Where do you think the next worker revolution will be?

[Comrade_Stalin]

A question for debate, is where do you think the next revolution to be, and why? Will it be big enought for the capitalist to send ion their 16+ armies again?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Latin America, preferably Venezuela. With 'Plan Socialist Guayana 2009-2019', the 184 communes in development, & the Peasant Militias already being enacted, this is a huge push towards a workers revolution that's taking place there.

[Crux]

I was thinking about having a vanguard party at my place.

In all seriousness though I think the countries you should be looking at the PIGs and China. China has been brewing for a long time now.

[RedStarOverChina]

In all seriousness though I think the countries you should be looking at the PIGs and China. China has been brewing for a long time now.
In China, as much as I'd wish it to be true, the consciousness is simply absent, though the material condition seems ripe for a revolution.

I'm betting on France and Greece right now.

[AK]

Greece, maybe.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

I'm thinking one of the smaller Western European countries. They often have a strong leftist current and they are rich enough to have been affected by the recession but now not got enough money to really defend themselves.

[Steve_j]

Imo Greece or Peru. And sadly neither will progress without a fight.

[La Comédie Noire]

I'm gonna go with RedstarOverChina on this one, France or Greece.

[cb9's_unity]

Does anyone have information about the revolutionary/leftist movements in Greece and France. Unfortunately I'm like most Americans in having only the most hazy understanding of continental European politics.

[Saorsa]

Revolution is brewing in Nepal, but it won't be a 'worker's revolution'. It'll be a new democratic revolution made up of a coalition of various oppressed classes, primarily the peasants and the proletariat.

[bailey_187]

Greece. Big economic problems and 10% of the Greek voters are already voting for the Communist Party.

[piet11111]

Greece because the working class there are being forced into poverty with the austerity measures their "left" government is implementing.

[RadioRaheem84]

GREECE. Love the people there. So full of conscious. I am envious their fury hasn't spread here in the States.


Venezuela. Great stuff happening over there.

Has everyone forgotten that Nepal is already experiencing revolution? And India is on its way.


France, maybe.

Ireland, no. UK, NO. USA, hell NO. China, if anything brewed it would crushed like a Coke can.

Spain, we'll have to wait and see, but I say no.

[Jia]

China no. Despite CNN and BBC article it is... very stable. The economic crisis had little social effect. If situation remains calm in the cities it will remain calm everywhere. I think Latin American countries will start going red, as well as Greece as their failures to turn round their economy grow further.

[RadioRaheem84]

China no. Despite CNN and BBC article it is... very stable. The economic crisis had little social effect.

Regardless if the economic situation hasn't effected China, the condition of the working class is horrible. Stability is only stability to the very rich. For the workers, it's always a crisis.

What is keeping revolution from happening there?

[Jia]

Regardless if the economic situation hasn't effected China, the condition of the working class is horrible. Stability is only stability to the very rich. For the workers, it's always a crisis.

What is keeping revolution from happening there?

How about a large loyal military and a population that for the most part is increasingly nationalistic? Most of them agree with CPC policies regarding Tibet and they fuel nationalist tendencies on purpose to boost support. The people at the bottom get support. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-02/26/c_13189615.htm This article shows you the top leadership are beginning to care for the workers at the bottom again. A socialist return in China is regarded as unstoppable. But there will be no "Government fall with students and workers cheering and Guomintang flags flying again". There is a different between wishful thinking and realistic thinking.

[scarletghoul]

Nepal. Venezuela. Those 2 are goin on right now obviously. Other than that yeah maybe Greece but who knows what the world will be like in 10 years

[the last donut of the night]

My bets are on Nepal, India, Greece, and Venezuela. However, nobody can really be sure.

[RadioRaheem84]

How about a large loyal military and a population that for the most part is increasingly nationalistic? Most of them agree with CPC policies regarding Tibet and they fuel nationalist tendencies on purpose to boost support. The people at the bottom get support. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-02/26/c_13189615.htm This article shows you the top leadership are beginning to care for the workers at the bottom again. A socialist return in China is regarded as unstoppable. But there will be no "Government fall with students and workers cheering and Guomintang flags flying again". There is a different between wishful thinking and realistic thinking.

A nationalist China is definitely on the rise, I agree. If the government goes through with the reforms then it will be slight benefit for the workers. But what about the rural workers that do not even have the same rights as urban workers when the migrate to the cities?

[Jia]

A nationalist China is definitely on the rise, I agree. If the government goes through with the reforms then it will be slight benefit for the workers. But what about the rural workers that do not even have the same rights as urban workers when the migrate to the cities?

The whole point of the reform I linked and similar reforms is to halt the massive shift from rural to city. And what rights are you talking about? They have the same as everyone else apart from that they are poor and would be scruffy, meaning it harder for them to get a job. Such people with less rights would be a minority, if said people even existed.

[RadioRaheem84]

The whole point of the reform I linked and similar reforms is to halt the massive shift from rural to city. And what rights are you talking about? They have the same as everyone else apart from that they are poor and would be scruffy, meaning it harder for them to get a job. Such people with less rights would be a minority, if said people even existed.

I was under the impression that in China, if you come from a rural residence you lack the rights of someone that was born and raised in the City.

http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/100259


In their hometowns, Chinese citizens with a rural household registration are entitled to basic rights and social services. However, once they leave their registered place of residence, they lose these basic benefits and become second class citizens, with no access to urban social services. With a lower social status than that of urban residents, migrant workers are subject to daily exploitation and discrimination.

