix in Europe increases, the solar modules themselves come from China. Value creation and profits thus stay in the People’s Republic, and the systemic rival’s “green” capital continues to expand.

“Green” party-state capitalism drives investment

How did this global market dominance emerge in such a short span of time? The investment boom in solar and wind energy is the result of the party-state capitalist model.

To be sure, the leading solar module producers (LONGi Green Energy Technology, Trina Solar, JinkoSolar) and wind-power producers (Goldwind, Envision, Windey) are predominantly private property, but they do not act free of party-state influence: wind-turbine producers such as Goldwind and Mingyang, as well as solar module producers such as LONGi, JinkoSolar, or Astronergy have established so-called party cells in their corporate headquarters, which control the companies’ strategic decisions. The Communist Party is thus institutionalized at company level and can steer central investment decisions. Moreover, the biggest energy producers — above all the “Big Five’” Huaneng Group, Huadian Group, China Energy, State Power Investment Corporation, and Datang Group — are all state property. Through them, the party state has been able to systematically steer coordinated and large-scale investments.

Pricing policy was another central driving force in renewables investments. Financed by the Renewable Energy Development Funds, the government paid generous feed-in compensations for wind (onshore from 2009, offshore from 2014) and solar electricity (from 2011). These compensations exceeded the costs of electricity production and thus guaranteed secure and predictable profits. The party-state also determined the final consumer price and the network charges for the grid operators. This reduced price volatility and produced stable, predictable profit expectations, and in so doing attracted massive investment capital that drove the rapid construction of renewable energies.

Added to this was comprehensive industrial policy support: Since the eleventh Five-Year Plan (2006–2010), the solar and wind sectors have played a central role and received massive subsidies — among other things for research and development, the installation of wind and solar parks (for example, in the “Golden Sun Programme”), and for the internationalization of the solar-module and wind-turbine producers, promoted through inexpensive loans by state-controlled commercial and development banks.

With these pricing and industrial policy measures, the party-state turned renewable energies into green “capital sinks” — large-volume investment projects in which “green” capital can be reliably and profitably reproduced. This model catapulted China to the forefront of the global solar and wind industry.

Liberalization and crisis

Nevertheless, the functioning of this “green” party-state capitalism is by no means static: starting with the 2015 electricity sector reforms, the Chinese state-class has been pursuing a policy change primarily aimed at liberalizing prices and marketizing electricity trading.

At the end of 2017, when the energy authorities assessed the deficit of the Renewable Energy Development Fund at 15.6 billion US dollars, feed-in rates and subsidies were massively cut. Electricity trading was gradually marketized, with “planned electricity sales” giving way to market mechanisms. Electricity trading was increasingly converted to medium- to long-term direct purchase agreements between producers and end customers, with prices largely negotiated autonomously.

In addition, the party-state is increasingly introducing spot markets based on the Western model. In spot markets, electricity is traded on a short-term basis. Electricity producers are exposed to high price fluctuations, with corresponding uncertainties in price and profitability trends. The system of fixed feed-in rates is also being gradually replaced by an auction system in which projects are awarded to those solar and wind power producers offering the lowest electricity production costs. Since then, electricity producers have been engaged in a relentless price war, passing on the cost pressure to solar module and wind turbine manufacturers and their suppliers.

This liberalization and marketization intensifies competition. Price and cost pressures increase immensely. The overcapacities that have been accumulating for some time now are having a major impact on prices. Prices for solar modules and wind turbines are in free fall, and the profits of the largest producers are collapsing. By the third quarter of 2024, the largest solar module producers such as LONGi, Trina Solar, and Tongwei were suffering losses. Prominent industry representatives have been calling on the party-state to take measures against price deflation and falling profits. Gao Jifan, chairman of Trina Solar, appealed to the central government to better coordinate the industry and cool down the overheated competition: “Under the current bidding prices, there is no profit across the entire supply chain, and there is no way that this is sustainable.”

The contradictions of liberalization are becoming increasingly apparent: the continuing downward spiral of prices and profits — even among the largest producers — seems to be intensifying without targeted intervention by the party-state. It remains questionable whether the industry can be profitable in the long term without government price controls, given the high level of overcapacity. Although the largest producers still have high retained earnings and cash reserves, it remains to be seen how the current profit crisis will affect the industry’s medium-term investment capacity.

Ecological contradictions

Will China's “green” party-state capitalism — despite its economic contradictions — ultimately save the world’s climate? Hardly. The flip side of state support for renewable energies is the continued promotion of fossil fuels. The “green” coexists with a persistent “brown” party-state capitalism.

