China recently unveiled an ambitious “powerhouse plan” aimed at transforming the nation into a global cultural superpower by 2035. President Xi Jinping’s remarks at a Politburo meeting laid out his blueprint for establishing China as a leading influence in global arts, culture, and media. According to Xi, the plan will boost China’s soft power — a nation’s ability to attract and persuade others through cultural influence rather than force — while promoting a culture guided by Marxism and socialist values. However, critics argue that China’s approach, which treats culture as an arm of state control, is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of soft power. The result, they say, is an agenda steeped in hypocrisy, repression, and a refusal to allow true freedom of expression.
The Vision of a “Cultural Powerhouse”
In Xi’s words, the plan is to make China “a powerhouse in culture” by 2035, a goal that aligns with previous milestones he set for the country’s military and technological advancement. It is also a key step in the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) vision of “national rejuvenation,” which it hopes to achieve by the 100th anniversary of the founding of modern China in 2049. The plan is multifaceted: Xi called for creating a “socialist culture with Chinese characteristics,” strengthening public services in the arts, and enhancing the digital presence of cultural assets.
Xi has placed a high value on cultural progress, declaring that since he took office in 2012, the CCP has made “major arrangements” in this domain, establishing a new “framework for socialist culture with Chinese characteristics.” These efforts, Xi argues, should include everything from public libraries and museums to online dramas and video games, all guided by the core principles of Marxism. In his speech, he urged greater use of information technology to promote cultural initiatives, declaring, “We have placed cultural advancement at a prominent position in governing the country.”
To achieve this vision, Xi emphasizes the importance of fostering patriotism, promoting “core socialist values,” and encouraging cultural exchanges with other countries. He describes these initiatives as a way to strengthen national identity and expand China’s global influence. However, critics contend that behind the rhetoric lies a calculated use of culture as propaganda.
The Reality: A Culture of Censorship and Control
While Xi’s speech promotes the image of a creative and culturally engaged China, the reality reveals a different picture. Rather than fostering creativity, the Chinese government has developed a reputation for rigidly controlling cultural expression, especially when it comes to politically sensitive issues. Artists, writers, and performers who dare to challenge state narratives often face swift retribution. In the words of exiled Chinese cartoonist Badiucao, “Under Xi Jinping, art is never seen as an expression of free thought. The CCP approaches art and culture as tools for propaganda, using them to assert control and manipulate public perception.”
Examples of this repression are widespread. In 2023, stand-up comedian Li Haoshi was arrested after making a joke about the military. Li’s quip involved a slogan associated with the People’s Liberation Army, a remark he made in jest about his dog chasing a squirrel. Yet, authorities deemed his joke an act of disrespect, leading to his detainment and a heavy fine for the company he worked for. This episode underscores a troubling pattern: any public statement, no matter how innocuous, is subject to scrutiny if it is seen as a threat to the CCP’s image.
For Badiucao, who has faced significant pressure from the Chinese government even after relocating to Australia, the CCP’s control over art and culture is not just domestic; it also extends internationally. He notes that some Australian art institutions have refused to display his work for fear of repercussions from China, which wields enormous economic influence over global markets. “In Europe, the Chinese government has tried to shut down exhibitions by pressuring venues, calling, emailing, or even appearing in person to demand the cancellation of shows,” he explains. This interference beyond China’s borders highlights the CCP’s reach and the lengths it will go to in controlling its narrative.
The Contradictions of a State-Controlled Soft Power
True soft power relies on the genuine appeal of a nation’s culture, values, and ideals — qualities that naturally attract others without coercion. However, China’s approach to soft power seems inherently flawed, aiming to craft a cultural appeal while suppressing the very freedoms that would make that appeal authentic. Critics argue that China’s campaign to project a modern, open society is hypocritical, given its actions to stifle dissent, imprison artists, and censor creative expression at home.
Xi’s plan touts people-to-people exchanges and learning from other cultures, yet any Chinese citizen who engages in “unapproved” international perspectives risks punishment. Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo, a writer and human rights activist, was sentenced to 11 years in prison for his pro-democracy writings and later died in custody. Similarly, novelist Murong Xuecun faced a ban on his work after he voiced criticism of the government. Such incidents reflect a stark contradiction: while the CCP claims to value cultural exchange, it consistently suppresses voices that stray from its sanctioned messages.
The restrictions extend online as well. China’s censorship mechanisms are among the most comprehensive in the world, blocking websites, monitoring citizens, and censoring social media posts. Platforms like Weibo, China’s equivalent to Twitter, are closely regulated, with users facing harsh consequences for expressing dissent. The heavy policing of expression stands in stark contrast to the CCP’s aspirations for cultural leadership, creating a paradox that undermines China’s credibility on the world stage.
Why China’s Powerhouse Plan Is Complete Crap
To truly become a cultural powerhouse, a nation must allow its citizens the freedom to think, create, and express themselves. Influential cultures do not emerge from oppressive government control. A government that stifles these freedoms cannot authentically promote itself as a global cultural leader. Critics argue that China’s plan, while ambitious, fails to understand that cultural influence cannot be manufactured or imposed. Instead, soft power grows organically from the trust and admiration that others have in a nation’s openness, values, and contributions to the global community.
As China tries to craft its image as a cultural superpower, the constraints it imposes on its own people risk diminishing that influence. A government that controls narratives and silences dissenting voices will struggle to convince the world of its openness and innovation. Without genuine freedom of expression, the “soft power” China seeks may never fully materialize, limited by the very restrictions the CCP enforces. Xi’s powerhouse vision might be one of immense scope, but the CCP’s actions reveal a nation where culture serves the state, rather than the people.