They lose their rights once they leave the rural areas as most of the employment opportunities has moved to the urban areas. Clever way for the State to use their own citizens as cheap labor.

[Invincible Summer]

Nepal, hopefully India and Greece as well.

But Nepal, IMO, is definitely the one to look at for now, even if it's not the type of perfect 1917-esque revolution that Trotskyists and Left Communists envision.

[Jia]

It's to prevent the overuse of services. It's also another way to stop rurals coming to the cities to stop them becoming overcrowded. "Daily discrimination" is bs. They of course will find it hard to get jobs due to racial discrimination (Which is bad in shanghai) but it is not government supported. The racial discrimination I talk about is the wider your eyes the more likely your prize when you want to get a job

The article you linked is not looking at the other side. The services just couldn't cope if rurals knew they would get the same service, there would be a massive population shift that would lead to a social collapse.

[zimmerwald1915]

But Nepal, IMO, is definitely the one to look at for now, even if it's not the type of perfect 1917-esque revolution that Trotskyists and Left Communists envision.
1917 was hardly "perfect", if such a thing can be. If it had been "perfect", whatever that means, we would be discussing the building of communism, not predicting the next revolution.

[Wolf Larson]

There's one going on in America right now. Workers are fighting to bring about a free market revolution ;). That's not funny. It's not funny because it's true. I'm currently vomiting in my lap.

[RadioRaheem84]

It's to prevent the overuse of services. It's also another way to stop rurals coming to the cities to stop them becoming overcrowded. "Daily discrimination" is bs. They of course will find it hard to get jobs due to racial discrimination (Which is bad in shanghai) but it is not government supported. The racial discrimination I talk about is the wider your eyes the more likely your prize when you want to get a job

The article you linked is not looking at the other side. The services just couldn't cope if rurals knew they would get the same service, there would be a massive population shift that would lead to a social collapse.Explain the collapse.

[Jia]

Explain the collapse.

Overuse of services and lack of funding would mean they would be available to nobody. Imagine a hospital build for a 100 but caring for 1,000. Those 1,000 wouldn't achieve the same quality as the 100 did of course.

@ Wolf Larson No. Seriously think now, why would the government want to make no rural farmland? Do you know what farmland is for and why it's needed, yes?

[manic expression]

Explain the collapse.
Rapid urban growth leads to all sorts of problems. If X city has enough resources to provide social services to its population, and the population suddenly and greatly grows, then the system of services collapses completely because it's strained far beyond what it's meant to provide. When that happens, living standards drop, strife is far more possible, unemployment would skyrocket...all sorts of issues.

Edit, Gongchanzhuyi beat me to it.

By the way, I think it's incredible that we're even having this discussion. When I first came here in 2006, you would've been laughed out of the room if you posted a thread like this. Now, the revolutionary movement is so much stronger, so much more vital, so much more powerful. Truly incredible. Venceremos!

[Jia]

Rapid urban growth leads to all sorts of problems. If X city has enough resources to provide social services to its population, and the population suddenly and greatly grows, then the system of services collapses completely because it's strained far beyond what it's meant to provide. When that happens, living standards drop, strife is far more possible, unemployment would skyrocket...all sorts of issues.

Yes, this is what I mean.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think that's happened in every rapidly industrialized nation the past twenty years though. The strain on social services is usually because of migrants from other nations though. Why are there two classification for the same citizens? The rapid industrialization in china is happening in cities and the state is bringing in workers fro
the rural area and denying the same benefits as urban workers. This creates a market for cheap labor. Why doesn't the state make more hospitals and spend more on social services to account for the growing influx of migrant workers?

[Jia]

I think that's happened in every rapidly industrialized nation the past twenty years though. The strain on social services is usually because of migrants from other nations though. Why are there two classification for the same citizens? The rapid industrialization in china is happening in cities and the state is bringing in workers fro
the rural area and denying the same benefits as urban workers. This creates a market for cheap labor. Why doesn't the state make more hospitals and spend more on social services to account for the growing influx of migrant workers?

It's the migrants workers choice to move to the cities, it's not as if the state lures them into a trap. They do it on their own accord. You don't seem to understand that the government is trying to STOP RURAL WORKERS COMING TO CITIES with such programs. If they gave them benefits for arrival the end result would be catastrophic. China is not Europe. Trying to compare their industrial growth methods is rather odd indeed

[The Vegan Marxist]

I don't know really about China. Sure, I don't think they're socialist whatsoever, but it seems the U.S. is scared that they might soon retreat back to socialist economics, & leave the free-market system. There was some signs of China increasing restrictions on foreign capital, which was done to safeguard the Chinese enterprises. A New York Times report during November of 2007 said:

"There is clearly a growing economic nationalism in China that is leading to discrimination against foreign investors in pillar sectors of the economy. It's not only a threat to foreign investors but it also undermines China's transition to a market-based economy."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/business/worldbusiness/16trade.html

[RadioRaheem84]

It's the migrants workers choice to move to the cities, it's not as if the state lures them into a trap. They do it on their own accord. You don't seem to understand that the government is trying to STOP RURAL WORKERS COMING TO CITIES with such programs. If they gave them benefits for arrival the end result would be catastrophic. China is not Europe. Trying to compare their industrial growth methods is rather odd indeed
I am sure its not a forced lure but the state is focusing most of its growth in the major cities and this is luring rural residents to the cities. And I wasn't trying to compare Europe and China but China with other places like Dubai, India, etc.