This is evident in Chinese capitalism’s continued dependence on coal, as China is the world’s largest producer and consumer of coal. The number of newly approved coal-fired power plants quadrupled in 2022–2023 compared to 2016–2020. In 2024, China began construction of 94.5 GW of new coal-fired power plants — the largest annual expansion rate since 2015. This means that China alone accounted for 93 percent of all new coal-fired power plants built worldwide in 2024.

In addition to coal, China is also pushing ahead with the expansion of nuclear power: between 2014 and 2024, installed capacity tripled from 19 to 57 GW. The simultaneous expansion of renewable energies, coal, and nuclear power shows that the ecological modernization of the energy sector is not taking place as a break with the fossil fuel (and nuclear) energy regime, but as an addition to it. In a sense, coal is cannibalizing the decarbonization effect of renewables. Despite the rapid expansion of renewable energies, China's CO2 emissions continued to rise in 2024 due to high coal consumption, albeit at a slower rate.

Furthermore, “green” party-state capitalism is closely linked to extractive investments in the mining of raw materials and minerals: a significant proportion of Chinese capital flowing to the countries of the Belt and Road Initiative goes to the metal and mining industries. This includes investments in the extraction of copper, lithium, iron ore, nickel, and cobalt — key raw materials for the “green economy” (lithium-ion batteries, electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar cells). Mining takes place predominantly in (semi-)peripheral countries such as Chile, Bolivia, Indonesia, and numerous African countries. It has destructive effects on soil and water quality, biodiversity, and local ecosystems. Chinese investment in raw material extraction recently reached new record highs: in 2023 alone, a total of 19.4 billion US dollars were invested in metal and mining along the Belt and Road Initiative.

China’s exploding energy demand — itself the result of the capitalist growth imperative — thus creates fossil fuel (and nuclear) dependencies and is closely linked to the exploitation of raw materials and ecological destruction in (semi-)peripheral countries. This stands in stark contrast to the ecological necessity of seriously advancing the global energy transition and is an expression of the ecological contradictions of “green” party-state capitalism.

When your energy transition depends on your systemic rival

And how is the EU responding to China’s rise as a leading green-capitalist power? China’s dominance in one of the key sectors of “green” capitalism, Europe’s decline, and the demands of its own energy transition are creating an area of (geo-economic) tension. This is because the implementation of Europe’s environmental goals depends on technology from its “systemic rival” China — lending new impetus to the European debate on strengthening protectionist and techno-nationalist economic policies, which are primarily directed against state-driven Chinese producers and have been gaining momentum since 2019.

In the name of energy security, the EU is attempting to reduce its dependence not only on Russia (oil, gas) but also on China (solar modules, wind turbines). It is responding with a combination of protectionist foreign trade policy and industrial policy measures aimed at Chinese competitors: anti-subsidy investigations against Chinese solar module and wind turbine manufacturers and the Forced Labour Regulation are intended to restrict their access to the EU market. This strategy is flanked by vertical industrial policy: measures such as the REPowerEU plan and the Green Deal Industrial Plan provide subsidies and other investment incentives to bring “green” value chains “back to Europe”. These measures are part of a broader EU strategy to curb the rise of Chinese “green” capital, as recently reflected in the punitive tariffs imposed on Chinese electric car manufacturers.

But China is not standing idly by, either. The party-state is exploiting not only its dominance in the production of solar modules and wind turbines, but also in the extraction and processing of strategic raw materials (e.g., rare earth metals, gallium, germanium, cobalt, and lithium). The EU and the US are highly dependent on China for these raw materials, which in turn strategically exploits this dependence and is responding with export restrictions — for example, on gallium, germanium, and rare earth magnets.

The eco-imperial tensions aimed at re-territorializing “green” value chains are therefore coming to a head. The EU and the US are fighting to get or regain control of global value chains in strategic sectors from their “systemic rival” China. However, Chinese party-state capitalism has greater geo-economic power resources at its disposal: through its dominance in the production of solar modules and wind turbines and its control over strategic raw materials, China has succeeded in creating critical dependencies.

Despite its successes in expanding renewable energy capacities, even “green” party-state capitalism fails to meet the requirements of a sustainable and ecological solidarity-based energy transition. Once again, it is clear that it is ultimately the structural barriers of capitalism itself (profit motive, pressure to grow, competition between individual capitals, international competition between states) that are blocking the radical cooperative and eco-solidarity transitions we so badly need.

Philipp Köncke is a sociologist and research assistant at the University of Erfurt. This article first appeared in LuXemburg. Translated by Eric Canepa.