Anyways why are you so defensive of the State's actions? Why has reform for residential status only been granted to those who can best help the new growth?



Permanent residency
In 1997, the State Council initiated a pilot scheme to allow certain migrant workers to transfer their hukou registration to 450 designated towns and cities.[37] (http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/100259#37) Migrants who had 1) a “stable job or source of income” and 2) a “stable place of residence” for over two years were eligible to apply to transfer their hukou from rural to non-rural status. In addition, applicants had to i) work in secondary and tertiary industries, ii) be in management or professional services, and iii) own an apartment. Successful applicants were entitled to social services on equal terms with local residents.[38] (http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/100259#38) In 2001, the State Council expanded this program to include all small towns and cities.[39] (http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/100259#39) The State Council required applicants to own an apartment but did not specify the value of the property. Very often local governments set stringent property requirements. For example, to obtain an urban hukou in Nanjing, a migrant with three family members must purchase a 60m2 apartment. In Wuxi, a migrant must purchase a 100m2 apartment or invest 1,000,000 yuan and have paid 100,000 yuan in taxes for two consecutive years in order to obtain an urban registration. [40] (http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/100259#40)
Hence, instead of granting citizens the right to internal migration, in effect, the policy was more of an immigration scheme to attract investment and talent.



For most migrants, an urban registration is still beyond reach. Only two percent of the two million migrants (who constitute one-third of the city's population) in Ningbo, Zhejiang province – which is considered a national model of hukou reform[41] (http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/100259#41) – and 11,000 out of 300,000 migrant workers in Shijiazhuang, Hebei province[42] (http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/100259#42) qualified for a local hukou in 2001. In Shenzhen, only highly qualified personnel or those who pay more than 240,000 yuan in taxes over three years qualify for a hukou (http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/files/share/File/general/Shenzhen_hukou_regs.pdf).[43] (http://www.china-labour.org.hk/en/node/100259#43)

[manic expression]

I am sure its not a forced lure but the state is focusing most of its growth in the major cities and this is luring rural residents to the cities. And I wasn't trying to compare Europe and China but China with other places like Dubai, India, etc.

Anyways why are you so defensive of the State's actions? Why has reform for residential status only been granted to those who can best help the new growth?
I think the CPC recognizes the lure of the cities to many rural citizens, which is why they've set up this system to counter the problems that that allure causes. It's not that the CPC doesn't want anyone moving from the countryside to the cities, it's that they want to make it a controlled process that can benefit everyone involved. Thus there needs to be a way of qualifying potential movers, and also something to discourage mass migration that would cause a disaster. If someone who doesn't qualify wants to go to a city, that's fine, it's just done under the understanding that social services won't be provided for them there.

I think the reason why the PRC is very different from Dubai or India is that stuff like "social services", "livable housing" and "human dignity" doesn't even enter the equation of urban growth. It's because the PRC is a system that cares about working-class interests that country-to-city migration would be a disaster; who cares about urban growth when social services don't exist? When you do have social services, however, it becomes necessary to at least be able to control the process to stop a complete collapse from occurring. That wouldn't help anyone.

[Jia]

Because having unqualified needy markets wouldn't be beneficial to the cities at all. Stop looking for what is perhaps "Fair" but rather what is necessary.

[RedStruggle]

think the CPC recognizes the lure of the cities to many rural citizens
It's the migrants workers choice to move to the cities, it's not as if the state lures them into a trapYou would do better to ask why it is that such large numbers of peasants are suddenly seeking to move to the cities, and answer lies in the economic reform process that's been carried out since 1978. The key change as far as rural-urban migration is concerned was the decision to dismantle the communes in favour of a household responsibility system whereby each family in every rural community was given use rights for an area of land that was previously worked in common by the community as a whole - it is actually better to speak in terms of families being given areas of land because the need to ensure that each family got land with the same production capacity (such that some families were given less land in terms of surface area if the land that they were given was more fertile or accessible than the land assigned to other peasants - the theory being that each family would end up being able to produce the same amount) meant that families were assigned multiple plots that were situated in different parts of their community, all of these plots taking the form of thin strips (which is why the current farming system has often been called "noodle farming" or "noodle strip agriculture") in order to ensure road access, with the result being that peasants have been forced to revert to primitive forms of technology such as hoes and draught animals because mechanization can only be used in situations where land is consolidated. The switch to the household responsibility system has had a number of effects - the oppression of women has become more intense, for example, because whether women are allowed to work on the land or not and how much food and income they receive depends on the decisions of the authority figure within each household, invariably a man, whereas previously they had the guaranteed right not only to work on the land if they so wished but also to enter into a number of other occupations such as being tractor drivers and cadres, all of which allowed them to gain economic independence, in contrast to the common situation, where there are organized gangs who kidnap and sell several hundred women nationwide each year, mostly into prostitution, and women are increasingly being forced back into traditional roles and occupations that involve them being kept inside the home - but if we are looking at migration it has meant that peasants are now able to migrate to a greater extent than ever before and they are also being pressured into doing so because economic reform has meant that peasant communities are facing higher input prices (due to industrial enterprises now being able to change their prices instead of following a plan) without being able to get higher prices for their output (in other words, the scissors problem that has faced rural communities throughout the history of all capitalist societies) so that young people now need to take on jobs in urban areas in order to sustain the incomes of their families back in the countryside, especially when the social services that were previously provided by the communes are no longer available.

Now, if you subscribe to bourgeois notions of freedom and consent, of course this is a matter of choice - in the same way that workers selling their labour power is a choice. But for Marxists, it is a case of coercion through economic pressures. Also, have no illusions about why the state has decided not to extend full rights to migrant workers - these workers have played a central role in supporting China's economic growth precisely because the fact that they do not receive the same rights as other workers means that they can be subject to high levels of exploitation by companies and made to return to their original communities when capitalists decide that they are not needed anymore, and in this respect they play exactly the same as role as illegal immigrant workers do in imperialist countries like the US and the UK. The Chinese state would not be able to attract foreign investment or maintain the relative privileges of permanent workers if it were not for the migrant workers from the countryside.

I think revolution is possible in China, as it is a hotspot of class struggle, and I also think that the gains of 1949 need to be urgently defended, but neither revolution nor defence of historical gains will come from a section of the CPC bureaucracy, it will come from the struggles of Chinese workers and peasants, which means that socialists inside and outside China need to support them when they challenge the state.

[RedStruggle]

It's also ironic that someone who appears to be an apologist for the CPC has "jia" for their username, as the re-emergence of the family (along with clans and lineages) and all the patriarchal crap it embodies has been one of the most regrettable impacts of Dengist reform....

[Jia]

It's also ironic that someone who appears to be an apologist for the CPC has "jia" for their username, as the re-emergence of the family (along with clans and lineages) and all the patriarchal crap it embodies has been one of the most regrettable impacts of Dengist reform....

It's not because my names Jia Qing I assure you. Sure you are not thinking of Jiang?

[RedStruggle]

It's not because my names Jia Qing I assure you. Sure you are not thinking of Jiang?

No, I was thinking of jia as in jiaren. A lame joke on my part :blushing:

[manic expression]

You would do better to ask why it is that such large numbers of peasants are suddenly seeking to move to the cities,
Um, more stuff to do on the weekends?

Are you really saying that without the CPC's reforms since the 70's, peasants wouldn't want to move to cities? That makes absolutely no sense.


I think revolution is possible in China, as it is a hotspot of class struggle, and I also think that the gains of 1949 need to be urgently defended, but neither revolution nor defence of historical gains will come from a section of the CPC bureaucracy, it will come from the struggles of Chinese workers and peasants, which means that socialists inside and outside China need to support them when they challenge the state.
That's the road to ruin. Any change that comes from outside the vanguard party is likely to be manipulated by right-wing opportunists, pro-capitalists and other enemies of the working class. We know this much from the USSR. The CPC is the vanguard of the workers, and has been since its early days; just because there are many shortcomings in the PRC does nothing to change this.

If any progressive change is to be made, it will come from within the CPC, not from without it. If you oppose the CPC you are opposing all the gains of 1949, whether or not you admit it.

[RedStruggle]

Are you really saying that without the CPC's reforms since the 70's, peasants wouldn't want to move to cities?Before the economic reforms, the same economic pressures didn't exist, because the terms of trade for peasants (i.e. what kind and quantity of consumer goods peasants were able to buy with the income they received from selling agricultural output to the state as well as the income they derived from the various sideline industries that were developed in rural communities as part of the commune system - these sidelines not only produced goods that were used directly by the peasants but could also be used to generate income when the goods were sold to other communes or the state itself) had consistently improved since 1949, and, as I noted above, the commune system also embodied social services that were dismantled with the introduction of household responsibility. The economic reforms have resulted in a situation where young peasants need to migrate because to provide for the needs of their families.


We know this much from the USSRWhat, where neoliberalism was introduced by the party leadership? Hardly supporting evidence for your apologism. Saying that change can only come from inside a party which happens to proclaim itself as the vanguard of the working class (and what makes the CPC the vanguard of the working class, exactly?) is a superficial justification for states which use the language of socialism crushing working-class revolts. Yes, struggles like the Tiananmen protests raise the possibility of anti-worker forces and opportunists being able to carry out attacks on the working class but the key point is that the state is already destroying the gains of the 1949 revolution and that just because revolutions always involve risks and can open up opportunities for reaction - not just in societies where workers have benefited from historic revolutions but every society - this is not a reason to assume that change must come from bureaucrats or other political actors who already have access to power. To say that we as socialists should look to the CPC bureaucracy is to completely deny any self-activating role for the working class. As Mao said, "dare to struggle, dare to win" - not "hope that bureaucrats bring working people emancipation".

Of course, workers and peasants are going to keep challenging the Chinese state and the CPC regardless of what you say. I support them when they attack party and government officials.


If you oppose the CPC you are opposing all the gains of 1949, whether or not you admit it. This is rhetoric, not an argument. I guess Mao was opposing the revolution he led when he called on workers and students to "bombard the headquarters", then.

[RedStruggle]

By the way, forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems you were actually being serious when you said that peasants like to move to the cities because of more stuff to do on weekends - and I can only say that you clearly have no idea of what the conditions of these workers are like (e.g. the fact that they don't just work for five days a week...) and why they go to the cities in the first place, i.e. to send money to the countryside, not go shopping on Nanjing Road.

[Revy]

A question for debate, is where do you think the next revolution to be, and why? Will it be big enought for the capitalist to send ion their 16+ armies again?

RevLeft aren't psychics.

[manic expression]

Before the economic reforms, the same economic pressures didn't exist, because the terms of trade for peasants (i.e. what kind and quantity of consumer goods peasants were able to buy with the income they received from selling agricultural output to the state as well as the income they derived from the various sideline industries that were developed in rural communities as part of the commune system - these sidelines not only produced goods that were used directly by the peasants but could also be used to generate income when the goods were sold to other communes or the state itself) had consistently improved since 1949, and, as I noted above, the commune system also embodied social services that were dismantled with the introduction of household responsibility. The economic reforms have resulted in a situation where young peasants need to migrate because to provide for the needs of their families.
That's nice that you have that opinion, let's see you back it up with facts. Evidently enough, peasants do not need to migrate; if your assumption was correct, then simply saying that social services don't follow citizens wherever they go wouldn't have any effect at all, and yet it does. I don't deny that city life has its advantages, but what do you propose when mass migration would, as Jia has pointed out countless times, cause a collapse in social services? Obviously you're not dealing with the facts on the ground.


What, where neoliberalism was introduced by the party leadership? Hardly supporting evidence for your apologism. Saying that change can only come from inside a party which happens to proclaim itself as the vanguard of the working class (and what makes the CPC the vanguard of the working class, exactly?) is a superficial justification for states which use the language of socialism crushing working-class revolts.
In the Soviet Union, the "movements" that called for capitalism did not come from within the party. Glasnost and Perestroika simply gave an opportunity to right-wing opportunists such as Yeltsin, Walesa, Havel and a host of other anti-socialist reactionaries. So no, neoliberalism came in the form of "shock therapy", introduced after the fall of the Soviet Union. And no, there were no anti-Soviet "working-class revolts", why do you think naked capitalism was introduced to the former "Soviet Bloc" after the victory of your favorite "movements"?


Yes, struggles like the Tiananmen protests raise the possibility of anti-worker forces and opportunists being able to carry out attacks on the working class
You're obviously lost. The leadership of those protests was decidedly pro-western. Their not-so-subtle tribute to an unmistakable symbol of American capitalism is proof of this, as are their plain statements that workers had no place in their "movement". So no, it wasn't a possibility, it was the reality. Learn the difference.


Of course, workers and peasants are going to keep challenging the Chinese state and the CPC regardless of what you say. I support them when they attack party and government officials.
You mean anti-worker right-wing opportunists like the Tiananmen students. It's natural that you would support them.


This is rhetoric, not an argument. I guess Mao was opposing the revolution he led when he called on workers and students to "bombard the headquarters", then.
As Mao was the chairman of the CPC at the time, that's an idiotic comparison. The Cultural Revolution targeted certain factions of the party, not the party itself, as you are doing now. But nice try.

[manic expression]

By the way, forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems you were actually being serious when you said that peasants like to move to the cities because of more stuff to do on weekends - and I can only say that you clearly have no idea of what the conditions of these workers are like (e.g. the fact that they don't just work for five days a week...) and why they go to the cities in the first place, i.e. to send money to the countryside, not go shopping on Nanjing Road.
:rolleyes: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=joke

[bcbm]

That's the road to ruin. Any change that comes from outside the vanguard party is likely to be manipulated by right-wing opportunists, pro-capitalists and other enemies of the working class.

you don't think the current cpc are pro-capitalists?

[RedStruggle]

That's nice that you have that opinion, let's see you back it up with facts.Well, there's the obvious fact that mass migration between the countryside and the cities really started in the 1980s, when the reforms were starting to have a clear impact. Do you deny this?


Evidently enough, peasants do not need to migrateI think it's clear that huge numbers of peasants do migrate - definitely more than a hundred million whichever estimates and studies you look at - and that this marks a clear change from the pre-1978 period. It's also important to point out that these peasants do not migrate to the cities with the intention of staying there for the rest of their lives, as they generally choose to leave their children behind in their villages, and many workers go back to their villages a couple of times a year for special occasions like funerals and the Spring Festival. Whether you think peasants "need" to migrate is for you to decide but it would be totally foolish to assume that economic pressures don't play a role or that these pressures haven't emerged within the past few decades.


but what do you propose when mass migration would, as Jia has pointed out countless times, cause a collapse in social servicesIt's not my job to advise the CPC on its migration and social policies, my solution is for the Chinese peasantry and working class to overthrow the CPC and the state, establishing working-class democracy on their place, with all workers receiving the same rights and collectively exercising democratic control over the economy. As I said in one of my previous posts, the Chinese state has an interest in maintaining the current system whereby migrant workers don't receive the same rights as the permanent work force because this ensures that domestic and foreign corporations have access to a pool of workers who can be exploited almost without limit and used to put pressure on the wages and conditions of those workers who do have more legal protection - in this sense the role of migrant workers is comparable to illegal immigrants, as I've already stated. You think that China is socialist and that the CPC seeks to fight for and represent the interests of Chinese workers, of course, so this is a bit difficult for you to accept - why exactly either of those notions are true, you haven't yet explained.

Also, given that your argument about scarce social services is an argument commonly raised in debates about immigration, do you think that states like the British government should implement immigration controls to stop foreign workers from putting strain on social services?


Glasnost and Perestroika simply gave an opportunity to right-wing opportunists such as Yeltsin, Walesa, Havel and a host of other anti-socialist reactionaries.Yet you clearly don't think workers should have taken action to stop neoliberalism from being implemented because that would involve going against the authority of the state and the party leadership, given that any bureaucrats who wanted to stop free-market reform clearly weren't strong enough to overpower its supporters. As I said, it's pretty bad that you think workers should defer to self-proclaimed vanguard parties and that working people shouldn't be allowed to exercise their own initiative.


The leadership of those protests was decidedly pro-westernActually, there was no such thing as "the leadership" - that's how protest movements work, they contain different class forces, different ideas, and different leaderships, and it's the job of socialists to tease out their internal contradictions and divisions. As for working-class participation and leadership at Tiananmen, well...let's look at what a friend of mine (he's called Bobkindles, seems like an intelligent chap) has to say about the matter:

"The Chinese working class did participate in the protests through their own organizations, which emerged in a number of cities, including Nanjing and Shanghai, some cities containing multiple organizations. The most important of these organizations was the Beijing Autonomous Workers Federation, which had 20,000 registered members by the time the massacre took place, and had developed a complex organizational structure involving separate departments for different things that the workers thought needed to be done, such as organizing press releases, and communicating with workers in other cities, with a periphery and network of supporters around the city encompassing a much larger number. There were city-wide general strikes proposed on 20th of May and again on the 28th after martial law had been declared but on both of these occasions the student participants blocked the strikes from taking place, and throughout the movement they were generally said to have exhibited a condescending and snobbish attitude towards the workers. The support that was given to the BAWF alone was such that on the night of the massacre, workers in the metro system and the power grid struck so that the PLA would not be able to transport troops and equipment to the square, and there were also reported instances of workers blocking the streets leading to the square once they learned that the PLA was seeking to crush the movement."

"...many of the older workers and union cadres were not prepared to join organizations like the BAWF for fear of being persecuted by the government but they nonetheless mingled with the crowds at the BAWF headquarters on the northwestern corner of the square and also offered moral support and advice to working-class activists, due to sharing the same basic concerns about inflation and other problems. It is also significant that the government has persistently claimed that permanently-employed workers from the larger state-owned enterprises were not involved, and they have used this claim to justify their broader argument that the protests were about students wanting to undermine China's stability, but the evidence shows that these claims are without any empirical basis, as there was extensive involvement at two state enterprises in particular, which were amongst Beijing's biggest employers at the time of the revolt - Shougang Capital Iron and Steel, and Yanshan Petrochemicals, both of which created their own AWFs, affiliated to the BAWF. The demands put forward by the workers were initially rooted in material concerns such as official privilege, the dictatorship of directors in the workplace, the effect of economic mismanagement on the livelihoods of workers, and the inability of the official unions to fight for their interests, but over time the demands also became more political, culminating in the central demand of the movement, which was that workers should be able to represent their interests as a class both within their individual workplaces and on a national level, as well as democratic rights that would enable them to articulate and defend their interests. These demands and the anger felt by workers towards the regime was reflected in the language of the BAWF, which described the government as "this twentieth century Bastille, the last stronghold of Stalinism", and whilst workers unfortunately did not call for the revolutionary overthrow of the CPC, the organization did demand a role as a national supervisory body, which shows that there was no desire to support imperialism, or to accelerate market reform, but simply a desire on the part of workers to defend themselves against a government that had nothing to do with their class interests."

Mostly from Sheehan, 'Chinese Workers: A New History' (1998) although Walder, Xiaoxia, Workers in the Tiananmen Protests: The Politics of the Beijing Workers' Autonomous Federation in The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs (1993) is also good.

I think people will be able to decide for themselves on the basis of the above evidence whether the workers involved just tailed the students - not that all of the students were reactionary or pro-market, by the way.


As Mao was the chairman of the CPC at the time, that's an idiotic comparisonBut the entire Cultural Revolution or at least its mass mobilization phase was about creating organs of power that were independent of the party - like the revolutionary committees, for example. The issue here is that there's just no reason to accept your crass assumption that workers can only pursue their interests through established channels of political authority or by appealing to people who already have political power. My understanding of revolutionary socialism is about workers taking an active role in their own emancipation and that involves being able to overthrow organizations that pretend to speak in the name of working people whilst attacking their interests, which is what the CPC is doing.

[manic expression]

you don't think the current cpc are pro-capitalists?
On the whole, of course not. If they actually wanted capitalism, China would be a bourgeois society by now. But it isn't. In fact, the PRC has begun to heighten restrictions on foreign investors (the Hummer brand just became no more because of exactly this); it's just more proof that the party, not the capitalist class, has the final say. Sure, many reforms have allowed certain foreign capitalist investors to set up shop, but the basis of the PRC has not been fundamentally changed. Moreover, the CPC has the position (and the character) to enact progressive change in China. That is why we must support the progressive elements of the CPC at all turns.

[manic expression]

Well, there's the obvious fact that mass migration between the countryside and the cities really started in the 1980s, when the reforms were starting to have a clear impact. Do you deny this?
:lol: You act like urbanization is something new in Chinese history.

The initial rise in urbanization in the 1950s can be attributed to the first Five-Year Plan (1953-57) and the ‘Great Leap Forward, which invested large portions of the budget to heavy industries and created many job opportunities for rural peasants (Liang, 500).

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/section002group9/population

So no, nothing "really started", this has been something the PRC has dealt with for a long time.


I think it's clear that huge numbers of peasants do migrate - definitely more than a hundred million whichever estimates and studies you look at - and that this marks a clear change from the pre-1978 period. It's also important to point out that these peasants do not migrate to the cities with the intention of staying there for the rest of their lives, as they generally choose to leave their children behind in their villages, and many workers go back to their villages a couple of times a year for special occasions like funerals and the Spring Festival. Whether you think peasants "need" to migrate is for you to decide but it would be totally foolish to assume that economic pressures don't play a role or that these pressures haven't emerged within the past few decades.Sure, there are plenty of advantages to migration. I never stated otherwise. The point is that the CPC is right to try to get a hold on it, and that's precisely what they're doing.


It's not my job to advise the CPC on its migration and social policies,Good, then you can stop posting about it altogether.


my solution is for the Chinese peasantry and working class to overthrow the CPC and the state, establishing working-class democracy on their place, with all workers receiving the same rights and collectively exercising democratic control over the economy.That's nice. Now try to deal with reality.


Also, given that your argument about scarce social services is an argument commonly raised in debates about immigration, do you think that states like the British government should implement immigration controls to stop foreign workers from putting strain on social services?The British bourgeoisie knows as well as anyone that immigrants are the life-blood of most "first world" capitalist economies. That's why the US bourgeoisie blames immigrants for everything under the sun while doing nothing about businesses who employ them. Too bad you can't see it for what it is.


Yet you clearly don't think workers should have taken action to stop neoliberalism from being implemented because that would involve going against the authority of the state and the party leadership, given that any bureaucrats who wanted to stop free-market reform clearly weren't strong enough to overpower its supporters. As I said, it's pretty bad that you think workers should defer to self-proclaimed vanguard parties and that working people shouldn't be allowed to exercise their own initiative.:lol: The whole point was that the party leadership paralyzed the organs of working-class power. Gorbachev encouraged nationalists outside of the party to chip away at socialism while hamstringing genuine communist militants. The fact is that the movements you promote were entirely pro-capitalist, and their policies post-1991 prove this in spades; the workers were denied initiative by your ideological allies. The CPC never did any such thing, which is why the right-wing opportunists who you idolize were defeated. That's what workers taking action against neoliberalism means: the end of your precious pro-capitalist demonstration, and that's exactly what you oppose.


Actually, there was no such thing as "the leadership"BS. There was a leadership:

The student leaders who remained in the square were pushing for a harder line with the government. On May 28, Chai Ling, who many of the students acknowledged as the “commander-in-chief” of the Tiananmen demonstrations, stated that the student leadership’s goal was to provoke the Communist Party into attacking the demonstrators.

“I feel so sad,” Chai sobbed to U.S. reporter Philip Cunningham. “How can I tell [the students in the Square] that what we are actually hoping for is bloodshed, the moment when the government is ready to butcher the people brazenly? Only when the Square is awash in blood will the people of China open their eyes. Only then will they be really united.”

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12203&news_iv_ctrl=1040

There was definitely a leadership, and they were anti-worker opportunists. Stop running away from history and deal with facts.


I think people will be able to decide for themselves on the basis of the above evidence whether the workers involved just tailed the students - not that all of the students were reactionary or pro-market, by the way. Yes, indeed, as soon as they look at who was in control of the protests and who was cheering them from Washington DC. Have fun explaining away your alliance with the CIA.


But the entire Cultural Revolution or at least its mass mobilization phase was about creating organs of power that were independent of the party - like the revolutionary committees, for example.Yes, due to the work of the chairman of the CPC. The leader of the party was the ideological head of the Cultural Revolution, and you're trying to convince us the Cultural Revolution was entirely anti-CPC. Funny.

[RedStruggle]

You act like urbanization is something new in Chinese history.Not really, what I said was that mass migration (as distinct from normal levels of rural-urban migration - that's why I included the word "mass") was a result of the economic reforms, due to the pressures those reforms created. The statistics speak for themselves - according to the 1953 and 1982 censuses, the urban population as a percentage of total population increased from 13.3 to 20.6 percent during that period, whereas, from 1982 to 1986, however, the urban population increased dramatically to 37 percent of the total population. Clearly an important shift.

You're happy to check those statistics, it's not at all disputed that the rates of migration and urbanization have significantly increased since the beginning of the reform process.


Sure, there are plenty of advantages to migrationIt's not so much about advantages, it's about peasants facing new economic pressures and being forced to go to cities as a way of adapting, keeping in mind the atrocious conditions and rates of workplace injury they encounter there. The advantages are for the CPC and the foreign companies that used migrant workers as a reserve army of labour.


The whole point was that the party leadership paralyzed the organs of working-class powerWhat organs of working class power? You still haven't dealt with the issue of what you think workers should have done in the 1980s and the crucial period of 1989-91 if you think that change can only ever take place within organizations that proclaim themselves to be the vanguards of working people, as opposed to workers acting independently and against those organizations. You also haven't dealt with what is socialist about the PRC (it would be nice if you could present a definition of socialism in the abstract and then show how the PRC meets that definition) or what makes the CPC a party of the working class to the extent that it has the right to use force to put down worker and peasant protests of the kind that take place in China everyday and are becoming more frequent.


too bad you can't see it for what it is.I don't know what you mean - I've pointed out several times now how illegal immigrants in particular are important to the economies of imperialist states because they don't receive legal protection and can be dispensed with by companies at any time, in the same way as migrant workers in China. Your argument in support of Chinese migrant workers not being given the same rights as permanent workers is that the former being able to use education and healthcare in cities would put a huge burden on those services - so I'm asking you if you think that the same should apply in imperialist countries where it is often argued that immigration needs to be restricted in order to alleviate the burden on the welfare state.


There was definitely a leadership, and they were anti-worker opportunists. Stop running away from history and deal with facts.I'm happy to let people read the evidence I've put forward. They will be able to decide for themselves whether, as you're suggesting, there was just one leadership, one set of ideas, or whether it was a bit more complex than that, which is my contention. If you think you've demonstrated that you've got the stronger argument, I'm fine with that.


you're trying to convince us the Cultural Revolution was entirely anti-CPCI've already pointed out that it involved the creation of bodies like the revolutionary committees that were independent of party authority. What I'm more interested in is you providing an explanation of why you think that workers should never take independent action in support of their interests and why they should instead look to factions inside self-proclaimed vanguard parties to speak on their behalf, even when those factions are weak compared to leaders supporting neoliberalism, as is currently the case in China.

[manic expression]

Not really, what I said was that mass migration (as distinct from normal levels of rural-urban migration - that's why I included the word "mass") was a result of the economic reforms, due to the pressures those reforms created. The statistics speak for themselves - according to the 1953 and 1982 censuses, the urban population as a percentage of total population increased from 13.3 to 20.6 percent during that period, whereas, from 1982 to 1986, however, the urban population increased dramatically to 37 percent of the total population. Clearly an important shift.
But as you see from the link I provided, that population increase was far from even. The GLF saw much increased urbanization, but in the years proceeding the GLF, the CPC put in place controls on urban growth. So really, it was a two steps forward, one step backward, two steps forward again type of process. Plus, even if we take your argument at face value, urban growth in the PRC did not start in the 70's or 80's, and to suggest as much is just absurd. I've shown why.


You're happy to check those statistics, it's not at all disputed that the rates of migration and urbanization have significantly increased since the beginning of the reform process.
And you're welcome to check the link that showed that urban growth increased greatly during the GLF, and that the CPC made steps to limit urban growth directly after that period. But obviously, this was just a result of 70's reforms, of course. :lol:


It's not so much about advantages, it's about peasants facing new economic pressures and being forced to go to cities as a way of adapting,
Of course it's about advantages. If peasants see city life as more promising than rural life, then they have calculated that the advantages of migrating outweigh the advantages of staying. It's self-explanatory. Moreover, all the CPC is doing is saying that they can't provide social services when certain people migrate, simply because of necessity. This has been explained many times, and yet you keep banging the same drum to no effect.


What organs of working class power? You still haven't dealt with the issue of what you think workers should have done in the 1980s and the crucial period of 1989-91
Well, that's easy: the vanguard parties of their respective countries. The communist parties, the ruling parties, were forced into paralysis by Gorbachev's stupidity and treason. Those organs of working-class power were unable to counter the rising counterrevolution.


I don't know what you mean - I've pointed out several times now how illegal immigrants in particular are important to the economies of imperialist states because they don't receive legal protection and can be dispensed with by companies at any time, in the same way as migrant workers in China.
You know precisely what I mean: if you are actually comparing the conditions and structures of rural life in the PRC to rural/urban life in any selection of "third world" countries, then you are simply ignoring evidence because you have an axe to grind. The comparison is moot at best because of this fact.


I'm happy to let people read the evidence I've put forward.
And I'm happy to show people how the evidence you've put forward is one-sided, and that the full picture shows the true character of the protests you idolize.


I've already pointed out that it involved the creation of bodies like the revolutionary committees that were independent of party authority.
Yes, at the explicit behest and under the ideological guidance of the chairman of the CPC. The leader of the CPC was mobilizing workers, and you're again trying to tell us that it was contrary to the CPC. No, it was contrary to certain factions of the CPC, but that is hardly the same thing.


What I'm more interested in is you providing an explanation of why you think that workers should never take independent action in support of their interests and why they should instead look to factions inside self-proclaimed vanguard parties to speak on their behalf, even when those factions are weak compared to leaders supporting neoliberalism, as is currently the case in China.
You're forgetting that vanguard parties represent the interests of workers. And likewise, you're forgetting that in the Socialist Bloc, the workers were organized as workers, for workers. For instance, The membership of the SEP comprised 22% of the DDR workforce by the 1980's. That's a bit more than 1 out of every 5 workers. Similar numbers can be found throughout the Socialist Bloc.

http://www.anonym.to/?http://books.google.com/books?id=xzd2ARX2_1QC&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=%22socialist+unity+party%22+percentage&source=bl&ots=nACN92t1yC&sig=KDLjyimPsQMuotInzLoTQzWa7lQ&hl=en&ei=2YzXSq20IIeumAOOquiNBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CC8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

That's what working-class organization looked like, as much as you might oppose it or slander it. You're more than welcome to ignore where and how the workers were organized in the Socialist Bloc, but don't be surprised when history turns against you. The defenders of socialism, the militants of the working-class, were ready and willing to defeat the right-wing opportunists in Eastern Europe, but their efforts were hamstrung. The CPC, unlike Gorbachev, did no such thing. In light of this, working-class action must come through the parties of the workers. In the PRC, that means the CPC, and it is the responsibility of every revolutionary to support the progressive elements of that working-class vanguard.

[eyedrop]

Can someone split the China discussion to a new thread?

As for the original question, it is hard to say. It's hard enough with afterthought to get a decent explanation on why the previous workers revolutions happened, besides a loose cause of much unrest/struggle in the an area and then it happened. While there have also been times/countries with plenty of unrest and struggle without any revolution happening.

[skumarsp]

i think maoists are gaining support all over the India(mainly in rural areas). they are planning to seize government within 2050(according to indian govt.s report)

[vyborg]

Venezuela, Pakistan, Iran, Greece...
and above all, I hope Italy so I will able to participate directly!